BATTERY POTTER, MORTAR BATTERY, 

AND BATTERY GUNNISON 

 Fort Hancock, New Jersey 

 Sandy Hook Unit 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

 Historic Structure Report 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Historic Architecture Program 

Northeast Region 
BATTERY POTTER 

MORTAR BATTERY 

BATTERY GUNNISON 

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Sandy Hook Unit 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

By 

James J. Lee III 

Architectural Conservator 

and 

Lauren Laham 

Architectural Historian 

Historic Architecture Program 

Northeast Region, National Park Service 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Lowell, Massachusetts 

2007 

iii

CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES AND CREDITS ............................................................................... xvii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... xxxiii 

ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................xxxiv 

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 3 

 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.............................................................................................. 3 

 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF BATTERIES .................................................................... 3 

 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE............................................................................. 4 

 RESEARCH CONDUCTED........................................................................................ 5 

 RESEARCH FINDINGS.............................................................................................. 5 

 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT.............................................................................. 6 

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ........................................................................................... 8 

 LOCATION OF SITE.................................................................................................. 8 

 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES...................................................... 8 

 NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ....................................................................... 9 

 LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES (LCS) INFORMATION................................ 9 

 PROPOSED USE .......................................................................................................12 

 RELATED STUDIES..................................................................................................13 
iv

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL....................................................15 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................17 

 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................17 

Location and Physical Description...............................................................17 

History of Ownership....................................................................................17 

 EARLY HISTORY (1776 – 1815)............................................................................19 

 National Trends.............................................................................................19 

 First and Second American Systems of Fortifications 

 (1794 – 1815) ........................................................................................20 

 Sandy Hook....................................................................................................21 

 Revolutionary War (1776 – 1778) .........................................................21 

 War of 1812 (1812 – 1815) ....................................................................22 

 EARLY FORTIFICATION OF SANDY HOOK (1817 – 1874)................................23 

 National Trends.............................................................................................23 

 Third System of Fortifications (1817 – 1865)........................................23 

 Post-Civil War Period (1870 – 1875).....................................................24 

 Sandy Hook....................................................................................................25 

 Fort at Sandy Hook (1857 – 1868) ........................................................25 

 Sandy Hook Proving Ground (1874 – 1919) .........................................25 

 MODERN ERA OF COASTAL DEFENSE (1890 – 1909).......................................26 

 National Trends.............................................................................................26 

 Endicott System (1890 – 1905)..............................................................26 

 Taft System (1905 – 1910).....................................................................27 
v

 Coastal Defenses of Sandy Hook and the 

 Establishment of Fort Hancock.........................................................28 

Corps of Engineers...............................................................................28 

Coastal Defenses of Sandy Hook..........................................................28 

Battery Potter (Constructed 1891 – 1895) ........................................28 

Mortar Battery (Constructed 1890 – 1894) ......................................31 

Establishment of Fort Hancock (1895).................................................32 

Two Separate Operations: Fort Hancock and the 

 Sandy Hook Proving Ground .............................................33 

Battery Gunnison (Constructed 1898, 1903 – 1907)...........................34 

Other Batteries at Fort Hancock (1896 – 1909).................................35 

 WORLD WAR I TO DEACTIVATION (1917-1974).............................................35 

 World War I Era ............................................................................................35 

 World War II Era...........................................................................................36 

 Korean War Era.............................................................................................36 

 Cold War Era .................................................................................................36 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER ..............................53 

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE................................................55 

 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................55 

 BATTERY POTTER – CONSTRUCTION.................................................................55 

Planning .........................................................................................................55 

Preparations at Sandy Hook .........................................................................57 

The Concrete Plant........................................................................................58 

Materials ........................................................................................................59 

Contracts for Masonry Materials .................................................................62 

Masonry Construction ..................................................................................63 
vi

Defenses for Battery Potter...........................................................................69 

Natural Cover ......................................................................................69 

Defensible Entrance.............................................................................70 

Flanking Defense .................................................................................72 

 BATTERY POTTER – ARMAMENT ........................................................................73 

North Gun-Lift Mechanism ..........................................................................73 

North Gun Carriage and Gun .......................................................................75 

Testing the North Gun-Lift...........................................................................76 

South Gun-Lift Mechanism...........................................................................77 

South Gun Carriage and Gun........................................................................78 

Testing the South Gun-Lift............................................................................79 

Rapidity Test..................................................................................................79 

Ammunition Service ......................................................................................79 

 BATTERY POTTER – PERSONNEL.........................................................................80 

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE..........................................................................................99 

 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................99 

 BATTERY POTTER – EXTERIOR ELEMENTS.......................................................99 

 BATTERY POTTER – INTERIOR ELEMENTS......................................................102 

First Story.....................................................................................................102 

Second Story ................................................................................................105 

 BATTERY POTTER – UTILITIES...........................................................................107 
vii

ALTERATIONS .............................................................................................................115 

 BATTERY POTTER – MAINTENANCE AND ALTERATIONS .............................115

The Period 1895 – 1906................................................................................115 

Battery Potter is Disarmed, 1906 ................................................................120 

Gun-Lift Machinery Dismantled, 1907 – 1909............................................122 

Post-Disarmament Maintenance and Alterations, 1906 - Present............123 

1906 – 1915.........................................................................................123 

Exterior Stairway, 1915 ......................................................................124 

1920 – 1974.........................................................................................125 

1974 – Present ....................................................................................126 

 BATTERY POTTER – ADDITION OF

 PRIMARY FIRE-CONTROL STATIONS ...............................................................134 

Background..................................................................................................134 

Construction of Fire-Control Stations for the Mortar Battery.................135 

Plan....................................................................................................135 

Foundation ........................................................................................136 

Structural Framing.............................................................................136 

Exterior Elements ..............................................................................136 

Interior Elements ...............................................................................137 

Construction of Seven More Primary Fire-Control Stations ....................138 

Plan....................................................................................................139 

Foundation ........................................................................................139 

Exterior Elements ..............................................................................139 

Interior Elements ...............................................................................140 

Completion ........................................................................................141 

 Maintenance and Alterations for the Primary Fire-Control Stations ......142 

 BATTERY POTTER – RELATED STRUCTURES ..................................................144 

Background..................................................................................................144 

Central Powerhouse and Coal Shed ...........................................................144 

Switchboard Rooms ....................................................................................145 
viii

Battery Commander’s Tower......................................................................146 

Dormitories..................................................................................................146 

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................159 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................159 

 BATTERY POTTER – EXTERIOR ELEMENTS.....................................................159 

 BATTERY POTTER – INTERIOR ELEMENTS......................................................163 

Overview ......................................................................................................163 

Floors ...........................................................................................................163 

Walls.............................................................................................................164 

Ceilings.........................................................................................................165 

Doorways .....................................................................................................166 

Openings ......................................................................................................167 

Stairways ......................................................................................................167 

Equipment/Utilities .....................................................................................168 

 BATTERY POTTER – PRIMARY FIRE-CONTROL STATIONS ..........................169 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................169 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................170 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY............................189 

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE..............................................191 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................191 

 MORTAR BATTERY – CONSTRUCTION.............................................................192

Planning .......................................................................................................192 

The Concrete Plant......................................................................................193 

Materials and Contracts..............................................................................194 
ix

Construction Phase .....................................................................................195 

Masonry.............................................................................................196 

Lighting the Mortar Battery ...............................................................201 

Sand and Sod, Covering the Mortar Battery.......................................201 

Mortar Platforms ...............................................................................203 

 MORTAR BATTERY – ARMAMENT.....................................................................205 

Mortar Carriages and Mortars ...................................................................205 

Proof-Firing .................................................................................................206 

Ammunition Tracks ....................................................................................207 

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE........................................................................................227 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................227 

 MORTAR BATTERY – EXTERIOR ELEMENTS....................................................227 

 Entrance.......................................................................................................227 

 Counterscarp Wall and Galleries ...............................................................228 

 Perimeter Ditch ...........................................................................................229 

 Sand Cover ...................................................................................................229 

 MORTAR BATTERY – INTERIOR ELEMENTS.....................................................229 

 North End ....................................................................................................229 

 Entrance Gallery ................................................................................230 

 Mortar Pits.........................................................................................230 

 Galleries.............................................................................................231 

 Magazines and Storage Rooms...........................................................231 

 South End.....................................................................................................232 

ALTERATIONS .............................................................................................................233 

 UPGRADES AND MAINTENANCE, 1895-1901..................................................233 

 NAMING THE MORTAR BATTERY .....................................................................234 
x

 BATTERY TELEPHONE BOOTHS AND

 BATTERY COMMANDER STATIONS...................................................................235 

 MORTAR BATTERY TOWER AND STATION......................................................237 

 TROLLEY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................237 

 MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS .........................240 

 INSTALLATION OF VENTILATOR SHAFTS.........................................................241 

 DISARMING THE MORTAR BATTERY ...............................................................241 

 SWITCHBOARD ROOM.........................................................................................242 

 HARBOR DEFENSE COMMAND POST (HDCP) AND WORLD WAR II.........243 

 ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSES AT THE MORTAR BATTERY ................................247 

 AFTER WORLD WAR II........................................................................................247 

 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ..................................................................................248 

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................275 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................275 

 MORTAR BATTERY – EXTERIOR ELEMENTS...................................................275 

 Counterscarp Walls.....................................................................................275 

 Counterscarp Galleries ...............................................................................276 

 Perimeter Ditch ...........................................................................................277 

 

 Sand Cover ...................................................................................................277 

 MORTAR BATTERY – INTERIOR ELEMENTS....................................................277 

 Overview ......................................................................................................277 
xi

 North End (Battery Alexander McCook) ...................................................278 

 North Entrance Gallery .....................................................................278 

 Dynamo Room...................................................................................278 

 Northwest Mortar Pit ........................................................................278 

 North Transverse Gallery ..................................................................279 

 Northeast Mortar Pit .........................................................................280 

 North Longitudinal Gallery ...............................................................280 

 West Storage Rooms and Magazine ...................................................281 

 South End (Battery John F. Reynolds)........................................................281 

 South Entrance Gallery......................................................................281 

 Southwest Mortar Pit.........................................................................282 

 South Transverse Gallery...................................................................282 

 Southeast Mortar Pit..........................................................................282 

 South Longitudinal Gallery................................................................282 

 East Storage Rooms and Magazine.....................................................283 

 Telephone Booths........................................................................................283 

 Battery Commander Stations......................................................................284 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY JOHN GUNNISON.........297 

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE..............................................299 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................299 

 BATTERY GUNNISON – CONSTRUCTION..........................................................299

 BATTERY GUNNISON – ARMAMENT..................................................................303

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE........................................................................................307 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................307 

 BATTERY GUNNISON – EXTERIOR ELEMENTS................................................307 

 Overview ......................................................................................................307 

 Emplacements..............................................................................................308 

 Traverse (Main Block).................................................................................308 
xii

 Battery Commander Station .......................................................................310 

 BATTERY GUNNISON – INTERIOR ELEMENTS.................................................311 

 Overview ......................................................................................................311 

 Storage Battery Room..................................................................................311 

 Guard Room.................................................................................................312 

 Office............................................................................................................312 

 Store Room ..................................................................................................312 

 Shell Room...................................................................................................312 

 Cartridge Room ...........................................................................................313 

 Powder Passage............................................................................................314 

 Utilities.........................................................................................................314 

 Speaking Tubes ..................................................................................314 

 Electrical System ................................................................................315 

 Communication Systems....................................................................315 

ALTERATIONS .............................................................................................................323 

 1908 TO 1940 ........................................................................................................323 

 1940 – 1945............................................................................................................324 

 New Battery Peck.........................................................................................325 

 1945 – 1974............................................................................................................328 

 1974 – PRESENT ....................................................................................................329 

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................337 

 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................337 

 BATTERY GUNNISON – EXTERIOR ELEMENTS................................................337 

 BATTERY GUNNISON – INTERIOR ELEMENTS.................................................340 
xiii

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES

AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................351 

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................353 

BATTERY POTTER.....................................................................................................355 

 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ..................................................................355 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................355 

 Design and Context ...........................................................................355 

 Materials............................................................................................355 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................356 

 Plan....................................................................................................356 

 Floors.................................................................................................357 

 Walls ..................................................................................................357 

 Ceilings ..............................................................................................357 

 Doorways...........................................................................................357 

 Stairways............................................................................................357 

 Miscellaneous ....................................................................................358 

 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................358 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................358 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................360 

 Plan....................................................................................................360 

 Floors.................................................................................................360 

 Walls and Ceilings..............................................................................360 

 Doorways...........................................................................................361 

 Stairways............................................................................................361 

 Miscellaneous ....................................................................................361 

 Accessibility .................................................................................................361 
xiv

MORTAR BATTERY...................................................................................................362 

 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ..................................................................362 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................362 

 Design and Context ...........................................................................362 

 Materials............................................................................................362 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................363 

 Plan....................................................................................................363 

 Floors.................................................................................................363 

 Walls ..................................................................................................363 

 Ceilings ..............................................................................................363 

 Doorways...........................................................................................364 

 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................364 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................364 

 Design and Context ...........................................................................364 

 Materials............................................................................................365 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................365 

 Plan....................................................................................................365 

 Floors.................................................................................................365 

 Walls ..................................................................................................366 

 Ceilings ..............................................................................................366 

 Accessibility .......................................................................................366 

BATTERY GUNNISON...............................................................................................367 

 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ..................................................................367 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................367 

 Design and Context ...........................................................................367 

 Walls ..................................................................................................367 

 Fenestration.......................................................................................368 

 Stairways............................................................................................368 

 Walkways...........................................................................................368 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................368 

 Plan....................................................................................................368 

 Floors.................................................................................................368 
xv

 Walls ..................................................................................................368 

 Doorways...........................................................................................369 

 Utilities ..............................................................................................369 

 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................369 

 Exterior Elements........................................................................................369 

 Design and Context ...........................................................................369 

 Walls ..................................................................................................370 

 Fenestration.......................................................................................370 

 Stairways............................................................................................370 

 Walkways...........................................................................................371 

 Interior Elements.........................................................................................371 

 Plan....................................................................................................371 

 Floors.................................................................................................371 

 Walls ..................................................................................................371 

 Doorways...........................................................................................372 

 Utilities ..............................................................................................372 

 Accessibility .................................................................................................372 

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................373 

APPENDICES...............................................................................................................381 

APPENDIX A. .................................................................................................................383 

Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report for Fort at Sandy Hook, Mortar Battery No. 1, Gun Lift 

Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. J.G. Warren to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, June 30, 1892. Fiscal Year 1892 Annual 

Report, p. 7. Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 1894, Engineer Bureau, Sandy Hook, New

Jersey. United States Engineer Bureau, New York. 

APPENDIX B...................................................................................................................413 

Fiscal Year 1893 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, Gun and Mortar Batteries, 

Mortar Battery No. 1, and Gun Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie to Brig. General Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers, July 8, 

1893. File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; Record Group 77; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 
xvi

APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................435 

 Granolithic Pavement, Gun Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. J.G. Warren to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, Dec. 19, 1892. Miscellaneous Reports,

1892 - 1894, Engineer Bureau, Sandy Hook, New Jersey. United States Engineer Bureau, 

New York 

APPENDIX D ..................................................................................................................441 

General Description of Gun-Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, Dec. 24, 1894; File 9716, enclosure 2; 

General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; Record Group 77; National Archives 

Building, Washington, D.C. 

APPENDIX E...................................................................................................................469 

Report for the Mortar Platforms in Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, March 5, 1894; File 1708, incl. 40; 

General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; Record Group 77; 

National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 

APPENDIX F...................................................................................................................479 

Report on the Proof Firing at Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, June 23, 1894; File 1708, incl. 47; 

General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; Record Group 77; 

National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 
xvii

LIST OF FIGURES AND CREDITS 

Historic maps, drawings, and photographs were reproduced from the Gateway National 

Recreation Area (GATE) Museum Collection at Sandy Hook, unless otherwise noted. 

Photographs from 2005 and 2006 were taken by author, James J. Lee III. 

1. Map of Gateway National Recreation Area (left) and detail of the Sandy 

 Hook Unit (right). Http://data2.itc.nps.gov/hafe/hfc/carto-detail.cfm? 

 Alpha=GATE#................................................................................................................38 

2. Fort McHenry (circa 1800): example of a First American System fortification. 

 Http://www.nps.gov/fomc/photosmultimedia/photogallery%2Ehtm?eid= 

 89661&root_aId=32#e_89661.........................................................................................39 

3. Castle Williams (constructed 1807 – 1811): example of a Second American 

 System fortification, showing the three levels of casemated gun emplacements 

 unique to this system of fortifications. Historic American Buildings Survey 

 photograph (HABS NY, 31-GOVI, 19-8) ........................................................................39 

4. Plan of Fort Gates (constructed circa 1812), built of wood and located about 

 half a mile from the Sandy Hook Lighthouse. Fort Gates was the most 

 noteworthy structure built during the War of 1812, and was constructed 

 to deter the British from using Sandy Hook as a staging area from which 

 they could attack New York City. Drawer 36, Sheet 19; RG 77; NACP ..........................40 

5. Aerial view of Fort Monroe, located in Hampton, VA. Fort Monroe was 

 the first work of the Third System planned in its entirety, unlike other 

 Third System fortifications that were adaptations of earlier fortifications 

 from previous systems. Historic American Buildings Survey photograph 

 (HABS VA, 28-HAMP, 2-45) ..........................................................................................41 

6. “Fort at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Plan of main work and elevation of scarp wall, 

 showing condition of work on June 30, 1869. Drawer 15, Sheet 65; RG 77; 

 NACP .............................................................................................................................42 

7. Battery Elon Farnsworth (constructed 1898): example of an Endicott System 

 defense work. View is looking southeast, showing the rear of the battery and 

 its two gun emplacements. Note that the battery is constructed of reinforced 

 concrete, and is built into the surrounding topography, partially behind a large 

 parapet of earth for disguise on the seaward front. Photograph by Glen 

 Williford, October 2001; reprinted by permission..........................................................43 

8. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1 for two 12-inch rifled guns at Sandy Hook, N.J. 

 Isometric view showing condition of work June 30, 1895.” Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10312)...................................................................................44 
xviii

9. Detail elevation of “defensible entrance.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 12020).................................................................................................................44 

10. Battery Potter (constructed 1891 – 1895): north pit, showing 12-inch rifle 

 upon its carriage and raised into firing position by the hydraulic lift elevator, 

 August 29, 1892. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7802)...........................................45 

11. Mortar Battery (constructed 1890 – 1894): photograph taken circa 1892 – 

 1893, showing the excavation and construction of one of the four firing pits. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7862)......................................................................46 

12. Major General Winfield Scott Hancock (1824-1886). Http://www.

 civilwarhome.com/hanbio.htm......................................................................................47 

13. Map of Fort Hancock circa 1900, showing buildings constructed. Drawn 

 by J.M. Milton, Quartermaster General’s Office. Original in RG 77; NAB. 

 Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook ..............................................................................48 

14. Battery Gunnison (constructed 1898, 1903 – 1907), showing the northern 

 of two 6-inch counterweight guns (Model 1903, Serial No. 34) originally 

 installed on disappearing carriage (Model 1903, Serial No. 57). Photograph 

 taken 1937. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7834) ..................................................49 

15. Map of Sandy Hook Defenses, 1910. Drawer 45, Sheet 140; RG 77; NACP....................50 

16. Detail of Sandy Hook defenses during World War II. From “Harbor Defenses of 

 New York, Military Reservation, Location of Fortification Structures, 

 General Map, Fort Hancock, New Jersey. U.S. Engineer Office, New York 

 District, New York, N.Y. 29 July 1944.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 10009).................................................................................................................51 

17. Image of Nike-Ajax missile similar to those that replaced the antiaircraft guns 

 at Fort Hancock in 1954. Http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/nike.html..................52 

18. Image of Nike Hercules missile, the second generation Nike missile used at 

 Fort Hancock; it remained in active use until 1974, becoming largely obsolete 

 by the 1960s. Http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/nike.html.....................................52 

19. “Lift-Gun Battery for Two 12 inch Rifled Guns, at Sandy Hook, New York 

 Harbor.” Original plans for Battery Potter. Prepared under the direction of 

 Lt. Col. G.L. Gillespie, February 20, 1890. Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 1; RG 77; 

 NACP .............................................................................................................................82 

20. “Map of Sandy Hook, N. J., Tracing made from survey map of Jan. 30, 1892, 

 showing location of Gun Lift Battery and Mortar Battery and Track connection 

 with Dock for hauling material.” Prepared under the direction of Lt. J.G. 

 Warren, Corps of Engineers, June 30, 1892. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook.........83 
xix

21. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Plan of Battery Potter showing 

 general layout of battery and concrete plant. Prepared under the direction of 

 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, June 30, 1892. Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 11; RG 77; NACP ...................84 

22. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Detail of concrete plant plan. 

 Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, June 30, 1892. Drawer 

 45, Sheet 89 – 11; RG 77; NACP ......................................................................................85 

23. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Detail of concrete plant 

 section. Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, June 30, 1892. 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 11; RG 77; NACP .........................................................................85 

24. Miners at natural hydraulic cement mine, New York State. Courtesy of 

 Edison Coatings, Inc., Plainville, CT ..............................................................................86 

25. Seal for Rosendale Cement Company with trademarked “Brooklyn Bridge” 

 Brand. Courtesy of Edison Coatings, Inc., Plainville, CT...............................................86 

26. Section E-F through North Gun Lift; detail from “Lift-Gun Battery for Two 

 12 inch Rifled Guns, at Sandy Hook, New York Harbor.” February 20, 1890. 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 1; RG 77; NACP ...........................................................................87 

27. Section F-E through North Gun Lift, from “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy 

 Hook, N.J.” Sheet No. 4, Sections through Lifts and Boiler Room, 1894. 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 62; RG 77; NACP .........................................................................87 

28. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N.J.” Color coded progress sheet, 

 June 30, 1893. Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 28; RG 77; NACP..................................................88 

29. Battery Potter, looking southeast; “View of Gun Lift Battery, July, 1893.” 

 Photograph No. 22 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. 

 Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7811).........................................................89 

30. “Proposed Main Entrance to the Lift Gun Battery at Sandy Hook, N.J.” 

 Detail from plans of Defensible Entrance for Battery Potter, prepared by 

 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Jan. 14, 1892. Drawer 45, Sheet 89 – 3; RG 77; NACP ......................89 

31. “Proposed Main Entrance to the Lift Gun Battery at Sandy Hook, N.J.” 

 Plans, elevation and section of defensible entrance for Battery Potter, 

 prepared by 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Jan. 14, 1892. Drawer 45, Sheet 

 89 – 3; RG 77; NACP .......................................................................................................90 

32. “Internally Fired Return Tubular Boilers for the 12" Gun Lift at Sandy 

 Hook, N.J., 9 ft. diam. x 12'-2" long x 5

/8 thick, Corrugated furnaces, 

 36" I.D. x 9'-4", Jan. 22, 1982.” Boilers at the Continental Iron Works, 

 Brooklyn, N.Y. Box 2, 45-89-5; RG 77F; NACP .............................................................91 

33. Gun-lift cage for Battery Potter at the Continental Iron Works, Brooklyn, 

 NY. Jan. 22, 1892. Box 2, 45-89-6; RG 77F; NACP .........................................................91 
xx

34. Battery Potter, Schneider & Co. gun carriage, pintle plate, and traversing 

 circle. Photograph no. 1 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; 

 RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7796) ..........................................92 

35. Battery Potter, Schneider & Co. gun carriage complete, rear view. 

 Photograph no. 5 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. 

 Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7800).........................................................92 

36. “Frame Structure used in raising 12 in. B.L. Rifle. Gun Lift Battery. Sandy 

 Hook, New Jersey, 1894.” Drawer 45, Sheet 89-57; RG 77; NACP .................................93 

37. Battery Potter, raising 12-inch B.L. rifle. Photograph o. 7 of 39 with 

 F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 7653).........................................................................................................94 

38. Battery Potter, 12-inch B.L. rifle mounted on carriage, Aug. 27, 1892. 

 Photograph no. 12 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. 

 Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7802).........................................................94 

39. Battery Potter, north emplacement; preparing for second shot, Sept. 12, 1892. 

 Photograph no. 14 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy 

 at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7804) ..................................................................95 

40. Battery Potter, proof-testing the mechanism at the south emplacement, 

 test number 5, March 7, 1894. Box 2, 44-87-1; RG 77F; NACP. Copy at 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7795)......................................................................95 

41. “Lift Gun Battery No. 1 at Sandy Hook, N.J. Plans and sections showing 

 arrangement of track and turntables for ammunition service.” Prepared 

 under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Corps of Engineers, Oct. 1, 1892. 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89-2; RG 77; NACP .............................................................................96 

42. Battery Potter, carriage for ammunition hoist, Feb. 1893. Photograph 

 no. 18 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2, 45-90-18; RG 77F. 

 Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7323).........................................................97 

43. Battery Potter, first-floor plan with room numbers. Original plan from 

Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

 Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, May 2005. Not to scale ...............................................109 

44. Battery Potter, second-floor plan with room numbers. Original plan from 

Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

 Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, May 2005. Not to scale................................................110 

45. Battery Potter, terreplein, superior slope, and fire-control stations floor 

 plan with room numbers. Original plans from Structural Analysis and 

 Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, 

May 2005. Not to scale.................................................................................................111 
xxi

46. Battery Potter, west elevation with defensible entrance, circa 1893. Copy 

 at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7813) ................................................................112 

47. Battery Potter, main gallery/boiler room. Photograph no. 21 of 39 with 

 F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 7810).......................................................................................................113 

48. Battery Potter, accumulator room pumps and operating platform, April 

 1893. Photograph no. 19 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; 

 RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7808) ........................................113 

49. Battery Potter, accumulator room pumps. Photograph no. 20 of 39 with 

 F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 7809).......................................................................................................114 

50. Battery Potter, loading gallery, north lift. August 25, 1892. Photograph 

 no. 16 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7806)....................................................................114 

51. Battery Potter, west elevation and terreplein with 12-inch guns dismounted, 

 circa 1906. Note range-finding platforms at northwest corner and at parapet 

 wall. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7818)...........................................................128 

52. Battery Potter, terreplein with 12-inch guns and carriages dismounted, 

 circa 1906. Note range-finding platform at parapet wall. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 7744) ............................................................................................128 

53. “Plotting House, Battery Potter, Fort Hancock, N.J.” Note that the plotting 

 house structure to be situated along the parapet wall between the north 

 and south emplacements was apparently not built. Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 10703).....................................................................................................129 

54. Schematic plan of Battery Potter showing possible locations for exterior 

 stairways and fire-control stations, 1914. Folder 4, box 33; Correspondence 

 Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - 

 Northeast Region (NYC) ..............................................................................................130 

55. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Iron Stairway to F.C. Stations, Battery Potter, Lower 

 Flight and Platform Frame.” Exterior stairway situated at the southwest 

 corner of Battery Potter, Sheet 1 of 2. Drafted by J.C. Letts, January 1915. 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89-81; RG 77; NACP .........................................................................131 

56. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Iron Stairway to F.C. Stations, Battery Potter, Upper 

 Flight, Treads and Platform.” Exterior stairway situated at the southwest 

 corner of Battery Potter, Sheet 2 of 2. Drafted by J.C. Letts, January 1915. 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89-82; RG 77; NACP .........................................................................132 

57. Battery Potter, terreplein depicting training of range finding personnel. 

 Note the paving of the terreplein similar to extant paving. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 7551) ............................................................................................133 
xxii

58. Battery Potter, meteorological personnel checking wind velocity from 

 platform in northwest corner of terreplein. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 7549) ................................................................................................................133

59. “Battery Potter, Fort Hancock, N.J. Plan Showing Proposed Location for 

 Primary Stations. February 1903.” Depicting location of stations for Mortar 

 Battery and rear elevations of stations proposed by the “Harris Board.” 

 Drawer 45, Sheet 89-74; RG 77; NACP .........................................................................148 

60. “Fort Hancock, N. J. Plans and Sections of Primary Stations for Battery 

 Reynolds. Located on the Platform of Battery Potter. March 1905.” 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10705) ..................................................................149 

61. “Fort Hancock, N. J. Plans for Primary Fire Control Stations. Located on 

 the terreplein of Battery Potter. Nov. 1906.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 10706)...............................................................................................................150

62. “Fort Hancock, N. J. Construction Details for Primary Fire Control 

 Stations” located on the terreplein of Battery Potter, Nov. 1906. Drawer 

 45, Sheet 89-78; RG 77; NACP ......................................................................................151 

63. Battery Potter, view eastward, showing primary fire-control station building 

 for Mortar Battery (top) and switchboard buildings (below), circa 1907. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7815)....................................................................152 

64. Battery Potter, interior of plotting room of one of two primary fire-control 

 stations for Mortar Battery, circa 1907. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 7819) ................................................................................................................152

65. Battery Potter, interior of plotting room of primary fire-control station, 

 June 24, 1919. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7831) ............................................153 

66. Battery Potter, west elevation, showing primary fire-control stations on 

 terreplein and switchboard buildings in foreground, circa 1907. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7814) ..................................................................................153 

67. Battery Potter, view of west elevation, showing primary fire-control stations, 

 radar towers, and switchboard buildings, 1951. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 3610) ................................................................................................................154

68. Primary fire-control stations on Battery Potter, Dec. 1956. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 11214) ..........................................................................................154 

69. Signal Corps aerial view of Fort Hancock, N.J.: detail of Battery Potter and 

 surrounding structures, circa 1919. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7485) ...........155 

70. Detail from map of Sandy Hook during World War II, showing Battery Potter 

 “Primary Station Group” and surrounding structures. World War II files; 

 File 6171; Sheet 1146; RG 77; NACP.............................................................................155 
xxiii

71. Plan of switchboard rooms Type “A” and Type “C,” constructed on the 

 west side of Battery Potter. “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast 

 Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 1921”; RG 392; 

 NARA - Northeast Region (NY) ...................................................................................156 

72. Plan depicting Battery Potter and battery commander’s station/tower. Detail 

 from “Armament Sketch, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, December 31, 1901.” 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 4628)....................................................................156 

73. Plan of officers’ dormitory built west of Battery Potter. “Report of Completed 

 Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 1921”; 

 RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY)......................................................................157 

74. Plan of enlisted men’s dormitory built west of Battery Potter. “Report of Completed 

 Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 1921”; 

 RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY)......................................................................157 

75. “Camp of Range Section at Fort Hancock, N.J. Oct. 25 -15.” Temporary 

 encampment west of Battery Potter, Oct. 1915. Library of Congress 

 (image #5a47612u) .......................................................................................................158 

76. Battery Potter, view of east elevation, 2005...................................................................172 

77. Battery Potter, view of west elevation, 2005..................................................................172 

78. Battery Potter, exterior iron stairway, upper flight, 2005..............................................173 

79. Battery Potter, roof of defensible entrance, 2005..........................................................173 

80. Battery Potter, view southward showing terreplein and primary fire-control 

 stations, 2006................................................................................................................174 

81. Battery Potter, south gun parapet, 2005........................................................................174 

82. Battery Potter, view to the southwest, showing terreplein and extant 

 elements of missing fire-control stations for Mortar Battery, 2005...............................175 

83. Battery Potter, superior slope of roof in front of gun parapets, 2005 ............................175 

84. Battery Potter, southeast section of chemin de ronde, 2005...........................................176 

85. Battery Potter, parapet wall of chemin de ronde, 2005 ..................................................176 

86. Battery Potter, interior view from main gallery/boiler room (room 111) 

 westward through entry gallery (room 104) to defensible entrance 

 (room101), 2006 ...........................................................................................................177 

87. Battery Potter, interior view of north magazine gallery (room 113), 

 looking west, 2006 ........................................................................................................177 
xxiv

88. Battery Potter, interior view of second-story north and south transverse 

 galleries (rooms 203 and 205), and wooden bridge connecting them 

 (room 204), 2006.........................................................................................................178 

89. Battery Potter, interior view of niche in wall of transverse gallery for 

 auxiliary lantern lighting system, 2005........................................................................178 

90. Battery Potter, interior view of north loading gallery (room 209), looking 

 west toward concrete steps, 2006................................................................................179 

91. Battery Potter, interior view of south loading gallery (room 213), looking 

 west toward cast-iron ladder, 2006.............................................................................179 

92. Battery Potter, interior view of doorway and doors of defensible entrance 

 (room 101), looking west, 2006...................................................................................180 

93. Battery Potter, interior view of doorway to north magazine gallery (room 

 113), looking east, 2006...............................................................................................180 

94. Battery Potter, interior view of second story of defensible entrance (room 

 201), north tower and gun loops, looking northwest, 2006.........................................181 

95. Battery Potter, view of second story of defensible entrance (room 201), 

 gun port in west wall, 2006 .........................................................................................181 

96. Battery Potter, interior view of north stairway (room 105) connecting 

 first and second stories, 2005......................................................................................182 

97. Battery Potter, view of existing condition of iron steps of south stairway 

 (room 108) connecting first and second stories, 2006 .................................................182 

98. Battery Potter, spiral stairway from second-story connecting gallery 

 (room 202) to terreplein, 2006 ....................................................................................183 

99. Battery Potter, view of concrete stairway (room 220) connecting north 

 loading gallery (room 209) and terreplein, 2006.........................................................183 

100. Battery Potter, view of south magazine gallery (room 116), showing gun- 

 metal turntable for ammunition delivery system, 2006 ...............................................184 

101. Battery Potter, interior view of north shell magazine (room 114), showing 

 overhead trolley bridge for ammunition delivery system, 2005 ..................................184 

102. Battery Potter, primary fire-control stations, west elevation of 

 southernmost station (rooms 313 and 314), 2005........................................................185 

103. Battery Potter, primary fire-control stations, east elevation of the east rooms 

 (rooms 309, 311, 313) of the three southernmost stations, 2005 .................................185 
xxv

104. Battery Potter, east elevation of bulkhead (room 315) covering stairway 

 (room 220) that connected second story with terreplein and primary 

 fire-control stations, 2005 ..........................................................................................186 

105. Battery Potter, view of typical primary fire-control station, showing 

 observation room and interior partition, 2005 ...........................................................186 

106. Battery Potter, typical primary fire-control station, showing interior 

 of plotting room and west wall, 2005 ..........................................................................187 

107. Battery Potter, typical primary fire-control station, showing interior 

 of plotting room and interior partition, 2005..............................................................187 

108. “Northern Mortar Pits, Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J.” 

 File 1708, incl. 35; General Correspondence and Record Cards. 1893-94; 

 Entry 98; RG 77; NAB .................................................................................................208 

109. “Battery Reynolds, Fort Hancock, N.J. Showing Telephone Booths. 

 Dec. 20, 1905.” Battery McCook and Battery Reynolds added in handwritten 

 script to identify re-designation of Mortar Batteries. Marshall to District 

 Commander, Southern Artillery Dist. of N.Y., March 10, 1906; Folder 129, 

 enclosure 1, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; 

 RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY) .....................................................................209 

110. Mortar Battery. Original plan from Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, Structural 

 Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, 

 Mortar Battery (not to scale) ......................................................................................210 

111. “Plans and Sections of a Half Sunk Mortar Battery near Sandy Hook 

 Light, Sandy Hook, New Jersey, October, 1890.” Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 10666)...................................................................................................211 

112. “Mortar Battery at Sandy Hook, N.J., Plan showing general arrangement 

 of working plant in use, June 30, 1892.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 10676).............................................................................................................212 

113. Detail of concrete plant from “Plans and Sections of a Half Sunk Mortar 

 Battery near Sandy Hook Light, Sandy Hook, New Jersey, October 1890.” 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10666) ................................................................213 

114. Concrete mixers in operation at Mortar Battery plant, Nov. 14, 1892. 

 Photograph no. 26 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. 

 Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7859) .....................................................214 

115. Mortar Battery, as seen from lighthouse, June 7, 1892. Photograph no. 24 

 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 7856) ..........................................................................................214 
xxvi

116. Northwest pit during construction, June 7, 1892. Photograph no. 25 of 39 

 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 7858) ..........................................................................................215 

117. Commencing construction of counterscarp wall, near north entrance, 

 July 29, 1892. Photograph no. 28 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 

 Box 2; RG 77F. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7860)............................215 

118. Mortar Battery: Detail of counterscarp gallery, from sheet no. 4 of four 

 completion drawings, 1895. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10669) ...................216 

119. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Maxim Automatic Machine 

 Gun adapted for use in the Counterscarp Galleries of the Battery, 

 September 1892.” Drawer 45, Sheet 72c; RG 77; NACP..............................................217 

120. Construction of concrete slopes around the two northern pits, May 1, 1893. 

 Photograph no. 36 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Drawer 45, Sheet 

 91; Box 2; RG 77F; NACP ...........................................................................................218 

121. Mortar Battery, excavation and construction of foundations for mortar 

 emplacements; note inverted cement barrels protecting bolt locations. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7861) ..................................................................218 

122. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Plan of Battery.” Sheet no. 1 

 of 4, 1895. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10671) ..............................................219 

123. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Horizontal Section at Reference 

 (10.25).” Sheet no. 2 of 4, 1895. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10670) .............220 

124. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Vertical Sections through Battery.” 

 Sheet no. 3 of 4, 1895. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10667) ............................221 

125. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Counterscarp Gallery, Main 

 Entrance, and Mortar Platform.” Sheet no. 4 of 4, 1895. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 10669) ........................................................................................222 

126. Mortar Battery, moving sand to the superior slope, ca. 1892. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7855).................................................................................223 

127. Lancaster bucket grapple at work in east borrow pit, November 11, 1892. 

 Photograph No. 27 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Drawer 45, 

 Sheet 92; Box 2; RG 77F; NACP..................................................................................223 

128. Mortar Battery, as seen from lighthouse, February 8, 1893; view shows 

 covering of battery with sand. Photograph No. 32 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 

 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F; NACP. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 7857).....................................................................................................224 

129. Mortar Battery, construction of mortar platforms; view shows granite 

 base ring and steel roller path. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7863) .................224 
xxvii

130. Detail of mortar platform, from sheet no. 4 of four completion drawings, 

 1895. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10669) ......................................................225 

131. South end of Mortar Battery, as seen from the lighthouse, March 13, 1893; 

 view shows counterscarp wall and trestle over wall during construction. 

 Photograph No. 35 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. Box 2; RG 77F; 

 NACP. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7854) ........................................226 

132. Mortar Battery, view of mortar pit showing mortars mounted on carriages, 

 June 30, 1894. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7864) ..........................................226 

133. Mortar Battery, north end (Battery McCook). Original plan from 

Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

 Battery Potter, Mortar Battery; not to scale ................................................................250 

134. Mortar Battery, interior. Original plan from Structural Analysis and Historic 

 Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery; not to scale .......251 

135. Mortar Battery, south end (Battery Reynolds). Original plan from Structural 

 Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, 

 Mortar Battery, not to scale........................................................................................252 

136. “Fort Hancock Battery Reynolds Booth for West Pits.” Ca.-1905 plans for 

 Mortar Battery telephone booths for northwest and southwest pits. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10673) ................................................................253 

137. “Fort Hancock Battery Reynolds Booth for Pits A & B.” Ca.-1905 plans for 

 Mortar Battery telephone booths for northeast and southeast pits. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10672)...............................................................................254 

138. Mortar Battery, telephone booth in northwest mortar pit, ca. 1920. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE Bishop 62) ........................................................................255 

139. Mortar Battery, telephone booth in northwest mortar pit. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 7868) ..........................................................................................255 

140. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Concrete B.C. Station for Battery Alexander McCook, 

 February 1906.” Drawer 45, Sheet 134-1; RG 77; NACP ............................................256 

141. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Concrete B.C. Station for Battery Alexander McCook. 

 February 1906.” Note says: “A similar station will be built for Battery 

 Reynolds...” Drawer 45, Sheet 134-2; RG 77; NACP.................................................257 

142. Detail of aerial photograph of Fort Hancock, ca. 1930: view of Mortar 

 Battery, showing tower and station inside west counterscarp wall. Original 

 at Hancock 3-32, Box 1061; Entry FH; RG 342; NACP. Copy provided by 

 Glen Williford ............................................................................................................258 
xxviii

143. Plan of meteorological station inside west counterscarp wall of Mortar 

 Battery. “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy 

 Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 1921”; RG 392; NARA – Northeast 

 Region (NY)] ..............................................................................................................258 

144. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Proposed Modification of Batteries Reynolds and 

 McCook, April 1907.” Alterations for the improved trolley system. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10864) ................................................................259 

145. “Plan Showing Drainage and Electrical Systems, Battery Reynolds, Fort 

 Hancock, N.J. Sept. 1910.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10678)....................260 

146. “Plan Showing Drainage and Electrical Systems, Battery Alexander McCook, 

 Fort Hancock, N.J., Sept. 1910.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10686) ...........261 

147. “Ventilating flues for Magazines, Batteries Reynolds and McCook, Fort 

 Hancock, N.J., Oct. 1911.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10674).....................262 

148. “Coastal Defenses of Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, Batteries Reynolds and 

 McCook, 16- 12-inch mortars.” Plan of the Mortar Battery with serial 

 numbers of guns and carriages, 1915. Entry 1009; RG 77; NACP ...............................263 

149. Mortar Battery, balloon aerial view circa 1919. Note that each pit has only 

 three mortars; the fourth set of guns and carriages for each had been moved 

 to the Navesink battery. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7870)...........................264 

150. “Fort Hancock, N.J. Fire Control Switchboard and Storage Battery Rooms. 

 August 16, 1922.” Drawer 45, Sheet 118-58; RG 77; NACP ........................................265 

151. Mortar Battery, interior of switchboard room, ca. 1922. Photograph was 

 also included with plan (fig. 142). Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7872) ............266 

152. Mortar Battery, opening in counterscarp wall, ca. 1940. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 3522) ..........................................................................................266 

153. Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former 

 Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, General Layout, ca. 1944. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10906)...............................................................................267 

154. Mortar Battery, switchboard room (room 112), ca. 1944. Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE 7116) ..........................................................................................268 

155. Mortar Battery, interior of switchboard room, ca. 1922. Photograph was 

 also included with plan (fig. 142). Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7871) ............268 

156. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former 

 Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, Gasproof Piping Details, certified June 

 6, 1944.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10894).................................................269 
xxix

157. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former 

 Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, Gasproof Door Details, certified June 

 6, 1944.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10890).................................................270 

158. Mortar Battery, view of northwest pit with vehicles as described by Ed 

 Biedermann, ca. 1944. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 1478) .............................271 

159. Mortar Battery, sentry post at the southwest entrance to mortar pits, 

 ca. 1944. Note observation tower at left side of photograph. Gateway 

 NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 3523).................................................................................271 

160. Detail of generator room. From “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor 

 Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, 

 Generator Room Ventilating System, March 1944.” Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook (GATE mortarbattery3) .........................................................................272 

161. Southwest corner of Mortar Battery, 1943; view from lighthouse during 

 training exercises. Note netting and camouflage over battery on left side 

 of photograph. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 1943-662)....................273 

162. Battery Reynolds, southwest entrance gallery (room 135), 1943. Note 

 netting over battery at top of photograph. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

 Hook (GATE 1943-438)..............................................................................................273 

163. Detail from map of Sandy Hook, N.J. during World War II, showing 

 Mortar Battery and surrounding structures. WWII files; File 6171; 

 Sheet 1146; RG 77; NACP ...........................................................................................274 

164. Antiaircraft gun mounted on the top of the Mortar Battery. Lt. Brian 

 P. Emerson, 245th Coast Artillery, instructs on the working of a 3-inch 

 antiaircraft gun, ca. 1942. From Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses,

1857 – 1948, p. 502. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7588) .....................274 

165. Mortar Battery, exterior view of west side of counterscarp wall, 2006........................285 

166. Mortar Battery, view of counterscarp wall interior and southwest 

 counterscarp gallery, 2006..........................................................................................285 

167. Mortar Battery, exterior doorway to southwest counterscarp gallery, 2006 ...............286 

168. Mortar Battery, interior view of gun port embrasure in southwest 

 counterscarp gallery, 2006..........................................................................................286 

169. Mortar Battery, entrance gallery to southwest mortar pit, Battery 

 Reynolds, 2006 ...........................................................................................................287 

170. Mortar Battery, extant light fixture in entrance gallery to southwest 

 mortar pit, 2006 ..........................................................................................................287 

171. Mortar Battery, view of northwest mortar pit from top of battery, 2006.....................288 
xxx

172. Mortar Battery, section of wall in mortar pit with rounded indentation 

 to allow for swing of gun barrel, 2006 .........................................................................288 

173. Mortar Battery, view of southwest mortar pit from top of battery, 2006.....................289 

174. Mortar Battery, doorway and altered steel door from southwest mortar pit 

 to transverse gallery, 2006 ..........................................................................................289 

175. Mortar Battery, within Battery McCook, north end of longitudinal gallery 

 (room 112), 2006.........................................................................................................290 

176. Mortar Battery, within Battery McCook, hollow-tile partition wall at north 

 end of longitudinal gallery (room 112), 2006 ..............................................................290 

177. Mortar Battery, within Battery McCook, battery corridor and storage 

 area (room 113), 2006 .................................................................................................291 

178. Mortar Battery, within Battery Reynolds, east magazine gallery (room 

 122), 2006 ...................................................................................................................291 

179. Mortar Battery, within Battery Reynolds, south end of longitudinal 

 gallery (room 126), 2006 .............................................................................................292 

180. Mortar Battery, within Battery Reynolds, west end of transverse gallery 

 (room 131) and south air lock (room 130), 2006 .........................................................292 

181. Mortar Battery, telephone booth at southwest mortar pit, Battery 

 Reynolds, 2006 ...........................................................................................................293 

182. Mortar Battery, telephone booth at southwest mortar pit, Battery 

 Reynolds, 2006 ...........................................................................................................293 

183. Mortar Battery, supporting arches of telephone booth at southwest 

 mortar pit, Battery Reynolds, 2006 .............................................................................294 

184. Mortar Battery, telephone booth at southeast mortar pit, Battery 

 Reynolds, 2006 ...........................................................................................................294 

185. Mortar Battery, battery commander station for Battery Reynolds, 

 located on top of superior slope at south end of battery, 2006 ....................................295 

186. Detail of 1901 Sandy Hook map, depicting railroad tracks and powder 

 magazine near future site of Battery Gunnison. From RG 92; copy at 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook........................................................................................305 

187. Detail of 1905 Sandy Hook map, depicting railroad tracks and powder 

 magazine near Battery Gunnison. From RG 92; copy at Gateway NRA, 

 Sandy Hook................................................................................................................305 
xxxi

188. Battery Gunnison, north emplacement (no. 2) with 6-inch gun on 

 disappearing carriage, August 11, 1932. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 7839)...............................................................................................................306 

189. “Drainage and Electrical Systems for Battery John Gunnison, Fort Hancock, 

 New Jersey. October 1905.” Plans showing emplacements and interior 

 room layout and room designations. Drawer 45, Sheet 128-4; RG 77; NACP ............317 

190. “Battery Gunnison, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Details of Steel Doors, 

 Shutters, and Gratings for Two 6-inch R.F. Gun Emplacements. 

 July 6, 1904.” Drawer 45, Sheet 128-7; RG 77; NACP..................................................318 

191. Battery Gunnison, view of retaining wall of emplacement loading platform, 

 showing recesses for ammunition, ca. 1930. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 4182)...............................................................................................................319 

192. Battery Gunnison, view of north emplacement loading platform and parapet 

 wall, ca. 1930. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 4179) ..........................................319 

193. Battery Gunnison, view of west elevation of traverse and battery 

 commander station, ca. 1930. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 4181) ..................320 

194. Battery Gunnison, view looking from south emplacement toward south 

 elevation of traverse, showing battery roof with vent chimney and 

 battery commander station, ca. 1940. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook 

 (GATE 13708).............................................................................................................320 

195. Battery Gunnison, 1905 plan of battery with modern room numbers added. 

 Copied from 1905 plan. Drawer 45, Sheet 128-4; RG 77; NACP ................................321 

196. “Battery Gunnison, Schematic Communication Diagram.” Battery Gunnison 

 Emplacement Book; Entry 222; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY) ..................322 

197. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and 

 Additions, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Feb. 16, 1943.” Sheet no. 1 of 8. 

 Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10689) ................................................................331 

198. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions, 

 Structural Details No. 3, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Feb. 16, 1943.” Sheet no. 4 

 of 8. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10684)........................................................332 

199. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions, 

 Gasproof Door and Shutter, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Feb. 16, 1943.” Sheet 

 no. 7 of 8. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10682) ...............................................333 

200. Battery Gunnison, gun emplacement with 6-inch rapid-fire gun on barbette 

 carriage. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7835)...................................................334 

201. Battery Gunnison, gun emplacement after reinstallation of 6-inch guns 

 on barbette carriages by park, 1977. Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 7838) ........334 
xxxii

202. Detail of Battery Gunnison/New Battery Peck and surrounding structures 

 during World War II. From “Harbor Defenses of New York, Military 

 Reservation, Location of Fortification Structures, Map No. 2, Fort 

 Hancock, New Jersey. U.S. Engineer Office, New York District, New 

 York, N.Y. 29 July 1944.” Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook (GATE 10010) ......................335 

203. Battery Gunnison, view of sand embankment and north gun emplacement, 

 looking south, 2006 ....................................................................................................343 

204. Battery Gunnison, view of north emplacement from roof of traverse, 2006 ...............343 

205. Battery Gunnison, view of south emplacement, looking east, 2006. Note 

 doorway to powder passage, located between traverse (at left) and 

 emplacement (at right) ...............................................................................................344 

206. Battery Gunnison, view of north emplacement retaining wall and west 

 stairway, looking east, 2006 ........................................................................................344 

207. Battery Gunnison, south gun mounted on barbette carriage, 2006 .............................345 

208. Battery Gunnison, west and south elevations of traverse of battery, 2006 ..................345 

209. Battery Gunnison, south-elevation “telephone” station; shows brass 

 fixtures for speaking-tube system on east wall of booth, 2006 ....................................346 

210. Battery Gunnison, brass fixture for speaking-tube system connecting to the 

 shell room, 2006 .........................................................................................................346 

211. Battery Gunnison, southwest corner of battery; shows cornice coping, 

 downspout, and water damage, 2006 ..........................................................................347 

212. Battery Gunnison, gutter at south edge of roof, 2006..................................................347 

213. Battery Gunnison, 1943 shell-hoist shed for south emplacement, 2006 ......................348 

214. Battery Gunnison, 1943 air lock in storage room (room 101) for chemical- 

 weapons service equipment, 2006...............................................................................348 

215. Battery Gunnison, 1943 plotting room, looking northwest, 2006 ...............................349 

216. Battery Gunnison, shell hoist for north emplacement, 2006.......................................349 

217. Battery Gunnison, shell room (room 105), looking southeast, 2006 ...........................350 

218. Battery Gunnison, cartridge/powder room (room 106), looking south, 2006 .............350 
xxxiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, Battery Gunnison – Historic Structure Report was co-authored 

by James J. Lee III and Lauren Laham of the Historic Architecture Program (HAP), Northeast 

Region, National Park Service. Lee researched and wrote sections for the individual 

batteries, as well as the sections “Introduction” and “Character Defining Features and 

Recommendations.” Laham researched and wrote the “Historical Background and Context” 

section for the historic structure report (HSR), and assisted with research for other parts of 

the HSR. Sharon Ofenstein, HAP Publications Editor, reviewed the report and provided 

advice and consistency.

The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the assistance of the 

staff members of the Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. Richard Wells, 

Park Superintendent, provided useful comments during the project review meetings and the 

final review of the HSR. Lou Venuto, Chief of Interpretation and Cultural Resources, 

provided direction and coordinated the efforts of his staff. Thomas Hoffman, Park 

Historian, provided copies of existing records and documents, as well as oral histories of Fort 

Hancock and the batteries. Both Venuto and Hoffman conducted a guided tour of Battery 

Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison. They also provided access to the batteries 

on a number of occasions. Also thanks to Venuto and Hoffman for their editorial comments 

on the draft of the HSR. Mary Rasa, Curator, provided access to historic photographs and 

maps in the Gateway NRA Museum Collection at Sandy Hook, as well as a copy of Ed 

Biedermann’s oral history of the Mortar Battery during World War II. 

* * * * * * 

Research undertaken by Edwin C. Bearss in the 1980s proved extremely useful in 

determining where to conduct further primary source research. Research at the Northeast 

Region National Archives and Records Administration would not have been successful 

without the assistance of Archives Specialists Richard Gelbke and Joan Young. At the 

National Archives and Records Administration Washington, D.C., Jill Abraham, Old Military 

Records Archivist, provided guidance for research in the record groups pertaining to military 

records. 

James J. Lee III 

Lauren Laham 
xxxiv

ABBREVIATIONS 

The following abbreviations have been used in this report: 

GATE Gateway National Recreation Area 

GMP General Management Plan 

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey 

HAP Historic Architecture Program, Northeast Region, NPS 

HSR Historic Structure Report 

NER Northeast Region, NPS 

NAB National Archives Building, Washington, DC 

NACP National Archives at College Park, MD 

NARA – 

Northeast Region (NY) National Archives Northeast Region, New York, NY 

NARA – National Archives and Records Administration 

Northeast Region Northeast Region, Waltham, MA 

(W) 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

RG Record Group 

SAHO Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA 
1

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose and Scope

This historic structure report was produced by the Historic Architecture Program of the 

National Park Service’s Northeast Regional Office. The purpose of the report is to document 

the development and use of the Mortar Battery, Battery Potter, and Battery Gunnison at the 

Sandy Hook Unit , Gateway National Recreation Area , Fort Hancock, New Jersey. 

Furthermore, it is intended to inform and guide the rehabilitation of those historic 

structures. 

The scope of this historic structure report includes a “thorough” investigation of Battery 

Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison as defined by NPS- 28.

1

 The HSR deals 

primarily with the subject structures and incorporates context and background information 

about Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock and the harbor defense installations. The HSR provides 

for each structure a developmental history, including a current description, and a list of 

character-defining features and treatment recommendations, in accordance with National 

Park Service standards. The report does not include an existing conditions assessment, nor 

does it include a record of treatment, which should be accomplished by the contractor after 

the treatment is completed. 

The physical investigation of the batteries was limited to observation and recordation of 

existing conditions. 

Brief Description of Batteries 

In 1886 the Endicott Board, headed by the Secretary of War, General William C. Endicott, 

made a report on the deficiency of the nation’s coastal defenses, which led to the 

establishment of a number of coastal defense installations. Thus what has become known as 

the Endicott System of defenses was established in the United States to guard important port 

and harbors. 

Sandy Hook had long been recognized as key to the defense of New York Harbor. Under the 

Endicott System, the area saw a dramatic increase in activity and the construction of several 

new coastal defense emplacements. 

 1 NPS-28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Release No. 5, 1997, and Director’s Order #28, 

1998. 
INTRODUCTION

4

Planning for and construction of Battery Potter began in 1890, and the emplacement was 

completed in 1895. Battery Potter, named for General Joseph Potter, was the first and only 

steam-powered hydraulic-lift gun battery. This innovation allowed the gun to be raised and 

lowered inside the protection of a concrete bunker, which in turn was encircled within an 

earthwork slope for protection and camouflage. This steam hydraulic system used for 

Battery Potter’s gun-lift carriages was soon rendered obsolete by a new counterweight system 

for raising and lowering guns. The guns were removed in 1906, and the battery was adapted 

to serve as a tracking and observation station for other batteries at Sandy Hook. 

Construction of the Mortar Battery, the first of its kind for American harbor defense, also 

began in 1890 and was completed in 1894. The battery consisted of four pits; each pit 

emplaced four 12-inch caliber mortars, for a total of 16 mortars that could fire half-ton 

armor-piercing projectiles. In 1903 the entire battery was named Battery Reynolds, in honor 

of Major General John F. Reynolds. In 1906 the battery designation was divided; the south 

half remained Battery Reynolds, and the north half was designated Battery McCook, after 

Major General Alexander McCook. The collective unit was generally referred to as the 

Mortar Battery. After World War I the structure was converted to a communications center, 

and it became the New York Harbor Defense Command Post during World War II. 

Construction of the emplacement for Battery John Gunnison began in1898, but was halted 

due to its interference with Sandy Hook Proving Ground activities. Five years later, a new 

site was selected for the battery, and construction was resumed. Battery Gunnison, named 

for Captain John W. Gunnison, was completed in 1904 and mounted with 6-inch 

disappearing guns in 1905. During World War II the battery was modified and converted to 

hold two 6-inch guns mounted on barbette carriages. The guns that were installed and their 

carriages came from Battery Peck, and the emplacement was renamed New Battery Peck. In 

1948 these guns were replaced with similar 6-inch guns that remain in place today. 

The national significance of Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison is 

attributed to their association with the Endicott System of coastal defense and the New York 

Harbor defenses. 

Statement of Significance

Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison are considered nationally 

significant structures. They are part of the Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving 

Ground Historic District, which includes approximately 110 historic buildings and 16 

batteries. The district was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 24, 1980, 

having a period of significance spanning from 1859, through the 1950s and 1960s Cold War 

Era, until 1974. The nomination recognizes the importance of the defense installations at 

Sandy Hook in guarding New York City.2

 

 2

 Richard E. Greenwood, “National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form, Fort 

Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” June 28, 1976, revised Nov. 9, 1982, 

item 7, p. 1 and item 8, p. 1. 
INTRODUCTION

5

Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison date from the Endicott period of 

coastal defenses and represent a significant period in Fort Hancock’s history. The battery 

installations remained an important part of the New York harbor defenses from the 1890s 

through World War II. Of particular significance was the fact that two of the battery 

emplacements at Sandy Hook – the Mortar Battery and Battery Potter – were the first of their 

type in the country. 

Research Conducted

This HSR documents the evolution of the Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, and Battery 

Gunnison through the physical investigation of extant materials, and documentary research 

using both primary and secondary sources. Repositories consulted and utilized for materials 

pertaining to the subject are as follows: 

Boston Public Library, Boston, MA 

Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, Fort Hancock, NJ, Gateway 

NRA Museum Collection 

Monmouth County Historical Association, Freehold, NJ 

National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Washington, DC 

National Archives and Records Administration, Archives II, College Park, MD 

National Archives and Records Administration, Northeast Region, New York, NY 

NPS, Historic Architecture Program Library, Lowell, MA 

NPS, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Brookline, MA 

New Jersey State Archives, Trenton, NJ 

New York Public Library, New York, NY 

Research Findings

Review of the reports, photographs, maps, and drawings available in the Gateway NRA 

Museum Collection provided background for further research and physical investigation of 

Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison. Extensive research was 

undertaken by Edwin C. Bearss in the 1980s during the preparation of several historic 

resource studies for the Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. Mr. Bearss’s 

reports, in particular The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857-1948, proved extremely useful in 

determining where to conduct further primary source research.3

The National Archives and Records Administration proved fruitful for primary source 

material. Research at the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C., and the National 

Archives Northeast Region, New York, NY, provided more detailed information regarding 

the construction and alterations to the batteries. Correspondence between the Sandy Hook 

 3

 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857-1948, Sandy Hook Unit, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, September 1983). 
INTRODUCTION

6

Engineers, New York District Engineers, and the Chief of Engineers provided insight into the 

activities and decisions made regarding the batteries and the defenses for New York Harbor. 

The Chief of Engineers’ Annual Reports for 1891, 1892, and 1893 provided a summary of the 

work during those critical years. The 1895 completion report for Battery Potter was found in 

the NAB ; this was accompanied by a set of 10 drawings of the battery, which is stored at the 

National Archives facility in College Park, MD. Additional plans for all three batteries were 

found at NACP, as well as historic photographs. 

Monthly reports dating from September 1891 to March 1894 and sent by the Sandy Hook 

Engineers to the New York District Engineer document the construction of Battery Potter 

and the Mortar Battery. The reports were transcribed into two journals that are stored at the 

New York Public Library, New York, NY. The reports provide detailed descriptions of the 

monthly progress, the labor force employed, and the machinery used, as well as other details 

about the batteries. Those reports were invaluable to the understanding of the construction 

and original appearance of Battery Potter and the Mortar Battery. 

Overall, the documentary materials provided important information about the construction 

and use of Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison. Less information was 

found regarding the construction of Battery Gunnison, but the research did provide a better 

understanding of the changes made to that battery in the 1940s, which produced many of the 

extant features of Battery Gunnison. Future research should include further review of the 

“Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications; Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J.,” 

which may yield further information regarding the batteries in the 1920s and 1940s. Future 

research should also include the papers and photographs of General Gage, which are stored 

at the U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle, PA. 

Recommended Treatment

The NPS has determined that the Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground 

Historic District should emphasize the continuum of history throughout the period of 

significance, which spans from 1859 until 1974.4

 A significant part of that objective is the 

preservation and interpretation of the historic resources within the historic district. The goal 

for structures within the Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic 

District, as stated in planning documents for Gateway NRA, is rehabilitation and 

interpretation. 

It is recommended that Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison be 

rehabilitated in accordance with the Gateway NRA General Management Plan (GMP), 

completed in 1979, and The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 

Furthermore, as stated in the 1990 GMP Amendment, it is recommended that the batteries be 

 4

 Greenwood, “Nomination Form,” item 8, p.1. 
INTRODUCTION

7

interpreted to the public with a focus on their historic functions, and the changes in coastal 

defenses during Fort Hancock’s history.5

The rehabilitation of the gun batteries would entail the removal of invasive vegetation as well 

as an extensive condition and structural analysis of each structure. At a minimum, preserving 

and rehabilitating these batteries will involve the stabilization and repair of the concrete 

structures, the addition of lighting, and the repair and construction of railings and walkways. 

The rehabilitation of Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison would greatly 

increase the park’s ability to interpret the Endicott System of defense installations at Sandy 

Hook, as well as the history of coastal defenses through World War II and into the Cold War. 

Furthermore, the rehabilitation would mitigate public safety hazards associated with the 

batteries, and allow greater public access to these historic structures. 

 5 General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretation Prospectus: 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, January 1990), p. 13. 
INTRODUCTION

8

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

Location of Site

Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground are part of the approximately 2,044-acre 

Sandy Hook Unit, which is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area. Both are located 

in Monmouth County, Middletown, New Jersey, on a peninsula that begins east of the town 

of Highlands and extends north to the Sandy Hook Channel, which was the original natural 

channel to Lower New York Harbor. On October 27, 1972, President Nixon signed the 

legislation for Public Law 92-592, which established the Gateway National Recreation Area. 

Under this law Fort Hancock (including the former Proving Ground) was transferred from 

the Department of Defense to the Department of the Interior after the deactivation of the 

post in 1974.6

 Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison are located within 

the Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District, along the eastern 

shore of Sandy Hook. 

National Register of Historic Places

The Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places on April 24, 1980. The “National Register Inventory - 

Nomination Form for the Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic 

District” ascribes a portion of the area’s significance to the defense installations guarding 

New York City. The area was recognized for a period of significance spanning from 1859 

when construction of the granite “Fort at Sandy Hook” was begun, through the 1960s when 

the Nike defense system became obsolete, until 1974 when the U.S. Army left Sandy Hook.7

 

The Sandy Hook Defenses (Fort Hancock) for nearly 80 years were the 

key fortification guarding the approaches to America’s most important 

harbor and its largest metropolis. It was during these years that the 

United States defeated Spain and emerged as a world power; tipped the 

scales against the Central Powers in World War I; retreated into the 

isolation of the 1920s and 30s; and emerged from World War II as a 

super power.8

 6

 Barry Sulam and John B. Marsh, Historic Structure Report, Architectural Data Section (Volume 

IV), The Sandy Hook Proving Ground, 1874-1919, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

Aug. 1988), p. 1. 7

 Greenwood, “Nomination Form,” item 7, p. 1. 

8

 Greenwood, “Nomination Form - Statement of Significance,” item 8, p. 1. 
INTRODUCTION

9

National Historic Landmark

The Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District was listed as a 

National Historic Landmark (NHL) on December 17, 1982. The NHL nomination 

acknowledges the history of the coastal defense system and Fort Hancock as a significant 

period for Sandy Hook. 

Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District 

reflects the history of a vital defense guarding New York City and its 

harbor from 1895 to 1974. This landmark played a key role in the 

development of advanced weaponry and radar....9

List of Classified Structures (LCS) Information

Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison are among 16 gun emplacements at 

Sandy Hook. These three batteries are representative of the Endicott System defense 

installations at Fort Hancock and the history of coastal defense at Sandy Hook. 

The LCS file information for Battery Potter is as follows: 

Preferred Structure Name: Fort Hancock-Battery Potter 

Other Structure Names: No records 

Park Structure Number: SH-264 

LCS ID Number: 008547 

National Register Status: Entered - Documented 

National Register Date: 04/24/1980 

National Register Reference #: 80002505 

National Historic Landmark 

Date: 12/17/1982 

Significance Level: National 

Short Significance 

Description: 

First Endicott-period emplacement in country to be 

built & fully (partially) armed. Only example of 

steam-powered hydraulic 12" gun lift battery. Built 

to replace antiquated stone fort & muzzle-loading 

guns inadequate for threat posed by new 

dreadnought warships. 

Long Significance 

Description: 

Construction of Battery Potter began in 1891, and 

both guns were emplaced by 1895. The 

hydropneumatic system used for the battery’s gun 

lift carriages was soon rendered obsolete and 

replaced with a new counterweight system. The 

 9

 “Statement of Significance,” National Historic Landmark Program website 

(http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm? ResourceId=1828&ResourceType=District). 
INTRODUCTION

10

Long Significance 

Description (continued): 

guns were removed in 1906 and the battery was 

adapted to serve as a tracking and observation 

station for other batteries at Sandy Hook. A 

wooden/concrete fire control station was 

constructed on top of battery between 1905-1907 

and demolished sometime after 1954. 

The Fort Hancock and the Proving Ground Historic 

District includes approximately 110 significant 

historic buildings and 16 Batteries dating from the 

last quarter of the 19th century through the first half 

of the 20th century. These structures are significant 

under National Register Criteria A because they 

reflect the history of the U.S. Army’s Ordnance 

Department Proving Ground and Fort Hancock 

Military Reservation, a vital defense installation 

guarding New York City from 1895 through the 

1950s and 60s Cold War era until 1974. The Fort 

Hancock and Proving Ground Historic District 

should also be considered significant under National 

Register Criteria C as many structures in the district 

embody distinctive characteristics of a particular 

period and type of construction. 

Management Category: Must Be Preserved and Maintained 

Management Category Date: 08/25/2006 10

The LCS file information for the Mortar Battery is as follows: 

Preferred Structure Name: Fort Hancock – Batteries McCook and Reynolds, 

349 

Other Structure Names: Mortar Battery 

Park Structure Number: SH – 349 

LCS ID Number: 008587 

National Register Status: Entered - Documented 

National Register Date: 04/24/1980 

National Register Reference #: 80002505 

National Historic Landmark 

Date: 12/17/1982 

Significance Level: National 

Short Significance 

Description: 

First concrete mortar battery in United States. 

Mortars reflected philosophy of indirect fire 

weapons as superior for coastal defense. Coastal 

defenses at Sandy Hook built to meet threat posed 

by new dreadnought warships. 

 10 List of Classified Structures – Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit (NPS website 

http://www.hscl.cr.nps.gov/reports/summary.asp?REPORTID=100704). 
INTRODUCTION

11

Long Significance 

Description: 

The Fort Hancock and the Proving Ground Historic 

District includes approximately 110 significant 

historic buildings and 16 Batteries dating from the 

last quarter of the 19th century through the first half 

of the 20th century. These structures are significant 

under National Register Criteria A because they 

reflect the history of the U.S. Army’s Ordnance 

Department Proving Ground and Fort Hancock 

Military Reservation, a vital defense installation 

guarding New York City from 1895 through the 

1950s and 60s Cold War era until 1974. The Fort 

Hancock and Proving Ground Historic District 

should also be considered significant under National 

Register Criteria C as many structures in the district 

embody distinctive characteristics of a particular 

period and type of construction. 

In 1903 the entire battery was designated Battery 

Reynolds, in honor of Major General John F. 

Reynolds. In 1906 the battery designation was 

divided; the southwest half remained Battery 

Reynolds and the northeast half was designated 

Battery McCook, after Major General Alexander 

McCook. The collective unit was generally referred 

to as the Mortar Battery. After World War I the 

structure was converted to a communications center 

and it became the New York Harbor Defense 

Command Center during World War II. 

Management Category: Must be Preserved and Maintained 

Management Category Date: 08/25/2006 11

The LCS file information for the Battery Gunnison is as follows: 

Preferred Structure Name: Fort Hancock-Battery Gunnison 

Other Structure Names: No records 

Park Structure Number: SH-337 

LCS ID Number: 008578 

National Register Status: Entered - Documented 

National Register Date: 04/24/1980 

National Register Reference #: 80002505 

National Historic Landmark 

Date: 12/17/1982 

Significance Level: National 

 11 List of Classified Structures – Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit. 
INTRODUCTION

12

Short Significance 

Description: 

Construction of Battery Gunnison began in 1898 

during the Endicott Era. Halted due to its 

obstruction of the Proving Ground activities. 1903 

battery was relocated and construction began again. 

Named after Capt. John W. Gunnison, was 

completed in 1904. Mounted with 6-inch 

disappearing guns in 1905. 

Long Significance 

Description: 

Prior to World War II the battery was modified and 

converted to hold two 6-inch guns mounted on 

barbette carriages. The 6-inch guns and their 

carriages were moved from Battery Peck to Battery 

Gunnison and the emplacement was renamed New 

Battery Peck/Battery Gunnison. In 1948 these guns 

were replaced with similar 6-inch guns which 

remain in place today. 

The Fort Hancock and the Proving Ground Historic 

District includes approximately 110 significant 

historic buildings and 16 Batteries dating from the 

last quarter of the 19th century through the first half 

of the 20th century. These structures are significant 

under National Register Criteria A because they 

reflect the history of the U.S. Army’s Ordnance 

Department Proving Ground and Fort Hancock 

Military Reservation, a vital defense installation 

guarding New York City from 1895 through the 

1950s and 60s Cold War era until 1974. The Fort 

Hancock and Proving Ground Historic District 

should also be considered significant under National 

Register Criteria C as many structures in the district 

embody distinctive characteristics of a particular 

period and type of construction. 

Management Category: Must Be Preserved and Maintained 

Management Category Date: 08/25/2006 12

Proposed Use

The 1979 General Management Plan (GMP) and the 1990 GMP Amendment for Gateway 

NRA discuss the creation of the Fort Hancock Gateway Village at the Sandy Hook Proving 

Ground and Fort Hancock Historic District. The GMP Amendment states that the area 

should “retain the integrity of the historic scene,” with the goal of “rehabilitation of historic 

structures.”13 It also proposed the establishment of a Coastal Fortification Zone within the 

 12 List of Classified Structures – Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit. 13 General Management Plan Amendment, p. 9. 
INTRODUCTION

13

Gateway Village. The purpose of this zone is to interpret and communicate the importance 

of the military history of the harbor defenses and of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground. 

The planning documents for Gateway NRA propose that Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, 

and Battery Gunnison be rehabilitated according to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Rehabilitation. Upon rehabilitation these structures will be more accessible to the public, 

and will be interpreted as part of the Coastal Fortification Zone. 

Battery Potter will be the focal point for interpreting coastal defenses. The proposed 

rehabilitation of this structure will provide increased visitor access and enhance the park’s 

historic attractions and programs. 

The proposed rehabilitation of the Mortar Battery will allow the interior of the battery to be 

open to the public and increase the park’s ability to interpret the history of this structure. 

The interpretive program will include the Endicott System defenses, as well as the important 

of the battery as a communications center for the New York Harbor defenses. 

Battery Gunnison is the only battery at Gateway NRA with coastal defense guns mounted in 

position. Much of the battery is currently closed to the public. The proposed rehabilitation 

will improve visitor access to both the interior and exterior of the battery, and further assist 

in the interpretation of the coastal defenses at Sandy Hook. 

The rehabilitation of Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison will be 

preserved as part of the Coastal Fortification Zone, and will increase visitor access to and 

awareness of this vital part of Sandy Hook’s history. 

Related Studies

Several publications identified in the Cultural Resources Management Bibliography were 

consulted in the preparation of this report. Some of these publications provide more 

background information about the history of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground and Fort 

Hancock. Any reader desiring a broader discussion of the military presence at Sandy Hook 

should consult the publications listed here. 

Michael Adlerstein, Kay Roush, David Turello et al., General Management Plan, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, New York / New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Aug. 1979). 

Amendment to the General Management Plan, Great Kills Park, Staten Island Unit, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, New York / New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Oct. 1990). 

Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857-1948, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, September 1983). 
INTRODUCTION

14

------, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Proving Ground, 1874-1919, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, September 1983). 

------, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, May 1981). 

------, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1948-1974, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, November 1982). 

Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP, Section 02080 Asbestos Removal, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, Batteries Mortar & Potter (Albany, NY: 

Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP for Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, September 2005). 

Marie Ennis, PE, Structural Conditions Assessment, Mortar Battery Tunnel Complex, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New York, NY: Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, February 2006). 

Richard E. Greenwood, National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination 

Form, “Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” June 

28, 1976. 

------, National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form, “Fort 

Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” revised November 

9, 1982. 

Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications of the United States, An Introductory 

History (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1993 reprint). 

Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, 

Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (New York, NY: 

Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, May 2005). 
15

DEVELOPMENTAL

HISTORY:

GENERAL

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

17 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

AND CONTEXT 

Introduction

Location and Physical Description 

Fort Hancock is located on a peninsula of land known as Sandy Hook in Monmouth County, 

Middleton, New Jersey. Sandy Hook, a barrier beach peninsula, is on the northern tip of the 

New Jersey shore and approximately 6.5 miles from New York Harbor. The peninsula 

includes 7 miles of beaches, salt marshlands, a network of hiking trails, and a holly forest.1

 

Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground are located on the northern end of the 

peninsula, south of the U.S. Coast Guard station (fig. 1). They are currently owned and 

occupied by the National Park Service, and constitute one of the three units of Gateway 

National Recreation Area. 

History of Ownership 

The first known discovery of the Sandy Hook peninsula was by Henry Hudson, a 17th -

century English explorer and navigator. In January 1609, Hudson was hired by the Dutch 

United East India company to search for a passage north of Russia to the Orient. Eventually, 

Hudson instead sailed west to the New World, in hopes of finding the long-sought northwest 

passage to the Orient, i.e., north of North America. It was during this expedition that 

Hudson and his crew entered Sandy Hook Bay on September 2, 1609. 2

In its earliest history, the lands of Sandy Hook were involved in a struggle between the Dutch 

and the British. The Dutch, having been first to discover the land in 1609, attempted in 1663 

to construct a fort on the Navesink Highlands to hold and secure the area from the British. 

They reported that “the English from Gravesend (now Brooklyn) and some other vagabonds 

intend to go to the Newesinghs in the spring and take possession of the land there.”3

 A fort 

was never built, and later that year, Peter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch governor of New 

Amsterdam (now New York), surrendered all of the New Netherlands (which encompassed 

 1

 “Visiting Sandy Hook,”Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area website 

(http://www.nps.gov/gate/shu/shu_home.htm). 

2

 Ian Chadwick, “Henry Hudson: Henry Hudson’s Third Voyage 1609: The New World” 

(http://www.ianchadwick.com/hudson/hudson_03.htm). 

3

 John P. King, “The British were the first Europeans in the Highlands” 

(http://www.highlandsnj.com/news/html/NewsDocs/Eurpoean%20Settlers.html). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

18 

parts of what are now the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

Connecticut and Delaware) to the British Deputy Governor, Richard Nicolls, per order of 

Charles II, King of England.4

Governor Richard Nicolls issued the first recognized land transfer of Sandy Hook via the 

Monmouth Patent in April 1665. The Monmouth Patent was issued to 12 patentees, and 

included the land of Sandy Hook as well as land to the west and south. This land was 

previously occupied by American Lenape Indians, and was bought from them by the British 

in three separate purchases for a value of 850 pounds sterling, paid largely in part by 

wampum, cloth, wine, powder, and other commodities.5

However, the Monmouth Patent was found to be void. Charles II, the King of England, 

granted land in the area to his brother James, the Duke of York, at the same time he granted 

land to Governor Richard Nicolls, therefore making the transfer of land within the 

Monmouth Patent invalid. As Richard Nicolls was transferring his land through the 

Monmouth Patent, the Duke of York granted this land to Lord Berkley and Sir George 

Carteret. This grant included all the land the Duke of York was granted between the Hudson 

and Delaware Rivers south of 40 degrees 40 feet north latitude. Governor Philip Carteret, 

appointed Governor of this new land (known as New Jersey) by Lord Berkley and Sir George 

Carteret, on May 28, 1872, confirmed this land unto James Grover, John Brown, Jonathan 

Holmes, James Ashon, John Hause, and Richard Hartshorne.6

 Richard Hartshorne, who 

came from London in 1669, is considered to be one of the first inhabitants on the land that 

now includes the Sandy Hook peninsula. 

The U.S. government acquired the lands of Sandy Hook in a series of four different tracts. 

These four tracts were obtained at different times. Two of the four tracts were acquired from 

a descendent of Richard Hartshorne, as follows: 

1. A tract of 4 acres, on which the main lighthouse now stands, granted by the State of 

New York by its act of February 3, 1790. Jurisdiction over this tract was ceded by act 

of New Jersey, of November 16, 1790. 

2. That portion of Sandy Hook “lying on the north side of a line drawn East to West 

through the present lighthouse, acquired by deed of R. Hartshorne, et al., dated 

February 26, 1806; consideration $3,750. Jurisdiction over this tract was ceded by the 

act of New Jersey of March 1, 1804. 

3. All of Sandy Hook north of a line running east from the mouth of Youngs Creek to 

the sea, excepting two tracts previously conveyed to the United States, acquired by 

deed of R. Hartshorne and wife, dated June 17, 1817. Jurisdiction over this tract for 

military purposes was ceded by act of New Jersey of March 12, 1846, which act 

described the land over which the jurisdiction was ceded as all that portion of Sandy 

Hook owned by the United States lying north of an east and west line through the 

mouth of Youngs Creek at low water, and extending across the island or Cape of 

Sandy Hook from shore to shore and bounded on all other sides by the sea and Sandy 

Hook Bay. This cession of jurisdiction therefore overlapped and included tracts 1 and 

 4

 King, “The British were the first Europeans in the Highlands.” 

5

 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook”; Entry 317; RG 392; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 6

 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

19 

2, over which jurisdiction had already been ceded by the acts of November 16, 1790, 

and March 1, 1804, respectively. 

4. Twenty-two lots, forming a tract 2200 feet long and extending from the Atlantic 

Ocean to Shrewsbury River, and the railroad track thereon, acquired by deeds as 

follows: The Atlantic Highlands Association, dated July 29, 1892; and the New Jersey 

Southern Railway Co., dated May 1, 1893; total consideration $25,000. 7

Ever since the acquisition of the Sandy Hook lands, the United States government has 

maintained a presence on the peninsula. During the 19th century, the peninsula was occupied 

by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Lighthouse Service, the U.S. Life-Saving Service, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army Ordnance Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Artillery, 

and the Western Union Telegraph Service. The 20th century saw the continued occupation of 

the U.S. Army, as well as the occupation of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, the Women’s 

Auxiliary Army Corps, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Army Air Defense Command.8

 

The Sandy Hook peninsula is now occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard as well as the National 

Park Service, which presently owns and operates Gateway National Recreation Area. 

Early History (1776 – 1815)

National Trends 

The U.S. government has maintained an intermittent military presence on the Sandy Hook 

peninsula from the days of the American Revolution until today, through the presence of the 

U.S. Coast Guard, Sandy Hook Station. The Sandy Hook Proving Ground was established on 

the peninsula in 1874 and continued until 1919. The Fort Hancock military reservation was 

formally established in 1895; it was deactivated and reactivated several times, with a final 

deactivation date of August 15, 1974. The proximity to New York Harbor, as well as the 

topography of the peninsula, made Sandy Hook an ideal location to assist in the national 

coastal defense of the United States. Many “firsts” took place here that contributed to the 

United States being an unmatched national defense superpower, as well as being on the 

forefront of advanced military technology. In order to comprehend this great contribution 

made by both the Sandy Hook Proving Ground and the Fort Hancock military reservation, it 

is useful to understand how coastal defense was envisioned and developed at a national level. 

The study of American systems of coastal defense has been largely undertaken and outlined 

by Emanuel Raymond Lewis in his book titled Seacoast Fortifications of the United States, An 

Introductory History. In this work, Lewis outlines various generations of seacoast 

fortifications that were constructed to defend the United States when war threatened. The 

following information relies heavily on this work, since Lewis is considered an expert in this 

area of United States military history. 

 7

 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 8

 James J. Lee III, Officers Club Building No. 114, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation 

Area, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Historic Structure Report (Lowell, MA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region, Historic Architecture Program, 2006), pp. 15-16. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

20 

First and Second American Systems of Fortifications (1794 – 1815) 

At the close of the 18th century, America – still in its infancy as a new nation – undertook its 

first program of national defense. Concentrating heavily on the importance of its coastlines, 

America began what has been referred to as the First American System of fortifications. On 

February 28, 1794, a special committee of the House of Representatives prepared a statement 

with estimates on proposed coastal defense works and anticipated locations. Henry Knox, as 

the first Secretary of War, immediately devised the general characteristics that the seacoast 

fortifications should possess, but left the detailed specifications in the hands of the engineer 

stationed at each locality.9

At 16 commanding locations, the fortifications constructed under the First American System 

of fortifications were relatively primitive and frail. Because only general characteristics of 

these fortifications were outlined by Knox, there existed a large degree of variation among 

the overall design of each structure. These open works were generally built of unsupported 

earth, sodded or planted with knotgrass or some type of herbaceous binding, and were 

constructed to allow for the emplacement of eight to several dozen guns. In several of these 

structures, enclosed earthen redoubts with light cannon were emplaced to guard the 

landward sides of the fortification. The defense armament of this era consisted largely in part 

of iron and brass cannon, mostly remnants of the Revolutionary War. Little monetary 

support was appropriated by the government for the continuance of construction for the 

First System fortifications, and the monies that were provided were concentrated for 

maintenance on three or four locations considered of utmost importance and priority. Only 

a few of the First American System fortifications survive today (fig. 2).10

In November 1807, a new program of national defense was initiated, and within the next five 

years, more than $3 million was funded by the government for its implementation. This 

program, which was well underway by the outbreak of the War of 1812, is known as the 

Second American System of fortifications. The overall types of works constructed in the 

Second System can be broken down into three major categories: open batteries, masonryfaced earth forts, and all-masonry forts. 

The Second System was similar to the First System in that the design and planning of works 

was not coordinated on a national level, and showed a good deal of variation in both 

architectural style and armament. However, the Second System displayed several significant 

improvements over the First System of fortifications, and so represented a turning point in 

the sophistication of American coastal defense design. 

 9

 Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory History 

(Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1970), p. 21. 10 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, pp. 21 – 25. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

21 

The open-battery defense works built in the Second System were small and low to the 

ground, and were generally constructed as support structures to a major fort. However, the 

hallmark of the Second System was masonry-faced forts, which frequently included elliptical 

and circular features in their design.11 The implementation of the casemated gun 

emplacements also began with the Second System; this allowed the cannons to be mounted 

behind and within the walls of the fortification, rather than on top of the structure. Having 

casemated gun emplacements not only afford additional protection from enemy fire, but 

because the casemates could be constructed in tiers, it allowed a fort to have two to three 

levels of firing guns on one or more sides of the fortification. This new technology was a 

major contribution to America’s advancement in military technology and design (fig. 3).12 A 

third significant difference between the systems was that the design and planning of Second 

System fortifications was carried out solely by American engineers, whereas the First System 

works were primarily designed by French engineers.13

Seacoast armament was not systemized until the 1840s, so the Second System of fortifications 

did not experience any great difference in armament from the First System of fortifications. 

Few Second System forts are still extant as conceived and constructed in their original form, 

since most were altered and incorporated into emplacements built during America’s Third 

System of defense (fig. 3).14

At the end of 1815, the United States had managed to construct approximately 60 coastal 

defense structures on the most important seaports of America’s coast. Both the First and 

Second Systems had been conceived as a response to impending military conflict, and each 

came to a somewhat abrupt halt when its threat of conflict dissipated.15 Although the 

fortifications varied greatly from one to another in both design and planning, both systems of 

defense identified America’s response to imminent conflict from abroad between the years 

1794 – 1815. 

Sandy Hook 

Revolutionary War (1776 – 1778) 

The Sandy Hook peninsula experienced its first military involvement during the American 

Revolutionary War in 1776. The British used the Sandy Hook Lighthouse as a navigational 

aid to assist them in entering New York Harbor while transporting their invasion army. 

During the war, the British realized the strategic location of Sandy Hook and used the land as 

an assembly point for their troops. It was during this time that the first known military 

defense work was known to have been built on the peninsula. The British built a stockade 

surrounding Sandy Hook Light, and used the grounds at Sandy Hook as a staging area during 

 11 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, pp. 25-26. 12 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 31. 13 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 25. 14 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, pp. 26-32. 15 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 36. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

22 

the conflict with the Americans. Also maintained on the peninsula was a refugees camp for 

local men who sympathized with the King, and this became known as Refugees Town.16

War of 1812 (1812 – 1815) 

The next military engagement that occurred on Sandy Hook was during the War of 1812. 

The United States wanted to avoid another British occupation of the peninsula, as happened 

during the Revolutionary War, and so immediately stationed troops at Sandy Hook. 

Temporary fortifications were constructed, and guns were emplaced to deter the British from 

using Sandy Hook as a staging area from which they could attack New York City. 17 The most 

noteworthy temporary structure was Fort Gates (fig. 4). This structure was constructed of 

wood, and was located about half a mile from the Sandy Hook Lighthouse. Within the walls 

of this wooden stockade were: merlons (labeled A), a flagstaff (labeled B), a furnace (labeled 

C), a magazine (labeled D), and a traverse (labeled E). A merlon was the “the portion of a 

battlemented parapet that rises up from a wall (e.g., the solid part of a parapet between the 

crenels).”18 The purpose of the furnace was to heat the cannon balls to red-hot temperatures 

in an attempt to set sailing warships on fire. The magazine’s function was to store the 

ammunition. The traverse was “a work similar to a caponier, consisting of a gun looped 

passage way which traversed a dry ditch of a fortification, and was used to sweep the ditch of 

the enemy as they tried to cross the ditch.”19

The United States succeeded in barring the British from the peninsula, and at the close of the 

war, American troops were withdrawn. Fort Gates and other temporary structures were left 

to deteriorate into the landscape. However, it was at this point that the United States fully 

realized the importance of the Sandy Hook peninsula, and so purchased for $20,000 two 

tracts of land from Richard Hartshorne in 1817 that encompassed the majority of the 

peninsula.20

 16 “History of Sandy Hook Proving Ground.” Entry 1537,Vol. 1 , July 22, 1909, p. 1; General 

Records; SHPG, 1889-1919; RG 156; NARA – Northeast Region (NY). 17 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

September 1983), p. 1. 18 Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture, Cyril M. Harris, ed. (New York: Dover 

Publications, Inc., 1977), p. 351. 19 A Dictionary of Military Architecture Fortification and Fieldworks from the Iron Age to the 

Eighteenth Century (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/madict.html#Traverse). 

20 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

23 

Early Fortification of Sandy Hook (1817 – 1874)

National Trends 

Third System of Fortification (1817 – 1865) 

Unlike the First and Second Systems of fortifications, the Third System began during a 

somewhat calm state of affairs, and for the first time was directed by an authority that 

oversaw all aspects of the design, planning, and implementation. In 1816, a board was 

organized; since it was led by Simon Bernard, a French military engineer and fortifications 

expert, it has come to be known as the Bernard Board. The creation of this board marked the 

first time in American military history that a unified and strategic doctrine was devoted to 

American coastal defense.21 The new works of the Third System were built in a variety of 

forms. The design of each structure depended on numerous factors, such as the remoteness 

from a populated area, the surrounding landscape and topography, the importance and size 

of the port it would defend, and the state of military technology and development at the time 

each fort was constructed.22

The Third System displayed the most impressive structures produced from any era of 

military history. The majority of Third System fortifications were polygonal in plan, and they 

were often built with brick or stone (sometimes both) with earth used as a supporting and 

binding material. Due to the fortification’s masonry construction, a single wall could contain 

arched tiers of casemates, typically employed on the seaward front. The external walls of the 

fortifications varied in thickness, with a minimum of five inches, particularly around the 

embrasures. The roof was typically comprised of barbette emplacements that surmounted 

each exterior wall.23 Some fortifications had four sides, while some had as many as seven, 

and the length of the perimeter could range from 200 feet to more than a mile (fig. 5). 

Armament also varied greatly, from 50 guns to more than 400. The least impressive and 

simplest structure constructed during this system was the detached battery, which was often 

built in areas of secondary importance where the protection of a major fortification was not 

warranted. 

Major improvements in armament came after 1840 with respect to power, size, and 

reliability. For the first time in American military history, all heavy armament was designed 

and produced within the United States. The primary improvement in this era of armament 

advancement came with the redevelopment and refinement of the cannon. Two elements of 

the cannon were the subject of scrutiny – the external shape of the cannon, and the manner in 

which the cannon was cast. Ornamentation such as the patterning of shapes, as well as 

unnecessary knobs and handles on the artillery, was removed. Also, the shape of the cannon 

was altered, which was based on the distribution of gas pressures within the piece during its 

manufacturing. The manner in which the iron was cooled was also altered, which greatly 

 21 Joe C. Freeman et al., Seacoast Fortifications Preservation Manual (San Francisco, CA: Golden 

Gate NRA, 1999), NPS Online Archives (http://www.nps.gov/archive/goga/history/seaforts/ toc.htm). 

22 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 45. 23 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, pp. 39 – 45. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

24 

improved the strength of the cannon. Thomas J. Rodman, an Army Ordnance officer, was 

responsible for determining that the process of hardening and cooling greatly affected the 

strength of the iron used to make cannons. The normal sequence of hardening and cooling 

typically began at the outer surface of the material and progressed toward the interior. This 

process created a pattern of stress that caused the exterior of the cannon to be extremely 

vulnerable upon firing. Rodman simply reversed this pattern of stress by solidifying his 

casting in the opposite direction, cooling from the interior to the exterior.24 With these 

advancements, both the safety and structural reliability was improved. The standardization 

of gun carriages also appeared during this era, for which detailed specifications are extant, 

unlike that of the previous two systems. More than 30 Third System fortifications were built 

during this era, and nearly all remain in existence, constituting the oldest surviving body of 

major military structures in the United States. This era produced this most systematized and 

impressive structures of the time, and was unsurpassed anywhere in the world.25

Post-Civil War Period (1870 – 1875) 

Shockingly, during the post-Civil War period, the impressive structures of the Third System 

of defense became obsolete almost overnight due to a single advancement in armament that 

was introduced during the Civil War: the rifling of guns. Rifling of guns allowed for greater 

accuracy and power in armament, and a single shell could do significant damage. Because of 

this, reliance on the strength of masonry was greatly diminished. It was discovered that 

works made of earth or sand could withstand shelling from a rifled gun better than works of 

masonry. If a work made of earth was fired upon by a rifled gun, the hole it produced was 

simply filled in with collapsed earth, whereas a masonry work hit by a rifled gun ran the risk 

of collapse. Because of this drastic change in armament, military engineers and authorities 

were reluctant to move forward with a new set of designs for the next generation of 

fortifications. There was sufficient evidence to suggest that major advancements in 

armament were imminent, which would dictate the design of later works.26

However, construction of new coastal defense works did commenced, which were 

significantly different than their predecessors. Instead of constructing massive fortifications 

to defend American harbors, the United States began to invest in a system of smaller 

dispersed structures on a piece of land that collectively formed a fort. Separate batteries were 

to serve as the primary elements of coastal defense. These works were built of both earth and 

masonry, and could be situated, designed, and constructed in any size to conform to the 

topography of a given site. As it happened, the development of new weapons proceeded 

more slowly than anticipated, and the new batteries were equipped with same type of 

armament used in the previous systems of fortifications.27 Many of these works are still 

extant today. 

 24 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 60. 25 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, pp. 45 – 66. 26 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 67. 27 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, pp. 69 – 70. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

25 

Sandy Hook 

Fort at Sandy Hook (1857 – 1868) 

By the 1850s, the United States had built a system of fortifications to protect New York’s 

inner harbor. However, a technical revolution in the areas of steam-powered ships and 

longer-range artillery soon made defending the outer portions of the New York harbor a 

priority. Chief Engineer Joseph G. Totten, a fortification expert in the United States at that 

time, reviewed the Second and Third Systems of fortifications defending New York Harbor. 

His conclusion was that a fortification on Sandy Hook was absolutely necessary.28 In 1857, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers devised a plan to erect a five-bastioned granite fort with 

three sea fronts and two land fronts on the peninsula of Sandy Hook. This would allow the 

United States to command the channels that skirted the Sandy Hook peninsula, as well as to 

prevent enemy ships from entering into Sandy Hook Bay for an attack on the city of New 

York. Two years later in 1859, ground was broken for the construction of the fort, known as 

the “Fort at Sandy Hook” (fig. 6). An appropriation of $250,000 was made by Congress for 

this defense at Sandy Hook.29

Spurred by the onset of the Civil War in 1861, troops were assigned to Sandy Hook to man 

the weaponry and safeguard the public property.30 The advent of rifled artillery during the 

Civil War, however, made granite forts obsolete. As previously mentioned, the accuracy and 

strength of rifled artillery meant that a single shot could cause immense damage to a masonry 

fortress such as that at Sandy Hook. Consequently, construction on the fort halted in 1868.31

Sandy Hook Proving Ground (1874 – 1919) 

The U.S. government was becoming increasingly aware of the way in which rapid advances in 

technology, due largely to the Industrial Revolution, were affecting all areas of the military, 

especially ordnance. In August 1874, the U.S. Army Ordnance Department took the initial 

steps to establish the Sandy Hook Proving Ground. Colonel S. Crispin, Commanding Officer 

of the U.S. Ordnance Agency and New York Arsenal, sent a letter dated August 3, 1874, to 

General S.V. Benet, Chief of Ordnance, Washington, D.C., submitting estimates for funds for 

the erection of “suitable (temporary) appointments for experimental and proof ground for 

heavy ordnance at Sandy Hook, N.J.” 32 The letter called for four wooden platforms, one 

“proof butt,” a building for a chronoscope, wires and other apparatus, and two wooden 

casemates for covering guns, for a total of $4,000. The Sandy Hook peninsula was chosen as a 

favorable site because “ranges from 1,500 to 2,000 yards can readily be obtained in this 

 28 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 6. 29 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defense, pp. 1-8. 30 Naomi D. Kroll and Sharon K. Ofenstein, Historic Structure Report, Building 25, Enlisted Men’s 

Barracks, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area (Lowell, 

MA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region, Building Conservation 

Branch, February 2002), p. 17. 31 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 2. 32 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

26 

reservation; and if deemed important, these distances can be considerably extended within 

the limits of the reservation.”33 Plans were approved, and in late October of the same year, 

the first round was fired from the temporary proof battery. 

By the mid-1880s, Congress realized that other countries were also benefiting from the 

technical revolution, and were improving their military capabilities, as well. Large 

expenditures quickly began to be appropriated for the state-of-the-art rifled artillery to be 

emplaced in the nation’s coastal defense structures. The role of the Sandy Hook Proving 

Ground in this effort can not be overestimated, since it was here that all of the experiments 

for artillery for seacoast defenses took place. As stated by Edwin C. Bearss in his Historic 

Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Proving Ground, 1874 – 1919: 

After a model had been accepted by the Ordnance Board and placed in 

production, all the guns and carriages manufactured by the Army Gun 

Factory, other arsenals, or private contractors were shipped to Sandy 

Hook to be proof fired before being sent to the site where they were to 

be emplaced.34

By 1917, the suitability of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground was declining, for reasons stated 

by one Colonel Ruggles in a letter to Chief of Ordnance Crozier: “(a) danger to personnel and 

property at Fort Hancock; (b) limitations on tests imposed by a restricted beach range; (c) 

impossibility of using planes of fire segmented by 180 degrees; (d) interference with fire to the 

seaward by fog, hog [?], and shipping; (e) unavailability for use in event of war with a major 

naval power; and (f) expense of prosecuting work during inclement weather because of 

interruptions to outside work necessitated by the severe winters.”35 Therefore, in 1919, the 

Sandy Hook Proving Ground began to be phased out, and the program was soon relocated to 

the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. 

Modern Era of Coastal Defense (1890 – 1909)

National Trends 

Endicott System (1890 – 1905) 

Concern over the deteriorating conditions of existing fortifications caused alarm among 

many, both in Congress and in the armed forces. Therefore, in 1885 President Grover 

Cleveland assembled a special board to assess the state of our nation’s coastal defenses, and 

to make recommendations for their improvement, specifically in response to newly 

developed weapons. The board was headed by William C. Endicott, Cleveland’s first 

Secretary of War, and was known as the Endicott Board. In 1886, this board called for a 

 33 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 34 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 1. 35 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 257. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

27 

substantial number of new defensive works, armed with the newly developed weapons. This 

program was called the Endicott System, and its first works were begun in the early 1890s.36

Continuing with the trend that the post-Civil War period had begun, the Endicott System was 

largely characterized by a number of smaller, detached batteries, as opposed to the 

construction of large fortifications. Unlike the design and construction of the fortifications 

of the Third System defenses, the structures of the Endicott System were built of reinforced 

concrete, and were blended into the surrounding topography as much as possible by being 

built partially behind large parapets of earth (fig.7). However, the most radical change that 

occurred in the Endicott period was not in the physical construction of the structures, but 

rather in the armament and weaponry contained therein.37

One major advancement in weaponry during this system was the manufacturing of steel for 

iron in gun manufacturing, which allowed for the production of lighter, stronger, longer, and 

more powerful guns. Another significant development during the Endicott System was the 

introduction of breech-loading weaponry. Breech-loading allowed the first complete 

utilization of rifling, which permitted the manufacturing of extremely sophisticated and 

powerful guns. This advancement allowed guns to be mounted on a new type of gun carriage 

that would lower the gun on the recoil energy of the gun’s firing. The gun would then 

disappear behind the wall from which it was mounted, permitting reloading by men both 

quickly and safely from behind the battery wall. This weaponry produced in the early 1890s 

was four times as heavy, and could fire distances two to three times as great, as previous 

armament; it was second to none in both its power and accuracy.38

Taft System (1905 – 1910) 

A similar group to the Endicott Board was convened in 1905 by President Roosevelt to review 

the Endicott Board’s program and bring it up to date. The chairman of the board was 

William Howard Taft, President Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, so it was known as the Taft 

Board. Unlike that of the previous systems, the Taft Board did not focus on the fortifications 

or its armament, but rather on accessory harbor defense equipment. Although the Taft 

Board proposed new defenses for a few neglected U.S. harbors, and extensive new 

construction for America’s newly acquired foreign possessions such as the Philippine Islands, 

the board did not propose as much new domestic construction as did previous boards. The 

board’s most significant contribution was the acceleration of the modernization of the 

projects that had been initiated by the Endicott Board. 

 36 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 77. 37 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 78. 38 Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications, p. 75. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

28 

Coastal Defenses of Sandy Hook and 

the Establishment of Fort Hancock 

Corps of Engineers 

A U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Office responsible for the fortification of New York Harbor 

was extant in New York City as early as 1843. From 1866 to 1910, the New York Engineer 

Office had management and command over the river and harbor fortification work in New 

York City, the southern shore of Long Island Sound, and northeastern New Jersey (the Sandy 

Hook vicinity). In the 1890s, three distinct groups of Engineer projects began to form within 

the district: New York River and harbor projects, the harbor and fortifications of New York 

City, and river and harbor projects in New Jersey. Formally recognized in 1911, these three 

distinct groups became known as New York Districts 1, 2, and 3, and they supervised all 

harbor fortification projects in New York State, New York City, and New Jersey.39

Coastal Defenses of Sandy Hook 

Battery Potter (Constructed 1891 – 1895) 

One of the most significant structures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built on the 

Sandy Hook peninsula was Battery Potter, the first and only Endicott emplacement of its type 

to be constructed and armed. Construction plans for Battery Potter were begun in fiscal year 

1890 by Brig. Gen. J.C. Duane, and were later modified by Col. Henry C. Abbott. The Board 

of Engineers’ estimated cost of this project was projected to be $457,530, which included the 

cost of both the masonry and sand and two immense hydraulic gun-lift mechanisms. The 

estimated cost did not include the two 12-inch rifles to be loaded onto the gun-lift 

mechanisms. A site was selected for this new gun-lift battery by Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie; 

it was located about 1,000 feet south of the southeast bastion of the old fort.40

Funds were drawn from allocations made both August 18, 1890, and February 24, 1891, for a 

total of $283,000 to cover the expense of the masonry. The gun-lift mechanism was funded 

by the Armament of Fortifications allocation made on September 22, 1888, for $112,500. The 

construction plant was in position by the fall of 1890, and ground was broken in January 

1891. Brig. General Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers, gave clear instructions to Gillespie 

“to build the northern half of the battery only.” Work progressed at a steady pace, and by 

June 30 of the same year, foundations for the north half of the battery and most of the south 

half were completed. The materials were purchased under contractual agreements, and the 

work was completed by hired day labor.41

 39 Finding Aid; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY), p. 20. 

40 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 86. 41 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 87-89. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

29 

Unique to the construction of this gun-lift battery was its massive “defensible entrance.” 

Plans were submitted by Lt. Col. Gillespie to the department and reviewed by Chief Engineer 

Casey (fig. 8). Casey recommended that a defense of the entire flank of the battery be 

considered, not just the entrance. Both Gillespie and his assistant 1st Lt. James G. Warren 

investigated this idea of a complete flank defense, and concluded that it was not possible due 

to both the position and trace of the battery. However, they did find that a chemin de ronde

would provide a suitable defense of both the entrance and sides of the battery.42 A chemin de 

ronde is “a sentry path or a passage around the revetment of a rampart which was provided 

with a small parapet.” The position was used by soldiers keeping an eye on the glacis so as to 

prevent the placement of scaling ladders by the enemy. Both Gillespie and Warren felt that if 

a chemin de ronde was placed on the curved part of the battery located on the superior slope, 

the battery would be provided with a sufficient defense. However, its usefulness was later 

negated by its susceptibility to artillery fire.43 Instead, the “defensible entrance” was built 

with two towers using the old granite blocks from the Civil War-era “Fort at Sandy Hook” 

(fig. 9). In July 1898, three months after the United States declared war on Spain, three 

Gatling guns were mounted within the “defensible entrance” – one in the center of the two 

towers, and one on each side of the towers44

Lt. Col. Gillespie was very pleased at both the pace with which the work was proceeding and 

the quality of the work. His next order of business was to devise a suitable lighting system for 

the interior of the battery. He received permission from Chief Engineer Casey to construct 

an electric light plant, similar to those used on the nation’s modern warships. Gillespie 

contracted with General Electric Company on November 23, 1892, for the installation of the 

lighting plant. The estimate for this plant was $3,788; it was accepted on March 10, 1893.45

With the majority of the construction completed and the electric plant approved, the rifle for 

the north gun emplacement was ready to be emplaced. The north rifle, Model No. 1888, No. 

11, weighing 52 tons, was placed on its gun carriage on August 29, 1892, and raised to its firing 

position by the hydraulic lift (fig. 10). With the loading of this north rifle, the gun-lift battery 

became the first Endicott emplacement to be partially armed. Test-firing began on 

September 12, 1892, in the presence of a Special Board of Engineers. Testing continued 

through May 31, 1893, with a total of 24 rounds being fired. the testing included not only the 

gun and the operation of the gun-lift mechanism, but also the amount of stress on the 

structure itself. The testing illustrated the immense stability of the structure, with only a few 

minor changes needing to be made.46

Gillespie, confident with the successful test firing of the north rifle on the north gun-lift 

emplacement, made an allotment on January 26, 1893, of $63,000 from the appropriations of 

February 24, 1891, and July 23, 1892, for the construction of the south gun lift. It was hoped 

that this south rifle would be emplaced by the fall of 1894. The north carriage and rifle were 

temporarily transferred to the south side of the battery in order to test the south gun-lift 

mechanism. Nine rounds were fired during the test. The carriage for the south gun-lift was 

 42 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 95. 43 A Dictionary of Military Architecture Fortification and Fieldworks from the Iron Age to the 

Eighteenth Century (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/madict. html#Cheminderonde). 

44 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 115. 45 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 95. 46 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 106 – 107. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

30 

delivered by the Ordnance Department on May 17, 1895. Gun Model 1888, No. 12, was 

mounted on June 5, 1895, thus completing the construction and armament of the gun-lift 

battery. A final test for rapidity of fire on both the north and south guns was made by the 

Ordnance Department on August 7, 1895. The battery was transferred to the Artillery Corps 

by Lt. Col. Gillespie on March 22, 1898, one month before the onset of the Spanish-American 

War.47

The gun-lift battery was finally named on May 25, 1903, as Battery Potter, in honor of Brig. 

Gen. Joseph H. Potter. Potter had graduated from the U.S. Military Academy as 23rd in the 

class of 1843. Potter was commissioned a brevet 2nd lieutenant and assigned to the 1st U.S. 

Infantry, posted to Fort Des Moines. During the Mexican War, Potter was transferred to the 

7th U.S. Infantry in the autumn of 1845. As a member of the Mormon expedition, Potter 

spent the next 12 years at several posts on the Arkansas-Indian Territory frontier. Potter 

served as captain at Fort McLane during the Civil War. He was then promoted to brigadier 

general on April 1, 1886, and he retired on October 12, 1886.48

Despite its distinction of being the earliest Endicott emplacement of its type ready for service, 

Battery Potter’s technology nevertheless soon became obsolete. It was determined that the 

hydro-pneumatic gun-lift mechanism was not as efficient as the newly developed 

counterweight system used by the Buffington-Crozier disappearing carriage. Discussion on 

disarming Battery Potter commenced on May 13, 1904, between Lt. Col. William Marshall 

and Fort Hancock commander Lt. Col. Peter Leary. As a result of their conversation, several 

disadvantages and advantages were identified pertaining to Battery Potter. A major 

disadvantage was that only one civilian engineer understood the operation of the battery and 

the guns, whereas this process needed to be understood by all artillerists at the post. 

However, a major advantage to Battery Potter was that it was the only Endicott emplacement 

at the post to have an unlimited field of fire. In addition, the gun-lift mechanism had only 

been out of order once in 11 years. If Battery Potter was to be disarmed, it was agreed that 

Endicott battery would be used as a location for primary range- and position-finding 

stations.49

Thus, a building housing two primary fire-control stations – serving Batteries McCook and 

Reynolds – was built on top of Battery Potter during the late spring and summer of 1905. The 

wooden building was positioned on the southeast corner of the battery’s terreplein. On July 

29, 1906, it was officially decided to disarm Battery Potter, and to use the emplacement for 

additional range- and position-finding stations. In mid-August, the two 12-inch rifles were 

removed from the north and south gun-lifts and transferred to the commanding officer of the 

Sandy Hook Proving Ground. Construction of new concrete range- and position-finding 

stations on the old emplacement began in the spring of 1907, supervised by Assistant 

Engineer Lt. Hurlbut. By November 15, Lt. Col. Marshall reported to Chief Engineer 

MacKenzie that seven primary fire-control stations and one secondary station had been 

completed.50 Two primary stations were housed in one building, and five primary stations 

were located in the other building. 

 47 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 108-115. 48 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 117-118. 49 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 128. 50 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 141-145. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

31 

During the 1920s and 1930s, all nine fire-control stations became obsolete – some because the 

batteries they served were disarmed, some because newer stations were built elsewhere. 

During World War II, the two stations in the 1905 wooden building became an advanced 

Harbor Entrance Control Post. The two stations in the 1907 duplex building were converted 

into a signal station and a meteorological station, respectively. The five stations in the other 

1907 building became a Group Command Post and Observation Post.51

Battery Potter’s significance to not only Fort Hancock, but also U.S. military history, can not 

be overstated. Battery Potter earned the distinction of being the first Endicott emplacement 

to be constructed and armed. Even though the technology of Battery Potter’s gun-lift 

mechanism was rendered obsolete not long after its construction, it set the stage for the 

multitude of the other Endicott emplacements the United States would begin to construct to 

defend our coastal shores. 

Mortar Battery (Constructed 1890 – 1894) 

The Mortar Battery was likewise a very significant structure, being one of the first Endicott 

System mortar batteries to be constructed, armed, and test-fired. It was the prototype on 

which other mortar batteries in the United States were modeled for the next 28 years. On 

September 20, 1888, the Board of Engineers approved plans and detailed specifications for 

the construction of the battery; Chief Engineer Casey made an allotment of $201,000 on 

August 18, 1890, for the construction of a 16-gun mortar battery. The Engineer Board also 

designated the site selection for the Mortar Battery to be located southeast of and adjacent to 

the Sandy Hook Lighthouse.52

Construction, overseen by Lt. Col. Gillespie and his assistant 1st Lt. Harry Taylor, 

commenced in November 1890. As with battery Potter, it proceeded by hired labor, with the 

construction materials purchased under contractual agreements. The first order of business 

was to excavate the site; this was completed by June 30, 1891. By June 30, 1892, 55% of the 

masonry work was completed (fig. 11); and by June 30, 1894, most of the construction was 

complete in all four pits, and all but one mortar in the southwest pit was mounted.53 The total 

cost of the construction of the battery, including the plant for construction, the battery itself, 

and platforms for 16 carriages, was $269,752.67, as stated in Lt. Col. Gillespie’s completion 

report on May 7, 1895. Gillespie also included in the completion report the total cost of the 

armament – 16 cast-iron mortars and 16 mortar carriages – to be $264,000.54

The first gun to be test-fired took place on June 22, 1894, on the southeast mortar in the 

northeast pit. As at Battery Potter, the mortar itself, its carriage, and its platform were being 

tested, along with the effect of the blasts upon the firing pit’s vertical walls and interior 

slopes. The test included five rounds of firing with the mortar elevated at a 45-degree angle, 

and the direction of fire being south 60 degrees east. The Mortar Battery was the first 

Endicott emplacement of this type to be completed, and to have its ordnance fired and tested, 

marking a significant moment in military history. By November 25, 1894, the last mortar in 

 51 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 159. 52 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 161. 53 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 161 -163. 54 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 179. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

32 

the southwest mortar pit was emplaced and the proof-firing of each mortar was completed. 

The final battery firing took place on April 11, 1895. 55

General Order No. 78, issued by the War Department in 1903, designated the Mortar Battery 

as Battery Reynolds, in honor of Major General John F. Reynolds, an honored military figure. 

Reynolds was a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, and had served with the 3rd Artillery 

in the Mexican War. Reynolds went on to serve as major general of volunteers, commanding 

the I Corps in the Army of the Potomac during the Civil War. On July 1, 1863, Reynolds was 

killed at Gettysburg while leading his troops. 

In 1906, the mortar battery was divided into two separate commands. The southeast half of 

the battery remained Battery Reynolds, while the northeast half was designated Battery 

McCook, after Alexander McCook. McCook graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 

1852; he was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in the 3rd U.S. Infantry, and by 1861 he was an 

instructor of tactics at West Point. In 1862, McCook became a major general in the Army of 

Ohio, leading a corps of soldiers. McCook was promoted to lieutenant colonel of the 26th

U.S. Infantry, and continued to serve in the U.S. Army until 1895, when he retired as a major 

general. McCook died in June 1903 in Dayton, Ohio. 56

A new emplacement for a four-gun mortar battery was constructed on the Navesink 

Highlands during World War I. Four 12-inch mortars were removed from Batteries 

Reynolds and McCook and transferred to the new emplacement in the summer of 1917. 

Batteries Reynolds and McCook were declared obsolete in 1919; their remaining mortars 

were removed in 1920 and sold as salvage. However, the battery emplacement remained, and 

the Army saw new uses for it. On April 6, 1921, the Chief of Engineers allocated $20,000 to 

construct a “protected fire control switchboard room” in the longitudinal gallery of the 

battery; this was completed by the summer of 1922. During 1940-1941, the Harbor Defense 

Command Post (HDCP) was installed in the unoccupied bombproof magazines and 

galleries.57

Establishment of Fort Hancock (1895) 

As evidenced by the construction of both the Mortar Battery and Battery Potter, the Sandy 

Hook peninsula was home to some of the nation’s most advanced military artillery and 

technology. It was apparent by 1895 that an official fort needed to be established. Fort 

Hancock was designated by a general order signed by the Secretary of the War Department 

on October 30, 1895. Fort Hancock was named in honor of Major General Winfield Scott 

Hancock, a contemporary military figure best known for his leadership during the Civil War 

(fig. 12).58 The Sandy Hook Proving Ground , which had existed on the southern half of the 

peninsula for almost 21 years (since 1874), would continue to be operated by the Ordnance 

 55 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 177 – 178. 56 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 183. 57 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 192-195. 58 Judith Q. Sullivan, Building 32, Quartermaster’s Storehouse, Historic Structure Report, Fort 

Hancock, New Jersey, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area (Lowell, MA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region, Historic Architecture Program, 

2004), p. 19. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

33 

Department. Fort Hancock, which was to be located on the northern half of the peninsula, 

was to be operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Artillery, independent of the Proving Ground. 

To ensure that each facility remained independent, each had its own commanding officer.59

Plans and site selection for the new fort were the responsibility of the Office of the 

Quartermaster General. In May 1896, Captain Arthur Murray – under the authority of the 

Quartermaster General’s Office – selected the new site. His plans, which included both a 

central and secondary parade ground juxtaposed to one another, were greatly influenced by 

the architectural firm of John M. Carrere and Thomas Hastings. Plans were approved by 

Secretary of War Lamont for a total of $339,600 for both site preparation and construction. 

The initial plans called for the construction of 32 permanent buildings for the post, including 

barracks, officers’ quarters, storehouses, a hospital, a guardhouse, and an administration 

building. Work was scheduled to begin March 1, 1897; however, due to delays in contracting 

the work and difficulty in receiving materials, work was eight months overdue by the spring 

of 1898. By September 27, 1898, seven of the 32 originally contracted buildings were 

complete and officially accepted at the post. Sixteen additional buildings were complete, 

seven near completion, and nine were half-finished by January 25, 1899. By September 1899, 

all of the 32 structures had been officially accepted at Fort Hancock – almost two years 

overdue (fig. 13).60

The main function of the fort in its early years was to provide coastal artillery defense and the 

training of the troops assigned to these defenses. Between the years of 1900 – 1914, an 

additional 25 buildings were added to the post, which garrisoned four to six companies of 

U.S. Coast Artillery responsible for the care, maintenance, and operation of the land and 

coastal fortifications, including those of the submarine mine and torpedo defenses.61

Two Separate Operations: Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground 

As previously mentioned, Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground operated 

under two separate divisions of the U.S. Army, and were run by two different commanding 

officers. Fort Hancock operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Artillery, and 

the Proving Ground operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Ordnance Department. 

As logical as this division was, conflict between the two operations was unavoidable. A letter 

from the Chief of Ordnance to the Commanding Officer of Fort Hancock dated December 

11, 1901, stated that the “Proving Ground should be considered a permanent establishment 

and requested that correspondence be sent back indicating the clear demarcation of Proving 

Ground property and the buildings thereon as well as any future buildings that will be 

constructed.”62 A response letter was sent on December 30, 1901, that included a map 

showing clear lines of demarcation between the Proving Ground and Fort Hancock. In the 

commanding officer’s response, he concurred that these two operations should remain 

separate and run as independent from one another as possible. A statement dated January 

19, 1900, from the Board of Ordnance concurred with the Commanding Officer’s drawings.63

 59 Sullivan, Building 32, p. 18. 60 Sullivan, Building 32, pp. 21-25. 61 Sullivan, Building 32, p. 26. 62 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 63 “History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

34 

Battery Gunnison (Constructed 1898, 1903 – 1907) 

On April 25, 1898, $16,000 was allocated by Chief Engineer Wilson for construction of a gun 

battery to that would mount two 6-inch rapid-fire guns on the Sandy Hook peninsula. A site 

was selected, and work began in July of the same year. A temporary suspension of the work 

was ordered by Chief Engineer Wilson on August 8, since it was discovered that the selected 

site for the new battery interfered with operations at the Proving Ground. At this time 

approximately one-third of the concrete work was complete. Wilson transferred the balance 

of the monies that were originally allocated for this project to another project.64

Five years later, in April 1903, the project resumed, and plans for a rapid-fire gun battery 

were drawn up by Major Marshall’s department. Marshall felt strongly that the battery 

should be constructed southeast of the originally selected site, so that it would be positioned 

to command the southern approach to Sandy Hook. This would also solve the problem of 

the new battery interfering with the Proving Ground. Plans were submitted by Marshall on 

August 2, 1903, with a cost estimate of $45,000.65

The construction plant was positioned in March 1904, and by June of the same year it was 

apparent to Marshall that he had underestimated the cost of construction. He alerted the 

department that the project would require another $20,000, which was approved by General 

Mackenzie, who had replaced Gillespie as Chief Engineer. The construction of the 

emplacements was complete by the autumn of 1904 and ready to be armed. In January 1905, 

a 6-inch gun (Model 1903, Serial No. 5) on a disappearing carriage (Model 1903, Serial No. 

52) was placed on top of emplacement number one. Emplacement number two also received 

a 6-inch gun (Model 1903, Serial No. 34) on a disappearing carriage (Model 1903, Serial No. 

57 (fig. 14). The battery was now completed, and on December 5, 1905, Marshall conducted 

a final inspection and then officially transferred the battery to the Coast Artillery.66

By a General Order issued by the War Department on December 27, 1904, the rapid-fire gun 

battery was named Battery Gunnison, in honor of John W. Gunnison. John W. Gunnison 

was from New Hampshire, and graduated second in the class of 1837 from the U.S. Military 

Academy. Gunnison had a successful career in the military, eventually earning the rank of 

captain in 1853. He was killed by Indians near Sevier Lake, Utah Territory, on October 26, 

1853, while in charge of a survey party mapping a central route for a railroad to Pacific 

Coast.67

Starting in 1908, several changes and improvements were made to Battery Gunnison. One of 

the guns was temporarily removed from one of the emplacements to allow a niche to be cut in 

the emplacement wall to house a terminal booth. In 1909, a plotting room was constructed 

below the battery commander’s station. In 1918, Battery Gunnison was assigned to the Mine 

Command of the Sandy Hook Defenses, and this remained the battery’s main mission 

through the 1930s, while its secondary purpose was to defend New York Harbor against 

enemy naval attack. Considering the altered role that Battery Gunnison now filled, the 

armament mounted on the battery was not ideal for this new function. The disappearing 

 64 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 336. 65 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 337. 66 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 338-339. 67 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 339. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

35 

rapid-fire guns had a limited field of fire, and the guns could not be served very quickly. It 

was decided that the guns should be removed and replaced by guns en barbette, specifically 

those located on top of Battery Peck. The disappearing guns and carriages were removed on 

May 10, 1943, and during the same month the additional improvements and modernizing of 

the battery were completed. Because Battery Gunnison now emplaced the en barbette guns 

from Battery Peck, the emplacements then became known as New Battery Peck. In 1948, 

these guns were removed and were replaced by two 6-inch guns, Nos. 22 and 23, which had 

been transferred from Fort Hamilton’s Battery Livingston. These guns remained in place 

until the 1960s, but were soon removed thereafter and transferred to the Smithsonian 

Institution’s Silver Hill in Maryland.68

Other Batteries at Fort Hancock (1896 – 1909) 

Although both Battery Potter and the Mortar Battery were outstanding in their significance 

as the first Endicott emplacements of their type, several additional emplacement were 

constructed at Fort Hancock between the years of 1890 and 1910 (fig. 15). These 

emplacements were a direct result of the Endicott Board recommendations that outlined the 

implementation of high-powered and rapid-fire guns and mortars, underwater mine fields, 

concrete batteries, and dynamite guns. Between the years of 1896 and 1909, 11 batteries were 

constructed at Fort Hancock, including Batteries Alexander, Bloomfield, Richardson, 

Granger, Halleck, Arrowsmith, Engle, Urmston, Peck, Morris, and Gunnison. 

World War I to Deactivation (1917 – 1974)

World War I Era 

During World War I (1917 – 1918), Fort Hancock played a very active role as a training 

facility for troops bound for Europe – specifically as a training base for artillery units before 

they were sent to France. The population at the post swelled, necessitating the construction 

of temporary wooden cantonments. At the height of the war, Fort Hancock’s population 

reached 4, 043. When the war ended in November 1918, Fort Hancock’s troops started to 

demobilize, with the population falling to 2,324; by June 1919, the population had fallen to 

370, which included eight officers and 362 men comprising four companies. The temporary 

cantonments were demolished, and the activity level at Fort Hancock was considerably 

reduced. This was evidenced by the small population at the post during the 1920s and 1930s, 

which fluctuated between 300 and 700 men, and the construction of only seven buildings.69 

The Sandy Hook Proving Ground was deactivated in 1919, with its role transferred to 

Aberdeen, Maryland. 

 68 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 340-342. Silver Hill is the Smithsonian’s restoration and 

storage facility for historically significant air and space craft. 69 Sullivan, Building 32, pp. 26-27. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

36 

World War II Era 

With the advent of World War II (1941 – 1945), America’s focus turned to the defense of its 

major metropolitan ports and cities by way of coastal and antiaircraft defense. Fort Hancock 

(fig. 16) joined what was known as the Joint Defense Plan, under which it had the mission of 

“maintaining a close surveillance of all beaches, resisting hostile landings, providing 

antiaircraft defense, and establishing a liaison between all elements of the command – the 

navy and units in adjacent subsectors.”70 During this time, Fort Hancock also served as a 

training base for forces to be sent oversees, so its population skyrocketed once again. The 

population fluctuated between 7,000 and 12,000 military and civilian personnel between the 

years of 1942-1943. To accommodate such a large number of people, many temporary 

structures were constructed, including barracks, mess halls, latrines, recreation halls, 

infirmaries, nurses’ quarters, garages, and warehouses. This great swell of population was 

short-lived, as the Allies went on the offensive during 1943. Preparations began for the 

invasion of Europe in 1944, and large numbers of Fort Hancock personnel were transferred. 

By March 1944, the number of troops assigned to Fort Hancock was reduced to 2,010 people, 

which included 71 officers, 22 warrant officers, and 1,917 enlisted men.71

Korean War Era 

Fort Hancock and its coastal defense structures became obsolete following World War II, 

due to a drastic decline in defense spending, and the United States’ military shift from highpowered guns to innovations in both air power and radar. Fort Hancock was deactivated on 

June 25, 1950, but the crew of the Sandy Hook Coast Guard Station and the keeper of the 

Sandy Hook Lighthouse were retained. With the advent of the Korean War (1950 – 1954), 

Fort Hancock was reactivated to provide antiaircraft defense for the New York metropolis. 

Cold War Era 

Soon after the war ended, Fort Hancock was again deactivated on May 1, 1953. However, the 

1225th Army Service Unit remained there to provide both logistical and administrative 

support to the remaining radar and antiaircraft installations at Fort Hancock. Late in World 

War II, it became evident that current antiaircraft defenses were not adequate to defend 

against high-flying bombers. Consequently, planning was begun for a new type of surface-toair missile, known as a Nike missile. The first Nike missile was known as the Nike Ajax 

missile; it was capable of maximum speeds of more than 1,600 mph, and could reach targets 

at altitudes of up to 70,000 feet (fig. 17).72 In1954 the antiaircraft guns at Fort Hancock were 

 70 Sullivan, Building 32, p. 27. 71 Sullivan, Building 32, p. 27. 72 Donald E. Bender, “The Nike Missile System, A Concise Historical Overview” 

(http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/N-view.html). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

37 

replaced by Nike Ajax surface-to-air missiles, and Fort Hancock was reactivated once again 

on July 1, 1956. 

A second generation of Nike missiles was developed and became known as the Nike Hercules 

missile (fig. 18). The Nike Hercules missile had improved speed, range, and altitude, as well 

as the capability to be armed with a powerful atomic warhead to ensure the destruction of a 

target aircraft.73 Although this missile remained in active use until 1974, it was largely 

obsolete by the late 1960s. By 1956, the number of soldiers stationed at Fort Hancock totaled 

1,375, including antiaircraft missile battalions, military police, radar signal detachments, and 

the 1225th Army Service Unit. 

President Nixon authorized the establishment of Gateway National Recreation Area on 

October 27, 1972, which included Fort Hancock. The tenants remaining at Fort Hancock 

included the U.S Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy Reserve, a First Army Recreation Area, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, and the Electronics Support Command. On December 31, 1974, 

Fort Hancock was officially deactivated and transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department 

of the Interior on January 1, 1975. 74

 73 Bender, “The Nike Missile System.” 

74 Sullivan, Building 32, pp. 29-30. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

38 

Figure 1. 

Map of Gateway National 

Recreation Area (left) and 

detail of the Sandy Hook 

Unit (right). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

39 

Figure 2. Fort McHenry (circa 1800): example of a First American System 

fortification. 

Figure 3. Castle Williams (constructed 1807 – 1811): example of a 

Second American System fortification, showing the three levels of 

casemated gun emplacements unique to this system of 

fortifications. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

40 

Figure 4. Plan of Fort Gates (constructed ca. 1812); structure was built of wood and located 

about half a mile north of the Sandy Hook Lighthouse. Fort Gates was the most noteworthy structure built during the War of 1812, and was constructed to 

deter the British from using Sandy Hook as a staging area from 

which they could attack New York City. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

41 

Figure 5. Aerial view of Fort Monroe, located in Hampton, VA. Fort Monroe was the first work of the 

Third System planned in its entirety, unlike other Third System fortifications that were 

adaptations of earlier fortifications from previous systems. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

42 

Figure 6. “Fort at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Plan of main work and elevation of scarp wall, showing condition of 

work on June 30, 1869. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

43 

Figure 7. Battery Elon Farnsworth (constructed 1898): example of an Endicott System defense work. View is looking southeast, 

showing the rear of the battery and its two gun emplacements. Note that the battery is constructed of reinforced concrete, and is 

built into the surrounding topography, partially behind a large parapet of earth for disguise on the seaward front. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

44 

Figure 8. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1 for two 12-inch rifled guns at Sandy Hook, 

N.J. Isometric view showing condition of work June 30, 1895.” 

Figure 9. Detail elevation of “defensible entrance.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

45 

Figure 10. Battery Potter (constructed 1891 – 1895): north pit, showing 12-inch rifle upon its carriage 

and raised into firing position on a hydraulic lift elevator, August 29, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

46 

Figure 11. Mortar Battery (constructed 1890 – 1894): photograph taken circa 1893, showing the 

excavation and construction of one of the four firing pits. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

47 

Figure 12. Major General Winfield Scott Hancock (1824-1886). 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

48 

Figure 13. Map of Fort Hancock circa 1900, showing buildings constructed. Drawn by J.M. Milton, 

Quartermaster General’s Office. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

49 

Figure 14. Battery Gunnison (constructed 1898, 1903 – 1907), showing the northern of two 6-inch 

counterweight guns (Model 1903, Serial No. 34) originally installed on a disappearing 

carriage (Model 1903, Serial No. 57). Photograph taken 1937. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

50 

Figure 15. Map of Sandy Hook Defenses, 1910. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:GENERAL

51 

Figure 16. Detail of Sandy Hook Defenses during World War II. From “Harbor Defenses of New York, Military Reservation, 

Location of Fortification Structures, General Map, Fort Hancock, New Jersey. U.S. Engineer Office, New York District, 

New York, N.Y. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: GENERAL

52 

Figure 17. Image of Nike-Ajax missile similar to those that replaced the 

antiaircraft guns at Fort Hancock in 1954. 

Figure 18. Image of Nike Hercules missile, the second-generation Nike 

missile used at Fort Hancock; it remained in active use until 1974, 

becoming largely obsolete by the 1960s. 
53 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY:

BATTERY POTTER

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

55

CHRONOLOGY OF 

DEVELOPMENT AND USE 

Introduction

The construction of Battery Potter is extremely interesting from several points of view. As 

previously discussed, Potter was the first and only hydraulic gun-lift battery to be completed 

under the Endicott System. Thus, the work at Battery Potter was setting the precedent for 

other batteries of its type. Research of the construction of this emplacement also revealed 

the role of the Corps of Engineers with respect to the construction of concrete defenses, as 

well as how the construction of this particular emplacement adapted to the changes in 

technology of the period. One aspect that was unique to Sandy Hook was the coordination of 

the Corps of Engineers with the Ordnance Department at the Sandy Hook Proving Ground. 

All of these factors, as well as others, make the history of Battery Potter one of great interest 

and national significance. 

The subsequent sections on the development and use of Battery Potter discuss the history of 

the structure from planning and construction to present condition.1

 Previous reports, 

specifically those by Edwin Bearss, cover some of the same information, as well as additional 

details; these should be consulted in addition to this report. Research for this report 

uncovered detailed reports on the construction of Battery Potter, as well as correspondence 

between the important parties in the planning and construction of the battery. Annual 

reports from important years of the construction phase and completion reports from 1895 

are included as appendices to this report. Detailed specifications for the mechanism for the 

hydraulic gun-lift written by 2nd Lt. Robert McGregor are included under separate cover with 

this report, as are 10 sheets of completion drawings for Battery Potter dated 1894. These 

reports and drawings should prove as useful to the reader as they were to the author. 

Battery Potter – Construction

Planning 

The Endicott Report heralded a new era in the construction of seacoast and harbor defenses. 

A significant part of defending the United States was the defense of large metropolitan areas, 

 1

 Note that the descriptions of the construction and original appearance of Battery Potter will often 

use reference marks as a means of measurement. The reference mark is given relative to the mean low 

water line, which was 0 as defined in the documentation by the Corps of Engineers. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

56

which included New York City. Sandy Hook had always played an important role in the 

defense of New York Harbor, and was to be part of the new system envisioned by the 

Secretary of War William C. Endicott and the crafters of the Endicott Report. 

Preparation of the Endicott System fortifications began soon after Congress decided to act on 

the findings of the Endicott Board. The Board of Engineers began planning emplacements at 

Sandy Hook for the defense of New York Harbor in 1887. 

Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, submitted plans and estimates for 

the gun-lift battery at Sandy Hook to the Chief of Engineers on May 27, 1890 (fig. 19). Lt. 

Col. Gillespie’s initial estimate for Battery Potter was $418,000 for two guns, or $221,000 for 

one gun.2

While the Board of Engineers was reviewing the plans for the gun-lift battery and making 

preparations for other coastal defense systems, Congress continued to allot funds for 

Endicott System fortifications. Appropriations in the amount of $1,221,000 were authorized 

by the Fortifications Act of August 11, 1890. Included in this act was an allotment of $736,000 

for the defenses of New York City.3

 An Act of Congress on August 18, 1890, entitled the 

“Gun and Mortar Batteries Act,” allocated funds for the construction of the gun-lift battery at 

Sandy Hook.4

 

Chief of Engineers Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Casey notified Lt. Col. Gillespie that on September 

8, 1890, the Secretary of War had approved the construction of one 12-inch gun-lift battery at 

Sandy Hook. Another letter, dated September 13, 1890, stated that the sum of $164,000 had 

been allotted for the battery, and that Lt. Col. Gillespie would be in charge of construction.5

Changes to the original plans for the lift-gun battery allowed Lt. Col. Gillespie to reduce the 

estimated costs (see the subsequent section “Masonry Construction”). The Annual Report 

for F.Y. 1891 documented the following appropriations: 

From the appropriations of August 18, 1890, and February 24, 1891, for 

Gun and Mortar Batteries, allotments of $154,000 and $129,000, 

respectively, were made for the construction of the masonry; and from 

the appropriation of September 22, 1888, for Armament of 

Fortifications, an allotment of $112,500 was made for the construction 

of the mechanism.6

 2

 Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie to Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers, May 27, 1890; 

Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 4; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 3

 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, September 1983), p. 59. 4

 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 10, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 5; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 5

 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 25, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, pp. 7-9; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 6

 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, N.J.; 

General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

57

Preparations at Sandy Hook 

Lt. Col. Gillespie’s first task was to improve the infrastructure of Sandy Hook. In his 

correspondence with the Chief of Engineers, he stated that “Sandy Hook possesses at present 

few facilities for beginning work of this kind, and many preparatory expenditures must be 

incurred for the erection of this battery [Battery Potter], as well as for that of the proposed 

mortar battery, of which plans are now being made.”7

 Among the improvements Gillespie 

was planning to make was the extension of the wharf, and improvement of the quarters for 

housing laborers, as well as the construction of storage sheds for cement and concrete mixers 

at both Battery Potter and the Mortar Battery. The work would also require the construction 

of a railroad and purchase of a locomotive and box cars to move supplies from the wharf to 

the batteries. Lt. Col. Gillespie proposed to procure the necessary materials – which included 

large quantities of cement, broken stone, lumber, tools and other supplies – through sealed 

bids invited by public advertisement.8

 The colonel informed the Chief of Engineers: 

It is expected that all measures preparatory to construction will be 

completed, and sufficient materials of construction delivered in time to 

begin operations April 1, 1891.9

In order to achieve his goal, Lt. Col. Gillespie began by inviting bids for the railroad track, 

locomotive, and other supplies. The advertisement, which ran in the New York Tribune as 

well as other newspapers, read: 

U.S. ENGINEER OFFICE. Room 62, Army Building, New York, Oct. 

1, 1890. – Sealed proposals, in duplicate, will be received at this office 

until 12 o’clock noon, Tuesday, October 21, 1890, for the purchase of 

supplies deliverable at Sandy Hook, N. J., comprising materials for 

building one mile of railroad track; 1 narrow gauge locomotive; 12 

dump cars; 4 dumping coal tubs; 2 hoisting engines; 2 Knowles 

pressure pumps; 2 cubical concrete mixers; 25 pulley blocks and 

sheaves, and 2000 feet wire hoisting rope. The attention of bidders is 

invited to Acts of Congress approved February 26, 1885, and February 

23, 1887, vol. 23, page 332 and vol. 24 page 414, Statues at Large. For 

specifications, blank forms and all information apply to the 

undersigned. G. L. GILLESPIE, Lieut. Col. of Engineers.10

 7

 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891. 

8

 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891. 

9

 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891. 

10 New York Tribune, October 18, 1890, p. 10, col. 1. Boston Public Library, Microtext AN2 – 

N7N525, Reel 161, September – October 1890. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

58

Lt. Col. Gillespie also invited public bids for additions to the wharf on the western shore of 

Sandy Hook, known as the Engineer Dock or Wharf. Waldo Danforth of New York City was 

awarded the contract for the wharf extension for the sum of $4, 139.55.11 The project 

commenced in December 1890. When the project was completed on January 24, 1891, the 

wharf had been extended 198 feet to the west, and the final cost was $4,343.34.12

Danforth was contracted a second time to widen the bridge of the extension to the dock in 

September 1891.13 In conjunction with improvements to the wharf, a storehouse for the 

barrels of cement delivered to the wharf was completed on October 21, 1891.14 The 

storehouse was capable of holding one barge load of cement, consisting of about 1,500 

barrels.15

The wharf project included removing the existing railroad tracks, and the laying of new rails 

to better handle materials from both sides of the dock. The railway had three parallel tracks 

on the wharf, which merged at the end of the dock and then split with spurs servicing both 

battery sites as well as the Sandy Hook Proving Ground. The railroad tracks for the 

construction of the batteries, as depicted by Gillespie’s assistant 1st Lt. James G. Warren (fig. 

20) led from the wharf to the sites for Battery Potter and the Mortar Battery. 

Lt. Col. Gillespie procured from H. K. Porter & Co. Locomotive No. 20, which was a narrowgauge locomotive. On the behalf of Lt. Col. Gillespie, 1st Lt. Harry Taylor requested that H. 

K. Porter & Co. letter the cab “General Casey” and the tank “U. S. Engineer Department.”16 

The rolling stock used in the construction of the batteries included 18 rotary side dump cars 

of 3 cubic yards capacity, two rotary side dump cars of 11⁄2 cubic yards capacity, and 21 flat 

cars.17

The Concrete Plant 

Concurrent with the multitude of preparations for the construction of the batteries at Sandy 

Hook was the planning of the facilities for emplacing both Battery Potter and the Mortar 

Battery. The construction at the wharf included the erection of a storage shed and stone bins 

at the southern end of the pier. These were temporary storage sites for the materials that 

were off-loaded at the Engineer Dock. In addition, both sites required cement storage sheds, 

 11 Gillespie to Casey, Oct. 27, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 23; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 12 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, 

N.J.; General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 13 Lt. J.G. Warren to Gillespie, September 1891; Lift Gun Battery, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New 

York: United States Engineer Bureau). [Note: This is a bound volume of monthly reports from Sept. 

1891 through March 1894, sent from Sandy Hook to Col. Gillespie at the N.Y. Engineer Office.] 14 Warren to Gillespie, October 1891; Lift Gun Battery. 15 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892, p. 20; Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 

1892 - 1894, Engineer Bureau, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New York: United States Engineer Bureau). 16 1st Lt. Harry Taylor to H.K. Porter & Co., Oct. 28, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 24; Entry 815; RG 

77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 17 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892, p. 20; Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 

1892 - 1894. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

59

stone bins, and concrete mixers, as well as the laying of the rail lines for hauling the materials 

from the wharf to the site. Lt. Col. Gillespie’s monthly report to Chief of Engineers Casey for 

February 1891 reported that the railroad track to the gun-lift battery had been finished, and 

that preparations had been made for the construction of the cement shed, stone bins, and the 

mixers (fig. 21).18

The concrete plant, consisting of the cement shed, stone bin, and mixers, was complete by 

March 1891 (figs. 22 -23).19 The cement shed was a rectangular storage building measuring 

approximately 30 by 80 feet; the stone yard was an open structure adjacent to the shed that 

had trap doors set at intervals. Broken stone could be delivered through the trap doors to the 

dump cars below, which ran on the rails beneath the structure. The dump cars were then 

hauled under the mixing platform where cement, sand, and water were added to the stone. 

The concrete mixers were cubes 4 feet square, constructed of quarter- inch steel and 3-inch 

angle irons. The dry ingredients for the concrete were added to the mixer, where water was 

introduced through a hollow center shaft. The rotating hollow shaft would gradually 

introduce water while the mixer was being turned. As it turned out, Ernest L. Ransom held 

an 1884 patent (number 306522) for “manufacture of concrete,” which included a rotating 

hollow shaft. The Engineer Department was notified of the patent infringement by Mr. 

Ransom’s attorney, and Lt. Col. Gillespie arranged to pay royalties of $100 for each of the 

three mixers to Mr. Ransom.20

Lt. Warren’s map of Sandy Hook from June 1892 illustrates the location of some of these 

structures, as well as the rail line and the wharf (fig. 20). The plan of Battery Potter from that 

same month depicts the cement shed, stone bin, and mixer for the battery in more detail (fig. 

21). The operation at the Mortar Battery was similar to that at Battery Potter, except that 

Potter’s plant had twice the mixing capacity of the Mortar Battery’s. With these structures in 

place, Lt. Col. Gillespie was within his target date of April 1891 to begin construction of 

Battery Potter. 

Materials 

Lt. Col. Gillespie submitted the following advertisement inviting sealed bids for the delivery 

of natural cement and broken stone to Sandy Hook to the New York Tribune, New York 

Scientific American, and the Boston Advertiser, among others, on October 29, 1890: 

U.S. ENGINEER OFFICE. Room 62, Army Building, New York, 

October 29, 1890. – Sealed proposals, in triplicate, will be received at 

this office until 12 o’clock noon, Monday, December 1, 1890, for 

delivery at Sandy Hook, N. J., of 41,000 cubic yards of Broken Stone 

 18 Gillespie to Casey, Feb. 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 

19 Gillespie to Casey, March 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 

20 Gillespie to Casey, Dec. 6, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 65; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

60

(granite, trap or limestone) and 62,000 barrels of Rosendale Cement. 

The attention of bidders is invited to Acts of Congress approved 

February 26, 1885, and February 23, 1887, vol. 23, page 332 and vol. 24 

page 414, Statues at Large. For full information apply to G. L. 

GILLESPIE, Lieut. Col. of Engineers.21

It is interesting to note that Lt. Col. Gillespie’s specifications called for the use of “Rosendale 

Cement” in the construction of the battery. Rosendale, NY, was among the earliest areas 

mined for natural cement rock in the United States in the 1820s, and the name “Rosendale” 

was often used as a generic term to refer to natural hydraulic cement. The use of natural 

hydraulic cement had been introduced in England during the late 18th century, and deposits 

of natural hydraulic cement were first discovered in upstate New York during the 

construction of the Erie Canal.22

The manufacture of natural hydraulic cement required the mining of natural cement rocks 

(fig. 24), which were then burned in kilns to drive out the carbon dioxide contained in the 

rock. The resulting calcined lumps were then crushed into a fine powder that was stored in 

airtight, waterproof barrels.23 The properties of natural cement that made it hydraulic was 

that it could set and harden in water.24 The Consolidated Rosendale Cement Company, 

which manufactured the “Brooklyn Bridge” brand of natural hydraulic cement (fig. 25), was 

one of several companies in New York State producing natural cement during the period.25 

The Consolidated Rosendale Cement Company did submit a bid for the work at Sandy Hook, 

specifying their “Brooklyn Bridge” brand of cement, but the firm was outbid by the Lawrence 

Cement Company.26

The reasons for using natural hydraulic cement for the batteries at Sandy Hook appear to 

have been two-fold. Both economic and climactic reasons were given in a letter from 1st Lt. 

Taylor to Capt. William L. Marshall: 

All of our concrete has been made at Sandy Hook with Rosendale 

cement. By using a large proportion of cement (1: 2) we get a very good 

concrete, much cheaper than we could get an equally good concrete 

with Portland and as it is always wet or damp at Sandy Hook the 

conditions for its retaining it strength are most favorable as it has been 

deemed best to use the Rosendale.27

While a majority of the structure was constructed with concrete made with natural cement, 

Portland cement was also used in the construction of Battery Potter. Reports from the 

construction of Battery Potter indicate that both Alsen and Duryea Portland cement were 

 21 New York Tribune, November 1, 1890, page 12, column 4. Boston Public Library, Microtext AN2 

– N7N525, Reel 162, November – December 1890. 

22 Harley J. McKee, Introduction to Early American Masonry: Stone, Brick, Mortar, and Plaster

(Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1973), p. 68. 23 McKee, Early American Masonry, p. 68. 24 McKee, Early American Masonry, p. 66. 25 Edison Coatings, Inc., History of Rosendale Cement (www.rosendalecement.net).

26 Gillespie to Casey, Dec. 3, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, pp. 41-42; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 27 1st Lt. Harry Taylor to Captain W. L. Marshall, Feb. 25, 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 113; Entry 

815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

61

used in the exterior and interior for portions of the final pavement or parging.28 The 

preference for Portland cement over natural cement in certain applications was not 

specifically commented on in documents. During that time period, Portland cement was 

becoming more prevalent in concrete construction due to its greater consistency and 

strength.29 This was possibly the reason for using a mix with Portland cement in these 

vulnerable areas. However, since the cost of Portland cement was more than double that of 

natural cement, it could not have been substituted for all of the concrete production required 

for Battery Potter and the Mortar Battery. 

The Engineers did perform tests on various brands of Portland cement, and found that the 

Duryea brand had the greatest tensile strength of those tested, with a medium setting time.30 

The particular test cited by Lt. Col. Gillespie in this document did not include Alsen’s 

Portland cement. However, the F.Y. 1893 Annual Report documents the removal of concrete 

made with Duryea’s Portland cement from the superior slope of the battery. The area was 

then repaired with an application of concrete made with Alsen’s Portland cement (see the 

subsequent section “Masonry Construction”). This indicated that the Alsen’s Portland 

cement was considered a superior product, but at a cost of about 74 cents more per square 

yard than the Duryea’s, it was more economical to vary the use of both products depending 

on the application.31

The construction of Battery Potter also called for the use of granite block. The defensible 

entrance on the west elevation was to be constructed with granite block. Other sections of 

the battery that required additional strength were also planned with granite-block 

construction. The granite block used at Battery Potter was to be salvaged from the “Fort at 

Sandy Hook,” and was cut, dressed, and placed by a day-labor crew (see the subsequent 

section “Masonry Construction”). The “Fort” also provided the bluestone pavement that 

was used at the terreplein level of the battery, and for some of the interior floors. 

A large quantity of sand was required for the construction of Battery Potter. The 

composition of the concrete called for 0.37 cubic yards of sand for every cubic yard of 

concrete. The final total of sand used in the manufacture of concrete was more than 15,691 

cubic feet. In addition, 5,185 cubic yards of sand were used around the exterior of the 

battery, and sand was also used as fill in the construction of the interior. The vast amount of 

sand was excavated from nearby sand pits known as “borrow pits” and hauled to the site of 

the battery. 32 The only expense associated with this part of the operation was the cost of 

labor for excavating, hauling, and placing the sand. 

 28 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 29 McKee, p. 69. 

30 Gillespie to Maj. F. A. Mahan, Corps of Engineers, August 14, 1896; Letters Sent; Vol. V, p. 76; 

Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 31 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. Note: Cost comparison based on costs included in F.Y. 

1893 Annual Report (Appendix B). 32 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

62

Contracts for Masonry Materials 

Lt. Col. Gillespie opened the bids on December 1, 1890, and contracts were awarded to the 

low bidders. The Lawrence Cement Company was contracted to provide 62,000 barrels of 

“Hoffman” brand natural cement for $1.02 per barrel, and John A. Bouker was contracted to 

provide 41,000 cubic yards of broken granite at $1.63 per cubic yard. The materials delivered 

by the companies were used in the construction of both Battery Potter and the Mortar 

Battery.33

The annual reports from Lt. Col. Gillespie to Chief of Engineers Casey indicate that separate 

contracts were awarded for the materials slated for Battery Potter and the Mortar Battery. 

The Lawrence Cement Company was under contract to provide 31,000 barrels of Rosendale 

cement for Battery Potter and 31,000 barrels of cement for the Mortar Batteries. John A. 

Bouker was under contract to deliver 21,000 cubic yards of stone for Battery Potter and 

20,000 cubic yards of stone for the Mortar Battery. Contracts with both of these companies 

were to run from December 29, 1890, through January 1, 1892, and were then extended 

through August 1, 1892, for Lawrence and November 1, 1892, for Bouker.34

The Engineers seemed to have periodic troubles with the deliveries from Mr. Bouker. In May 

1892, Bouker was unable to deliver the required broken stone for the construction of Battery 

Potter. Not wanting to halt production, Site Engineer Lt. Warren – with the approval of Lt. 

Col. Gillespie – allowed Bouker to substitute limestone in limited quantities when granite 

trap rock was not available.35

In July 1892, Lt. Col. Gillespie called for new proposals for cement and broken stone; it 

appears that he was not completely satisfied with the materials contractors, and was perhaps 

interested in reducing costs. On July 20, 1892, Lt. Col. Gillespie opened sealed bids for 

additional masonry materials to be used at Sandy Hook. The lowest bidder in that round was 

Calvin Tompkins of New York. On July 22, Gillespie contracted with Tompkins to deliver 

25,000 barrels of “Old Newark” Rosendale cement at 93.9 cents per barrel, and 20,000 cubic 

yards of broken stone at $1.28 3⁄4 per cubic yard. In the case of Mr. Tompkins, the Engineers 

did allow the use of “Tompkins Cove Broken Bluestone (limestone).”36 With these materials, 

the work on the Sandy Hook Batteries could progress, and since the new contracts were 

cheaper, Lt. Col. Gillespie could reduce the cost of construction. 

 33 Gillespie to Casey, Dec. 1, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 42; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 34 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 35 Warren to Bouker, June 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 170; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 36 Gillespie to Calvin Tomkins, July 22, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 251; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

63

As previously discussed, Portland cement was also used in the construction of Battery Potter. 

Lt. Col. Gillespie accepted the proposal submitted by Sinclair & Babson of Boston, MA, for 

the delivery of 900 barrels of Duryea’s Brand American Portland Cement at $2.20 per barrel 

on August 4, 1892.37

Also used in the construction of Battery Potter was the large stone required as a component 

of the massive masonry walls. The low bidder for that contract was John Salterlee, whose 

proposal to deliver 5,000 tons of large stone at 79 cents per ton was accepted on March 23, 

1891.38

Masonry Construction 

Once he had the requisite approvals and some of the suppliers selected, Lt. Col. Gillespie set 

out to reconnoiter the site for the gun-lift battery. A survey of the original site determined 

that a large portion of the area consisted of a low marsh. Gillespie’s decision to move the 

battery approximately 450 feet south of the original site received the approval of both 

General Casey and the Board of Engineers in December 1890.39 The new location of the gunlift battery was about 1,100 feet south of the southeast bastion of the “Fort at Sandy Hook.”40

Soon after choosing the new location for Battery Potter, Lt. Col. Gillespie had the site cleared 

and began construction of the railroad tracks. In February 1891, he reported that 

excavations for the foundation of the battery had begun, and by March the excavation was 

nearly complete.41

Upon the satisfactory completion of the public bidding process, contracts for the masonry 

materials were awarded to Lawrence and Bouker in January 1891. Lt. Col. Gillespie 

requested that both companies commence delivery of their products on March 26, 1891.42 

The monthly report for April 1891 reported that 4,000 barrels of cement, 1,200 square yards 

of broken stone, and 300 tons of large stone were delivered and stored at Sandy Hook. Some 

1,300 cubic yards of concrete were mixed during the month of May and placed, along with 

260 cubic yards of large stone, for a total of 1,560 cubic yards of masonry in place.43 Thus the 

masonry portion of Battery Potter was begun. 

 37 Gillespie to Sinclair & Babson Co., Aug. 4, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, p. 23; Entry 815; RG 77; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 38 Gillespie to John Salterlee, March 23, 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 130; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 39 Gillespie to Casey, Dec. 19, 1890, with approval from Casey, Dec. 20, 1890, and the Board of 

Engineers, Dec. 22, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, pp. 75-77; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 

40 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892, p. 7, Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 

1892 - 1894. 41 Gillespie to Casey, Feb. & March 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 42 Gillespie to Lawrence Cement Co. & John A. Bouker, March 26, 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I; Entry 

815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 43 Gillespie to Casey, April 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

64

By the end of fiscal year 1891, all of the excavation for the north half of Battery Potter had 

been completed, and approximately 3,055 cubic yards of masonry had been placed. All 

excavation and masonry work had been done by day labor, as recommended by Lt. Col. 

Gillespie. The foundation for the accumulator well, which extended 5 feet below the water 

table, had been excavated and laid.44 The construction of the south half of the battery had 

been approved by Chief of Engineers Casey in April 1891, and the excavation for its 

foundation was nearly complete by the end of the fiscal year.45

The plans submitted by Lt. Col. Gillespie in 1890 underwent some modifications based on 

suggestions from the Board of Engineers and Lt. Col. Gillespie’s consideration of the project, 

as well as from experience during the construction. Comparison of the preliminary plans 

and the completion drawings illustrate a number of the changes made during the 

construction of Battery Potter (figs. 26-27). 

One change from the proposed design was made when Gillespie noted that he could 

substitute sand for part of the interior concrete, thus reducing the cost of the north battery to 

$154,000. By Lt. Col. Gillespie’s estimation, the expenditure of that amount would allow for 

an adequate test of the hydraulic mechanism. 46

Lt. Col. Gillespie wrote to Lt. Col. Peter Harris in Washington, D.C., on March 4, 1891, that 

specifications had been prepared only for the gun-lift mechanism, and that the masonry 

portion of the battery had been adapted to the gun-lift. He also noted that “almost every day 

suggests changes.” Among the changes communicated in that letter were that the walls had 

been increased for more stability under shock, and on the second story the loading floor 

would be extended and the steps to that area replaced by a vertical ladder.47 However, Lt. 

Col. Gillespie was not cavalier about changes to the design of the battery, and was always 

adamant that the modifications to the plans did not affect the safety, efficiency, or operation 

of the gun-lift battery. The fact that this was the prototype for all hydraulic gun-lift batteries 

was not lost on Gillespie, and he strove to make this emplacement a model for other Endicott 

System gun-lift batteries. 

F.Y. 1892 witnessed the continued construction of Battery Potter (see Appendix A). Lt. Col. 

Gillespie pushed the masonry construction, but severe weather from December 1891 through 

mid-April 1892 required that concrete production be halted during the winter. Monthly 

reports from the Engineer Office at Sandy Hook document that the progress on the north 

half of the battery was ahead of the south half. During the fiscal year, the labor force had 

been able to complete 29,875.5 cubic yards of concrete masonry, and by June 30, 1892, the 

battery had been constructed up to the 39-foot reference point, and was 76 percent complete. 

The completion of the masonry to that point allowed for the final installation of the gun-lift 

 44 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, 

N.J.; General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 45 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, 

N.J.; General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 46 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 8, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, pp. 9-10; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 47 Gillespie to Lt. Col. Peter C. Harris, March 4, 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I, pp. 121-122; Entry 815; 

RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

65

mechanism for the north emplacement in June. 48 By the end of the fiscal year, Battery Potter 

was prepared to receive its first gun emplacement. 

Masonry construction during the year also included a significant amount of granite. The 

walls and the arch of the loading gallery for the north gun-lift were constructed with granite 

block, as was the coping above the arch, and the coping at the terreplein level around the gun 

pit. Granite block was substituted for concrete “in the piers at the level of the shelf plates for 

the locking bolts” of the gun-lift cage.49 The use of granite in some areas had been suggested 

by Chief of Engineers Casey during his September 1891 inspection of the site as a means of 

increasing the strength of the battery in these critical areas. In January 1892, construction 

was begun on the defensible entrance, which was also constructed using a significant amount 

of granite block (see the subsequent section “Defenses for Battery Potter”). The granite used 

in these applications was salvaged from the “Fort at Sandy Hook,” and cut on site by a work 

force of stone cutters that averaged 18 men.50

As the construction continued on the exterior 20-foot wall on the east side of the battery and 

the interior 10-foot wall, the space between them was filled with sand. The construction of 

the battery with a core of sand between the exterior and interior masonry walls had been 

suggested by Lt. Col. Gillespie during the planning stages of the battery. After the sand was 

added to the core it was settled by pumping water into the core. The exterior and interior 

walls of the battery were brought up to the 30-foot reference point before the core could be 

completely filled. Again the sand was compacted with water, and further sand was added as 

necessary to completely fill the core. Once the core was filled and settled, the concrete 

covering was started from the 30-foot reference point to the top of the battery.51

The completion of the north half of Battery Potter led to some changes in the construction of 

the south half. One change was communicated by Lt. Col. Gillespie to Chief of Engineers 

Casey on May 28, 1892.52 The plans and estimates submitted called for the modification of 

the loading gallery to allow for additional headroom. This was to be accomplished by using a 

horizontal iron cover of I-beams and plates, rather than the full center arch depicted in the 

original plan and constructed at the north half of the battery. This alteration was depicted in 

the completion drawings of the north and south gun lifts (Appendix D). The section 

drawings clearly show the arched section of the north gun-loading gallery, and the I-beam 

construction used for the south loading gallery. The sectional drawing of the south gun in 

the loading position further illustrates the need for the additional headroom when the 

loading lift was in the loading position. 

 48 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892, p. 9; Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 

1892 - 1894. 

49 Warren to Gillespie, October 1891; Lift Gun Battery. 50 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892, p. 9; Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 

1892 - 1894. Note: The monthly reports document a range from 3.5 to 26 stone cutters employed at the 

site of Battery Potter. The Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1892 gives the daily average for the year as 

9.25. 

51 Warren to Gillespie, January 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 52 Gillespie to Casey, May 28, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, pp. 163-164; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

66

During fiscal year 1893, Site Engineer Lt. Warren and Lt. Col. Gillespie, operating from the 

New York Office, continued to push the progress of Battery Potter. By July 1892, the 

masonry for the north gun emplacement was all but complete, and the gun-lift mechanism 

was in place. The carriage for the north gun was attached to the gun-lift and assembled with 

some difficulty during the month of July 1892. The 12-inch breech-loading rifle was 

delivered by the Ordnance Department on August 23, 1982, and was raised and mounted by 

the Engineer Department by August 29, 1892 (see the subsequent section “Battery Potter – 

Armament” and Appendix B).53

Though the fiscal year had started out with these significant accomplishments, the Engineers 

had to overcome some problems later in the fiscal year. Work at Sandy Hook was hampered 

not only by the usual winter weather, but also by incidents beyond the control of the 

Engineers. 

In early September 1892, a passenger ship was quarantined in Lower New York Harbor 

because some of its passengers were suspected of being infected with cholera. The ship was 

subsequently ordered by harbor officials to dock at the Engineer Wharf at Sandy Hook.54 

The arrival of the cholera patients at Sandy Hook and the establishment of a temporary 

camp, Camp Low, at Horseshoe Cove caused discontent among the labor force at Sandy 

Hook. On September 9, 1892, Lt. Col. Gillespie directed Lt. Warren to suspend work “while 

present excitement prevails.”55 The temporary quarantine area at Camp Low operated from 

September 17 through October 4, 1892, and a guard detail was in place with strict orders to 

keep separate the occupants of the camp and the laborers at the northern end of Sandy 

Hook.56 In his monthly report, Lt. Warren wrote that the labor force had been depleted by 

this development, many of them choosing to leave Sandy Hook rather than risk infection. 

Although he was able to hire more laborers, they were not used to the work, and in Warren’s 

estimation made “poor substitutes for those who left.”57

Nevertheless, the first tests of the north gun-lift and its recently mounted 12-inch gun were 

not delayed. The north gun was first fired on September 12, 1892; in attendance was a special 

Board of the Corps of Engineers convened for that purpose (see the subsequent section 

“Battery Potter – Armament” and Appendix B).58

During the initial tests, Lt. Col. Gillespie observed that the interior crest of the battery (i.e., 

the top of the east wall of the gun parapet) could be raised 18 inches without limiting the 

guns’ ability to fire over the channel. By raising the crest an additional 18 inches, the gun 

crew and the loading galleries would be better protected. Thus Lt. Col. Gillespie determined 

 53 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 54 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 9, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, pp. 46-45; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 55 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 10, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, p. 53; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 56 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 20, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, pp. 66 – 67; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 57 Warren to Gillespie, September 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 58 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

67

to make this change by the addition of wedge-shaped pieces that measured 18 inches high at 

the interior and tapered to nothing at the exterior of the superior slope.59

Lt. Warren’s report for November 1892 included the following description: 

During the month the surface of the superior slope of the parapet in 

front of and partly enveloping the gun pits, was brought up to its full 

reference between the interior crest and the chemin de ronde. The 

masonry was made with American Portland Cement mixed with sand 1 

to 3 by volume; for the lower stratum of 12 inches 7 parts of broken 

stone were added; for the upper stratum of 4 1⁄2 inches thick was laid 

without stone. A portion of the exterior slope and of the sloping 

surface joining the terreplein and the vertical walls on the sides and 

rear of the battery were also completed, the material being the same as 

for the upper surface of the superior slope.60

When the 12-inch gun was tested in September 1892 and again in November 1892, the 

Engineers noted degradation of the concrete due to the blasts. In particular, the concrete on 

the superior slope of the battery was badly damaged. It was only four days old; it had not 

fully set, and it had been applied during cold weather in November. At that point it was 

decided to make repairs to the superior slope when warmer weather returned to Sandy 

Hook.61 Lt. Col. Gillespie continued with tests of the north gun-lift and gun through 

December 1, 1892, and resumed tests on March 15, 1893 (see the subsequent section “Battery 

Potter – Armament”). 

Construction during the latter part of the 1892 included the initial installation of bluestone 

pavers at the terreplein level, which had been salvaged from the “Fort at Sandy Hook.” The 

paving of the terreplein ceased in December and was not resumed until March 6, 1893.62 The 

paving was completed in 1893, and the joints between the flagstones were pointed with 

concrete made with Portland cement in May 1893.63 

In light of the severe winter weather, the concrete plant at Battery Potter was closed from 

December 1, 1892, until April 1893, and no exterior masonry construction took place. 

However, the delay in masonry construction did not halt all progress on Battery Potter. 

During the winter months, Lt. Col. Gillespie contracted with the General Electric Company 

for the electrical plant for the battery, and the system was installed from December through 

March 1893 (see the subsequent section “Original Appearance, Battery Potter – Utilities”).64 

Lt. Col. Gillespie also took advantage of the winter months to finalize the contract for the 

south gun-lift mechanism and proceed with its construction (see the subsequent section 

“Battery Potter – Armament”). 

 59 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 

60 Warren to Gillespie, November 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 61Warren to Gillespie, November 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 62 Warren to Gillespie, Sept. 1892 – March 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 63 Warren to Gillespie, May 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 64 Warren to Gillespie, March 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

68

Interior work completed during the winter of 1892-93 included laying the concrete floors in 

the north half of the battery, and installing the tracks and turntables for the ammunitiondelivery service. The boiler and accumulator rooms were paved with flagstones, which were 

also set between the railroad tracks in the main gallery. 

Though the cold weather precluded any exterior masonry work, progress was made on the 

filling of the sand slope around the battery. From December 1892 through March 1893, a 

total of 4,638 cubic yards of sand were excavated and placed around the exterior of the 

battery. By the close of the fiscal year, 5,185 cubic yards of sand were in place.65

Masonry work resumed on the exterior of Battery Potter on April 24, 1893. The damage from 

the gun tests led the Engineers to improve the composition of the concrete construction on 

the superior slope. The reconstruction of the superior slope involved the removal of 

damaged material and the addition of the 18-inch wedges of masonry to raise the interior 

crest as planned by the Engineers after the initial gun tests. The new masonry slope was 

brought up to the 50 1⁄2 -foot reference point, and the top layer was constructed with concrete 

made with Alsen’s Portland Cement (Appendix C). While the cement was still fresh, a mix of 

dry cement and sand was floated on the upper surface. The newly constructed masonry 

apron was 12 inches thick at the interior crest under the gun, and it tapered down to 2 inches 

thick at the exterior crest.66

The plans of the battery completed by Lt. Warren on June 30, 1893, documented the progress 

of the masonry construction during the year (fig. 28). By the close of the fiscal year on June 

30, 1893, the masonry portion of Battery Potter was practically complete (fig. 29).67 A small 

labor force was employed during the month of July to finish the upper surface of the parapet 

wall, and to complete the placement of sand on the exterior slope.68

The treatment of the exterior and interior masonry was also an important part of the 

construction of Battery Potter. Reports during the construction of the battery note that the 

exterior and interior slopes were paved with concrete made with Portland cement. As early 

as November 1891, Lt. Warren was making arrangements for waterproofing the interior and 

exterior of the battery. The primary concern was to keep the magazines and casemates dry 

and protect them against frost. The Stone and Brick Waterproofing Company of New York 

was hired for the job. The reports indicate that it had a system that included the application 

of a hardening process that was followed with a coating of paraffin.69 The F.Y. 1893 Annual 

Report notes that a total of 2,686 square yards of masonry were treated with waterproofing.70

 65 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 66 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 67 Warren to Gillespie, June 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 68 Warren to Gillespie, July 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 69 Warren to Gillespie, Nov. 1891; Lift Gun Battery. 70 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

69

The F.Y. 1893 Annual Report documented that a crew of plasterers was employed to finish 

the interior walls and arches, and that “whitewash” was applied to those same surfaces.71 Lt. 

Warren’s report from June 1893 also notes the application of “whitewash” to the walls and 

arches of the accumulator room.72

The masonry construction at Battery Potter was completed by 1894. On January 3, 1895, Lt. 

McGregor forwarded descriptions of the battery and 10 drawings to Lt. Col. Gillespie 

(Appendix D). However, due to the delay in mounting the south carriage and gun, Battery 

Potter was not reported as ready for service until June 7, 1895.73

Defenses for Battery Potter 

Natural Cover 

Typical of Endicott System batteries, Battery Potter was designed to blend into the 

surrounding landscape. Although the upper concrete slopes of the battery were not 

concealed, as previously mentioned, the plans for the battery did include constructing a 

sloped embankment from grade to 20 feet up the exterior concrete walls. The construction 

of the exterior slopes was an important part of the battery’s defense, allowing it to blend in 

better with the surrounding dunes and scrub landscape. 

Review of the monthly progress reports shows that the filling of the sand slopes was 

performed when concrete production was at its lowest. The sand was hauled from nearby 

“borrow pits” and placed against the exterior concrete walls. The process began in 

December 1892, when Lt. Warren reported that 1,076 cubic yards of sand had been placed in 

the rear (west elevation) of the battery. The construction of the sand slopes continued in 

both January and February 1893, when the monthly reports noted that it was too cold to 

produce any concrete. The total sand placed during those two months was 2,791.5 cubic 

yards. In that time, the slope was carried from the rear of the battery, along the south and 

east elevations, and stopped at the curve of the north side of the battery. The deposit of sand 

was interrupted in mid-February to allow the Ordnance Department to replace the 12-inch 

gun on the north emplacement (see the subsequent section “Battery Potter – Armament”). 

The work of filling the slope on the north side of the battery recommenced in March 1893, 

and by the end of April, Lt. Warren reported that the placement of sand in the rear of the 

battery had been completed.74 An additional 100 cubic yards of sand were deposited in June, 

at which point the sand slopes were “completed as far as practicable.”75 The F.Y. 1893 

Annual Report stated that the embankment of sand surrounding the battery, except for the 

defensible entrance, had been constructed during the previous year, and that a total of 5,185 

cubic yards of sand had been excavated, hauled, and deposited at the battery. The cost of 

 71 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 72 Warren to Gillespie, June 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 73 Gillespie to Brig. Gen. Wm. Craighill, Chief of Engineers, June 7, 1895; File 9716; General 

Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 74 Warren to Gillespie, Dec. 1892 – April 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 75 Warren to Gillespie, June 1893; Lift Gun Battery.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

70

constructing the sand embankment was determined to be $0.22235 per cubic yard, for a total 

of $1,152.93.76

The sand embankments around Battery Potter were susceptible to the high winds and severe 

weather at Sandy Hook. To protect the slopes, the Engineers had sod planted on the slopes 

to the rear (west elevation) of the battery. The sod was preferred in this location because it 

would give the “machine guns,” or Gatling guns, in the flanks of the defensible entrance a 

clear line of fire along the embankments. A labor force began the placement of sod in 

October 1893 and completed the task the next month. Planting vegetation on the front (east) 

east and flanking slopes of the battery was also necessary to protect against erosion. Lt. 

Warren reported that cedar trees and small shrubs were planted on these slopes during the 

months of November and December 1893.77 Though Lt. Warren’s reports did not detail the 

type of sod or small shrubs used at Battery Potter, the slopes of the Mortar Battery were 

treated in a similar manner, and the journals for that work do document the use of sod from 

nearby marshes at Sandy Hook and native heath (or heather), which is a small shrub. The 

vegetation planted on the sand slopes of Battery Potter served to hold the sand in place and 

further camouflage the battery. 

Defensible Entrance 

Battery Potter thus blended well with the landscape when approached from the east, but 

there was still a concern about defending this massive structure from an invading force. In 

compliance with Lt. Col. Gillespie’s instructions, Lt. Warren submitted plans for a 

“Defensible Entrance to Lift Gun Battery No. 1” on the west elevation on January 16, 1892. 

Lt. Warren wrote: 

The proposed entrance is in the nature of a caponiere, two stories in 

height and twelve feet by twenty feet interior dimensions; the walls of 

the first story are three (3) feet in thickness, those of the second story 

are two feet in thickness, and the material cut stone (granite) and 

concrete. 

The caponiere is arranged to sweep the slopes in rear of the battery, 

and the adjacent ground by the fire of machine guns supplemented by 

musketry fire, and is designed to prevent a small boat party 

approaching the work from the rear, from reaching the terreplein by a 

rush, surprising that portion of the gun detachments there posted and 

disabling the guns and carriages by the use of high explosives, or from 

gaining the interior of the work where a few determined men could in 

a few moments render the battery useless. 

The wall in rear of the battery as originally planned was covered with 

sand to the level of the terreplein and would be easily assailable. 

 76 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 77 Warren to Gillespie, Oct. 1893 – Dec. 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

71

It is proposed to make this wall an obstacle to assault by removing a 

portion of the sand cover (this can be done without material danger, as 

the work will hardly be exposed to the fire of heavy guns from that 

direction) and to sweep the uncovered part of the wall and the slope by 

the fire of machine guns from the second floor of the caponiere. 

The ground in front of the entrance is also swept by the fire of machine 

guns supplemented by musketry fire. 

It is proposed to provide two sets of double doors, constructed of 

wood thickly studded with iron, the outer ones loop-holed for 

musketry, and the inner ones on the inner face of the twenty-foot wall 

thirty-five feet in rear of the outer set, for a machine gun; all of these 

loop holes are to be furnished with bullet proof shutters. 

The face of the caponiere as proposed is of cut stone masonry the 

material for which can be obtained from old fort. 

The use of cut stone will not unduly increase the cost and will give a 

dignified and substantial appearance to the entrance which will 

properly accord with the importance of the work itself. Access to the 

second floor of the caponiere will be had from the interior of the work 

by a four-foot gallery communicating with the ten-foot gallery of the 

second tier of casemates and directly over the main entrance.78

Lt. Col. Gillespie accepted Lt. Warren’s design and forwarded the plans to Chief of Engineers 

General Casey for approval (figs. 30-31). The Chief of Engineers approved the defensible 

entrance in February 1892, but requested that Lt. Col. Gillespie and his staff further review 

the flanking defense of the battery. 

Construction of the defensible entrance began in April 1892 with the employment of a small 

force of stone cutters preparing granite salvaged from the “Fort at Sandy Hook,” and a daylabor force laying the courses of masonry. Work on the caponiere continued in May with a 

larger force of stone cutters (approximately 15 men) able to provide enough stone to 

complete the lower 10 courses. Progress on the entrance was periodically delayed while the 

stone cutters were engaged in cutting stone for portions of the south gun-lift. In November, 

Lt. Warren reported that the stone cutting for the defensible entrance and its wing walls was 

completed, and that the masonry of the front and wing walls had been carried to reference 

(22.0). By the end of December 1892, the granite masonry had been completed, and “the 

forms for the side walls and arch of the second story were set up and the concrete masonry 

carried from ref. (25.0) to ref. (36.0) or two feet over the crown of the arch.”79 The F.Y. 1893 

Annual Report included photographic documentation of this phase of the entrance 

construction. The exterior bullet-proof doors of the defensible entrance were hung in 

September 1893, which essentially completed the construction of the battery.80

 78 Warren to Gillespie, Jan. 16, 1892; Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 1894. 79 Warren to Gillespie, Dec. 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 80 Warren to Gillespie, Sept. 1893; Lift Gun Battery.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

72

The defenses of Battery Potter were an integral part of the success of the hydraulic gun-lift 

battery. The defensible entrance of the battery in particular continues to define the structure 

as a formidable defense. 

Flanking Defense 

Upon the request of Chief of Engineers Casey, Lt. Col. Gillespie and Lt. Warren further 

explored ways to provide a better flanking defense for Battery Potter. Lt. Col. Gillespie’s 

1892 Annual Report included thoughts on defending the other sides of the battery: 

The trace of the battery does not lend itself to a flank defense of a 

simple character but it would seem that all conditions requisite to the 

defense of the work by its garrison will be sufficiently fulfilled by 

placing a chemin de ronde at the foot of the superior slope on the 

curved face of the battery, supplemented by wire entanglements 

surrounding the work and placed at the foot of the sand slope.81

A chemin de ronde is a sentry path around the outer retaining wall of a rampart or 

emplacement that is protected by a parapet. In the case of Battery Potter, the chemin de 

ronde extended along the eastern curved face of the battery, and provided a protected area 

from which the garrison could direct rifle fire on forces approaching from the east. To 

further improve the flanking defense of the battery, the parapet extended from the front/east 

side of the battery around the sides and terminated at the rear of the structure. This provided 

cover for the garrison at the terreplein level of the battery. This solution appears to have 

satisfied the Chief of Engineers’ concern for providing flank defense for the entire battery. 

Construction of the chemin de ronde and parapet wall kept apace with other masonry work, 

and by August 1892 the parapet wall had been completed to the 45.6-foot reference point, 

with a gap left in front of the north gun-lift for mounting the 12-inch breech-loading rifle. By 

the end of September 1892, the parapet had been completed except for the Portland cement 

pavement. As previously cited, concrete made with Portland cement was applied to the 

masonry surfaces, including the parapet walls, in November 1892. Lt. Warren reported in the 

1893 Annual Report that the parapet wall had been weakened and partially destroyed by the 

blasts from the north gun (Appendix B). Repairs to the structure in the spring of 1893 

included reconstruction of portions of the parapet to the same specifications as the superior 

slope previously discussed. 

Though not part of the original plan for Battery Potter, the addition of the chemin de ronde

and parapet wall became important parts of the battery, and they remain character-defining 

features of the structure. 

 81 Gillespie to Casey, Annual Report and Summary 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 219; Entry 815; RG 

77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

73

Battery Potter – Armament

North Gun-Lift Mechanism 

Lt. Col. Gillespie’s planning for Battery Potter included an inquiry to Warren E. Hill of 

Continental Iron Works, Brooklyn, NY, in May 1890 about the cost of a gun-lift 

mechanism.82 Lt. Col. Gillespie submitted plans and estimates for the gun-lift battery to the 

Chief of Engineers on May 27, 1890. The letter discussed the design of the battery and 

included details of the estimated cost, including the estimates for the gun-lifts furnished by 

Continental Iron Works. Lt. Col. Gillespie cited Continental’s participation in the 

construction of the ironclad “Monitor” as foremost among the reasons for using that 

company:83

The Department will remember that this company was the builder of 

the original “Monitor” and I believe that its terms will be reasonable 

and the work will be executed in the very best manner.84

Preliminary plans for the battery were focused on the gun-lift aspect of the emplacement. 

Since it was the first of its type, Lt. Col. Gillespie’s plan was really a work in progress, and – as 

previously discussed – several changes were made to the original plan in the course of 

construction. Once the plans for the battery had been reviewed, revised, and ultimately 

approved by the Board of Engineers and Chief of Engineers General Casey, a public 

advertisement for sealed bids for the manufacture of the gun-lift mechanism was submitted 

to the newspapers on December 5, 1890: 

U.S. ENGINEER OFFICE. Army Building, New York, December 5, 

1890. – Sealed proposals, in triplicate, will be received at this office 

until 12 o’clock noon, Tuesday, January 20, 1891, at which place and 

time they will be publicly opened in the presence of bidders, for the 

manufacture of the mechanism of a gun lift for a twelve-inch highpower gun, and for its satisfactory erection at Sandy Hook, N. J., in 

accordance with specifications and drawings which may be seen on 

application at this office. The attention of bidders is invited to Acts of 

Congress approved February 26, 1885, and February 23, 1887, vol. 23, 

page 332 and vol. 24 page 414, Statues at Large. For full information 

apply to G. L. GILLESPIE, Lt. Col. of Engineers.85

 82 Gillespie to Warren E. Hill, Continental Iron Works, May 8, 1890; Letters Sent; Volume I, 

5/8/1890 – 9/30/1891 (Vol. I), p. 1; Entry 815; Office of the Chief of Engineers; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 83 Gillespie to Casey, May 27, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, pp. 2-4; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). Note: The USS Monitor was constructed by eight iron foundries, including 

Continental Iron Works, and final assembly was completed at Continental’s Greenpoint foundry in 

Brooklyn, NY. 84 Gillespie to Casey, May 27, 1890, p. 4. 

85 New York Tribune, December 12, 1890, p. 8, col. 2; Boston Public Library, Microtext AN2 – 

N7N525, Reel 162, November – December 1890. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

74

Apparently Lt. Col. Gillespie already had a high opinion of Continental Iron Works, and he 

had perhaps given them an edge in estimating the cost of the gun-lift mechanism. Be that as it 

may, when the bids were opened on January 20, 1891, Continental was the low bidder at 

$93,750. The proposal was approved by the Chief of Engineers and accepted by Lt. Col. 

Gillespie on January 24, 1891.86 

As Continental Iron Works moved forward with the manufacture of the gun-lifts, they found 

it was necessary to make some modifications to the design. A supplementary contract was 

thus signed on August 19, 1891, for a total of $9,350, bringing the price of the north gun-lift 

mechanism to $103,100, which was still under the allotted $112,500.87 Later in fiscal year 

1892, Continental was also contracted to manufacture tanks for the accumulator pit, to 

provide a water supply for the hydraulic system, and to supply parts for the south gun-lift that 

were to be built into the masonry.88

Manufacture of the gun-lift cage, boilers, accumulator, and associated parts continued at 

Continental’s Greenpoint foundry throughout 1891 and into the first half of 1892 (figs. 32-

33). In November 1891, the components that were to be built into the masonry were installed 

at the battery by employees of the iron works.89 These included the locking bolt plates, guide 

rails, and their attachments. During the winter of 1891-92, the gun-lift cage and platform 

were assembled at the foundry, and were successfully tested in the presence of the U.S. Army 

Engineers on March 10, 1892.90 The inspection of the mechanism and approval by the 

Engineers made for a busy April at Battery Potter, as reported by Lt. Warren: 

Gun Lift Mechanism: During the month the Continental Iron Works 

had employed at Sandy Hook an average daily force of 26 men. 

The ram and cylinder of the main lift were set up in place, the lower 

half of the cage was assembled, riveted up, the locking bolts and their 

mechanism attached and on April 27th was lowered to the firing 

position and the locking bolts shot home in their seats. 

The accumulators were completely set up and the pressure pipes 

connecting them with the pumps were fitted. 

The boilers and pumps were delivered at the work and set in place. 

The ammunition lift and hydraulic rammer are in process of 

construction at the Continental Iron Works.91

 86 Gillespie to Casey, Jan. 24, 1891, with approval from Casey and the Board of Engineers; Letters 

Sent; Vol. I, pp. 91-95; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 87 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892; Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 

1894. 

88 Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892. 

89 Warren to Gillespie, Nov. 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 90Warren to Gillespie, June 30, 1892, Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report; Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 

1894. 

91 Warren to Gillespie, April 1892; Lift Gun Battery.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

75

Over the next two months the gun-lift mechanism was tuned and adjusted, and the gun-lift 

was ready for trial on July 7. On that day the cage and platform were successfully raised and 

lowered, and after further adjustments, the gun-lift was ready to receive the gun carriage and 

12-inch breech-loading rifle. 

North Gun Carriage and Gun 

The carriage for the north gun of Battery Potter was manufactured by Henry Schneider & 

Co., Creusot, France.92 Schneider & Co. completed the gun carriage in December 1891, and 

it was at Sandy Hook ready for installation on the gun-lift mechanism by April 2, 1892.93

The letters and reports from the Engineer Department document the process and some of the 

difficulties encountered during the mounting of the gun carriage and the 12-inch breechloading rifle at Battery Potter. As early as July 1891, Continental Iron Works requested 

additional drawings of the bed-plate of the carriage in order to better guide their 

manufacture of the deck of the gun-lift cage.94 Lt. Col. Gillespie had forwarded this request 

to the Chief of Engineers, but Gillespie’s reply to Mr. Hill of Continental suggested that the 

contractor should plan for the ultimate fitting on site once the carriage had arrived.95 As it 

turned out, Mr. Hill’s request for more detailed drawings might have spared some effort in 

attaching the bed-plate to the lift deck. 

Perhaps Lt. Col. Gillespie shared Mr. Hill’s apprehension regarding the assembly of the gun 

carriage, for in a letter to his superior, the colonel suggested that the Ordnance Department 

should mount the carriage and gun, in part due to their experience in such operations.96 

However, once the gun carriage’s components had been moved to the terreplein of the 

battery, Chief of Engineers Casey decided that the Engineers would mount the 12-inch gun 

and carriage, with the Ordnance Department superintending the assembly of the carriage 

and gun and furnishing workmen to assist in the efforts.97 The Engineers and Ordnance 

Department had some difficulty connecting the carriage to the gun-lift. According to Lt. Col. 

Gillespie’s Annual Report (Appendix B), it took two weeks of chipping at the upper surface of 

the platform in order to get the bed-plate properly attached. This process was completed by 

July 30, and the rest of the carriage could be assembled (figs. 34-35). 

 92 Warren to Gillespie, July 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 93 Gillespie to Casey, April 2, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 106; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 94 Gillespie to Casey, July 2, 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 169; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 95 Gillespie to Hill, July 10, 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 189; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 96 Casey to Gillespie, April 8, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 109; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 97 Casey to Gillespie, April 30, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 136; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

76

The Engineers filed a requisition for a 12-inch breech-loading rifle with Ordnance 

Department on July 11, 1892.98 Ordnance Department Capt. Frank Heath, Commander of 

the Proving Ground at Sandy Hook, N. J., delivered a breech-loading rifle to Battery Potter 

on August 23, 1892. The gun was raised by the Engineer Department on August 25 and 26 via 

an elaborate system of timber framing, pulleys, block and tackle, and hoisting engines (figs. 

36-37). The gun was finally mounted on its carriage on the evening of August 29, 1892 (fig. 

38).99 On that date, Battery Potter became the first and only hydraulic gun-lift to be emplaced 

under the Endicott System. 

The gun that was initially mounted on the north emplacement had not been fully tested by 

the Ordnance Department, and was apparently put in place only for the purpose of testing 

the lift mechanism. The Chief of Ordnance notified the Chief of Engineers that this gun 

would be removed and replaced by a new, fully tested 12-inch gun after completion of the 

initial gun-lift tests.100 In January 1893, the “stand-in” gun was removed by the Ordnance 

Department, which emplaced a fully tested 12-inch gun in February and March 1893. Testing 

of the mechanism and new gun resumed in March 1893. The Fort Record Book, Fort 

Hancock, N.J., documents that the north emplacement of Battery Potter (no. 2) was equipped 

with 12-inch breech-loading rifle, Model 1888, No. 11, manufactured at the Watervliet 

Arsenal.101 Apparently this was the second gun emplaced by the Ordnance Department. 

Testing the North Gun-Lift 

The first test of the north gun was scheduled for September 12, 1892, and despite the 

establishment of the cholera camp, the tests were executed as planned. Records document 

that two shoots were fired from the gun on that date. The testing that day was recorded by 

photographs (fig. 39). The F.Y. 1893 Annual Report documents that the first shoot used 200 

pounds of V.P. XIV powder and a 1,000 pound solid shot. 102 The tests were suspended after 

two shots due to problems with the gun carriage. 

After the initial tests, the north gun was not fired again until November 22, 1892. The north 

gun was fired 12 times over a two-week period with satisfactory results. It was during these 

trials that the damage to the parapet wall was discovered, and plans to improve the masonry 

were developed. 

Tests at Battery Potter resumed upon the installation of the fully tested 12-inch gun by the 

Ordnance Department in February and March 1893. As the F.Y. 1893 Annual Report 

 98 Gillespie to Capt. Frank Heath, July 11, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 233; Entry 815; RG 77; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 99 Warren to Gillespie, August 1892; Lift Gun Battery. See F.Y. 1893 Annual Report, Appendix B. 100 Chief of Ordnance, Brig. Gen. Daniel Flagler, to Casey, Dec. 12, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, p. 

143; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 101 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, p. 30, Entry 224; RG 392; NARA – Northeast 

(NY). 

102 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence 

and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

77

indicates, the gun was fired numerous times during the remainder of the fiscal year 

(Appendix B). 

It is of interest to note that the gunpowder used, designated “V.P.”, was apparently brown 

prismatic powder. A publication by the Watervliet Arsenal specified the use of brown 

prismatic gunpowder for the Model 1888 12-inch breech-loading rifle,103 and the monthly 

and annual reports for Battery Potter also mention the use of this type of powder. The “V.P.” 

appears to have been a standard abbreviation for brown prismatic gunpowder, which was 

followed by a Roman numeral indicating the lot number. The table from the F.Y. 1893 

Annual Report demonstrates that the gun was tested with several different lots of gunpowder 

and with varying weights of charge. At least some of these tests were done for the benefit of 

the Ordnance Department to prove a sample of powder, as noted in Lt. Warren’s monthly 

report for April 1893. Of further interest is the entry in that table for December 14, 1892, 

indicating the use of “B.N. Smokeless” powder. During this period, the DuPont Company 

was developing a smokeless powder,104 and was no doubt testing it at Sandy Hook. 

Smokeless powder, noted as “French Smokeless,” was used on July 25, 1893, and again on 

August 8, 1893. After the July 25 test, Lt. Warren noted: 

The last round was most interesting, as showing the really smokeless 

character of the powder used, when firing over a clean, hard surface. 

The smoke was almost imperceptible and was instantly dissipated by 

the light breeze then blowing.105

The tests of the north gun-lift allowed the Engineers to make the necessary adjustments to 

the mechanism, the gun carriage, and the gun. By all accounts the tests went smoothly, with 

no damage to the lift mechanism. The monthly reports did note that the pressure during a 

test on April 24 was so great that it damaged the breech block of the gun. The pressure was 

estimated at between 73,600 and 75,000 per square inch, which was almost double the normal 

pressure.106 The rifle was repaired, and subsequent tests under normal conditions were 

successfully completed. 

South Gun-Lift Mechanism 

The supplementary contract for the north gun-lift, approved June 29, 1892, also provided 

some parts for the south gun-lift, which were installed in the masonry in November 1892. 

However, the proposals for the south lift were not received until January 24, 1893. 

Continental Iron Works was the only bidder on this project, and their bid for $63,000 was 

accepted by the Chief of Engineers on January 27, 1893. 

As with the north lift, the preliminary assembly and testing of the south lift cage and 

mechanism was carried out at Continental’s Greenpoint site. During the months of June and 

 103 Documents relating to the Gun Lift Battery, Sandy Hook, N.J.; Entry 224; RG 392; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 104 “The History of DuPont” (http://www2.dupont.com/Government/en_US/gsa_contracts/

Government_Projects.html). 105 Warren to Gillespie, July 1893; Lift Gun Battery. 106 Warren to Gillespie, April 1893; Lift Gun Battery.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

78

July 1893, Lt. Warren reported that good progress had been made at the iron works, and he 

expected that work would begin at Sandy Hook in August 1893. On-site work at Sandy Hook 

did not actually start until late September of that year, when the contractor began the 

assembly of the ammunition hoist. By the close of November, most of the parts for the 

mechanism were on site, and the assembly of the south gun-lift progressed at a good pace. By 

January 1894, the cage was completed and the mechanism was operational. Lt. Warren 

reported that Continental Iron Works completed connections and “cleaning up” for the 

south lift mechanism on February 8, 1894, and then left Sandy Hook. 

South Gun Carriage and Gun 

The Watertown Arsenal in Watertown, Massachusetts, was manufacturing the gun carriage 

for the south gun-lift. The Ordnance Department first notified the Engineers of delays in the 

construction of the carriage in August 1893.107 However the Site Engineers did not let this 

delay deter construction on the battery. On January 11, 1894, Lt. Col. Gillespie requested 

that Major Frank Heath of the Ordnance Department transfer the north gun and carriage to 

the south lift for testing (see the subsequent section “Testing the South Gun-Lift”).108 As it 

turned out, the south carriage was shipped from Watertown to Sandy Hook more than a year 

after the initial tests. The gun carriage, Model 1891, was received by the Engineers on May 

20, 1895,109 and was apparently mounted without the difficulties experienced at the north 

gun-lift. 

Battery Potter was designed and constructed to emplace two 12-inch breech-loading rifles. 

Like the north gun, the gun for the south emplacement (no. 1) was manufactured at the Army 

Gun Factory, Watervliet Arsenal. The 12-inch gun, Model 1888, No. 2,110 was delivered to 

the site by the Ordnance Department and mounted on the gun carriage on June 5. Two days 

later, Lt. Col. Gillespie wrote Chief of Engineers General Craighill, notifying him that the 

battery was complete: 

General: 

I have the honor to report that the two 12-inch high-power guns 

constituting the projected armament of Gun Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy 

Hook, New Jersey, have been satisfactorily mounted upon their lifts 

and that that battery is now ready for service.111

 107 Acting Chief of Ordnance, Gen. Charles Shuler, to Casey, Aug. 23, 1893; Letters Sent; Vol. IV, p. 

23; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 108 Gillespie to Heath, Jan. 11, 1894; File 1011, inclo. 3; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 109 Fort Record Book, p. 31. 110 Fort Record Book, p. 106. 111 Gillespie to Craighill, June 7, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

79

Testing the South Gun-Lift 

In the meantime, fulfillment of the contract with Continental Iron Works required the 

successful test of the south gun. As previously described, delays in the construction of the 

gun carriage at the Watertown Arsenal prompted Lt. Col. Gillespie to request that the 

Ordnance Department transfer the north gun and carriage to the south lift for testing. The 

gun and carriage were transferred by February 23, 1894, and the gun was ready for firing.112 

On March 7, 1894, five rounds were test-fired from the south gun (fig. 40). Once again the 

guns were tested with a charge of brown prismatic powder, manufactured by DuPont. The 

report by Lt. Robert McGregor stated that the lift mechanism performed to his satisfaction. 

The only problem with the operation was the failure of the hydraulic rammer.113 At that 

point, it was determined that Continental had fulfilled its contract, and that upon delivery of 

the gun and carriage for the south lift, Battery Potter would be fully operational. 

Rapidity Test 

Once the south carriage and gun lift had been mounted and the battery was declared ready 

for service, the Board of Ordnance and Fortification recommended that the battery to 

subjected to a rapidity test.114 Rapidity tests for Battery Potter were conducted on August 7, 

1895. Lt. Col. Gillespie’s account of the procedure in a report to Chief of Engineers William 

P. Craighill stated that 10 shots were fired, five from each gun. The test started with one gun 

up and one gun down, and the shots were fired alternately from each gun. The total time 

consumed during the test was 33 minutes and 57 seconds, which averaged out to 3 minutes 

23.7 seconds per shot.115 The successful completion of the rapidity tests meant that Battery 

Potter was finally ready for full service in the defense of New York Harbor. 

Ammunition Service 

Another component vital to the successful operation of Battery Potter was the ammunition 

service for the emplacement. The preliminary plans for Battery Potter had not included a 

system for transporting and storing the gunpowder and shot to be used at the battery. Thus 

Lt. Warren submitted plans for the ammunition service to Lt. Col. Gillespie on September 27, 

1892 (fig. 41). The plans called for a system of railroad tracks and turntables for the delivery 

of munitions. The plans were slightly modified by the Board of Engineers before being 

 112 Gillespie to Casey, Feb. 23, 1894; File 1011, inclo. 4; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 113 2nd Lt. Robert McGregor to Gillespie, March 14, 1894; File 1011, inclo. 8; General 

Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 114 Board of Ordnance & Fortification to Chief of Ordnance, June 20, 1895; endorsed by Craighill, 

June 27, 1895; File 9716; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 115 Gillespie to Craighill, Aug. 23, 1895; File 9716; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; 

RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

80

implemented by the Engineers on site. The alterations included the omission of turntables 

from the main transverse gallery to the north and south magazine galleries (the attached plan 

was marked up with those two turntable crossed out), and the change of materials for the 

magazine gallery rails from cast iron to gun metal. 

The system as built is fully described in the F.Y. 1893 Annual Report (Appendix B). In brief, 

the tracks to Battery Potter utilized the existing narrow-gauge standard track that led to the 

main gallery of the battery and continued into the interior of the battery and the boiler room 

area, presumably for delivery of coal for the boilers. This track was furnished with a 

turntable at the transverse gallery, which led to the entrance of the north and south magazine 

galleries. Each magazine gallery had a set of gun-metal rails on which the ammunition car ran 

for delivering the munitions to the storage magazines and the ammunition lift (fig. 42). 

Additional turntables were installed in the magazine galleries at the entrances of the 

magazine storage rooms. Each gun emplacement had two magazines, one for gunpowder and 

one for solid-shot projectiles. In both cases, the powder magazines were located on the 

exterior rooms of the battery, and the shot magazines were located in the interior rooms (see 

the subsequent section “Original Appearance”). The shot magazines were equipped with an 

overhead trolley system that enabled the crew to handle loads of up to 2,000 pounds.116 Thus, 

the ammunition for the battery could be efficiently delivered from the Engineer Wharf to 

Battery Potter. 

Battery Potter – Personnel

Upon completion of Battery Potter in January 1895, Lt. Col. Gillespie requested that Lt. 

McGregor submit a report detailing the work force required to operate the battery, as well as 

procedures for operating the lifts by the crew. 

Lt. McGregor’s reply estimated that the operation of the machinery would require a force of 

five men: one engineer in charge of the mechanism, one assistant engineer, and three firemen 

to tend the furnaces and boilers (one on duty at any given time). For these positions, 

McGregor noted that the men should be skilled in their trades; competent men might be 

found among the enlisted force, but “the chief engineer would doubtless be a civilian, as no 

enlisted man could be found of the requisite skilled capacity.” He also noted that it would be 

important to have alternates for these positions in case of injury. 

Lt. McGregor estimated the numbers for the Artillery force as follows: 

For each gun there will be required: 

One sergeant and four privates on the gun platform to serve the gun 

under the supervision of an officer. This detachment will remain with 

the gun when it descends, and will operate the loading mechanism in 

the loading gallery. 

One valve operator at the elevated operating stand to serve the clustervalves controlling the motions of the gun lift, in obedience to signals 

 116 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence 

and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

81

from the gun platform. The operation of the levers controlling the 

valves is simple, and may safely be intrusted to a private. 

One sergeant in the first-floor magazines, in charge of the ammunition 

supply for the gun, and to superintend the operation of the 

ammunition-hoist from below. 

Two privates, to operate the ammunition service car; they are under 

the personal supervision of the sergeant in charge of the supply. 

One corporal and four privates, in the powder magazine, to prepare 

the charge. 

One corporal and four privates, I the shot magazine to prepare and 

handle projectiles. 

There should also be an officer on the first floor, to superintend the 

ammunition supply for both guns. 

This estimate would therefore require for the entire battery a military 

force consisting of: 

4 officers (including the commanding officer). 

4 sergeants. 

4 corporals. 

30 privates.117

Lt. McGregor’s description provides both the number of personnel required to operate 

Battery Potter, as well as the general duties of the work force, both civilian and enlisted. As 

previously discussed, records indicate that a civilian engineer was employed to operate the 

gun-lift mechanism, but that the other positions were filled by enlisted men, to reduce the 

expense of operating the battery. 

Lt. McGregor felt that the mechanical operation of the gun lift was straightforward. Two 

hours’ advance notice was required to get the boilers going and the steam up to pressure. 

This would require the battery to be running 24 hours a day during any hostilities to maintain 

readiness. The chief engineer was in charge of the machinery and the operators, while the 

commanding officer was in charge of the guns. The valve-operator was responsible for 

maneuvering the gun platform and lift cage. A series of bell rings was used to signal the 

operator: one bell sent the cage up, one bell to stop it, and two bells to send the cage down. 

Lt. McGregor reported that this system had worked well during tests.118

 117 McGregor to Gillespie, May 27, 1897; File 9716; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; 

RG 77; NAB. 

118 McGregor to Gillespie, May 27, 1897. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

82

Figure 19. “Lift-Gun Battery for Two 12 inch Rifled Guns, at Sandy Hook, New York Harbor.” Original plans for 

Battery Potter. Prepared under the direction of Lt. Col. G.L. Gillespie, February 20, 1890. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

83

Figure 20. “Map of Sandy Hook, N. J., Tracing made from survey map of Jan. 30, 1892, showing 

location of Gun Lift Battery and Mortar Battery and Track connection with Dock for hauling 

material.” Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Corps of Engineers, 

June 30, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

84

Figure 21. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Plan of Battery Potter showing general layout of battery and 

concrete plant. Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, June 30, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

85

Figure 22. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Detail of concrete 

plant plan. Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, 

June 30, 1892. 

Figure 23. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N. J.” Detail of concrete plant section. 

Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, June 30, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

86

Figure 24. Miners at natural hydraulic cement mine, New York State. 

Figure 25. Seal for 

Rosendale Cement 

Company with 

trademarked “Brooklyn 

Bridge” Brand. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

87

Figure 26. Section E-F through North Gun Lift; detail from “Lift-Gun Battery for Two 12 inch Rifled Guns, at 

Sandy Hook, New York Harbor.” February 20, 1890. 

Figure 27. Section F-E through North Gun Lift, from “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J.” Sheet No. 4, 

Sections through Lifts and Boiler Room, 1894. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

88

Figure 28. “Gun Lift Battery No. 1, at Sandy Hook, N.J.” Color-coded progress sheet, June 30, 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

89

Figure 29. Battery Potter, looking southeast: “View of Gun Lift Battery, 

July, 1893.” Photograph No. 22 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 

Figure 30. “Proposed Main Entrance to the Lift Gun Battery at Sandy Hook, 

N.J.” Detail from plans of defensible entrance for Battery Potter, prepared 

by 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Jan. 14, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

90

Figure 31. “Proposed Main Entrance to the Lift Gun Battery at Sandy Hook, N.J.” Plans, elevation, and section of defensible entrance 

for Battery Potter, prepared by 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Jan. 14, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

91

Figure 32. “Internally Fired Return Tubular Boilers for the 12" Gun Lift 

at Sandy Hook, N.J., 9 ft. diam. x 12'-2" long x 5

/8 thick, Corrugated 

furnaces, 36" I.D. x 9'-4", Jan. 22, 1982” Boilers at the Continental 

Iron Works, Brooklyn, N.Y. 

Figure 33. Gun-lift cage for Battery Potter at the Continental Iron Works, 

Brooklyn, N.Y. Jan. 22, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

92

Figure 34. Battery Potter, Schneider & Co. gun carriage, pintle plate, and 

traversing circle. Photograph no. 1 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 

Figure 35. Battery Potter, Schneider & Co. gun carriage complete, rear 

view. Photograph no. 5 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

93

Figure 36. “Frame Structure used in raising 12 in. B.L. Rifle. Gun Lift Battery. Sandy Hook, New Jersey, 1894.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

94

Figure 37. Battery Potter, raising 12-inch B.L. rifle. Photograph no. 

7 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report.

Figure 38. Battery Potter, 12-inch B.L. rifle mounted on carriage, Aug. 

27, 1892. Photograph no. 12 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

95

Figure 39. Battery Potter, north emplacement; preparing for second shot, 

Sept. 12, 1892. Photograph no. 14 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 

Figure 40. Battery Potter, proof-testing the mechanism at the south 

emplacement, test number 5, March 7, 1894. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

96

Figure 41. “Lift Gun Battery No. 1 at Sandy Hook, N.J. Plans and sections showing arrangement of track and turntables for 

ammunition service.” Prepared under the direction of 1st Lt. J.G. Warren, Corps of Engineers, Oct. 1, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

97

Figure 42. Battery Potter, carriage for ammunition hoist, Feb. 1893. Photograph no. 18 

of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

99 

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE 

Introduction

The sections here discuss the appearance of Battery Potter upon completion. The “General 

Description of Gun-Lift Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J.”1

 (Appendix D) and a set of 10 

drawings completed in 1894 provide extremely useful information about the original 

appearance and use of the battery. An additional set of floor plans with room numbers are 

included with this report to illustrate the general layout (figs. 43-45); the room numbers were 

established for a prior report, and were kept by this report in an effort to standardize the 

information. The description of the original appearance is meant to augment the 

information discussed in the previous section on construction. 

Battery Potter – Exterior Elements

Battery Potter was D-shaped in plan, with its curved walls facing east toward the natural 

channel to New York Harbor. Endicott System emplacements were typically designed to 

blend into the surrounding landscape as much as possible. At Battery Potter, sand 

embankments were built up around the exterior concrete walls of the battery so that the 

battery would blend in with the dunes of Sandy Hook. However, the upper slopes of the 

concrete walls remained visible above the embankments. 

The west elevation of Battery Potter contained the only ground-level entrance to the battery. 

The sand embankment on either side of the entrance was brought up to the 30-foot reference 

mark, 20 feet above grade, exposing only the top 4 feet of the concrete wall. The 

embankment sloped at a 45-degree angle away from the structure. A granite cornice ran the 

length of the concrete wall, and was interrupted only by the entrance to the battery. Above 

the cornice, the concrete structure sloped up toward the terreplein. Since this elevation 

served as the main entrance to the battery and had no parapet at the terreplein level, it was 

important that the entryway be well constructed. 

The primary feature of the west elevation was the fortress-like main entrance to the battery 

(fig. 46). This “defensible entrance” was a castellated sally port or caponiere constructed of 

granite block salvaged from the “Fort at Sandy Hook.” The rectilinear granite blocks were 

dressed with chiseled edges or margins, and bush-hammered centers creating a pitted 

appearance. The joints between the granite blocks were pointed with Portland cement 

 1

 2nd Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, Dec. 24, 1894; File 9716, enclosure 2; 

General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

100 

mortar and tooled flush with the edge of the blocks. The defensible entrance to Battery 

Potter was replete with iron-clad doors, gun loops, and gun ports, to appear impenetrable. 

The primary façade of the sally port rose 26 feet 2 inches above grade, and was flanked by 

towers that were 28 feet 2 inches high. A belt course above the second story unified the 

façade elements. Just below the belt course was a granite block with the construction dates of 

the battery carved into it, which read “ERECTED 1890 -92.” Below that was a gun port that 

was fitted with a vertically sliding iron door, behind which was a Gatling gun. 

The main entrance to Battery Potter was through an arched opening 24 feet 9 inches high. 

The arch above the doorway was segmental and was constructed with stepped granite blocks. 

The size of the opening allowed for the transport of ammunition, powder, coal, and other 

materials via the railway running from the wharf to the battery. The rails continued into the 

battery to facilitate the delivery of supplies. 

The doorway was equipped with iron-clad double doors hung on iron strap hinges 4 inches 

wide by 4 feet long. The hinges, three per door, were hung on pintles set in to the masonry of 

the doorway. Each door was 3 inches thick, constructed with three layers of tongue-andgroove boards, and covered by a quarter-inch plate of iron that was bolted to the door. Each 

door was built with two gun ports with sliding iron doors for protection. The south door had 

a smaller door cut into it that was 1 foot above the bottom of the larger door, and which 

measured 2 feet 1 inch wide by 5 feet high. The hinges for the small door extended from the 

larger hinges, which created a somewhat unique hinge arrangement. The entry doors were 

secured with L-shaped locking pins at the top of the arch and the base of each door. 

The flanking towers of the sally port rose 2 feet higher than the main wall. The towers were 

constructed with the same granite block as the rest of the sally port, and were integral to the 

masonry construction. The towers were capped with granite coping and octagonal hipped 

roofs of concrete. Each tower was pierced with three gun loops on the first story and four 

gun loops on the second story. The embrasure of the gun loops measured 6 inches wide by 

18 3⁄4 inches high on the exterior, and narrowed to 3 inches wide by 16 inches high in the 

middle of the wall before opening up to the interior. The gun loops were positioned to 

provide flanking fire for the entrance during an attack. The splayed configuration of the gun 

loops provided the maximum cover for the garrison defending the battery. The towers of the 

sally port provided an important defense for the battery, and established the fortress-like 

appearance of the west elevation. 

The north and south side walls of the sally port, which extended from the granite façade to 

the main structure of the battery, were constructed with concrete. Only the second-story 

exterior walls of the side walls were exposed. Each wall had a gun port 12 inches square, 

equipped with vertical sliding iron shutters, at the second-story level. These gun ports were 

also equipped with Gatling guns. 

Granite-block retaining (or wing) walls were constructed on either side of the sally port. 

They extended 19 1⁄2 feet to either side of the sally port, and held back a portion of the sand 

embankment. The walls were 11 feet 6 inches high where they joined the towers of the 

entrance, tapering down to 3 feet 6 inches at their outer ends. Each retaining wall was 

terminated with a return parallel to the battery, and was capped with a beveled granite 

coping. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

101 

The junction of the west and north elevations formed a right angle, and the upper slope at the 

northwest corner formed a hip. The sloped portion of the structure on the north side 

included a parapet that extended above the terreplein level and served to protect that area. 

The sand embankment sloped at 45-degree angle away from the structure and rose 20 feet 

above grade. The junction of the north and east elevations was formed by a curve in the 

masonry wall. 

The east elevation, as viewed from the Proof Battery of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground 

situated east of Battery Potter, resembled a massive dune. As with the other elevations, the 

sand embankment was brought up to the 30-foot reference mark (20 feet above grade), and 

the masonry wall extended 4 feet above that. The sloped portion of the structure rose 

another 10 feet above that, and included a 4-foot parapet at the top. The parapet protected 

the chemin de ronde designed by Lt. Col. Gillespie and Lt. Warren. The superior slope of the 

battery roof extended west from the chemin de ronde toward the gun emplacements. 

The southeast corner of the Battery Potter was also curved in transition to the south 

elevation. The south elevation of the battery closely resembled the north elevation. The sand 

embankment rose at a 45-degree angle to a point on the concrete wall 20 feet above grade. 

Above the sand, the wall rose 4 feet to a granite belt course; from there it sloped upward to 

form the parapet. 

The roof level of Battery Potter was constructed in two sections. The lower section was a 

terraced area commonly known as the terreplein. The upper section was sloped and 

comprised the superior slope of the battery, facing east. 

The 12-inch guns were raised to their firing position at the terreplein level of Battery Potter. 

The curved concrete walls of the gun parapets formed the east wall of the terreplein. The 

exterior concrete slope of the battery formed the parapet that protected the north and south 

sides of the terreplein. The parapet wall was an extension of the front wall of the chemin de 

ronde, and served as the flank defense for Battery Potter. The west side of the terreplein was 

open. The terreplein was paved with flagstone taken from the “Fort at Sandy Hook.”2

 The 

coping at the top of each gun lift was constructed with granite block. 

A spiral staircase from the second story of the battery opened on to the terreplein and was 

protected by a round wooden tower with a conical roof. The completion drawings depict an 

iron ladder installed between the gun parapets leading from the terreplein level to the sloped 

roof of the battery. 

The east roof of Battery Potter sloped away from the gun emplacements toward the curved 

east face. This section of the roof had several angles to accommodate the D-shape of the 

battery. The roof was constructed with concrete sections arranged in a pattern of wedges 

conforming to the slope and curve of the roof. The superior slope of the battery was 

constructed with a concrete “granolithic” pavement composed of Portland cement, as 

described by Lt. Warren in 1893 (Appendix C). The superior slope of the roof ended at the 

chemin de ronde. 

 2

 Lt. J.G. Warren to Gillespie, September 1892; Lift Gun Battery, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New 

York: United States Engineer Bureau). [Note: This is a bound volume of monthly reports from Sept. 

1891 through March 1894, sent from Sandy Hook to Lt. Col. Gillespie at the N.Y. Engineer Office.] 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

102 

Battery Potter – Interior Elements

First Story 

The iron-plated double doors of the defensible entrance led to an open room or foyer (room 

101) on the first level of Battery Potter (fig. 43). Room 101 provided the only access to the 

interior of the battery from the ground level. The interiors of the flanking towers were open 

to the foyer. Each of those spaces was reached by one step up. The interior of each tower at 

the first story was equipped with three gun loops, each with an interior opening of 10 inches 

wide by 16 inches high, which narrowed to 3 inches wide at the center of the wall. This 

design protected the riflemen, while allowing for some range of motion for the rifles. 

Past the towers, a doorway in each side wall of the foyer led to a room that was also part of 

the defensible entrance. Both rooms were covered by the sand embankment and were 

constructed as bombproof rooms. The room to the north (room 102) was used as a bathroom 

for the battery. The F.Y. 1893 Annual Report (Appendix B) noted that the room was 

constructed “to provide space for a suitable and sanitary water closet for the garrison when 

the work is occupied.”3

 The room directly opposite room 102, to the south (room 103), was 

originally used as a pump room. The annual report stated that the pump could provide 1,000 

gallons of water per hour. A water supply of that capacity was required for the boilers, 

hydraulic system, and the sanitary systems of Battery Potter.4

Entry to the main interior of the battery was via an arched hallway or entry gallery (room 104) 

leading east from the defensible entrance through the concrete mass that comprised the 

exterior wall of the battery. The entry gallery was 10 feet wide by 20 feet long, with an 11-

foot-high arched ceiling. Its inner end opened to a transverse (north-south) gallery, and to a 

main center gallery (room 111) that contained the boilers. 

The north section of the transverse gallery (room 109) was an arched corridor leading to the 

magazines and lift for the north gun. The floor of the north transverse gallery was concrete, 

with narrow-gauge railroad tracks running along the center of the passage. The north 

transverse gallery had two doorways in the west wall and one doorway in the east wall. The 

east wall was also equipped with two openings approximately 5 feet off the ground and 

arranged equidistant from the doorway on the east wall. These arched openings extended to 

the interior storage rooms of the battery, as part of the original lantern lighting system. This 

lantern lighting system was designed to keep the open flame of the lanterns out of the 

ammunition storage magazines. The lanterns were placed in the gallery niches, and their 

light shone through openings into the magazines. The interior walls of the magazines were 

equipped with round openings that held a small glass window that allowed the light to shine 

into the room. When Battery Potter was finished, the lantern lighting system was used as a 

backup system for the electric lighting system. 

 3

 Gillespie to Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 

Annual Report; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 4

 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

103 

In the north end of the north transverse gallery, the first room on the west side of the gallery 

(room 106) was labeled “Dynamo” on the 1894 floor plan, which indicated that it was used 

for the electric plant for Battery Potter. Room 106 was a rectangular space measuring 6 feet 

wide by 10 feet long; it was equipped with a cement pad for the electrical plant, and an 

additional interior wall to protect the electrical equipment (see the subsequent section 

“Battery Potter – Utilities”). 

Proceeding north in the north transverse gallery, the next doorway to the west led to the 

north stairway. Just beyond the stairway on the east side of the gallery was an arched double 

doorway with doors leading to the north magazine gallery (room 113). 

Room 113 led to the two magazines and the gun-lift mechanism. The floor of the magazine 

gallery was concrete, and was equipped with narrow-gauge railroad tracks and a gun-metal 

turntable for the ammunition storage system, as previously described. The walls of Room 

113 were concrete, and they extended up to an arched ceiling. At the east end of Room 113 

was the lift for the ammunition, which traveled up though a rectangular shaft in the ceiling to 

the loading gallery for the gun. The east end of the magazine gallery terminates at the room 

for the gun-lift mechanism (room 119). 

The magazines were arranged on either side of the gallery, with their doorways directly 

opposite each other. The doorway to the powder magazine (room 112) was located on the 

north side of the gallery. This arched doorway was fitted with a wooden door that led into a 

cavernous storage room. The rails from the turntable in the magazine gallery (room 113) 

extended partway into the powder magazine. Room 112 had a concrete floor that was 

slightly pitched toward a drain. The room measured 15 feet wide by 30 feet long at its longest 

point. (There was a rectangular protrusion, or jog, in the southeast corner.) The ceiling 

consisted of an 11-foot-high segmental arch. The west wall of the room was pierced with a 

small, round “bulls-eye” window5

 that admitted light from a lantern set in a larger niche in 

the wall of the adjacent transverse gallery, as previously described. In the south wall next to 

the jog was a deep niche that provided access to the large nuts securing the long bolts that 

helped to hold the vertical guide rails for the gun-lift cage in room 119. 

The shell magazine (room 114) mirrored the powder magazine. The rails from the magazine 

gallery (room 113) were laid in the concrete floor of the room, and extended 8 feet into the 

magazine. The concrete walls of the room extended up to an arched ceiling. As in Room 112, 

Room 114 had a jog in its northeast corner, a “bulls-eye” window in its west wall for the 

lantern lighting system, and a deep niche in its north wall for access to the large nuts securing 

the long bolts that helped to hold the vertical guide rails for the gun-lift cage. Room 114 was 

also equipped with an overhead hoisting apparatus for loading and unloading shells, as 

previously described. 

 5

 McGregor to Gillespie, Dec. 24, 1894. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

104 

The gun-lift room (room 119) at the east end of the magazine gallery was open to the 

terreplein of the battery. The floor level of Room 119 was 2 feet lower than the gallery, and 

the space was occupied by the lift mechanism and cage (depending on the position of the 

gun). At the first story, this space was defined by four large piers, which extended up to the 

second-story level; they were constructed as solid concrete masses. As previously discussed, 

granite blocks were used in the sections of the piers where the shelf plates for the locking 

bolts of the gun-lift cage were attached. The tops of the piers were edged with a bluestone 

coping to protect the exposed edge of the concrete.6

 Vertical guide rails for the gun-lift cage 

were attached to all four walls of the room, by means of very long bolts that ran through the 

concrete into adjacent rooms, where they were secured with large nuts. In the case of room 

119, the bolts extended westward into the powder magazine (room 112) and the shell 

magazine (room 114); northward and southward into room 118 and the accumulator room 

(room 120), respectively; and eastward into the east transverse gallery (room 123). 

The south half of Battery Potter was a mirror image of the north half. The south section of 

transverse gallery (room 110) led to a small storage room (room 107) and then to the south 

magazine gallery (room 116), from which the south magazines could be reached. In the case 

of the south half of the battery, the shell magazine (room 115) was located north of the 

corridor, and the powder magazine (room 117) was located south of the corridor. These 

rooms, as well as the magazine gallery (room 116) and the gun-lift room (room 121), were 

arranged similarly to the north half of the battery, described previously. 

At the center of the battery on the first story was the main gallery (room 111), which 

contained the battery’s two boilers. The room’s east end was open to the accumulator room 

behind it (room 120); together they formed one contiguous space that housed all of the 

mechanical systems for the operation of the gun lifts. The main gallery/boiler room was 18 

feet wide by 50 feet long, and was constructed with a barrel-vaulted ceiling that was open to a 

height of 22 feet above the first level of the battery. The two large boilers that dominated the 

room were situated on the north side of the space (fig. 47). The floor of the main gallery was 

constructed with two areas that were 1 foot below the floor level. The depressions measured 

10 feet 6 inches wide by 13 feet long, and were built to accommodate the two large boilers. 

The floors in these areas were concrete, and the rest of the floor of Room 111 was set with 

rectangular bluestone pavers salvaged from the Fort at Sandy Hook. 

East of the main gallery/boiler room was the accumulator room (room 120), which measured 

22 feet wide by 38 feet 8 inches long. Room 120 was also open to the second story, and 

constructed with a barrel-vaulted ceiling 26 feet above the floor level. Room 120 was wholly 

devoted to the machinery that powered the gun lifts (figs. 48-49). The accumulator well was 

sunk into the southeast corner of the space, and pumps, water tanks, and piping took up the 

remainder of the area, as documented by photographs and drawings. The accumulator 

machinery was operated from a platform at the north end of Room 120, situated between the 

two southern piers of the north gun lift (fig. 48). The platform was accessed from the first 

story via a metal ladder. The boiler and accumulator rooms were vital to the operation of 

Battery Potter, and were well-documented in photographs and plans from the period of 

construction. 

 6

 Warren to Gillespie, October 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

105 

An arched passage way in the east wall of Room 120 led to a narrower transverse gallery along 

the east side of the battery (rooms 123-125). The sections at either end of this east transverse 

gallery (rooms 123 and 125) were open to the second story, in order to provide access to bolts 

helping to hold the two-story vertical guide rails for the gun-lift cages in rooms 119 and 121. 

The gallery was a long corridor measuring 4 feet wide and 96 feet long, with an arched 

ceiling. The bolts for the guide rails emerged from the west wall of the gallery, where they 

were secured by large nuts. 

There were two stairways from the first to the second levels (rooms 105 and 108), located at 

either end of the transverse gallery. As elsewhere on the first story, the stairways were mirror 

images of each other. In May 1892, James Cosby of Brooklyn, N.Y., was the low bidder for 

the construction of two straight iron stairways and one spiral stairway.7

 The report for that 

month confirms that the stairways were ordered, but no further documentation was 

uncovered regarding their manufacture. The iron stairways were installed in arched 

passageways that were 4 feet wide and 31 feet long. Each straight stairway was 23 feet long 

and constructed with 11 1⁄2-inch treads and 7 1⁄2-inch risers. The stairways were installed in 

September and October 1892.8

Second Story 

The second story of the defensible entrance (room 201) was an irregularly shaped space 

measuring 22 feet wide by 13 feet 6 inches long overall (fig. 44). Occupying the northwest 

and northeast corners of Room 201 were the interiors of the towers. As at the first story, the 

towers were constructed with gun loops for defense of the battery. Each tower had four gun 

loops that measured 12 inches wide by 18 inches high at the widest part of the embrasure, and 

narrowed to 3 inches wide at the mid-section of the wall. The center of the west wall had a 

larger recess measuring 20 inches wide by 34 inches high at the interior, with a gun port. 

Similar recesses and openings were cut into the north and south walls of Room 201. These 

openings were provided for Gatling guns that could sweep the embankment of the battery 

during an attack. The openings for the Gatling guns were equipped with vertical sliding iron 

shutters for the protection of the gunners. Room 201 was connected to the second story of 

the battery via a gallery (room 202). 

The connecting gallery (room 202) at the second story was located directly above the main 

gallery. Room 202 was 4 feet wide, with an arched ceiling. It was the only communication 

between the second story of the defensible entrance and the interior of the battery. Near the 

interior of the main structure, an arched opening in the north wall of Room 202 provided 

access to a spiral staircase that led up to the terreplein level. The spiral staircase was 

manufactured by James Cosby and was installed in September 1892.9

 Room 202 connected 

the defensible entrance to the 10-foot-wide transverse gallery of the second story (rooms 

203-205). 

 7

 Gillespie to James Cosby, May 19, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. II, p. 156; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 8

 Warren to Gillespie, September and October 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 9

 Warren to Gillespie, September and October 1892; Lift Gun Battery.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

106 

The north transverse gallery (room 203) and the south transverse gallery (room 205) were 

connected by a wooden bridge (room 204) that spanned the main gallery/boiler room (room 

111). As depicted in the 1894 completion drawings, the bridge was constructed with pine 

planks 10 feet long, 1 1⁄2 inches thick, and 6 inches wide. The planks were secured to six Ibeams that spanned the space.10 The east side of the bridge, which overlooked the main 

gallery, was equipped with a railing. The wooden bridge served as the only access for Room 

202 and the defensible entrance. 

The second story of the northern half of Battery Potter was accessible from the staircase in 

Room 105. The stairway led to the north transverse gallery (room 203), with access to the 

gallery through a doorway in the west wall of the gallery. On the east wall of Room 203, two 

niches for lighting were cut into the wall in a similar fashion to those on the first story. A 

doorway to the loading gallery and storage room was located in the middle of the east wall. 

A small hallway (room 207) was located directly off Room 203; it provided access to two 

casemate rooms (rooms 206 and 208) on either side of the hallway and loading gallery. 

Rooms 206 and 208 were mirror images of each other. Both rooms were L-shaped and had 

barrel-vaulted ceilings. Little information was discovered regarding the use of these rooms. 

The 1894 completion plans lists them as “casemate” rooms, which suggests that they were 

used for the storage of munitions. 

The loading gallery for the north gun (room 209) was accessed via an iron ladder leading 

from the hallway (room 207) up 5 feet to the platform of the gallery. The gallery was 8 feet 

wide and 24 feet 7 inches long. The floor of the gallery was flagstone, and toward the east end 

of the gallery, a rectangular opening in the floor allowed the ammunition lift to rise to the 

loading level. The floor was trenched for the pipes for the hydraulics of the ammunition lift. 

The ammunition lift was operated by levers at this level. The walls and ceiling of the east end 

of the loading gallery were constructed with granite block, including the arch of the loading 

gallery where it opened to the gun-lift area (fig. 50). From the east end of room 209, the 

granite-block construction extended approximately 14 feet into the gallery. The south wall 

of the granite block was notched with a chase measuring 6 by 12 inches for the pipes that 

carried the hydraulics for the ammunition lift. The ceiling of room 209 was an inclined arch 

that angled down from east to west to accommodate the loading mechanisms for the north 

gun. The hydraulic rammer for loading the 12-inch breech-loading rifle was mounted to the 

ceiling of the loading gallery. 

The gun-lift area (room 217) east of the loading gallery (room 209) was open to the lift 

mechanism when the gun was raised. When the gun was lowered, the platform of the liftcage was even with the loading gallery (fig. 50). The east wall beyond the gun-lift mechanism 

was notched out (room 214) to accommodate the barrel of the gun during loading. 

The south half of Battery Potter was a mirror image of the north half, except for the loading 

gallery (room 213). As previously discussed, the Engineers decided to modify the ceiling of 

the south gun’s loading gallery, to provide additional head room and more efficient operation 

of the ammunition lift and gun loading. This was the only discernable difference between the 

two emplacements. One of the 1894 completion drawings of Battery Potter depicts in crosssection the north and south ends of the battery, as well as the main gallery/boiler room 

 10 McGregor to Gillespie, Dec. 24, 1894. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

107 

(Appendix D, no. 4 of 10). Another illustrates the gun-lift mechanism in the loading position 

and in the firing position (Appendix D, no. 10 of 10). 

Battery Potter – Utilities

The operation of Battery Potter relied on the machinery specified by Lt. Col. Gillespie and 

his assistants. In addition to the machinery to operate the gun lifts, Battery Potter required 

lighting and a water supply for general operations. 

The specifications for the gun-lift mechanism submitted by Lt. Col. Gillespie on December 5, 

1890, included detailed descriptions of the accumulators and pumps that would power the 

hydraulic mechanism, as well as the two boilers for the system. Continental Iron Works, 

which had been the successful bidder on the project, installed the accumulators in February 

1892, and the boilers and pumps were set up in April 1892.11 As previously described, the 

accumulator and pumps were situated in room 120, and the boilers were installed along the 

north wall of room 111. 

The original plans for Battery Potter included a lighting system that used oil lamps set in 

niches along the galleries to provide the necessary light for the garrison. From the back of 

the niches, as previously described, smaller openings extended through the walls to the 

magazines and casemates. Here, each opening was fitted with a circular glass window or 

“bulls-eye”; this allowed some light to reach the rooms without the danger posed by an open 

oil-lamp flame. During the construction of Battery Potter, it was decided that this system of 

lighting was not adequate, but it was kept as an auxiliary system. As described by Lt. Col. 

Gillespie in the F.Y. 1893 Annual Report, the magnitude of the battery made it apparent that 

the oil-lamp system would not suffice, and that an electric light plant was required.12

Proposals for the electric plant were opened on September 19, 1892, and General Electric was 

awarded the contract for the project on October 7, 1892, at a cost of $3,788.13 Installation of 

the electric light plant began in December of that year and was completed on March 9, 1893. 

The plant was described by Lt. Col. Gillespie as follows: 

The plant is of the same general type as that in use by the Navy 

Department on vessels of war. 

It consists of a direct coupled Thompson-Houston engine and dynamo 

having a capacity, with 80 pounds of steam and running at 550 

revolutions per minute, of 100 volts and 40 amperes, equivalent to 

about 80 16-candle power lamps. Connected with this there are four 

24-candle power lamps, one in each magazine and fifty-four 16-candle 

power lamps.14

 11 Warren to Gillespie, February and April 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 12 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 

13 Warren to Gillespie, September and October 1892; Lift Gun Battery. 14 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

108 

The steam for the electric plant was provided by the boilers. The conductors for the electric 

lights were covered with lead and run in moldings attached with brass expansion bolts to the 

walls and arches of the battery. For the safety of the battery, the lamps of the lighting system 

were covered with globes that were steam- and vapor-proof.15 The dynamo for the electric 

light system was set on a concrete pad in Room 106. 

The water supply for Battery Potter was pumped from four well points that were located 

about 175 feet west of the battery. The pump was located in Room 103, and was a “Rider Hot 

Air Pumping Engine” with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per hour. It was capable of supplying 

the boilers, which evaporated 500 gallons of water per hour, and the 1,500-gallon tank for the 

hydraulic system, which occasionally required filling.16

The 1894 plans of Battery Potter depict a series of vents and piping that facilitated the 

function of the utilities and the battery in general (Appendix D). Upon the completion of 

Battery Potter, all of the utilities were installed and operational. 

 15 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 

16 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

109 

Figure 43. Battery Potter, first-floor plan with room numbers. Not to scale. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

110 

Figure 44. Battery Potter, second-floor plan with room numbers. Not to scale. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

111 

Figure 45. Battery Potter, terreplein, superior slope, and fire-control stations floor plan with room numbers. 

 Not to scale. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

112 

Figure 46. Battery Potter, west elevation with defensible entrance, circa 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

113 

Figure 47. Battery Potter, main gallery/boiler room. Photograph 

no. 21 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report.

Figure 48. Battery Potter, accumulator room pumps and operating 

platform, April 1893. Photograph no. 19 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 

Annual Report. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

114 

Figure 49. Battery Potter, accumulator room pumps. Photograph 

no. 20 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 

Figure 50. Battery Potter, loading gallery, north lift. August 25, 1892. 

Photograph no. 16 of 39 with F.Y. 1893 Annual Report. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

115 

ALTERATIONS 

Battery Potter – Maintenance and Alterations

The Period 1895 – 1906 

The estimate for the maintenance of Battery Potter during its first fiscal year of operation was 

placed at $5,000 by Lieutenant McGregor. Chief of Engineers Casey approved the F.Y. 1895 

budget on September 25, 1894, and allotted the $5,000 from appropriations for the 

“Preservation and Repair of Fortifications, Act of August 1, 1894.”17

The completion of Battery Potter and the submission of specifications and drawings in 1895 

should have ended the Corps of Engineers’ direct involvement with the battery. However, 

Fort Hancock was still in the planning stages, and the only military presence at Sandy Hook 

during this period was the Corps of Engineers and the Ordnance Department. The absence 

of an Artillery garrison meant that the Engineers had to continue their oversight of Battery 

Potter. 

The documents reviewed indicate that the budgets for maintenance of the battery were used 

to pay the wages of civilian employees, to purchase coal for the boilers, and for miscellaneous 

maintenance items such as painting. However, procuring funds for the maintenance of 

Battery Potter appears to have been somewhat of a struggle. Lt. Col. Gillespie’s budget of 

$4,000 for F.Y. 1897 was denied by the Board of Ordnance and Fortification because it 

deemed that Battery Potter had “been reported as a type” and required no further testing, 

and so was no longer eligible for appropriations under their control.18 The $5,000 allotted in 

June 1895 was stretched until October 17, 1896. In that same month, Gillespie reported that 

some expenses were covered from proceeds of the sale of horses to Major Knight of the 

Corps of Engineers.19

One improvement to the hydraulic system for the gun lift proposed by Lt. Col. Gillespie was 

the installation of stop valves in the piping of the system. The valves would be installed 

between the power plant and the lifts and hoists for each emplacement. Designed by 

Continental Iron Works, they would allow the engineer to shut down either side of the 

battery while allowing the other side to remain operational. Lt. Col. Gillespie’s request for 

 17 McGregor to Casey, Aug. 23, 1894; with approval by Casey, Sept. 25, 1894; File 7539; General 

Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 18 Board of Ordnance and Fortifications to Brig. Gen. Alexander Mackenzie, Chief of Engineers, 

Sept. 15, 1896; File 9716, enclosure 42; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 19 Gillespie to Brig. Gen. Wm. Craighill, Chief of Engineers, Sept. 9, 1896; File 9716, enclosure 41; 

General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

116 

$500 to implement this change was endorsed by Chief of Engineers Craighill on September 

17, 1895.20

Lt. Col. Gillespie was persistent in his requests for funds. The budget for Battery Potter for 

F.Y. 1898 submitted on October 27, 1896, included $1,080 for a civilian engineer, $720 for an 

assistant engineer, $540 for coal, $180 for painting the iron work and ammunition trolley, 

and $100 to repair the slopes. In response, Chief of Engineers Craighill suggested that two 

Artillery men be stationed at the battery for training by the civilian engineer, and that the 

battery be transferred to the Artillery Corps.21 However, no transfer occurred until the 

permanent garrison of troops arrived at Fort Hancock in 1898. Two men were assigned to 

man the battery during F.Y. 1897, but funds were still stretched when Lt. McGregor 

requested $90 in May 1897 to cover repairs and the payment of the civilian engineer for the 

last month of the fiscal year.22

Even after Battery Potter was transferred to the Artillery Corps, the Corps of Engineers was 

still involved in the maintenance of the structure. A report on the Harbor Defenses of Sandy 

Hook notes that the guns and lift mechanism were overhauled in 1898, and the elevated 

smokestack exposed to gun fire was removed. Steam fans were installed to provide the 

necessary draft for the boilers.23

Edwin Bearss stated that in 1898, an allotment of $200 from the “National Defense Act” was 

used to install two emergency range-finder piers for portable instruments at Sandy Hook.24 

The installation of these piers may be referring to the two piers on the terreplein of Battery 

Potter evident in the 1906 photographs of the battery (figs. 51-52). One was a concrete 

platform and pier located near the northwest corner of the terreplein; the other was the 

concrete steps and pier situated between the gun parapets. 

The pier at the northwest corner of the terreplein was apparently constructed between 1893 

and 1906. The platform was not present in a photograph that accompanied the F.Y. 1893 

Annual Report, but was built by the time Battery Potter was disarmed in 1906 (fig. 51). The 

structure was terraced in construction, with six steps ascending to a small platform. The 1906 

photograph of the structure depicts a pier mounted on the top platform, and evidence of the 

pier was observed during the current investigation. The existence of the pier suggests that 

the platform was initially used as a position- and range-finding platform for the guns of 

Battery Potter. 

 20 Gillespie to Craighill, Sept. 5, 1895, with endorsement by Craighill, Sept. 17, 1895; File 9716, 

enclosure 32; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 21 Gillespie to Craighill, Oct. 27, 1896; File 13121; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; 

RG 77; NAB. 

22 McGregor to Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson, Chief of Engineers, May 27, 1897; File 9716, enclosure 

47; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 23 The Harbor Defenses of Sandy Hook; Entry 317; RG 392; NARA –Northeast Region (NY). 

“History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook”; Entry 317; RG 392; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 24 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, September 1983), p. 116. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

117 

Like wise, the pier constructed between the gun parapets did not appear in the 1893 

photograph or the 1984 completion drawings. However it was depicted in the 1906 

photographs of the battery (figs. 51-52). The structure was semicircular, with four terraced 

steps ascending to a platform. A pier positioned adjacent to the wall was constructed on the 

platform. Again, the existence of the pier suggests that the structure was initially used as a 

position- and range-finding platform for the guns of Battery Potter. Incidentally, in 1904 a 

plotting house was planned for Battery Potter that was to be constructed around this pier (fig. 

53). Though the plotting house was never built, the plan for the plotting house further 

indicates that the pier was used for the range-finding instruments at Battery Potter. 

Based on the historic photographs and completion drawings, it seems clear that the two piers 

on the terreplein of Battery Potter were the emergency range-finder piers referenced by 

Edwin Bearss as having been constructed in 1898 . Bearss also noted that alterations were 

made to the range-finder pillars in F.Y. 1899.25

One recurring problem at Battery Potter was the migration of water into the battery. Though 

Lt. McGregor’s inspection of the magazines found them dry in 1895, five years later a letter 

from Major William Marshall reported that the thin coat of Rosendale cement on the interior 

walls was scaling off. Marshall had consulted the gun-lift engineman to find out what 

processes had been applied to try to correct the scaling problem. It was interesting to note 

the various methods pursued to correct the scaling. 

The walls were first treated with melted paraffin in a manner similar to 

that by which the obelisk in Central Park was treated. They have been 

painting with white lead and raw oil, with white lead and turpentine, 

with Portland cement grout, with lime, soap and alum, with lime and 

Portland cement mixed with salt water, and with asbestine [sic] cold 

water paint. In addition, the arches were washed with a mixture of 

lime, salt, rice, Spanish whiting and glue, as prescribed by the Light 

House Department for whitewashing the exteriors of stone lighthouses.26

However, Marshall attributed the scaling to water infiltration from the terreplein level of the 

battery, and he did not believe the scaling could be stopped until that problem was 

addressed.27 

Major Marshall related his solution to the problem in a letter to the Chief of Engineers on 

December 1, 1900. Major Marshall’s letter included the following proposals for stopping the 

water infiltration: 

No. I To take up and replace flagstone pavement on waterproof 

course, consisting in: 

A thin, smooth surface of Portland cement mortar painted over with 

Asphaltic roofing paint. 

 25 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 116. 26 Maj. William Marshall to Wilson, Nov. 21, 1900; Vol. I, p. 305; Press Copies of Letters Sent 

Relating to Fort Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 27 Marshall to Wilson, Nov. 21, 1900. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

118 

A course of waterproofing consisting of 4 layers (shingled) of Asbestos 

felting, each layer painted with roofing paint. 

A layer 2" thick of porous mortar, 1 cement to 6 coarse sand on which 

the flagging is to be laid, with joints filled with pitch. 

This is substantially the waterproofing used with success in this city in 

laying pavements above cellars and rooms under sidewalks. 

No. II Same waterproofing with flagstones replaced with granolithic 

pavement. 

The estimated cost for No. I is 

2,000 sq. yds., at $2.50....$5,000.00 

For No. II 

2,000 sq. yds., at $4.00....$8,000.00 

The difference between I and II is in the cost of a granolithic mass 6" 

thick, to replace the flagstones, at 33 1/3 cents per cubic foot or 16 2/3 

cents per sq. foot of pavement. 

I recommend that for the present the first plan be tried.28

The Chief of Engineers approved proposed method No. I for waterproofing the terreplein, 

and the allotment of funds was made on December 4, 1900. The work was to be performed 

when the weather improved. 29 In April 1901 a crew of workmen installed the waterproofing 

on the terreplein, and during the following fiscal year the cracks in the pavement around the 

gun carriages were cut out and the joints filled with waterproof cement. These procedures 

stopped the water infiltration for the moment.30

Assistant Engineer Hurlbut estimated that the maintenance and repair of the defenses at Fort 

Hancock would total $10,525 during F.Y. 1903. That included the following items for the 

gun-lift battery: $1,250 for relaying floors and drainage systems; $1,200 for scraping, 

plastering, and whitewashing the interior walls; and $1,200 to hire one engineer for the care 

of the gun-lift mechanism. The required funds for the projects were allotted by Chief of 

Engineers Gillespie, and the work was completed by Hurlbut and his workmen.31

 28 Marshall to Wilson, Dec. 1, 1900; Vol. I, p. 315; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 29 Marshall to Wilson, Feb. 5, 1901; Vol. I, p. 363; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 30 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 116. 31 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 224. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

119 

Gun-Lift Battery No. 1 was named Battery Potter, in honor of Brigadier General Joseph H. 

Potter, on May 25, 1903 (see the previous section “Historical Background and Context”).32 

The heavy bronze letters designating the battery were ordered by Major Marshall and 

installed above the gate of the defensible entrance during F.Y. 1904.33 

Ironically, soon after receiving its designation and nameplate, Battery Potter was considered 

obsolete by the Artillery Corps. Only a year after the battery was named, Colonel Greenough 

of the Artillery Corps wrote to the Adjutant General that the battery was expensive to operate 

and the loading process was slow. He did note that the battery provided the only guns with 

all-round fire at Sandy Hook, and that new guns should be emplaced prior to 

decommissioning Potter. Greenough also thought that the battery would make an excellent 

site for range-finding stations for the other emplacements at Sandy Hook.34 The Artillery 

Corps’ comments and concerns were ultimately referred to now-Lt. Col. William Marshall 

for remark. Marshall’s reply on June 1, 1904, elaborates on the issues related to the 

obsolescence of Battery Potter, and also gives some insight as to how the battery operated 

during that period: 

Respectfully returned to Colonel Amos Stickney, Corps of Engineers, 

Engineer Office Atlantic Division. 

The guns of this battery are raised, lowered, and loaded by hydraulic 

machinery. Fire is always kept under one of the boilers and a steam 

engineer kept employed to operate the mechanism of the lift. I 

understand that with banked fires about 130 tone of coal are consumed 

each year. In active service many times that amount would be required 

each year, and additional mechanics, also firemen. 

The steam engineer is the only man at Fort Hancock acquainted with 

the machinery and able to operate it, where as the operation of all guns 

in our defensive works should be well understood by the enlisted men 

of the Artillery, as well as by the officers. This is a serious objection in 

my mind to this battery, especially in view of the cost of maintenance, 

even when so inadequately provided with men having knowledge of its 

working parts as now. 

The loading and firing of the guns, while not so slow as with the old 

smooth bore muzzle loaders, are slow operations compared with 

modern disappearing rifles of the same caliber. 

Battery Potter (gun lift) includes the only guns at Fort Hancock, having 

an unlimited field of fire. The dangerous positions in Sandy Hook Bay 

that might be occupied by an enemy are covered by the gun lift battery 

only, being within the inferior limit of the mortar fire. The mechanism 

of the lift has never been out of order, (except once for about 15 

minutes), since its installation. These facts constitute the only reasons 

for the retention of the battery. There has not been devised an 

unlimited fire disappearing carriage and emplacement for 12-inch B.L. 

rifle. 

 32 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Oct. 1924, p. 10; Entry 224; RG 392; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 33 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 118. 34 Col. G. G. Greenough, Artillery Corps, to Adjutant General, Department of the East, May 22, 

1904; File 96; Letters Received Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

120 

Fort Hancock, without guns covering Sandy Hook Bay, is untenable, 

and the guns of Battery Potter can be used but awkwardly and 

extremely slowly when traversed so far to the rear (180 degrees from 

the elevating and loading position) as to cover Sandy Hook Bay. 

It is recommended that a battery of two 12-inch or two 10-inch B.L.R., 

and two 6-inch B.L.R., in (sic) disappearing carriages be at once 

constructed at old Camp Low, to cover Sandy Hook Bay, (and part of 

Raritan Bay), especially the deep water west of the Hook not now 

covered by the guns of the Fort, other than gun lift, and that may be 

occupied by deep draft vessels of war that after the construction of 

Ambrose channel may pass into the Lower Bay through the main 

channels, in moderately misty or foggy weather; and that Battery 

Potter be disarmed and the emplacements of the battery be used for 

sites for the primary range and position finder stations for which the 

battery is admirably located; the lower rooms and boilers therein to be 

used for the central power plant.35

While Lt. Col. Marshall’s remarks brought up some important points, Chief of Engineers 

Mackenzie noted that insufficient funds were available to make the changes to Battery Potter, 

but that estimates for two 6-inch emplacements had been requested.36 The fate of the guns at 

Battery Potter was spared for the moment, but this discussion essentially ended the battery’s 

days as a gun emplacement. 

Battery Potter is Disarmed, 1906 

Since the completion of Battery Potter, the construction of Endicott System emplacements 

had continued apace at Sandy Hook. The construction of the Mortar Battery was concurrent 

with that of Battery Potter, and both emplacements were completed by 1894. These two 

emplacements constituted the beginning of the effort to fortify Sandy Hook in accordance 

with the recommendations of the Endicott Board. 

Additional emplacements included Battery Granger, started in 1896. It was equipped with 

two 10-inch breech-loading rifles on disappearing carriages in 1898.37 The nine-gun battery 

was the next installation, which was composed of four separate emplacements that were 

constructed next to one another. The first of these was 10-inch Battery No. 2, which was 

mounted with three 10-inch rifles on disappearing carriages in 1898.38 12-inch Battery No. 2 

was tied into the right side of 10-inch Battery No. 2, and was armed with two breech-loading 

rifles on disappearing carriages in 1899 and 1900.39 In 1900 the combined batteries were 

named Battery Halleck.40 Over the next four years, two more emplacements were added to 

 35 Marshall to Col. Amos Stickney, Corps of Engineers, Atlantic Division, June 1, 1904, 6th

endorsement with Col. Greenough’s letter to the Adjutant General; File 96; Letters Received Sandy 

Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 36 Mackenzie, 11th endorsement with Col. Greenough’s letter to the Adjutant General; File 96; 

Letters Received Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 37 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 197. 38 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 211-216. 39 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 217-219. 40 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 222. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

121 

Battery Halleck, each armed with two 12-inch breech-loading rifles on disappearing 

carriages.41 In 1904 Battery Halleck was redesignated as four separate batteries: Battery 

Halleck, Battery Alexander, Battery Bloomfield, and Battery Richardson.42 The construction 

and arming of these emplacements made Sandy Hook and Fort Hancock a formidable force 

in the defense of New York Harbor. 

The development of these emplacements made the gun-lift battery increasingly obsolete. 

Originally a second gun-lift battery had been planned for Sandy Hook, but advances made in 

the construction and armament of Endicott System emplacements resulted in the substitution 

of Battery Granger for it.43 The primary reason for retaining Battery Potter, as elucidated by 

Lt. Col. Marshall, was the fact that it was the only emplacement that could cover Sandy Hook 

Bay and Horseshoe (or Spermaceti) Cove. However, plans for a battery at Camp Low that 

would have three 8-inch disappearing guns and would cover these critical areas began in 

1905. Construction of the battery, which was designated Battery Arrowsmith, began in the 

fall of 1906. 

In the meantime, plans for the fire-control system for the emplacements at Sandy Hook had 

progressed, and Battery Potter was among the sites being considered for the primary firecontrol stations (see the subsequent section “Primary Fire-Control Stations”). These plans, 

and the construction of the battery at Camp Low, essentially sealed the fate of Battery Potter, 

and plans for its disarmament progressed. 

Lt. Colonel Henry L. Harris of the Artillery Corps notified the Adjutant of the Southern 

Artillery District of New York on August 30, 1906, that the 12-inch guns of Battery Potter had 

been dismounted and placed on the superior slope of the battery. He also wrote that the 

carriages would be dismounted in the next three weeks (fig. 52).44 Though this meant the end 

of the gun-lift battery as an armed emplacement, it marked the beginning of a new use for 

Battery Potter. 

 41 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 219-228. 42 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 234. 43 Col. Henry Abbott, N.Y. Board of Engineers, to Casey, June 21, 1889; File 2776a, p. 14; 

Correspondence, Blueprints, and Reports Relating to Defense, 1873- 1919; Entry 225; RG 77; NAB. 44 Lt. Col. Henry L. Harris to Adjutant, Southern Artillery Dist. Of New York (Adjutant); enclosure 

15; folder 150; box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

122 

Gun-Lift Machinery Dismantled, 1907 - 1909 

Though the guns of Battery Potter had been removed in 1906, the machinery of the gun lift 

had remained in place. The machinery was inventoried in situ in 1907 by Assistant Engineer 

Hurlbut, and consisted of: 

2 Scotch Marine Boilers, 90-horsepower, each 9-by-9 foot, with 

 breeching. 

2 Heavy Duty Pressure Pumps, Worthington make, 20" x 4 3⁄4" x 15", 

 steam water stroke. 

1 Boiler Feed Pump, Smith & Vaile make. 

1 Hot Air Rideler Engine, one-eighth h.p. 

1 Dynamo, 8 k.w., and 1 case engine 10 h.p. Direct connect and 

 switchboard. 

2 Hydraulic Lifts, estimated weight, 125 tons each, with cages. 

2 Accumulators, estimated weight 375 tons. 

2 Loading Rammers with platforms and fixtures, estimated weight 

about 2 tons, one dismounted. 

1 Wheeler High Pressure Condenser, 200 h.p., with 10" circulating 

pump attached and hot well. 

1 Iron Cylinder Tank, 5' x 5' x 10', capacity 1,500 galls. 

1 Boiler Feed Tank, capacity 250 galls 

2 1-1⁄2" Metropolitan Injectors.45

For all practical purposes, the old machinery was obsolete. In July 1908, Lt. Colonel 

Solomon W. Roessler assumed the position of Engineer in charge of the Eastern and 

Southern Defenses of New York Harbor, following Lt. Colonel Marshall’s promotion to 

Chief of Engineers. Lt. Col. Roessler reported to Marshall that he wanted to have the 

machinery inspected and condemned on December 26, 1908. General Marshall approved of 

Roessler’s plan, and an inspection of the machinery was ordered.46

The subsequent inspection of the machinery determined that most of it was old and nearing 

the end of its usefulness. Discussions on the best way to use and dispose of the machinery 

ensued over the next several months. Most of the machinery was considered obsolete and 

was to be sold as salvage. However, Lt. Col. Harris – the commander of the Coast Artillery 

Corps (CAC) at Fort Hancock – suggested that the boilers would make a good nucleus for a 

central heating plant.47 However, a central heating plant for Fort Hancock was not built. In 

July, Lt. Col. Roessler notified the Quartermaster that the two Scotch Marine Boilers and 

related equipment would be turned over to the Quartermaster Department by Assistant 

Engineer Hurlbut.48

 45 Assistant Engineer Hurlbut to Marshall, Jan. 23, 1907; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating 

to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 46 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 152. 47 Harris to Adjutant, June 11, 1909; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification 

Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 48 Lt. Col. Solomon W. Roessler to Quartermaster, Fort Hancock, July 2, 1909; folder 5, box 33; 

Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). No further documentation concerning the disposition of the boilers was discovered. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

123 

The public bid for the removal of the remaining machinery at Battery Potter was advertised 

in June 1909. Marine Metal & Supply Co. was awarded the contract to dismantle and salvage 

what remained of the gun-lift mechanism. Work progressed on the salvage through October 

1909, when Marine Metal ran into problems removing some of the machinery embedded in 

the floors of the lift-gun elevator shafts. With approval from Lt. Col. Harris, the company 

used explosives to remove the remainder of the machinery.49

The project was practically completed by the close of 1909, but Marine Metal & Supply failed 

to remove all the remaining pieces of iron. Correspondence between Lt. Col. Roessler and 

Stephen McArdle of Marine Metal requested the removal of all remaining machinery. This 

was completed by June, except for some heavy iron that required the use of the Ordnance 

Department’s locomotive crane.50 By the end of June, Marine Metal had the use of the 

locomotive crane, and the last pieces of the gun-lift machinery were removed.51

Post-Disarmament Maintenance and Alterations, 

1906 - Present 

1906 – 1915 

Though Battery Potter was under the control of the Artillery Corps, the Corps of Engineers 

was still involved in the maintenance of the structure. The interior magazines of Battery 

Potter were used by the Ordnance Department for the storage of powder and supplies, as 

well as the assembly of cartridges. When the fire-control stations were constructed, an 

interior stairway for access to the terreplein and stations was planned to go through the north 

gun-lift opening (see the subsequent section “Primary Fire-Control Stations”). The stairway 

was proposed in planning documents,52 and the plans depict the stairway. The plans were 

approved, and the stairway was apparently constructed. However, the existing stairway in 

that location appears to be more modern, and may have replaced an earlier stairway. 

 49 Marine Metal & Supply Co. to Roessler, Oct. 30, 1909; endorsed and forwarded Roessler to 

Harris, Nov. 2, 1909; endorsed by Harris Nov. 4, 1909; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 50 Roessler to Stephen McArdle, Dec. 3, 1909, and McArdle to Roessler, June 2, 1910; folder 5, box 

33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 51 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 154. 52 Marshall to Mackenzie, Nov. 16, 1906; Vol. IV, p. 396; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to 

Fort Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

124 

The Coast Artillery Corps notified the Adjutant at Fort Hancock that the interior rooms used 

for storage were dangerous, with damp, musty, and unsightly conditions, and the corps asked 

if the floors would be replaced.53 Later in the month, Lt. Col. Roessler requested that 

Hurlbut patch the floor with cheap concrete, which Hurlbut estimated would cost $102.50.54

The poor condition of the lighting system at the battery was brought to the attention of Lt. 

Col. Roessler by Col. Thomas White, Coast Artillery Corps, in January 1911.55 On February 

4, Asst. Eng. Hurlbut forwarded an estimate of $815.75 for a new lighting system for the 

interior of the battery, which included44 new marine electric-light fixtures.56 The plans were 

approved in August 1911, but the budget had been reduced to $500.57 Hurlbut proceeded 

with the installation, and had it completed before winter. However, in August 1912, Col. 

White complained that condensation was causing shorts in the system.58 This problem was 

solved by replacing the leather gaskets in the plug boxes with rubber, and drying out the 

fixtures. 

Meanwhile Battery Potter required regular maintenance to keep the interior serviceable. 

Asst. Eng. Hurlbut observed in January1911 that the two interior iron stairways needed 

scraping and painting.59 The work was performed by Engineer troops during that winter. 

Exterior Stairway, 1915 

Lt. Col. Samuel E. Allen, Coast Artillery Corps, requested in January 1914 that District 

Engineer Roessler consider the construction of exterior stairways to Battery Potter’s 

terreplein. Lt. Col. Allen argued that this would give the Artillery Corps easier access to the 

fire-control stations, and would provide the Ordnance Department with better access to, and 

use of, the interior of the battery for storage.60 Allen forwarded a sketch of the battery that 

depicted the possible locations of two exterior stairways (fig. 54). Lt. Col. Roessler advised 

that the construction of two exterior stairways would be expensive, and he suggested a single 

stairway. Roessler’s position was upheld by Brig. General Dan C. Kingman, Chief of 

Engineers, and Brig. General E.M. Weaver, Chief of Coast Artillery, who suggested a 

staircase on the west elevation of the battery, south of the defensible entrance (position “A” 

 53Capt. Coast Artillery to Adjutant, Fort Hancock, May 9, 1910; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence 

Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 54 Roessler to Hurlbut, May 12, 1910, and Hurlbut to Roessler, May 14, 1910; folder 5, box 33; 

Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 55 Col. Thomas White, CAC, to Roessler, Jan. 13, 1911; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating 

to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 56 Hurlbut to Roessler, Feb. 4, 1911; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification 

Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 57 Roessler to Hurlbut, Aug. 19, 1911; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification 

Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 58 White to Roessler, Aug. 14, 1912; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification 

Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 59 Hurlbut to Roessler, Jan. 11, 1911; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification 

Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 60 Lt. Colonel Samuel E. Allen, CAC, to Roessler, Jan. 14, 1914; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence 

Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

125 

on fig. 54). Lt. Col. Roessler called for the stairway to be constructed at the southeast angle of 

the battery (position “F” on fig. 54).61 Two sheets of drawings were submitted by the New 

York District Office to the Chief of Engineers on December 15, 1914, which showed the 

location of the proposed stairway, as well as the materials and method of construction (plans 

with “indorsements,” figs. 55-56). The plans were approved by the Secretary of War on 

January 29, 1915, and the stairway to the terreplein of Battery Potter was constructed during 

that year. 

As indicated by the plans, the exterior stairway at Battery Potter was constructed with castiron elements. The stairway was constructed in two sections, with a landing between the 

sections. The upper section of steps led to the terreplein, where a section of the parapet wall 

had been removed to allow access from the stairway. 

The lower section of the stairway was composed of 10-inch iron treads with a 7 3⁄4-inch rise 

between treads. The treads were attached to a 12-inch-wide stringer that ascended 

approximately 35 feet to the landing. Though the plans did allow for a two-piece stringer on 

each side, extant evidence suggests that the stairway was built with a single stringer on each 

side. The stringer was supported by a bracket about halfway up the lower section of the 

stairway. The bracket was also made of cast iron, and was tied into the exterior concrete wall 

of the battery. The iron treads were supported by L brackets bolted to the stringer. The 

lower section had 33 steps up to a cast-iron landing measuring 4 feet 6 inches by 4 feet 7 

inches. The upper section of the stairway was constructed in a similar manner as the lower 

section, but had 9-inch treads with a 9-inch rise. Both sections of the stairway had a railing 

1 1⁄2 inches in diameter on both sides, which was supported by 1-inch iron balusters. The 

iron treads and the landing were cast with a 1 1⁄4 -inch grid, which was composed of a pattern 

of raised rectangles measuring one-quarter of an inch by 1 inch, with half-inch holes (fig. 56). 

The stairway was constructed as planned, and provided the artillery personnel with easier 

access to the fire-control station on the terreplein of Battery Potter. 

1920 – 1974 

The main structure of Battery Potter has remained stable over the years. The records 

reviewed indicated that the iron elements, including the stairway and main doors and gate, 

were painted periodically.62 

Review of the historic photographs and investigation of the existing structure indicated that 

the terreplein of Battery Potter was repaired prior to 1930. The terreplein had originally 

been covered with flagstone, and the 1901 repairs indicated that the flagstone would be 

reinstalled over the proposed waterproofing material (see the previous section “The Period 

1895-1906”). Photographs from 1906 depict what appears to be a flagstone terreplein with 

tight joints between the pavers. However, the existing paving consist of 6-foot-square slabs 

of concrete with approximately 1 inch between each section. The same concrete slabs were 

 61 Roessler to Allen, April 4, 1914; with endorsement of Brig. Gen. E.M. Weaver, Chief of CAC, May 

16, 1914; folder 5, box 33; Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; 

RG 77; NARA -Northeast Region (NY). 62 Preservation and Repair, Miscellaneous; folder 16, box 35, Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

126 

depicted in a ca.-1930 photograph of the range-finding instruments and personnel on the 

terreplein of Battery Potter (fig. 57). The evidence presented by these photographs suggests 

that water infiltration from the terreplein level of the battery continued to be a problem, and 

that the flagstones were replaced with concrete in an effort to correct that problem. The 

concrete appears to be in good condition in the ca.-1930 photograph, which suggests that it 

was installed not long before then, possibly ca. 1920. The documents reviewed did not 

provide any further information regarding the replacement of the materials on the terreplein 

of Battery Potter. 

After the guns of Battery Potter had been removed, the concrete platform located near the 

northwest corner of the terreplein was no longer needed as a range-finding platform. 

Historic photographs from the World War II period depict the use of the platform for 

launching and tracking weather balloons, which would help determine the wind speed and 

assist in accurate positioning of the guns (fig. 58). Those photographs show that the rangefinding pier had been removed from the platform by that time. The use of the platform for 

weather balloons was apparently linked to the meteorological station located in the smaller 

of the two concrete fire-control station buildings (see the subsequent section “Primary FireControl Stations, Maintenance and Alterations”). 

Battery Potter continued to be used for storage until the end of military use of Fort Hancock 

in 1974.63 In 1970, Post Commander Colonel John A. Pierce had Battery Potter tidied up for 

the 75th anniversary of Fort Hancock. Debris and trash were removed from the interior of 

the battery, and some of the undergrowth was removed from the exterior. The open house at 

Fort Hancock held on October 31, 1970, included a bus tour that stopped at Battery Potter.64

1974 – Present 

Since the Fort Hancock was transferred to the Department of the Interior, the National Park 

Service has been determined to preserve Battery Potter. At a meeting to determine guidelines 

for the preservation of Fort Hancock in 1977, it was decided that Battery Potter should 

receive partial restoration.65 The General Management Plan (GMP) and GMP Amendment 

for Gateway NRA called for the rehabilitation of the battery in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

66 

In 1976 the NPS installed a new interior lighting system at Battery Potter. The system used 

metal conduit, which was damaged by the high amount of moisture in the battery. The 

conduit was replaced with the extant plastic conduit in 1990. 

 63 Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1948-1974, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit, New 

Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, November 1982), p. 190. 64 Bearss, Fort Hancock, 1948-1974, pp. 150 – 151. 65 Jack E. Stark, NARO Regional Director, to Superintendent, Gateway NRA, July 7, 1977. Copy at 

Northeast Region Offices, 115 John Street, Lowell, MA. 66 General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretation Prospectus: 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, January 1990), p. 9. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

127 

The Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, proceeded with a project to stabilize Battery Potter in 

1984. The project dealt primarily with the defensible entrance of the battery. The North 

Atlantic Historic Preservation Center of the North Atlantic Region prepared a set of five 

plans for the project, and recommended cleaning and repointing the granite-block façade of 

the entrance. The plans also specified repairs to the concrete floor at the second story of the 

entrance. In addition, the second-story wooden bridge (figs. 44 and 204) spanning the two 

ends of the transverse gallery was reconstructed by a contractor. 

Battery Potter was also included in the project “Stabilization of Historic Concrete Batteries at 

Fort Hancock.” This project included core testing of the masonry of the battery, and 

culminated in 1990 in a report with recommendations for stabilization.67

More recently, the Sandy Hook Unit has made efforts to address visitor safety and allow 

guided tours to the roof of the battery. Work performed in 2003 included the removal of 

loose and failing concrete along the west parapet wall, rehabilitation of the metal exterior 

stairway on the south side of the battery, and the installation of pipe railing along the top of 

the gun parapet walls and south of the fire-control stations. 

The park is currently in the process of planning the preservation and rehabilitation of three 

Endicott System gun batteries, including Battery Potter. The Project Management 

Information System (PMIS) project statement says that the repairs on Battery Potter will 

focus on deteriorating and falling concrete, and will address visitor safety concerns at the 

battery.68 The preservation of Battery Potter will strengthen the park’s goal to interpret the 

history of Fort Hancock and the coastal defenses of the United States. 

 67 Todd Rutenbeck, Stabilization Investigations, Historic Concrete Batteries, Fort Hancock, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, June 1990). 

68 Project Information Management System (PMIS) Project #57952. NPS website, 

http://165.83.198.10/ pmis_search_projectdetail.cfm. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

128 

Figure 51. Battery Potter, west elevation and terreplein with 12-inch 

guns dismounted, circa 1906. Note range-finding platforms at 

northwest corner and at parapet wall. 

Figure 52. Battery Potter, terreplein with 12-inch guns and carriages 

dismounted, circa 1906. Note range-finding platform at parapet wall 

behind soldier on right. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

129 

Figure 53. “Plotting House, Battery Potter, Fort Hancock, N.J.” Note the plotting house structure to be situated along the parapet wall

between the north and south emplacements was apparently not built. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

130 

Figure 54. Schematic plan of Battery Potter, showing possible locations for exterior stairways and fire-control stations 

(1914). 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

131 

Figure 55. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Iron Stairway to F.C. Stations, Battery Potter, Lower Flight and Platform Frame.” Exterior stairway 

situated at the southwest corner of Battery Potter, Sheet 1 of 2. Drafted by J.C. Letts, January 1915. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

132 

Figure 56. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Iron Stairway to F.C. Stations, Battery Potter, Upper Flight, Treads and Platform.” Exterior stairway 

situated at the southwest corner of Battery Potter, Sheet 2 of 2. Drafted by J.C. Letts, January 1915. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

133 

Figure 57. Battery Potter, view of terreplein, showing training of 

personnel on height finder, ca. 1940. Note the paving of the 

terreplein is similar to extant paving. 

Figure 58. Battery Potter, meteorological personnel checking wind 

velocity from platform in northwest corner of terreplein, ca. 1940. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

134 

Battery Potter – Addition of

Primary Fire-Control Stations

Background 

The Corps of Engineers, along with the Ordnance Department and the Signal Corps, was 

charged with developing a fire-control system for the Endicott System emplacements in the 

late 1890s. The system developed included range- and position-finding instruments, and 

strategically placed stations to house the instruments. Components of this system were 

constructed at Fort Hancock beginning in F.Y. 1900 and continuing through 1907.69

Lt. Col. Marshall’s response of June 1, 1904, to Col. Greenough’s May 22 letter to the 

Adjutant General was the first mention of the possible use of Battery Potter as a location for 

range- and position-finding stations.70 Upon investigation of alternate sites at Fort Hancock, 

and preparation of proposals for fire-control stations at those sites, Colonel Marshall 

determined that the installation of fire-control stations on Battery Potter’s terreplein would 

save the government $13,000.71

Lt. Col. Marshall’s correspondence to Chief of Engineers Mackenzie on February 16,1905, 

included a tracing showing the proposed location of the fire-control stations for the Mortar 

Battery (Battery Reynolds), as well as the rear elevations of nine buildings clustered in two 

groups as proposed by the “Harris Board” in 1904 (fig. 59). The letter noted that the nine 

buildings were planned as low structures with two rooms in each building: one for the 

observation room, and one for the plotting room. As planned, the level of the observation 

room floor would be 2 feet 5 inches above that of the plotting room; the instruments in the 

stations for the Mortar Battery would be mounted 4 1⁄2 feet higher than those in the other 

stations.72 It is interesting to note that while the elevation shows two stations for the Mortar 

Battery and nine stations for other batteries, the plan of the terreplein only depicts the 

building housing the two stations for Mortar Battery. Apparently the plans for the Mortar 

Battery stations were more advanced than those for the other batteries. Indeed, more 

detailed plan and section views of the primary stations for the Mortar Battery were submitted 

by Lt. Col. Marshall on March 22, 1905 (fig. 60). The building housing the two fire-control 

stations for the Mortar Battery was constructed during the spring and summer of that year. 

In September 1905, the Artillery Corps was notified of the completion of the two stations, 

and it took possession of them in October.73

 69 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 129 -132. See Bearss’ report for a more detailed discussion 

of the development of this system on the national level, as well as range and position towers at Fort 

Hancock, pp. 129-135. 70 See fn. 34. 

71 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 136 -137. 72 Marshall to Mackenzie, Feb. 16, 1905; Vol. III, p. 485; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to 

Fort Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 73 War Department to Commanding General, Atlantic Division, September 25, 1905, with 

endorsement by Col. Marshall, Oct. 13, 1905; File 35510/532; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; 

Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

135 

During the following year, plans for the other fire-control stations progressed concurrent 

with plans for dismounting the guns and carriages of Battery Potter. Lt. Col. Marshall 

subsequently submitted final plans, which now included only seven primary fire-control 

stations, to the Chief of Engineers on November 16, 1906 (fig. 61). The seven stations were 

positioned on the terreplein of Battery Potter adjacent to the parapet wall, and were to be 

constructed in two clusters; one building with five stations, and one building with two 

stations. The plans showed the locations of the stations and the plans, sections, and 

elevations of the two-building cluster, which represented the general layout for all of the 

structures, as well as construction details (fig. 62). As previously discussed, the plans for the 

fire-control stations included an access stairway from the interior of the battery through the 

north gun-lift opening. 

Though Battery Potter had been relieved of its duty as the first gun emplacement at Sandy 

Hook, and the first of its type in the United States, it continued as an important component of 

the defenses at Fort Hancock. 

Construction of Fire-Control Stations for the Mortar Battery 

The 1905 building housing the two fire-control stations for the Mortar Battery was placed in 

the southwest corner of Battery Potter’s terreplein, as indicated in the plan (fig. 59). Though 

the structure is no longer extant, photographs of the exterior and interior indicate that it was 

built as specified in the plans submitted by Lt. Col. Marshall (figs. 63-64). The following 

description was derived from historic photographs of the building and the plans drafted by 

J.C. Letts. 

Plan 

The March 1905 plans depict a wood-framed structure with an overall size of 33 feet 6 inches 

wide (north to south) by 30 feet long (east to west). It was divided in half lengthwise, to form 

two stations; the northern one served the northern pits of the Mortar Battery (designated 

Battery McCook in 1906), and the southern one served the southern pits (Battery Reynolds). 

Each station had the same basic layout on two levels. The first level measured 16 feet 9 inches 

wide by 30 feet long (exterior measurements), and was further subdivided into two rooms; 

the west room was the plotting room, and the east room contained the lavatory and a storage 

area under the stairway. The second level consisted of a single room over the east room of 

the first story; its exterior dimensions were 16 feet 9 inches wide by 14 feet 10 1⁄2 inches long. 

This was the observation room, and it had a 360-degree view. (The interior partition wall 

between the two stations’ observation rooms was equipped with glazed sashes so as to not 

obstruct the sightlines). The plans for the fire-control stations of the Mortar Battery were 

quite detailed, providing information on layout, framing, and materials. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

136 

Foundation 

The wood-frame structure was built on a concrete slab measuring 33 feet 6 inches by 30 feet 

long, which was poured on top of the battery’s terreplein. Situated in the east half of each 

station was a concrete pier for mounting the type- “A” instrument used in the observation 

room. The octagonal piers were 8 feet 8 inches tall, and tapered from 4 feet 6 inches in 

diameter at the first level to 3 feet 6 inches at the second-level observation room. 

Structural Framing 

The plans for the fire-control stations for the Mortar Battery showed some of the structural 

details. The structure was built on a concrete slab. The 4-inch-square sill was fastened to the 

slab with three-quarter-inch bolts. The exterior walls and the interior partitions were framed 

with 2 by 4 studs spaced 16 inches on center. The plates also consisted of 4-inch-square 

members. The roof framing consisted of rafters, collar ties, and a ridge board, all 2 by 6 

lumber. A wide opening between the west and east first-level rooms was framed with a 6 by 8 

“yellow pine header” supported by a 4 by 4 post in the exterior wall, and a 6 by 6 post in the 

interior corner. This header supported the west ends of the second-level floor joists by 

means of joist hangers. The east ends of the joists rested on a 4 by 4 girt on the east wall, 

according to the drawings. The floor joists themselves measured 3 by 8 inches. At the second 

level, an 8-inch steel I-beam spanned the east and west walls above the continuous 

observation-room windows. 

Exterior Elements 

The exterior of the building was clad with clapboards installed with a 4-inch reveal. The 

corner boards and trim details were constructed with lumber 4 inches wide by 1 1

/8 inches 

thick. The water table was 8 inches high, and was capped with a 3-inch-wide board set at a 

slight angle. 

Plans and photographs depict that the first story of the west elevation had four windows – 

two per station – measuring 3 feet wide by 4 feet 6 inches high, with double-hung, eight-overeight sashes. The south and north elevations each had a pair of windows with tilt sashes, each 

measuring 3 feet 6 inches wide by 2 feet 6 inches high, with eight glazed lights. The tilt sashes 

were separated by a 4-inch wide mullion; they illuminated the plotting rooms. The east 

elevation is not depicted in any of the photographs reviewed for this report, so the drawings 

are the only record of the fenestration here. The plans for the building depict four doublehung windows with eight-over-eight sashes, two per station, similar to those on the west 

elevation. 

As previously mentioned, the second level of the fire-control station was the observation 

room. At that level, the building was equipped with what appeared to be fixed sashes 

extending all the way around the building, providing a 360-degree view. The sashes 

measured approximately 3 feet 4 inches wide by 1 foot 2 inches high, and each sash held a 

single pane of quarter-inch plate glass. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

137 

The west elevation of the structure had two entry doorways on the first level, one for each 

station. The doors in each doorway were 3 feet wide by 7 feet high, with three horizontal 

panels below a large single pane of glass. The plans and photographs of the building indicate 

that these were the only points of entry to the fire-control stations. 

The west half of the first level was covered with a half-hipped roof, and the second story of 

the building was built with a hipped roof. The plans indicate that the original roof covering 

on the second level was “tin roof on 11⁄4 inch T & G boards with paper between.” The same 

materials were specified for the lower half-hip roof, and drip guards were installed over the 

doorways. Though photographs do not provide enough detail to determine the roof 

covering, it is likely that the materials specified in the plan were used. 

Interior Elements 

First Level 

The first level had two rooms, as explained previously. The interior of the west room, which 

served as the plotting room, measured 16 feet wide by 14 feet 9 1⁄4 inches deep. The east room 

was the lavatory and storage room, and its interior measurements were 16 feet wide by 14 feet 

2 3⁄4 inches deep. The plans indicate that the walls of both rooms were covered with tongueand-groove boards 3 inches wide. A photograph of the interior depicts vertical boards 

(presumably tongue-and-groove) covering the interior walls, which appear to have been 

similar to the type of boards typically used for wainscoting (fig. 64). The same material was 

apparently used on the ceilings. 

Each plotting room had two double-hung windows on its west wall and a pair of windows 

with tilt sashes on its other exterior wall (the north wall for the northern half, and the south 

wall for the southern half). Additionally, the plotting room had an opening in the east wall 

approximately 7 feet 8 inches above the floor level that opened into the observing room on 

the second level; this provided communication between the two rooms. Three louvered 

sliding panels were installed in this opening. Each lavatory room had two double-hung 

windows on its east wall, based on the plans. 

In each station, the stairway leading from the first level to the second level was situated along 

the north wall. The first four steps ascended east to a landing, which was equipped with a 

doorway and door. From the landing, eight steps ascended north to the second level. 

Another doorway with door led to a storage area underneath each stairway. The interior 

doors were constructed with four vertical panels, and measured 2 feet 3 inches wide by 6 feet 

10 inches high. 

Second Story 

The interior of each station on the second level was one open room measuring 16 feet wide by 

14 feet deep. As previously mentioned, both observation rooms had a 360-degree view. This 

was possible because the partition between the two stations was constructed with an opening 

that ran the entire depth of the building. The opening was 4 feet 3 1⁄4 inches above the floor 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

138 

level, and was equipped with five sashes; three of these were horizontal sliding sashes, and 

two were swinging sashes. 

The plans indicated that the walls and ceilings on the second level were covered with the 

same material as the first-level rooms. The floors on the second level, as indicated by the 

plan, were constructed of yellow pine floor boards seven-eighths of an inch thick, laid over a 

subfloor of spruce boards. 

At this level, the concrete pier was covered with a “drum” that was 1 foot above the floor 

level. The type-“A” instrument was mounted on this pier. South of the pier was a pedestal 

for the type-“B” instrument. The windows on the second level were constructed so that the 

horizontal axis of the type-“A” instrument had an unobstructed view. 

Assistant Engineer Hurlbut informed Lt. Col. Marshall that the two primary stations were 

completed and ready for transfer to the Artillery Corps on September 20, 1905. The transfer 

of the primary fire-control stations for the Mortar Battery took place on October 9, 1905.74

Construction of Seven More Primary Fire-control Stations 

Lt. Col. Marshall wrote to the Chief of Engineers on November 16, 1906, forwarding plans 

and a brief description of the seven additional primary fire-control stations (figs. 61-62). 

Among other items, Marshall noted that the primary stations for Richardson, Granger, and 

Gunnison – at the southern end of the fire-control stations – would not have a complete view 

over the field of fire without the removal of the fire-control stations for batteries Reynolds 

and McCook. 75

Marshall’s drawings for the primary fire-control stations depicted details of the design of the 

seven-station complex. This was to consist of two structures, one containing two fire-control 

stations and one containing five stations. In particular, the plans showed the construction 

details of the primary station for Battery Alexander. 76 One of the plans depicts the 

organization of the fire-control stations and which battery they were designated to serve (fig. 

61). The two-station unit was situated behind the former north gun emplacement of Battery 

Potter. In that building, the control station for Alexander was on the left, and Fire 

Commander Station No. 2 was on the right. Fire Commander Station No. 2 later became the 

fire-control station for Battery Peck. The five-station building was situated behind the 

former south gun emplacement of Battery Potter. From left to right, the stations served 

Halleck, Bloomfield, Richardson, Granger, and Gunnison. 

 74 Hurlbut to Marshall, Sept. 20, 1905; enclosures 27 & 29; folder 45; box 31; Letters Received Sandy 

Hook 1901-1902; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 75 Marshall to Mackenzie, Nov. 16, 1906; Vol. IV, p. 396; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to 

Fort Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 76 Marshall to Mackenzie, Nov. 16, 1906; enclosure 753; File 35510; General Correspondence 1894 -

1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

139 

The following description of the fire-control stations relied on extant building materials, 

historic photographs of the buildings, and the drawings by draftsman J.C. Letts. Since the 

two buildings had different orientations, the description refers generally to front and rear 

elevations. The front elevation refers to the elevation facing the ocean, which was north of 

the two-station building and east of the five-station building. Obviously, the rear elevation is 

the one opposite the front elevation. 

Plan 

The seven primary fire-control stations were planned as one two-station building and one 

five-station building. Both buildings were lower than the fire-control stations for the Mortar 

Battery, and were protected to the east by the parapet wall of Battery Potter. The two-station 

building was situated by the parapet of the former north gun, and faced due north. The fivestation building was situated at an angle across the parapet of the former south gun, and faced 

east. The plans and the extant structures demonstrate that the seven fire-control stations 

shared the same basic layout. The minor differences between the stations, evident in the 

plans and the existing buildings, were the beveled corners of the observation rooms and the 

roof configurations (fig. 61). 

Each station was built with two rooms, a plotting room and an observation room. The 

plotting room was the first room upon entry, and was located at the rear of the station. It 

measured 16 feet wide by 17 feet 6 inches deep. The observation room was approximately 

2 1⁄2 feet higher than the plotting room, and was at the front of the station. It measured 16 feet 

wide by 14 feet deep. The front corners of some of the observation rooms were beveled (fig. 

61). This, combined with the added height and orientation of the observation rooms, 

provided the required angle of view for the instruments installed in each room. 

Foundation 

Work began on the stations in the spring of 1907. Upon the removal of Battery Potter’s guns, 

the gun pits were covered with reinforced concrete supported by steel I-beams. The firecontrol stations were built on top of Battery Potter’s terreplein. The structures were 

concrete, and the lower level (plotting room) was constructed with a concrete slab 

foundation. The lower 2 feet of the concrete walls of the observation room were 12 inches 

thick, forming a sill that carried the floor framing for the room. 

Exterior Elements 

The exterior walls of the fire-control stations were constructed of reinforced concrete with a 

relief panel above the water table. The typical wall was 8 inches thick, and was reinforced 

with half-inch vertical rebar spaced 12 inches on center. The rebar in the front walls ran 

horizontally to accommodate the window opening of the observation room. The sections of 

concrete above the window openings were reinforced with twisted rebar. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

140 

The observation room was built with a band of windows that extended across the entire front 

elevation of each station. The typical sash was 3 feet wide by 1 foot 3 inches high, and was 

glazed with quarter-inch polished wire glass. The sashes of the observation room were 

hinged at the bottom and tilted outward. When in the open position, the sash rested on a 

galvanized pipe held with galvanized brackets. A galvanized iron awning was positioned over 

the band of windows to reduce sun glare. 

Each station had two windows on the rear elevation that had double-hung, two-over-two 

sashes with wire glass. The windows measured 3 feet wide by 5 feet high and opened into the 

plotting room. The window casings were constructed with metal-clad pine trim. 

Each station also had a single exterior doorway on the rear elevation. The doors were 3 feet 

wide by 6 feet 10 inches high. They were paneled doors with a single window glazed with 

ribbed wire glass above two horizontal panels. The doors were surrounded with metal-clad 

trim in the same manner as the windows. 

The roof configurations of the two buildings varied, as illustrated by the drawings (figs. 61-

62). The plotting room of each station was covered with a shallow half-hip roof with a 

ventilating skylight installed at the ridge. The skylight was glazed with ribbed wire glass. The 

roofs were supported by 2 by 8 rafters attached to a 2 by 8 plate bolted to the top of the 

concrete wall. The ridge was also constructed with 2 by 8 lumber, and the skylight opening 

was framed with 2 by 8 stock. 

The observation-room roofs were slightly higher than the roofs of the plotting rooms, and 

they varied in design. The two-station building had a single hip roof over both observation 

rooms. The five-station building had one hip roof over the observation rooms of the three 

southernmost stations; the observation rooms of the other two stations in this building had 

their own hip roofs. The plate, rafter, and ridge construction of these roofs utilized 2 by 8 

lumber similar to the roofs of the plotting rooms. However, due to the band of windows 

along the front elevations, special steel-plate roof supports were used in the corners of the 

observation room roofs. These supports extended from the window sill to the concrete 

header that supported the plate and rafter system, and were embedded in the concrete (fig. 

62). 

All of these roofs had a shallow pitch, and the plans specified “Economite” tile roof over 

tongue-and-groove boards. Based on the examination of historic photographs and extant 

building materials, it was not possible to determine the original roofing material. 

Interior Elements 

As previously discussed, each station was divided into two rooms. The partition wall 

between the two rooms of each station was reinforced concrete. The plotting room was 

open, and historic photographs indicate that it was typically equipped with a plotting table 

and radios. The partition wall had three openings in it. On the left side of the wall was the 

doorway to the observation room. An opening roughly centered on the partition wall and 5 

feet above the floor also opened into the observation room. The opening was 3 feet wide and 

2 feet 6 inches high, and had a louvered shutter that could slide horizontally. The third 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

141 

opening in the partition wall was in the right corner at the ground level. This opening 

provided access to the area below the observation-room floor, where utility pipes and wires 

were run for the stations. 

The doorway to the observation room held a paneled door with one glazed pane of ribbed 

wire glass over three horizontal panels. Three steps ascended to the floor level of the 

observation room. 

The observation room was an open room with a band of windows along the front elevation. 

The room was equipped with a concrete pier for a type-“A” instrument. The pier was located 

3 feet from the front wall and was centered side-to-side. A semicircular seat was constructed 

around the back of the pier. The pier was positioned so that the type-“A” instrument’s 

horizontal axis was at reference 52.0 (52 feet above the mean low water level). The 

observation room also had shelves for two type-“B” instruments. As noted by Lt. Col. 

Marshall, the Commanding Officer at Fort Hancock was consulted on the exact location of 

the instrument piers.77

The interior masonry of the fire-control stations was trimmed with some wooden 

architectural elements, which were depicted in historic photographs, and which are in some 

cases extant (fig. 65). The window and doorway surrounds were constructed with molded 

boards and corner blocks with a radial design. The window sills in both rooms were trimmed 

with a plain board fascia with a beaded edge and a quarter-round elliptical molding between 

the sill and fascia. The ceilings of both rooms were constructed with tongue-and-groove 

yellow-pine bead board, which was also used to finish the skylight opening in the plotting 

room. Other wooden elements in the rooms included nailing strips along the top of the walls, 

and wire moldings. 

The drawings specified that the interior concrete walls of the fire-control stations would be 

painted a light color. The extant paint evidence revealed several layers of paint. The paint 

layers were not analyzed for this report, but a cursory examination of the paint evidence 

revealed paint colors ranging from white and light gray to light-green and khaki green. 

Completion 

Lt. Col. Marshall notified Chief of Engineers Mackenzie on November 16, 1907, that Hurlbut 

and his crew had completed seven primary fire-control stations and one secondary station on 

the terreplein of Battery Potter.78 Though the drawings did not depict the secondary station, 

it was apparent that the station was added to the left/west side of the two-station building for 

Battery Alexander and Battery Peck. The secondary station was a one-room structure that 

measured 12 feet square, but was otherwise constructed in the same manner as the adjacent 

structures. 

 77 Marshall to Mackenzie, Nov. 16, 1906. 

78 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 145. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

142 

This station was apparently added to serve as a secondary, observation station for Battery 

Arrowsmith, which was under construction at the time. Indeed, Lt. Col. Marshall had gotten 

permission and funding approval from the Chief of Engineers to construct – among other 

buildings – one secondary station for the 8-inch battery (Arrowsmith).79 This also concurs 

with the Fort Record Book, which noted that the secondary station for Battery Arrowsmith 

with the designation of F"3 was completed on November 10, 1907.80 This station was first 

depicted in a ca.-1907 photograph of Battery Potter (fig. 66), and on a 1914 diagram of the 

battery, which labeled the structure F"3 (fig. 54). 

On December 12, 1907, the seven new primary fire-control stations on Battery Potter were 

transferred to the Coast Artillery at Fort Hancock.81 They immediately became an important 

part of the defenses at Sandy Hook (fig. 66). 

Maintenance and Alterations for the Primary Fire-Control Stations 

The first repairs to the fire-control stations occurred in March 1910, when Assistant Engineer 

Hurlbut wrote Lt. Colonel Roessler that the roofs of the primary stations needed repairs. 

Later that month, he also reported that the windows of the Mortar Battery station had been 

broken, and that the siding loosened when the 12-inch rifles at Battery Bloomfield were 

fired.82

The guns of the nearby batteries also affected other elements of the fire-control stations. 

Hurlbut reported to Roessler the deteriorated condition of the doors and sills of the stations 

on October 5, 1912, noting that the shock waves from the guns and lack of regular 

maintenance had contributed to the poor condition of the metal doors. It was suggested that 

the rusted parts be removed, and that the doors and woodwork be painted with a mix of one 

pound of lamp black to 10 gallons of oil.83

It was also noted that the metal-clad trim around the doorways and windows of the firecontrol stations was in need of repair. However, that work was left to the Artillery personnel 

to accomplish when better weather arrived.84

During World War I, Battery Potter continued as the location of the primary fire-control 

stations for the active batteries. In the winter and spring of 1920, the guns and carriages of 

the Mortar Battery were dismantled, and the wood-frame fire-control station was no longer 

needed for that emplacement. The documents reviewed indicated that the fire-control 

 79 Mackenzie to Marshall, Dec. 5, 1905; enclosure 14; folder 150; box 32; Letters Received Sandy 

Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA -Northeast Region (NY). 80 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey (revised Nov. 4, 1942), p. 65; Entry 224; RG 392; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 81 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 145. 82 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 146 – 147. 83 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 147. 84 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 157. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

143 

stations received regular maintenance during the 1920s, and continued as an important part 

of the defenses at Fort Hancock.85

During the 1930s, the number of troops stationed at Fort Hancock was reduced, and several 

of the batteries were put on reserve status. Batteries Reynolds and McCook (i.e., the Mortar 

Battery) had been disarmed since 1920. The early fire-control system was becoming 

outdated, and new range-finding towers and fire-control stations were being constructed. 

The fire-control stations atop Battery Potter thus became available for new uses. 

With the advent of World War II and Fort Hancock’s status as the New York Harbor Defense 

Command Post (HDCP), the two former stations for the Mortar Battery were converted to 

the Harbor Entrance Control Post (HECP) signal station.86 “Advanced Harbor Entrance 

Control Post #1” (HECP #1) was established in the former fire-control station for the Mortar 

Battery on Battery Potter on May 1, 1943, and functioned as an important part of the defense 

system for New York Harbor. The mission of HECP #1 was to identify all ships proceeding 

toward New York Harbor, and to determine whether r not they were a threat. The second 

part of the HECP’s mission was to deny the enemy an opportunity to launch a surprise attack. 

The station on Battery Potter continued in this mission until operation ceased at 2400 hours 

on June 18, 1945.87

As part of the HECP, a CXAS radar unit was positioned on top of Battery Potter. The 

documents reviewed did not indicate the exact location of the radar unit, but a photograph 

from 1951 does show additional towers on the former fire-control station building for the 

Mortar Battery (fig. 67). These towers were most likely related to the HECP station in that 

building, which was the last known use of the building. 

Also during World War II, the primary fire-control stations for Batteries Peck and Gunnison 

atop Battery Potter were discontinued. The smaller concrete structure on the north side of 

the terreplein that had originally housed the primary fire-control stations for Peck and 

Alexander was converted to a signal station and a meteorological station. The signal station 

was later moved to a new location, but the building did continue in use as a meteorological 

station.88 The five-station structure on Battery Potter became a Command and Observation 

Post for the HDCP. It served as such until it was deactivated on March 1, 1944.89

The HECP and HDCP were apparently the last official uses of the fire-control stations on 

Battery Potter. During the remaining active years of Fort Hancock, the stations were vacated. 

After the deactivation of the New York Harbor Defense program in 1950, it appeared that the 

fire-control stations on Battery Potter received minimal maintenance. The closing of Fort 

Hancock in 1950 and its subsequent reactivation during the Korean War did not appear to 

include further use of the stations on Battery Potter. A photograph dated “12/56” depicts the 

 85 Preservation and Repair, Miscellaneous; folder 16, box 35, Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 86 Fort Record Book, p. 126. 

87 Major C.G. Bovis, Coast Artillery Corps, “History of HECP [Harbor Entrance Control Post], Fort 

Wadsworth, New York,” Section I, pp. 1 – 2, and Section III, p. 6. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 88 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, pp. 158 – 159. 89 Fort Record Book, p. 32. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

144 

smaller station at the north end of the terreplein as an apparently abandoned structure (fig. 

68). 

Edwin Bearss recommended refurnishing and interpreting one of the primary fire-control 

stations in his Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948.

90 However, the 

park has been concerned about safety issues of Battery Potter, due to the deteriorated 

condition of the stations and the terreplein. Though the terreplein and superior slope of the 

battery is currently open for guided tours, the park would like to open the roof to unescorted 

visitors. The current plans for the rehabilitation of Battery Potter will further address visitor 

safety concerns, and will include modifications that will allow visitor access.91 Though this 

does not include access to the stations, visitors would have a better opportunity to view the 

structures from the terreplein of the battery. 

Battery Potter – Related Structures

Background 

Historic photographs from the early 20th century, as well as plans from the World Wars I and 

II eras, depict other buildings that were constructed around Battery Potter in support of Fort 

Hancock and the functions of the primary fire-control stations (figs. 69-70). In addition, a 

1915 photograph shows an encampment of the “Range Section” west of the battery (fig. 75). 

The following descriptions were based on previous reports, observations of existing 

structures, and historic photographs of the buildings. The dormitories and some of the other 

buildings are no longer extant. However, the buildings adjacent to the west elevation of 

Battery Potter, including the power plant, coal shed, and switchboard rooms, survived. The 

extant structures provide a context for the development of the area around the battery from 

soon after its construction, through its use as a location for the primary fire-control stations. 

Central Powerhouse and Coal Shed 

The central powerhouse was constructed in 1901-02 to service the coast defenses. The 

building was a one-story structure constructed with brick walls, a stone foundation, concrete 

floors, and a slate roof.92 The exterior walls had a belt course level with the tops of the 

windows, and quoins at the corners. The windows and doorways had similar quoins on 

either side, and had limestone lintels and sills. The west elevation had two oculus windows in 

 90 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 160. 91 PMIS Project #57952. 

92 Fort Record Book, p. 118; Harbor Defenses of New York, 1901 – 1942; Entry 224; RG 392; NARA 

- Northeast Region (NY)? See also Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, May 1981), p. 226. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

145 

the gable section of the wall. The powerhouse contained the boilers and the transformers 

that powered the electrical lighting system for Fort Hancock.93

The boiler in the powerhouse was fed from two coal bins located on the north side of the 

building. In 1903 a coal shed was constructed to the north of the powerhouse, and the bins 

were removed. The building was a 20- by 40-foot brick structure with a south-sloping shed 

roof. Coal was delivered to the shed from a railroad spur that was extended along the north 

side of the structure.94

The central powerhouse and the coal shed are extant, and are currently used for storage. 

Switchboard Rooms 

Two switchboard rooms to be located near the southwest corner of Battery Potter were being 

planned in 1906. On June 8, 1906, Lt. Col. Marshall notified Chief of Engineers Mackenzie 

that the plans had begun,95 and one month later he forwarded the preliminary plans to the 

Chief Signal Officer, Department of the East, New York.96 On October 8, 1906, Lt. Col. 

Marshall informed Assistant Engineer Hurlbut that $4,000 had been allotted for the 

construction of the two switchboard rooms.97

Marshall’s instructions to Hurlbut were to build the two switchboard rooms in accordance 

with the plans sent to him dated September 20, 1906. Marshall also said that window details 

and locations for the buildings were included on an enclosed blueprint. Hurlbut was further 

instructed to build the floors of the rooms last, and that they should be constructed in 

accordance with the requirements of the Signal Corps.98

The plans for the buildings called for one type-“A” switchboard room and one type-“C” 

switchboard room (fig. 71). The plans for the smaller building, type “A,” called for two 

rooms; one was 4 1⁄2 feet wide by 15 feet long, and the other was 15 feet wide by 20 feet long. 

The plans for the larger building, type-“C,” also included two rooms; one was 19 feet wide by 

19 1⁄2 feet long, and the other was 19 feet wide by 19 feet long. In each of the buildings, one of 

the two rooms was to be used for the storage battery.99

 93 Bearss, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, p. 225. 94 Bearss, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, p. 226. 95 Marshall to Mackenzie, June 8, 1906; Vol. IV, p. 306; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 96 Marshall to Lt. Col. George P. Scriven, Chief Signal Officer, Dept. of the East, New York, July 10, 

1906; Vol. IV, p. 396; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; 

Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 97 Marshall to Hurlbut, Oct. 8, 1906; Vol. IV, p. 381; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 98 Marshall to Hurlbut, Oct. 8, 1906. 

99 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 142. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

146 

The buildings were constructed from reinforced concrete that was scored to resemble a 

rusticated stone exterior. The low-pitched gable roofs were apparently covered with tile 

roofing that was pierced by ventilators and one chimney per building. The windows of the 

buildings had double-hung, two-over-two sashes, and the exterior doorways were fitted with 

five-panel doors. The two switchboard rooms were completed in October 1907 and 

transferred to the Coast Artillery Corps on October 25, 1907.100

The switchboard rooms are extant, and have been preserved and maintained by the park. 

Battery Commander’s Tower 

Edwin Bearss noted that a 60-foot range-finder tower and shelter house were constructed for 

Battery Potter in1899.101 Historic photographs and plans depict a tower west of Battery 

Potter that was originally constructed as the battery commander’s station/tower and rangefinder shelter for the battery (fig. 72). The “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast 

Fortifications” compiled in July 1921 documents that the “Battle Commander Station” was 

located on a tower approximately 300 feet to the rear/west of “emp. #1 old gun lift battery.” 

The location and description appear to match the tower built in 1899. The tower was 

described as being constructed with wood and steel, and the station atop the tower was 

sheathed with galvanized iron.102

A World War II map of Sandy Hook indicated that this structure was the “Command & 

Observation Post Hancock Groupment C -1” (fig. 70). The tower and station were used at 

Fort Hancock through World War II. The concrete base of the tower remains west of 

Hudson Road, but the tower is no longer extant. 

Dormitories 

Lt. Col. Marshall’s correspondence to Fort Hancock’s Commanding Officer in 1906 

indicated that two dormitories would also be erected near Battery Potter for the 

accommodation of personnel assigned to the primary fire-control stations.103 The plans for 

the dormitories for officers and enlisted men were forwarded to the Chief of Engineers on 

February 14, 1908. The dormitories were to be constructed with reinforced concrete in a 

manner similar to the switchboard rooms. The plans were approved by Brig. Gen. 

Mackenzie on February 20, 1908, and the dormitories were subsequently built.104

 100 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 143. 101 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 131. 102 “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 

1921”; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). See also Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 131. 103 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 142. 104 Marshall to Mackenzie, Feb. 14, 1908; with approval of Mackenzie, Feb. 20, 1908; File 

35510/922; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

147 

The 1921 “Report of Completed Works” documents two dormitories associated with the firecontrol structures, which appear to be the dormitories erected west of Battery Potter. The 

report documents that the buildings were located northwest of the “Battle Commanders 

Station,” which was west of Battery Potter. One building was an officers’ dormitory, which 

measured 16 feet 8 inches wide by 28 feet long (fig. 73). The second was an enlisted men’s 

dormitory that measured 24 feet wide by 70 feet long (fig. 74). The report further 

documented that both structures were constructed with concrete, and the roofs were 

covered with “Indian Red” asbestos shingles.105 The location and description of the 

dormitories suggest that these were the structures erected for the personnel assigned to the 

primary fire-control stations. 

Both of these structures were depicted in early 20th-century photographs and maps (figs. 69-

70). The dormitories served the personnel at Battery Potter through World War II, but are 

no longer extant. 

 105 “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 

1921.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

148 

Figure 59. “Battery Potter, Fort Hancock, N.J. Plan Showing Proposed Location for Primary Stations. February 1903.” Shown is 

location of stations for Mortar Battery and rear elevations of stations proposed by the “Harris Board.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

149 

Figure 60. “Fort Hancock, N. J. Plans and Sections of Primary Stations for Battery Reynolds, Located 

on the Platform of Battery Potter,” March 1905. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

150 

Figure 61. “Fort Hancock, N. J. Plans for Primary Fire-Control Stations” located on the terreplein of Battery Potter, Nov. 1906. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:BATTERY POTTER

151 

Figure 62. “Fort Hancock, N. J. Construction Details for Primary Fire-Control Stations” located on the terreplein of 

Battery Potter, Nov. 1906. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

152 

Figure 63. Battery Potter, view eastward, showing primary firecontrol station building for Mortar Battery (top) and 

switchboard buildings (below), circa 1907. 

Figure 64. Battery Potter, interior of plotting room of one of two 

primary fire-control stations for Mortar Battery, circa 1907. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

153 

Figure 65. Battery Potter, interior of plotting room of primary firecontrol station, June 24, 1919. 

Figure 66. Battery Potter, west elevation, showing primary fire-control 

stations on terreplein and switchboard buildings in foreground, circa 

1907. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

154 

Figure 67. Battery Potter, view of west elevation, showing primary firecontrol stations, radar towers, and switchboard buildings, 1951. 

Figure 68. Primary firecontrol stations on 

Battery Potter, Dec. 1956. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

155 

Figure 69. Signal Corps aerial view of Fort Hancock, N.J.: detail of Battery 

Potter and surrounding structures, circa 1919. 

Figure 70. Detail from map of Sandy Hook during World War II, showing 

Battery Potter “Primary Station Group” and surrounding structures. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

156 

Figure 71. Plan of switchboard rooms Type “A” and Type “C,” 

constructed on the west side of Battery Potter, July 1, 1921. 

Figure 72. Plan depicting Battery Potter and battery commander’s 

station/tower, December 31, 1901. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

157 

Figure 73. Plan of officers’ dormitory built west of Battery Potter, July 1, 

1921.

Figure 74. Plan of enlisted men’s dormitory built west of Battery Potter, 

July 1, 1921.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

158 

Figure 75. “Camp of Range Section at Fort Hancock, N.J. Oct. 25 -15.” 

Temporary encampment west of Battery Potter, Oct. 1915. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

159 

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Introduction

The following physical description of Battery Potter is meant to augment the descriptions in 

the preceding sections on original appearance and maintenance and alterations. Much of the 

existing material appears to be original, and so has been described previously. The addition 

of the primary fire-control stations and other modifications to the battery and the firecontrol stations have also been discussed in the sections on maintenance and alterations. 

Those descriptions should be considered as part of the current physical description, and will 

not be reiterated here. 

Plans of Battery Potter with room numbers are provided as references to the interior rooms 

of the battery and the fire-control stations (figs. 43-45). The photographs included with this 

section are intended to illustrate the current physical description. This report does not 

include a condition assessment, but many of the following descriptions note existing 

conditions as part of the existing physical characteristics. A separate report, Structural 

Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, 

includes a section on existing conditions at Battery Potter.1

 It should be noted that the 

current condition, as documented in many of the photographs included with this report, is 

poor. In spite of this, many of the extant elements of Battery Potter are significant and can be 

stabilized. The fire-control stations are in an advanced state of deterioration, but could also 

be stabilized. 

Battery Potter – Exterior Elements

Battery Potter is a massive concrete emplacement measuring 162 feet 4 1⁄2 inches wide by 238 

feet 9 inches long. The battery is D-shaped in plan, with its curved walls facing east. Viewed 

from the ocean (east) side, the exterior concrete walls of the battery are camouflaged by sand 

embankments and vegetation that extend around the north and south elevations of the 

structure (fig. 76). 

Approached from the west, Battery Potter displays a fortress-like presence (fig. 77). The 

granite-block “defensible entrance” is centered on the west elevation, and as previously 

described, the castellated edifice suggests an impenetrable bastion. The granite façade 

appears as it did upon the completion of the battery. The octagonal granite towers rise on 

either side of the arched entrance doorway; they are flanked by granite-block retaining walls 

 1

 Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (May 2005), section 2, pp. 

1-4. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

160 

that hold back the sand embankment. The granite block used to construct the Defensible 

Entrance appears to be in good condition, but it requires repointing. 

The massive concrete walls of the battery retain their original configuration, but are more 

exposed than originally due to removal of the sand bank and erosion. The exterior walls of 

Battery Potter do show evidence of deterioration. Spalling and cracks were evident in the 

vertical concrete walls above the sand embankment. Vegetation covering sections of the 

walls made it difficult to discern their condition, but given the circumstances, deterioration 

of the concrete should be expected. In addition, evidence of efflorescence indicates that 

water is leaching through the concrete and drawing out the salts, which causes the 

efflorescence. However, the concrete walls are very thick, and they retain a high degree of 

integrity. The overall mass of the battery appears to be stable. 

The lower, vertical portion of each concrete wall rises to a sloped upper wall, and a granite 

cornice separates the two walls. On the west elevation, the upper concrete slope of the 

exterior wall extends to the terreplein level. On the other elevations, the sloping upper 

concrete walls form the parapet that protected the terreplein and the chemin de ronde. The 

upper sloped walls of Battery Potter conform to the original D-shape of the structure. The 

upper concrete surface of the sloped walls was constructed in sections or panels that were 

approximately 6 feet wide. This upper layer of concrete is spalling in many areas, being 

particularly evident on the west elevation. 

As previously described, the sand bank that surrounds Battery Potter and originally covered 

the lower 20 feet of the concrete structure has deteriorated. When the central powerhouse 

was constructed in 1901-02, the embankment north of the entrance to the battery was 

removed down to grade. Only a small section of the embankment was kept near the 

entrance, which is held in place by the flanking walls of the entrance. In the same manner, 

the embankment south of the battery entrance was removed in 1907 when the switchboard 

rooms were located adjacent to the southwest corner of the battery. Again, a small section of 

the embankment adjacent to the defensible entrance was kept. The sand embankment 

surrounding the battery has naturally eroded over the years, and is completely overgrown 

with vegetation. There was documentation that the Corps of Engineers repaired and 

replaced the sand cover on many of the emplacements at Sandy Hook.2

 However, this has 

not been undertaken for decades, and the embankments of Battery Potter are in poor 

condition. 

The cast-iron exterior stairway installed in 1915 is located in the southwest corner of Battery 

Potter; it provides access to the terreplein of the battery (fig. 78). The stairway was 

constructed with two flights of steps joined by a landing. The original cast-iron elements of 

the stairway are intact, and the configuration of the stairway retains the original design. An 

iron gate was installed at the base of the stairway to control access to the terreplein of Battery 

Potter. Additional bracing from the exterior battery wall to the stairway was apparently 

installed to support the stairway, and to spread the load from the original bracket. The 

structural integrity of the brackets and the connections to the concrete wall should be 

checked. Otherwise the cast-iron elements of the stairway have been maintained. The 

stairway is currently painted black, and appears to be well-preserved. 

 2 Preservation and Repair, Miscellaneous; folder 16, box 35, Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

161 

The main roof of the defensible entrance was constructed as a modified hip roof with five 

sections (fig. 79). Each section of the roof was wedge-shaped, starting at the granite cornice 

and tapering up to the terreplein level of the battery. Each wedge section of the roof was 

constructed with concrete, and the upper layer of concrete was constructed in sections 

approximately 6 feet long. As with many of the upper concrete surfaces, the upper layers of 

the roof concrete are spalling. 

The tops of the octagonal towers of the defensible entrance rise above the main roof. The 

towers have granite cornices and concrete roofs that conform to the octagonal shape. The 

roofs are made up of eight triangular sections of concrete forming a conical hip roof. The 

upper layers of concrete are cracked and spalled, and vegetation is growing on them. 

The terreplein portion of the roof of Battery Potter is primarily covered with 6-foot-square 

sections of concrete that are 6 inches thick (fig. 80). The gap between the sections is 

approximately 1 inch wide and apparently filled with concrete. The concrete on the 

terreplein appears to date from the World War I era, and is deteriorated. The top layer of 

many of the sections has spalled, and grass and weeds are growing between the sections. A 

membrane was observed below the 6-inch-thick sections. This appears to be a multiplelayer, tar-impregnated fabric. The membrane was not analyzed as part of this report, but the 

characteristics of the material suggest that it was used for waterproofing purposes. The 

deteriorated condition of the concrete is allowing water to seep into the interior of Battery 

Potter. 

The sections of the terreplein west of the gun parapet wall were not paved with the same 

concrete pads (fig. 81). The area around the original openings for the gun-lift mechanism 

and 12-inch rifles retains the flagstone paving installed by the Corps of Engineers. The 

flagstone has since been covered with a deteriorated bituminous material in an attempt to 

waterproof the area. 

The sections of the terreplein that were originally open for the gun lifts were filled in when 

the fire-control stations were constructed (fig. 81). The covers over the former gun-lift shafts 

were constructed of reinforced concrete supported by steel I-beams. Ventilation shafts were 

cut into the concrete slab, and some have been covered with metal plates. However, the 

smaller openings have been left open to promote air circulation in the battery. The materials 

in this section of the terreplein appear to be more stable, but are also allowing water to 

infiltrate to the interior of the battery. 

Situated in the southwest corner of the terreplein, the foundation of the Mortar Battery’s 

primary fire-control station building is extant (fig. 82). This is a 6-inch-thick slab of concrete 

measuring 30 feet by 33 feet 5 1⁄2 inches. The concrete slab is cracked in several places, and 

has some vegetation growing up through the cracks, but appears to be stable. A section of the 

4-inch-square wooden sill of the fire-control building is still bolted to the south edge of the 

slab. The two tapering octagonal piers for the range-finding instruments are located toward 

the east end of the slab. The instrument piers appear to be in good and stable condition. 

A flagpole that had been standing on the roof of Battery Potter now lies at the south end of 

the terreplein. The flagpole once stood on the south side of the five-station fire-control 

building, and is depicted in a 1956 photograph of the battery (fig. 67; the flagpole is visible 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

162 

above the left corner of the Mortar Battery’s fire-control building). The base for the flagpole 

remains embedded in the concrete of the terreplein. 

A pipe railing was installed on the west side of the terreplein that extends along the entire 

length of the battery. A railing in the same location was evident in photographs from ca. 1907 

(fig. 66), but was missing in a 1956 photograph (fig. 68). The current railing was installed by 

the park as a visitor safety precaution. Additional sections of railing have been installed by 

the park to separate the fire-control stations and gun parapets from the public access area of 

the terreplein. The railings are painted black, and appear to be stable. 

The curved gun-parapet walls retain their original configuration and semicircular design for 

the protection of the guns when in firing position (fig. 81). The masonry on these walls is 

cracked and spalled. The cracks in the concrete walls primarily run horizontally, and have 

apparently occurred between the built-up layers of the concrete structure. In particular, a 

horizontal crack about 18 inches below the superior slope indicates the section that was 

added to the crest by Lt. Col. Gillespie after the initial gun tests at Battery Potter (see the 

previous section “Construction of Battery Potter, Masonry Construction”). As noted by the 

Corps of Engineers, the parapet walls did suffer some damage from the firing of the 12-inch 

rifles, but the current condition is far worse than that documented by historic photographs in 

1906. However, the spalling appears to be limited to the outer layers of concrete, and the 

walls can be stabilized. 

A semicircular concrete stairway leads from the gun-parapet area to the superior slope of the 

battery. The stairway is adjacent to the east elevation of the fire-control building, and has 

eight steps leading to the superior slope from each of the gun parapets. The existing concrete 

steps were constructed sometime after the installation of the fire-control stations, and 

replaced the terraced platform and pier for Battery Potter’s range-finding instruments. The 

concrete steps are in poor condition. 

The platform situated near the northwest corner of the terreplein, which served as a rangefinding pier and a meteorological platform, is extant. The structure has a USGS elevation 

marker on top of the platform. 

The superior slope of Battery Potter east of the gun parapets forms a gradual slope toward the 

exterior wall and the chemin de ronde (fig. 83). The superior slope was constructed with 

concrete, and the upper layers were cast in sections that conform to the D-shape of the 

battery. The upper layer of the concrete is spalling and cracked, with some vegetation 

growing between the sections and the cracks. However, the concrete structure below the 

superior slope is massive, and appears to be stable. 

Black pipe railing similar to that on the terreplein level has been installed along the west side 

of the superior slope above the gun parapets. The railing appears to be in good condition, 

and serves as an effective safety barrier for the gun parapets. 

As previously described, the chemin de ronde extends around the east side of Battery Potter at 

the edge of the superior slope (figs. 84-85; see the previous section “Defenses for Battery 

Potter, Flanking Defense”). The chemin de ronde is protected by the outer parapet wall, and 

can be accessed from the terreplein of the battery. Constructed as part of the defenses for 

Battery Potter, the chemin de ronde has retained its original form. The concrete walls of the 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

163 

chemin de ronde are deteriorated. The park is trying to control the vegetation that has grown 

up in the pathway, but this remains an annual problem. The top of the outer parapet wall is 

also deteriorated, and entire sections have spalled off. The chemin de ronde remains 

accessible, and should be stabilized. 

A wooden stairway south of the gun parapet for access from the terreplein to the superior 

slope of the battery was constructed by the park in 2005. The stairway was built with 2 by 6 

pressure-treated lumber. The stairway has eight steps with open risers leading from the 

terreplein to the superior slope. The stairway has a black pipe railing on both sides. The 

railing along the west side of the superior slope ties into the north railing of the stairway. 

Battery Potter – Interior Elements

Overview 

The interior spaces of Battery Potter – including the rooms, galleries, magazines, and 

casemates – retain the configuration of the original structure (figs. 43-45). The interior of the 

masonry structure is generally damp, with condensation evident in many places, and 

standing water in some areas of the first story. Apparently the battery suffers the effects of 

water infiltration from the exterior walls and roof structure, as well as water rising from the 

ground below the battery. Though water infiltration poses a threat to the battery, it does 

appear that the overall mass of the structure is stable. 

Floors 

The floors of Battery Potter have required few repairs since the battery was originally 

constructed. On the first story, the floor of the defensible entrance (room 101) retains the 

flagstone pavers that extend through the entrance gallery (room 104) and into the main 

gallery/boiler room (room 111). The rest of the first-story floor surfaces are concrete, and 

most appear to be in their original form (fig. 86). The depression in the floor of the main 

gallery where the boilers were originally installed has been filled in with concrete. The 

accumulator well in room 120 and the equipment trenches in that area were also filled in with 

concrete. Likewise, the floors of rooms 119 and 121 – originally 2 feet lower than elsewhere – 

were built up with concrete after the removal of the gun-lift mechanisms. 

The concrete floors in the storage magazines (rooms 112, 114, 115, and 117) were constructed 

with a slight slope that pitches toward a drain in the center of the floor. The drains are 

extant, but it is not known if the drainage system of the battery is currently working. 

Most of the 3-foot-gauge railroad tracks that originally serviced Battery Potter remain 

embedded in the floors of the battery. The tracks run from the entrance to a turntable in the 

transverse gallery (rooms 109 and 110). A set of tracks runs from that point through the main 

gallery/boiler room and into the accumulator room. This set of tracks was not shown on the 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

164 

completion drawings of the battery, and was not apparent in historic photographs. Also, the 

position of the extant track would have been in the way of the large boilers and the piping for 

the pumps and accumulator. These tracks were apparently added after the battery was 

disarmed, possibly to assist with the removal of the heavy machinery of the accumulator and 

gun-lift. 

From the turntable in the transverse gallery, the tracks extend to the north and south 

magazine galleries (rooms 113 and 116). Each magazine gallery has tracks that run the length 

of the gallery to its ammunition lift (fig. 87). The tracks in the magazine galleries were also 

constructed with turntables positioned at the entrances to the storage magazines. The tracks 

and turntables in the magazine galleries and storage magazines were constructed with gun 

metal as a precaution against sparks that could have ignited the ordnance. Large sections of 

the railroad tracks are still intact and representative of the ammunition-delivery system 

installed by the Corps of Engineers. Some sections have deteriorated or been removed, 

exposing the wooden stringers on which they were laid (see the previous section “Original 

Appearance, Armament, Gun-lift Mechanism”). 

The floors in the second-story galleries, casemates, and the defensible entrance are also 

concrete. As with the storage magazines on the first story, the floors of the casemates (rooms 

206, 208, 210, and 212) were constructed with drains that are extant. Also, the interior 

casemates (rooms 208 and 210) have trenches in the floor for conducting utility pipes. 

The wooden bridge (room 204) that spans the transverse gallery at the second-story level was 

reconstructed by a contractor in 1984, using 2 by 6 pressure-treated lumber and a modern 

pipe railing on the east side of the bridge overlooking the main gallery (fig. 88). 

The floors of both loading galleries (rooms 209 and 213) are paved with flagstones, which 

were part of the original construction. The front/east edge of each gallery is open where the 

ammunition lift originally delivered the ordnance from the magazine gallery below. That 

opening was constructed with granite block that is level with the floor of the loading gallery. 

In the south loading gallery (room 213), the opening for the ammunition lift is extant, and a 

small trench – for the hydraulics that operated the lift – runs from the wall to the edge of the 

granite, where the levers of the hydraulics were located. In the north lift’s loading gallery 

(room 209), these openings were filled in when the stairway to the terreplein was 

constructed. 

Walls 

The interior concrete walls of Battery Potter were originally parged with a skim coat 

composed of a Portland cement mix, which was then covered with whitewash and a 

waterproofing treatment (see the previous section “Construction of Battery Potter, Masonry 

Construction”). Likewise, the interior walls of the granite-block defensible entrance are 

parged with a coat of cementitious material and top coatings. The only interior walls that 

were not parged were in the loading galleries (rooms 209 and 213), which retain the granite 

block with which they were constructed. These walls do not have any coating on them, and 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

165 

were probably never coated. The same is true of the granite blocks used in the construction 

of the gun-lift piers, which are extant. 

As previously discussed, the failure of that parging in some areas led to several attempts to 

repair the parging and coat the walls. The existing wall coatings appear to be a 

conglomeration of the various coatings applied over the years to impede the moisture that 

infiltrates the battery. The wall parging and applied coatings are in various stages of 

deterioration, and do not appear to be effective against water infiltration. The interior 

concrete walls are generally damp, but overall the masonry structure of the walls appears to 

be in stable condition. 

The west side of the transverse gallery on both the first and second stories is pierced with 

niches for the auxiliary lantern lighting system (fig. 89). At the north and south ends of the 

transverse galleries on both levels are additional shelves built into the wall for lantern 

lighting. All of these niches are also part of the battery ventilation system, which features 8-

inch vent pipes that lead from the niches to vents at the terreplein level. 

In the storage magazines on the first story (rooms 112, 114, 115, and 116), the niches that 

provided access to the bolts securing the guide rails for the lift cages are extant. The bolts for 

the guide rails are still in place, but are rusted. Likewise, the casemates on the second story 

(rooms 206, 208, 210, and 212) retain their niches for the bolts for the guide rails. Sections of 

the guide rails are also still in place on the piers in the gun-lift areas (rooms 119 and 121). As 

with most of the cast-iron elements in the battery, the guide rails are corroded and are pulling 

away from the piers in some places. 

The interior walls of Battery Potter also bear the scars of various utility lines and cast-iron 

elements that have been installed and removed over the years. On the sections of wall where 

cast-iron elements are still attached, the iron is corroded and the walls are stained, 

deteriorated, and spalling. The conduit, junction boxes, and breaker panel for the current 

lighting system are attached to some of the interior walls. 

Ceilings 

The design of the massive concrete structure that is Battery Potter utilized arched 

construction, in which a system of arches and vaults is used to build the structure. Thus, the 

ceilings in most of the battery are vaulted. The concrete ceilings of the main battery were 

typically treated in the same manner as the walls, with a parged surface that was coated with 

whitewash and waterproofing. The ceilings of the battery are generally damp and show signs 

of cracking and spalling. Some of the ceilings currently have lighting conduit and electric 

light fixtures mounted on them. The ceilings are also scarred from the installation and 

removal of earlier utility and mechanical systems. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

166 

The ceiling on the first story of the defensible entrance was constructed with a series of small 

vaults. The vaults consisted of concrete that was placed between the iron I-beams used to 

support the second story of the entrance. The stabilization project at Battery Potter in 1985 

included replacing the I-beams and the entire ceiling. The ceilings in the towers of the 

defensible entrance are vaulted, as are the second-story ceilings of the defensible entrance. 

As discussed in previous sections, the ceilings of the two loading galleries were constructed 

differently from one another. The north gallery (room 209) was constructed first, and was 

built with an inclined arched ceiling that slopes down 3.5 feet from front to back (fig. 90). 

The front/east section of the ceiling is granite block, but it then transitions to a parged 

concrete ceiling at the west end of the gallery. The south loading gallery (room 213) was 

constructed in two sections (fig. 91). The front/east section corresponds with the graniteblock section of the gallery, and was constructed with transverse-mounted iron I-beams with 

vaults between each beam, forming a groined ceiling. The west section of the ceiling was 

constructed with a concrete inclined arch. The Engineers considered the ceiling in the south 

gallery to be stronger, and it provided more room to operate the gun-lift. 

When the 12-inch rifles of Battery Potter were removed, the openings in the terreplein where 

the gun-lifts had risen were covered over with concrete. On the interior of the battery, the 

concrete covering forms a shallow vaulted ceiling above the former gun-lift areas (room 217 

and 219), and over the niches constructed for the gun barrels (room 214 and 215). The 

ceiling was constructed with ventilation holes, some of which have been covered over to 

prevent water from coming into the battery. 

Doorways 

The arched entry doorway of the defensible entrance retains the original doors constructed 

for the battery (fig. 92). As previously described, the large double doors were built with three 

layers of boards and covered on the exterior with quarter- inch iron cladding. The smaller 

door cut into the southern door is also intact. The doors are hung from large hinges on 

pintles that are set into the granite of the jamb of the doorway. Two gun loops were cut into 

each door. The gun loops are extant, but the iron that frames the openings is rusted; the 

horizontal iron shutters for the gun loops are also rusted, and in some are inoperative. The 

doors are painted with a dark-green paint that is degraded. 

The doorways on the first story are arched, due to the method of constructing the battery. 

Most of the doors on the first story have been removed from their doorways and stored 

elsewhere in the battery. The doorway to the north magazine gallery (room 113) retains a set 

of double doors that were constructed with three layers of boards (fig. 93). Each door is hung 

on a pair of strap hinges and pintles that are set into the masonry jamb. The doors are 

finished with a dark-green paint that is degraded. The storage magazines on the first story 

were constructed with arched doorways and single arched doors. The doors are no longer in 

place, but some are stored in the battery. The door stored in the north powder magazine 

(room 112) is typical of these doors; it is an arched door constructed with three layers of 

boards. The door had originally hung on strap hinges and pintles. The door is coated with a 

dark-green paint that is degraded. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

167 

The doorways on the second story were also arched and fitted with arched doors. None of 

the doors at this level remain in place. At both the north and south ends of the battery, the 

doors to the hallways (room 207 and 211) that lead to the casemates were constructed with 

double doors that were probably similar to the magazine gallery doors. Some of the doors to 

the casemates are stored in the battery; similar to the magazine doors, they are arched 

wooden doors composed of three layers of boards. The casemate doors were hung from 

strap hinges and pintles set into the masonry. The doors stored in the battery are coated with 

a green paint that is degraded. 

Openings 

Since Battery Potter was constructed as a half-buried emplacement, the only openings other 

than doorways were the gun loops and gun ports in the defensible entrance. The gun loops 

that pierce the towers of the defensible entrance are extant (fig. 94). The narrow openings 

and embrasures are intact, and convey the intended use of the openings and the fortress-like 

entrance. 

The gun ports on the second story of the defensible entrance that were designed for three 

Gatling guns are also extant (fig. 95). The gun ports are located on the north, west, and south 

sides of the second story of the entrance, and are larger than the gun loops. The granite 

blocks that surround the west gun port extend through to the interior walls of the defensible 

entrance. Likewise, the granite headers of the north and south gun ports extend through to 

the interior. The gun ports were constructed with vertical shutters, which are either missing 

or severely corroded. The metal bases for mounting the Gatling guns in the gun port remain 

intact. 

Stairways 

The second story is accessed via two stairways (room 105 and 106), which retain their original 

form and much of their original material. The stairway corridors are arched, and both 

stairways have cast-iron stairs leading from the first to the second story (fig. 96). The castiron treads and risers are set between cast-iron stringers. The stair treads have a raised grid 

for traction, and the risers were cast with a diamond-within-a-rectangle pattern, which is still 

discernable (fig. 97). Each stairway is equipped with a modern pipe railing on each side. It is 

evident from holes and rust stains on the walls that the current railing replaced an earlier 

element that had either fallen off or become unstable. As previously described, the cast-iron 

stairways of the battery were regularly maintained when Battery Potter was active as a gun 

battery, and during its later role related to the fire-control stations. The maintenance has 

been discontinued for decades, however, and the damp conditions in the battery have caused 

the cast iron to pit and rust; in some case, the surface of the iron has scaled off. However, the 

stairways appear to be stable, and continue to provide access to the second story. 

Situated on the north side of the corridor (room 202) leading to the second story of the 

defensible entrance is a space 4 feet in circumference that holds a spiral staircase (fig. 98). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

168 

The spiral staircase, made of cast iron, extends to the terreplein of the battery. The staircase 

is corroded and was closed by the Army for safety reasons. 

Cast-iron ladders originally led from the second-story north and south transverse galleries 

(rooms 203 and 205) to their respective loading galleries (rooms 209 and 213). The ladder to 

the south loading gallery (room 213) is extant, but it is corroded and considered unsafe. The 

ladder to the north loading gallery (room 209) was removed some time after the battery was 

disarmed. The ladder was replaced by the set of concrete steps cut into the wall leading to 

the gallery. 

At the east end of the north loading gallery, a curved stairway (room 220) leads up to the 

terreplein level (fig. 99). This stairway was added to allow easier access to the fire-control 

stations on the terreplein level. The stairway was constructed with pre-cast concrete, and is 

equipped with a pipe railing. At the terreplein level, a concrete structure with a wood-framed 

roof was built to protect the stairway (see the subsequent section “Current Physical 

Description, Fire-Control Stations”). As previously described, the stairway appears to be a 

fairly recent structure, and may have replaced an earlier stairway installed by the Corps of 

Engineers. 

Equipment/Utilities 

Various parts of the original ammunition supply system remain at Battery Potter. As 

previously described, the supply and ammunition tracks for the battery are intact, and they 

add to the interpretive value of the emplacement. At both ends of the battery, the gun-metal 

turntables that lead to the storage magazines (fig. 100) are also intact. The north magazine 

gallery retains the ammunition lift that carried the ordnance to the loading gallery. Both of 

the shell-storage magazines (room 114 and 115) retain portions of the overhead system that 

was used to move the shells for the 12-inch rifles (fig. 101). The components of the “traveling 

bridge crane” are mounted at ceiling height approximately 7 feet above the floor level. Each 

system was composed of a crane apparatus that traveled along a set of I-beam tracks that run 

the length of the room. These tracks were set into the east and west walls and supported by 

half-arch brackets. The rails of the system are extant in both magazines (room 114 and 115). 

The crane apparatus was constructed with an I-beam spanning the tracks and a parallel axle 

that had a gear wheel at one end for hoisting the projectiles (extant in magazine room 114). 

As originally installed, the crane could hold up to 2,000 pounds. The positions where the 

ammunition hoists had once been mounted are also discernable on the ceilings of the 

galleries. The extant components are severely corroded, but they do enhance the 

interpretive value of the ammunition storage system. 

Through out the battery are remnants of other mechanical and utility systems. Sections of 

the guide rails for the gun-lifts and the bolts to secure them are intact but rusted. Some 

brackets that secured various parts of the gun-lift mechanism remain on the walls of the 

accumulator room (room 120). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

169 

The existing electric-light system consists of metal and plastic conduits attached to the walls 

and ceilings; they run from the breaker box to the light fixtures. The circuit-breaker box is 

mounted in the entrance of the battery (room 101), and an additional junction box is 

mounted in the transverse gallery (room 109). The light fixtures are attached to the walls and 

ceilings via metal boxes and fitted with utility globes. During the recent site visits, 

condensation was noted in several globes. 

Battery Potter – Primary Fire-Control Stations

Exterior Elements 

Though in partial ruin, the primary fire-control stations continue to dominate the terreplein 

of Battery Potter (fig. 80). The wooden structure that was constructed for the Mortar 

Battery’s two fire-control stations is not extant, but its concrete-slab foundation and the 

octagonal instrument piers remain (fig. 82). The other two structures, being built of 

reinforced concrete, are still extant. The five-station building is situated near the south-gun 

parapet. The three-station building is near the north-gun parapet. (As explained previously, 

this building was originally planned as a two-station building, but a third, secondary station 

was added to it for Battery Arrowsmith.) The structure covering the interior stairway runs 

between the two buildings. 

Each station within the buildings is still discernable from the location of the doorways and 

windows, as well as the configuration of each station. The following descriptions of exterior 

elements pertain to all of the fire-control stations. 

The exterior reinforced-concrete walls retain their original design and proportions, but are 

badly deteriorated (figs. 102-103). The concrete walls are spalling, and the reinforcing bar is 

exposed in areas. 

The windows and doorways also retain their original proportions, but are in poor condition. 

Exterior doors are missing from the doorways, and the doorway trim is either deteriorated or 

missing. The windows on the rear of the stations are missing their double-hung sashes, and 

the windows along the front are missing the tilt sashes that were part of the observation 

rooms. Some of the metal-clad trim on the rear windows remains in place, but it is rusted. 

The cast-concrete window sills of the rear windows are extant but deteriorated. Sections of 

the metal rails and brackets on which the front tilt-out window sashes rested are in place, but 

are corroded and falling off the building. Remaining portions of the galvanized-metal 

components of the awnings that shaded the front observation windows are hanging from the 

building. Overall, the stations retain the arrangement of exterior openings, but the materials 

are deteriorated and missing. 

The roofs of the fire-control stations are in varying states of disrepair. Some of the roof 

structures, including the framing, are completely missing. Other roofs are in an advanced 

stage of deterioration. Some skylights are extant, but they are also deteriorated and not 

adequately covered or protected. The most recent roofing material appears to have been 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

170 

asphalt shingles, with some built-up roofs of tar and gravel. Currently, none of the roofs are 

providing cover or protection for the stations. 

As previously described, the bulkhead structure covering the interior stairway (room 315) 

physically connects the two fire-control station buildings, though there is no access between 

the buildings (fig. 104). The walls of the bulkhead are reinforced concrete; the roof is woodframed and covered with metal and tar and gravel. The walls of the bulkhead appear to be 

stable. The roof structure is deteriorated at the edge and missing some fascia boards, but the 

roof is intact. The bulkhead has doorways on the east and west elevations, and each has an 

iron-bar security door, but is otherwise open to the elements. Of the structures associated 

with the fire-control stations, the bulkhead appears to be the most stable. 

Interior Elements 

The extant fire-control buildings retain the basic plan of each station. The spaces are defined 

by the reinforced-concrete walls that are still standing, although in deteriorated condition. 

The interior plan of each station is similar and consists of two rooms. The rear room was the 

plotting room, and the front room was the observation room. In some cases, the front 

corners of the observation rooms were angled to allow a greater field of view. The only plan 

that is different is the one-room station at the north end of the three-unit building, which was 

a secondary, observation station for Battery Arrowsmith. 

The floors in the plotting room are concrete, and appear to be in stable condition. The floor 

of each observation room is three steps above the level of the adjacent plotting room, and 

consists of wood on wooden framing (fig. 105). The observation-room floors of the stations 

are severely deteriorated. Some have completely collapsed, while others are rotten and 

unsafe. However, there was enough extant evidence to determine the original elements as 

described in the previous section. 

The interior walls of the stations, including partitions between rooms and stations, are 

reinforced concrete. The partition wall between each plotting room and observation room 

has a doorway and a window (fig. 105). The doors are not extant, but some of the doorway 

trim was still intact. The window was used for communication between the rooms, and was 

fitted with horizontal sliding shutters. Some stations have remnants of their shutters. An 

accumulation of paint layers on some of the interior walls indicate that the interior masonry 

was painted over the years. The colors ranged from white and light gray to light-green and 

khaki green. The interior walls appear to be in better condition than the exterior walls. 

The ceilings of the fire-control stations are also deteriorated. Some are missing, along with 

the roof structure; others retain some evidence of the original materials. Sections of the 

tongue-and-groove ceiling boards are extant in some of the plotting room, and the framing of 

the sky lights is also evident. Overall, the ceilings are in poor condition. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

171 

The window sashes of the fire-control stations are missing, but in many cases the interior 

window trim is still in place (fig. 106). The extant trim for the double-hung windows includes 

molded casings and corner blocks. Some of the observation room windows retain a molded 

window sill with a beaded apron below. Since the window sashes are missing, the interior 

elements of the windows have deteriorated. 

Remnants of the utilities for the fire-control stations are evident. Most of the plotting rooms 

are still equipped with a porcelain sink in the front right corner of the room (fig. 107). In 

some cases the porcelain fixtures for the electrical system are extant, as well as the wooden 

strips along which the wire was run. The pipes that carried the electrical service, water, and 

possibly heat are still in place under the floors of the observation rooms. The pipes were 

originally installed in a chase that ran from the interior of the battery up through the boiler 

vent and then through the partitions between the stations. Most of the extant utility 

equipment is miscellaneous, but it does indicate what might have been present when the firecontrol stations were in use. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

172 

Figure 76. Battery Potter, view of east elevation, 2005. 

Figure 77. Battery Potter, view of west elevation, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

173 

Figure 79. Battery Potter, roof of defensible entrance, 2005. 

Figure 78. Battery 

Potter, exterior iron 

stairway, upper flight, 

2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

174 

Figure 80. Battery Potter, view southward showing terreplein and extant 

primary fire-control stations, 2006. 

Figure 81. Battery Potter, south gun parapet, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

175 

Figure 82. Battery Potter, view to the southwest, showing terreplein and 

extant elements of missing fire-control stations for Mortar Battery, 2005. 

Figure 83. Battery Potter, superior slope in front of gun parapets, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

176 

Figure 85. Battery Potter, parapet wall of chemin de ronde, 2005. 

Figure 84. Battery 

Potter, southeast 

section of chemin de 

ronde, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

177 

Figure 86. Battery Potter, interior view from main gallery/boiler 

room (room 111) westward through entry gallery (room 104) to 

defensible entrance (room101), 2006. 

Figure 87. Battery 

Potter, interior view 

of north magazine 

gallery (room 113), 

looking west, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

178 

Figure 88. Battery Potter, interior view of second-story north and south 

transverse galleries (rooms 203 and 205), and wooden bridge connecting 

them (room 204), 2006. 

Figure 89. Battery Potter, interior view of niche in wall of transverse 

gallery for auxiliary lantern lighting system, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

179 

Figure 90. Battery Potter, interior view of north loading gallery (room 

209), looking west toward concrete steps, 2006. 

Figure 91. Battery Potter, interior view of south loading gallery (room 

213), looking west toward cast-iron ladder, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

180 

Figure 93. Battery Potter, interior view of doorway to north magazine gallery 

(room 113), looking east, 2006. 

Figure 92. Battery 

Potter, interior view of 

doorway and doors of 

defensible entrance 

(room 101), looking west, 

2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

181 

Figure 95. Battery Potter, view of second story of defensible entrance (room 

201), gun port in west wall, 2006. 

Figure 94. Battery 

Potter, interior view of 

second story of 

defensible entrance 

(room 201), north tower 

and gun loops, looking 

northwest, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

182 

Figure 97. Battery Potter, view of existing condition of iron steps of south 

stairway (room 108) connecting first and second stories, 2006. 

Figure 96. Battery 

Potter, interior view of 

north stairway (room 

105) connecting first 

and second stories, 

2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

183 

Figure 99. Battery Potter, view of concrete stairway (room 220) connecting 

north loading gallery (room 209) and terreplein, 2006. 

Figure 98. Battery 

Potter, spiral stairway 

from second-story 

connecting gallery 

(room 202) to 

terreplein, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

184 

Figure 100. Battery Potter, view of south magazine gallery (room 116), 

showing gun-metal turntable for ammunition-delivery system, 2006. 

Figure 101. Battery Potter, interior view of north shell magazine (room 114), 

showing overhead trolley bridge for ammunition-delivery system, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

185 

Figure 102. Battery Potter, primary fire-control stations, west elevation of 

southernmost station (rooms 313 and 314), 2005. 

Figure 103. Battery Potter, primary fire-control stations, east elevation of the 

east rooms (rooms 309, 311, 313) of the three southernmost stations, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

186 

Figure 104. Battery Potter, east elevation of bulkhead (room 315) 

covering stairway (room 220) that connected second story with 

terreplein and primary fire-control stations, 2005. 

Figure 105. Battery Potter, view of typical primary fire-control station, 

showing observation room and interior partition, 2005. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY POTTER

187 

Figure 106. Battery Potter, typical primary fire-control station, showing 

interior of plotting room and west wall, 2005. 

Figure 107. Battery Potter, typical primary fire-control station, showing 

interior of plotting room and interior partition, 2005. 

189 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY:

MORTAR BATTERY

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

191 

CHRONOLOGY OF 

DEVELOPMENT AND USE 

Introduction

The subsequent sections on development and use of the Mortar Battery discuss the history of 

the structure from planning and construction to present condition. Previous reports, 

specifically those by Edwin Bearss, cover some of the same information, as well as additional 

details. Some information relevant to Sandy Hook and Fort Hancock was included in the 

previous section on Battery Potter, and will not be repeated in the same detail in this section. 

Research for this report uncovered detailed reports on the construction of the Mortar 

Battery, as well as correspondence between the important parties in the planning and 

construction of the battery. Annual reports from important years of the construction phase 

and plans of the Mortar Battery are included in the appendices o this report. 

The Mortar Battery was planned and constructed as two halves. It was actually built along a 

northeast/southwest axis, but it has been described historically as if its axis ran north/south. 

The north end of the battery was closest to the Atlantic shoreline, and the south end closest 

to Sandy Hook Bay. Each end of the Mortar Battery had two concrete firing pits, each pit 

containing four 12-inch mortars. These were designated the east and west pits for each end 

(fig. 108). When the Mortar Battery was first constructed, each of its pits were labeled with a 

letter (“A” through “D”), and the entire battery was named “Battery Reynolds” in 1903. A 

plan of Battery Reynolds dated December 20, 1905 (fig. 109), showed that the southeast pit 

was “A,” the northeast pit was “B,” the southwest pit was “C,” and the northwest pit was 

“D.”1

 When the north and south ends of the Mortar Battery were later renamed as Battery 

McCook and Battery Reynolds, respectively, the mortar pits were also relabeled. At Battery 

McCook, the northeast pit was labeled pit “A” and the northwest pit was pit “B.” At Battery 

Reynolds, the southeast pit was labeled as pit “A” and the southwest pit was labeled pit “B.” 

Plans reviewed from 1907 (fig. 144), 1910 (fig. 145), 1915 (fig. 148), and 1922 (fig. 150) 

confirmed that the mortar pits were labeled in this manner, which was the traditional manner 

for lettering mortar batteries. However, the Fort Record Book for Fort Hancock noted that 

when the Mortar Battery was divided, the “ ‘A’ and ‘C’ pits became ‘B’ and ‘A’ pits, 

respectively, Reynolds; and ‘B’ and ‘D’ pits became ‘B’ and ‘A’ pits, respectively, McCook.”2

 

Plans of the battery from the 1940s depict the mortar pits with this same lettering. The 

lettering of the Mortar Battery was apparently reversed in the 1940s, as reflected in the plans 

and the Fort Record Book. In an effort to avoid confusion, the HSR will refer to the mortar 

 1

 Though this copy of that drawing was altered to show the later designations of “Battery Alexander 

McCook” and “Battery Reynolds,” the letter designations from the original Battery Reynolds can still 

be seen. 

2

 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, p. 106. Entry 224; RG 392; NARA – Northeast 

(NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

192 

pits by their directional orientation only. Thus the north end of the battery has a northwest 

pit and a northeast pit, and the south end has a southwest pit and a southeast pit (fig. 110). 

The construction documentation uses this same directional labeling, and therefore 

references to that information will be clear. As noted previously, the Mortar Battery itself 

went through a number of name changes; it was initially designated Mortar Battery No. I, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey. In most cases, the following report will refer to the four mortar pits 

collectively as the Mortar Battery. 

Mortar Battery – Construction

Planning 

The site chosen for the Mortar Battery was one mile south of the extreme northern end of 

Sandy Hook, and adjacent to and east of the Sandy Hook Lighthouse (fig. 20). The battery 

was to be constructed according to the plans of the Board of Engineers dated September 28, 

1888.3

 Drawings of the Mortar Battery commenced in September 1890 under the direction of 

Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie (fig. 111). Lt. Col. Gillespie’s letter to Chief of Engineers Thomas 

Casey dated October 18, 1890, included an estimate for the Mortar Battery and plans for the 

battery. The estimate included the following: 

Quantities. 

Concrete: Cubic Yards 

 Counterscarp wall 8,475 

 Passages, magazines, and quarters 8,925 

 Revetment of battery pits 5,600

 Total 23,000 

Sand excavation: 

 Ditch and ditch revetment 19,530 

 Pits, passages, and magazines 35,120

 Total 54,650 

Sand filling: (exclusive of sand from above excavations) 

 Inside the ditch 136,985 

 Glacis slopes 16,225

 Total 153,210 

 3

 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, N.J.; 

General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

193 

Cost. 

Concrete, 23,000 cubic yards, at $7.00 $161,000 

Excavating, 54,650 cubic yards, at 20 cents 10,930 

Filling, 153,210 cubic yards, at 33 1/3 cents 51,070

 Total $223,0004

Gillespie noted that it might be possible to reduce the cost of the concrete to $6 per cubic 

yard, and he arrived at a final estimate of $201,000.5

 The plans and estimate were approved 

by the Chief of Engineers for the revised amount of $201,000, with an allotment from the 

“Gun and Mortar Batteries, Act of Congress August 18, 1890.”6

The overall improvements at Sandy Hook were in preparation for both the Mortar Battery 

and Battery Potter (see the previous section “Battery Potter – Construction, Preparations at 

Sandy Hook”). The extension of the wharf, improvement of the laborers’ quarters, and 

construction of the railroad were all efforts to have the site ready for concrete construction 

by April 1891. 

The Mortar Battery site would also require large quantities of cement, broken stone, lumber, 

tools, and other supplies, as well as storage sheds for cement, stone bins, and concrete 

mixers. As with Battery Potter, Lt. Col. Gillespie proposed to procure the necessary materials 

through sealed bids invited by public advertisement, and to provide day laborers for the 

construction of the battery. 

The Concrete Plant 

The concrete mixing plant for the Mortar Battery was situated northwest of the battery site, 

and was connected to the railroad tracks that led from the wharf complex to the site. As 

indicated in the plans dated June 30, 1892 (figs. 112-113), as the tracks approach the site they 

split, with one branch leading to the concrete plant and one continuing toward the battery 

site. A spur off the main track led to the sand pit used during the construction of the Mortar 

Battery. Additional tracks were laid to facilitate the movement of materials within the plant 

site, and between the plant and the battery site (fig. 113). 

The physical plant was similar to that used for Battery Potter, but with half the capacity. In 

this case, the wood-frame cement storage shed was built to one side of the railroad spur, and 

the stone yard was on the opposite side. The stone yard was constructed with trap doors for 

delivering stone to the gondola cars that traveled in a tunnel below the stone yard. The 

broken stone would be deposited in the gondola car, which would proceed along the track to 

the area where the cement and sand were measured out in the requisite amounts of each. The 

car would then travel up an incline to a platform above the concrete mixer, where it would 

 4 Gillespie to Casey, Oct. 18, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 16; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 5

 Gillespie to Casey, Oct. 18, 1890. 

6 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, N.J.; 

General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

194 

discharge its load. The cubical mixer would mix the stone, cement, and sand with water 

introduced through a hollow pipe (see the previous section “Battery Potter, The Concrete 

Plant”). A historic photograph from the F.Y. 1893 Annual Report gives a rare view of the 

concrete plant at the Mortar Battery, in which horses were apparently being used to haul the 

concrete from the plant to the battery (fig. 114). 

Materials and Contracts 

The plans and estimates for the Mortar Battery were based on the construction of the massive 

concrete structure with natural cement. As with Battery Potter, Lt. Col. Gillespie proposed to 

procure the materials for the battery through sealed proposals invited by public 

advertisement, and to have the work performed by hired labor. Gillespie’s advertisement 

dated October 29, 1890, for the delivery of 62,000 barrels of “Rosendale Cement” and 41,000 

cubic yards of broken stone to Sandy Hook reflected the amount of masonry necessary for 

the construction of the Mortar Battery. 

The contracts for these materials were awarded to the Lawrence Cement Company for 

62,000 barrels of “Hoffman” brand natural cement for $1.02 per barrel, and John A. Bouker 

for 41,000 cubic yards of broken granite at $1.63 per cubic yard. According to the annual 

reports, of the materials contracted, 31,000 barrels of natural cement and 20,000 cubic yards 

of broken stone were designated for the Mortar Battery (see the previous section “Battery 

Potter, Contracts for Masonry Materials”).7

The contract with the Lawrence Cement Company ran from December 29, 1890, through 

January 1, 1892, and was extended through August 1, 1892. The contract with John A. 

Bouker ran from December 29, 1890, through January 1, 1892, and was extended through 

November 1, 1892. However, both contracts were declared complete at the end of July 1892. 

At that time, Gillespie Gillespie awarded a new contract for 25,000 barrels of “Old Newark” 

Rosendale cement at 93.9 cents per barrel, and 20,000 cubic yards of broken stone at $1.28 3⁄4 

per cubic yard to Calvin Tompkins of New York.8

The new contract with Calvin Tompkins appears to have been to supply the needs of both the 

Mortar Battery and Battery Potter, but the majority of the supplies went to the Mortar 

Battery. By the close of fiscal year 1893, Tompkins had delivered 23,410 barrels of natural 

cement and 12,102 cubic yards of broken stone to Sandy Hook, of which 19,773 barrels of 

cement and 10,000 cubic yards of stone were used in the construction of the Mortar Battery.9

In addition to the masonry of the battery, contracts were also awarded for the materials 

needed to construct the mortar platforms. The plan for the platforms called for granite 

blocks to form the ring at the upper surface of the platform, and for bolts that would secure 

 7 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 8 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 

9 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

195 

the bases of the mortar carriages.10 Sealed proposals for the materials to construct eight 

platforms were opened on April 12, 1893, and the following proposals were accepted: 

Waldo & Stout, Bridgeport, Conn. 

192 aluminum bronze bolts, at 29 1⁄4 cents per pound. 

192 phosphor-bronze washers, at 22 1⁄2 cents per pound. 

192 steel nuts (for above bolts), at 57 1⁄4 cents each. 

128 wrought-iron anchor bolts, with hexagonal nuts, at 39 cents each. 

Casey & Sherwood, New York City. 

For eight sets of eight stones each, or 1063 cubic feet granite rings 

(which form the upper surface of the mortar platforms and the seat of 

the base ring of the mortar carriage), at $319 for one set, equivalent to 

$2.4007 per cubic foot.11

These materials were used in the construction of the two northern mortar pits. In November 

1893, additional materials were ordered for the mortar pits at the southern end of the battery. 

Construction Phase12

Construction of the Mortar Battery began with the excavation of sand from the site in 

November 1890.13 Excavation of the site continued into the following year, and by the end of 

March 1891, Lt. Col. Gillespie reported to Chief Engineer Casey that the excavation was 

completed except for the southeast pit. By the close of the fiscal year, it was reported that 

excavations for the gun pits, passageways, and magazines had been completed, with about 

30,000 cubic yards of sand having been removed. Lt. Col. Gillespie noted that “no masonry 

had been put in place but everything was in readiness for it and the machinery was set up and 

all other preparations made for the rapid and economical manufacture and deposit of 

concrete.”14

 10 Gillespie to Casey, Sept. 28, 1893; File 1708, incl. 8; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 11 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 12 The following sections reference monthly reports documenting the construction of the mortar 

battery, as well as the Annual Reports from 1891-1893. The monthly reports dating from August 1891 

through March 1894 were sent from Lt. J. G. Warren (Warren) to Col. Gillespie, and are compiled in a 

bound volume Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New York: United States Engineer Bureau), 

which is available at the New York City Public Library. Annual Reports for F.Y. 1892 and 1893 are 

included in this report as Appendices A and B). 13 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891; File # 3797; Annual Report for F.Y. 1891, Fort at Sandy Hook, 

N.J.; General Correspondence; Entry 96; RG 77; NAB. 14 Gillespie to Casey, July 9, 1891. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

196 

Masonry 

Though Lt. Col. Gillespie had hoped that concrete construction would start by April 1, 1891, 

the masonry work did not commence until July 13, 1891. One reason for the delay was the 

need to use of one of the hoisting engines intended for the Mortar Battery at Battery Potter 

until June 25, 1891.15 Given the great undertaking of simultaneously constructing Battery 

Potter and the Mortar Battery, it is no wonder that initially one project took priority. 

However, once the concrete plant was in operation, the masonry work at the Mortar Battery 

progressed apace. 

Masonry construction of the Mortar Battery was started at the north end of the battery. The 

retaining walls of northeast and northwest pits were constructed in July and August 1891, and 

105 lineal feet of the northwest entrance was constructed up to reference 18.0. With the 

north end underway, construction of the retaining walls for the southeast and southwest pits, 

as well as the main and transverse galleries of the south end, was begun in September 1891. 

The first change in the planned construction dated to October 1891, when due to unusually 

high tides the water level in the sand reached a higher point than what the Engineers had 

originally expected. To accommodate the high water level, and also to simplify the drainage 

systems for the battery, the Engineers decided to raise the battery 2 feet. 

Masonry construction of the Mortar Battery continued into the winter months. Efforts 

during the months of November and December focused on the south end of the battery. 

During the month of November, the interior and exterior waterproofing process began. The 

waterproofing treatment for the Mortar Battery was the same process as that used at Battery 

Potter, and was performed at both sites by the Stone and Brick Waterproofing Company. 

The process entailed a preliminary hardening process, followed by the application of 

paraffin, which was postponed until spring. 

Masonry work at the Mortar Battery was stopped during the last week in December, and it 

would not resume until April 11, 1892. Work during the winter months was confined to the 

clearing of the ditch around the battery and repairs to the concrete plant. In January, tracks 

were laid to a sand pit, also known as a borrow pit, northeast of the battery. The task of 

covering the Mortar Battery was started in February 1892 (see the subsequent section “Sand 

and Sod, Covering the Mortar Battery”). 

When concrete production resumed in April, the work focused on the east and west 

magazines of the battery. Construction through the remainder of the fiscal year completed 

the magazines, and made progress on the adjacent store rooms and main gallery. 

By the end of July 1892, Site Engineer Lt. James G. Warren could report significant progress 

on the Mortar Battery. He noted that the interior masonry of the battery was practically 

complete (fig. 115). The blast slopes of the mortar pits (fig. 116) and above the entrance walls 

for each end had been carried higher (to reference 25.0), but were not complete. He further 

noted that the concrete floors of the mortar pits would not be put in place until the design of 

the mortar platforms had been finalized. 

 15 Gillespie to Casey, June 1891; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 195; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

197 

Progress on the Mortar Battery to this level meant that the waterproofing process could 

continue on the interior of the battery. The Stone and Brick Waterproofing Company spent 

the months of July and August treating the arches of the magazines, galleries, and 

passageways. 

Work during the first half of 1892 was not confined to the masonry; the ditch around the 

battery had also been completely cleared and graded. Thus, the completion of the interior 

masonry and the preparation of the surrounding ditch allowed work to commence on 

counterscarp walls in July. 

Masonry construction from August through December was confined to the counterscarp 

walls and galleries (fig. 117). By the end of September, Lt. Warren reported that 957 feet of 

wall had been completed, 79 feet had been partly completed, and 982 feet remained to be 

constructed. 

The overall production at the Mortar Battery was increased during the latter half of 1892 by 

the addition of machinery from other works at Sandy Hook. In August, one mixer was 

moved from the plant at Battery Potter to the Mortar Battery. The mixer was overhauled and 

put in working condition on September 24, 1892. In addition, one double-drum hoisting 

engine and two derricks were moved from Battery Potter, and one single-drum hoisting 

engine was brought over from the wharf. The “plant in use” at the Mortar Battery as 

reported by Lt. Warren from August to October 1892 demonstrates the increase in machinery 

at the plant: 

Plant in Use (August 1892): 

Hoisting engines 2 Dump cars 7 

Stationary engines 1 Flat cars 7 

Concrete mixers 1 Horses 3 

Derricks 316

Plant (October 1892): 

Hoisting engines 4 Dump cars 14 

Stationary engines 1 Flat cars 14 

Concrete mixers 2 Horses 4 

Derricks 517

Also between August and October, the daily average number of laborers at the site increased 

from 47.5 to 98.0, which was the highest number of laborers at the site during all of the 

construction. All of the added machinery and manpower meant an increase in production at 

the Mortar Battery. However, as Lt. Col. Gillespie explained in the F.Y. 1893 Annual Report, 

the lack of proper transportation for the concrete meant that the capacity of the plant did not 

expand concurrently (Appendix B). According to the October monthly report, 2,812 cubic 

yards of concrete were mixed and placed at the Mortar Battery, which was the largest amount 

so far. However, this only represented an increase of 880.85 cubic yards from August to 

October. This was still a significant amount of concrete output, and the increased 

production helped complete the counterscarp walls before the worst of the winter weather 

began. 

 16 Warren to Gillespie, August 1892; Mortar Battery. 17 Warren to Gillespie, Oct. 1892; Mortar Battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

198 

Construction of the counterscarp walls during this period included the galleries of the 

counterscarp designed to house the machine-gun defenses for the Mortar Battery. The 

original plans for the Mortar Battery included an outline of the counterscarp galleries 

situated at the northeast and southwest corners of the surrounding wall (fig. 111). Lt. Warren 

submitted revised plans for the galleries to Lt. Col. Gillespie on September 2, 1892 (fig. 118). 

Warren’s letter noted that the galleries would be equipped with machine guns that could 

sweep the ditch surrounding the interior of the battery. The northeast gallery would protect 

the east and north sides of the ditch, and the southwest gallery would protect the south and 

west sides. The correspondence to Lt. Col. Gillespie provided an estimate for the 

construction of the galleries, as well as details pertaining to their construction (see the 

subsequent section “Original Appearance, Exterior Elements, Counterscarp Wall and 

Galleries”).18

The plans for the counterscarp galleries were approved on September 29, 1892, with some 

minor changes. They included a plan for mounting the Gatling or machine guns of the 

galleries. Lt. Warren used the Maxim gun as his model, and designed a mount that would 

allow the gun to be moved in and out of the embrasure (fig. 119). The openings of the gun 

ports were to measure 10 inches by 9 1⁄2 inches, and the throat of the embrasures was lined 

with wrought-iron plates. 

Lt. Warren chose the Maxim gun because it was the most modern gun of this type. However, 

it appears that Gardner guns were used instead. In October 1892, after the plans for the 

counterscarp galleries had been approved, Lt. Col. Gillespie requested illustrations of the 

Gardner gun in order to design the embrasures and shield plates of the gallery gun ports.19 

Subsequent correspondence between Chief Engineer William Craighill and Chief of 

Ordnance Flagler in August 1895 noted that both the Mortar Battery and Battery Potter were 

to receive Gardner carriages and presumably Gardner guns.20 Documentation of the specific 

Gatling guns emplaced at the counterscarp galleries was not uncovered, but the 

correspondence suggests that the Gardner gun was used at both the Mortar Battery and 

Battery Potter. 

As previously mentioned, the counterscarp walls – including the north entry and the 

counterscarp galleries – were the sole focus of masonry construction in the fall and early 

winter of 1892. By the end of December, Lt. Warren reported that the northeast gallery was 

complete, including an application of whitewash to the interior walls and arches. The 

southwest gallery was also complete, except for the whitewash. Thus, an important part of 

the Mortar Battery’s defenses was in place. 

Once again, the winter months brought stormy weather and extremely cold temperatures. 

This precluded the manufacture and placement of concrete during the most inclement 

months. However, a large labor force (an average of 69 laborers per month from January 

 18 Gillespie to Casey, Dec. 1, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. III, pp. 39-41; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 19 Gillespie to Casey, Oct. 13, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, p. 102; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 20 Chief Engineer Brig. Gen. William Craighill to Chief of Ordnance Flagler, August 16, 1895; File 

11876, Box 258; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

199 

through April) remained employed at the battery, placing sand (see the subsequent section 

“Sand and Sod, Covering the Mortar Battery”). 

A lull in the placement of sand during the month of April 1892 allowed the Engineers to work 

on the drainage system for the battery. Lt. Warren described the excavation and 

construction of part of the drainage system as follows: 

8 inch pipe – 245 feet between the top entrances. 

12 inch pipe – 75 feet from the foot of the slope at the southeast corner 

to the iron pipe under the counterscarp wall and thence outside the 

battery 400 feet or all but 100 feet of the 500 leading to the swamp 

southeast of the battery.21

Additional drainage was installed in May. During the month, 380 linear feet of 4-inch pipe 

was laid to provide drainage for the magazines. 

The Engineers were also busy in April preparing for the resumption of masonry construction 

at the Mortar Battery. The plant was put in working condition and materials were ordered 

for eight mortar platforms, as previously described (see the previous section “Materials and 

Contracts”). 

Masonry construction at the Mortar Battery resumed at the north end of the battery in early 

May 1893 (fig. 120). Included in the production for the month were the blast slopes of the 

northern pits, the northern dynamo room, the main gallery, and the magazines. By the end of 

the month, a total of 26154.10 cubic yards of concrete had been mixed and placed at the 

Mortar Battery. With the construction of the main structure and counterscarp walls drawing 

to a close, one of the cubical concrete mixers was disassembled and prepared for shipment to 

Fort Hamilton. 

Concrete construction continued through the summer of 1893, and by the end of August the 

masonry construction was nearly complete. The floor levels were within 3 inches of their 

finished level. To facilitate the final construction of the interior sections of the battery, a gap 

had been left in the counterscarp wall, and the front entrance had been left incomplete. 

Preparations for the mortar platforms of the two northern mortar pits had begun in July 

1893. Since the concrete portion of the battery was almost completed, constructing the 

foundations for the mortar platforms was the focus of the masonry work over the next few 

months (fig. 121). The construction of the foundation had to allow for the setting of the bolts 

that would hold the mortar carriages in place. To allow for setting and adjusting the bolts, 

empty cement barrels were inverted over the area where the bolts would be placed. The 

foundation was then poured around the barrel. When the concrete foundation had set, the 

heads of the barrels were removed to reveal the holes for the bolts (see the subsequent 

section “Mortar Platforms”).22

 21 Warren to Gillespie, April 1892; Mortar Battery. 22 2nd Lt. Robert McGregor to Gillespie, March 5, 1894; File 1708, incl. 40; General Correspondence 

and Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

200 

The months of October through December 1893 witnessed the continued masonry 

construction of the Mortar Battery. During the month of October, the gap in the west 

counterscarp wall was filled, and construction of the main entrance was continued. The 

concrete main entrance was completed in November, and in December a bluestone coping 

was set over the entrance. At the same time, the bulletproof doors for the entrance were 

constructed and ready to be hung, and the bulletproof doors for the counterscarp galleries 

were installed. Concrete construction of the interior portions of the battery included 

finishing the floors of the magazines, and also the masonry associated with the ammunition 

tracks and turntables (see the subsequent section “Armament”). By the end of December 

1893, the masonry construction of the Mortar Battery was practically complete. The final 

masonry of the pits and the floors of the galleries along the service tracks were left undone 

while work was finalized on those items. 

December 1893 was also significant because of a number of visitors to the Mortar Battery. 

The advanced condition of the battery and the fact that it was the first of its type made it 

important for officers of both the Corps of Engineers and the Ordnance Department to 

inspect the site. Lt. Warren reported that during the course of December, the Mortar Battery 

was visited by Lt. Col. Gillespie – no stranger to the project – as well as Lt. Col. P. C. Hains 

and Lt. Col. William Ludlow, both of the Corps of Engineers. Warren also noted that on 

December 14, Brig. Gen. D.W. Flagler, Chief of Ordnance, visited the Mortar Battery, 

accompanied by Major Clifton Comly and Captain Frank Heath, Ordnance Department. Lt. 

Col. Gillespie returned twice in January 1894 to keep abreast of developments in the project, 

and to shepherd it towards completion. 

Work at the Mortar Battery concentrated on the assembly of the mortar carriages and 

mounting the mortars during the first half of 1894. By June 22, 1894, the north end of the 

battery was ready for testing, and by November 25, all of the mortars had been mounted and 

proof-fired (see the subsequent section “Armament”). 

Lt. Col. Gillespie submitted a final report on the construction of the Mortar Battery on May 

7, 1895. Gillespie’s report included a set of four drawings of Mortar Battery No. I, Sandy 

Hook, New Jersey (figs. 122-125), and the following breakdown of expenditures on the 

Mortar Battery: 

Purchase and erection of plant for construction $ 15,923.36 

Construction of battery proper 228,498.54 

Platforms for 16 carriages 25,330.74

 Total cost without armament $269,752.67 

Assembling 12 carriages, and 

mounting mortars thereon 3,600.00 

Balance on hand, May 1, 1895 699.33

 Total $ 274,052.00 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

201 

 Cost of Armament 

Sixteen spring-return carriages $ 144,000.00 

Sixteen cast-iron steel-hooped mortars 120,000.00

 Total $ 264,000.0023

Completion of the Mortar Battery at Sandy Hook marked the installation of the first Endicott 

System emplacement of this type. 

Lighting the Mortar Battery 

Prior to the official completion of the Mortar Battery in May 1895, Lt. Col. Gillespie 

submitted plans for lighting the interior of the battery. The lighting system included 12 

incandescent-light fixtures in the main gallery, and six fixtures in the interior rooms, all with 

a 24-candle-power capacity. The fixtures were powered by an accumulator with a capacity of 

100-ampere hours. The accumulator was charged from the dynamo at Battery Potter, and 

then brought to the Mortar Battery whenever electric lighting was required. This system was 

in place at the Mortar Battery by April 11, 1895.24

Sand and Sod, Covering the Mortar Battery 

Lt. Col. Gillespie’s 1890 estimate for the construction of the Mortar Battery included 153,210 

cubic yards of sand fill beyond that acquired from the excavation of the site. The covering of 

the masonry structure of the battery with sand was an important part of the battery’s 

defenses. The massive quantity of sand required for the project was taken from three borrow 

pits near the site. 

In January 1892, Lt. Warren reported that 400 feet of track had been laid to the borrow pit 

northeast of the battery, and that a derrick was in position to begin placing sand at the south 

end of the battery (fig. 112). 

The work of depositing sand on the battery began in March 1892, and it continued at a slow 

pace through the fiscal year. Initially the sand filling was done mostly by hand; the sand was 

shoveled into removable boxes with a capacity of about 1 cubic yard set on rail cars, which 

were then moved under a derrick that would raise the boxes and dump the sand where it was 

needed (fig. 126). The F.Y. 1892 Annual Report stated that 9,449 cubic yards of sand had 

been placed during the year – a relatively small amount, given the total estimate by Lt. Col. 

Gillespie. 

It appears that the increase in labor in October 1892 previously mentioned was primarily 

designed to assist with the sand filling at the Mortar Battery. The amount of sand excavated 

and placed did increase during that month, but Lt. Warren noted that it was a slow process. 

 23 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, September 1983), p. 179. 24 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 180. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

202 

Therefore, a steam-powered bucket grapple (or shovel) was ordered to augment the large 

labor force employed during the winter of 1892-93 for the excavation and placement of sand. 

A Lancaster bucket grapple was in operation at the borrow pit by mid-November 1892, and it 

greatly increased productivity (fig. 127). The steam grapple was used to load rotary dump 

cars with a capacity of 3 cubic yards, which were then hauled up an incline by a steampowered hoist, where they were dumped by hand. One steam-powered grapple was capable 

of moving 500 cubic yards of sand in eight hours. That capacity was not realized at the 

Mortar Battery, due to the lack of proper transportation for the sand. Sand excavation and 

placement per grapple at the site did not exceed 350 cubic yards per eight-hour period.25 

However, this was still a significant increase in the placement of sand, and a second steam 

shovel was procured in January 1893. 

While the masonry work was stopped from January through April 1893, great progress was 

made on filling the interior portions of the battery with sand (fig. 128). By the end of March, 

93,276 cubic yards of sand had been excavated and deposited on the battery. At that time, Lt. 

Warren estimated that it would take a total of 115,735 cubic yards of sand to complete the 

project. However, as he reported in the following month, the estimate had not allowed for 

the excessive settlement of the sand. This, combined with shifting sand due to high winds, 

resulted in a larger amount of sand required to adequately cover the Mortar Battery. 

To combat the sand erosion, Lt. Warren deployed a small labor force to cut sod from the 

marsh south of the battery. The sod was used to cover the slopes of the mortar pits above the 

concrete blast slope. The sod thus placed would cover the revetment from reference 35.0 – 

the top of the concrete slope – to reference 50.0 – the top of the entire slope. It was further 

determined that the slopes adjoining the ditch of the battery could be covered with a native 

heather that could survive exposure to the sun and wind, in combination with cedar boughs. 

The slopes were also sown with oats. All of these efforts had one purpose: to combat the loss 

of sand so laboriously deposited to cover the Mortar Battery. 

The sand fill and protection of the slopes continued along with the concrete construction 

during the summer, fall, and early winter of 1893. By the end of November, the placement of 

sod on the interior revetment slopes was complete; work on the exterior slopes continued 

into the winter. Lt. Warren reported in January 1894 that the sand covering of the portions 

of the battery within the counterscarp wall was complete, with the exception of a small area; 

the total sand excavated and placed to date was 147,494 cubic yards. 

Of the reports reviewed, the last one from March 1894 noted that the sand filling had been 

temporarily discontinued until the mortar carriages had been brought into the battery. At 

that point, the total had reached 151,210 cubic yards, which was closer to Lt. Col. Gillespie’s 

original estimate. The incomplete portion, along the south side of the counterscarp wall, was 

undoubtedly completed after the arrival and installation of the mortar carriages. The 

covering of the Mortar Battery with sand, and the subsequent cover of the sand with sod and 

heather, served as protection for the battery and as natural camouflage. 

 25 Gillespie to Casey, July 8, 1893; File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and 

Record Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

203 

Mortar Platforms 

Completion drawings for the Mortar Battery and historic photographs depict the 

construction of the mortar platforms. These drawings, combined with the monthly reports 

and correspondence, provide a good understanding of the construction methods employed 

at the Mortar Battery. 

The construction of the mortar platforms was hampered by the high water level in the sand of 

the Mortar Battery. In order to construct the foundations for the mortar platforms, the 

Engineers had to drain the water from the sand by means of pumps. When the water level 

was low enough, the excavation of the pit and concrete work was done as quickly as possible. 

Correspondence from 2nd Lt. Robert McGregor (who replaced Lt. Warren as the site 

engineer in December 1893) to Lt. Col. Gillespie described the process employed by his 

predecessor for constructing the foundations of the mortar platforms (Appendix E). 

The foundation of each platform began at reference 2.29. With the inverted cement barrels 

in place, the foundation was brought up to reference 6.0. The hold-down bolts that would 

secure the metal base ring of the platform were then set in the holes in the concrete 

foundation. Lt. McGregor’s letter described this process in detail, and completion drawings, 

as well as a historic photograph of the site, depict the work (figs. 129 -130). In short, the bolts 

were set after the foundation was poured, in order to more accurately place each bolt. Then 

eight granite blocks were set on the concrete foundation to form a masonry ring. These 

granite blocks were predrilled to allow the bolts to pass through them and protrude beyond 

their top surfaces. Then a steel base ring was set on the granite circle. (This lower, base ring 

supported the rollers of the carriage, and so was also called the lower roller path.) The base 

ring was secured on top of the granite ring by means of the hold-down bolts, which were 

anchored in the concrete and extended through the granite ring. Once the ring was in place, 

the concrete around the perimeter of each platform was brought up to reference 10.0, and the 

upper, index ring for the mortar platform and carriage was set in place. The mortar carriage 

was then mounted on the base ring. 

Two issues arose concerning the base rings during construction of the mortar platforms. The 

first was brought to the Chief Engineer’s attention by Lt. Col. Gillespie on May 17, 1893, 

when he noted that each base ring was manufactured in a single piece that weighed about 17 

tons and measured about 14 feet in diameter.26 The large size of the rings would not allow the 

workers to bring them through the entrance of the battery. So, when the time came to deliver 

the base rings, a trestle was built to carry them over the counterscarp walls and to the upper 

slopes of the pits (fig. 131). From there the base rings were lowered into the pit via hoists. 

The first base rings to be delivered by this system were for the northeast pit in September 

1893. The same system was used to place the mortar carriages in the mortar pits. However, 

this system was not flawless. On April 13, 1894, while lowering a carriage into the southwest 

pit, a 4-inch rope snapped, dropping and breaking the base ring of the carriage and causing 

considerable damage to the platform. The repairs included replacing one stone of the granite 

 26 Gillespie to Casey, May 17, 1893; File 1708, incl. 3; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

204 

ring and re-forging three of the hold-down bolts. The base ring could not be repaired, and a 

new base ring was requested from the Ordnance Department.27

The other problem with the base rings was discovered by Ordnance Officers of the Sandy 

Hook Proving Ground. The Ordnance Department tests of the mortar carriages showed that 

during repeated firing, the nuts of the hold-down bolts loosened. This matter was brought to 

the attention of Lt. Warren, who noted that once the mortar carriage was assembled, it was 

not possible to access the nuts without removing the entire movable part of the carriage. 

Warren therefore recommended that a steel “jam nut” three-quarters of an inch thick be 

installed under the standard nut to better secure the base ring of the mortar platform and 

carriage.28 This solution was ultimately approved by the Board of Engineers in November 

1893, with the added recommendation that the thread of the bolt be burred above the nut 

assembly. 

These issues aside, the Engineers made steady progress on the construction of the mortar 

platforms. As stated in Lt. McGregor’s letter, the excavation and foundation work for the 

northeast pit was completed in August 1893. Also received during that month were the 

stones for the granite rings of the same platforms. With the hold-down bolts, granite course, 

and base rings in place, the surrounding concrete was carried up to the 10-foot level, and all 

four platforms were ready to receive their carriages by the end of November. At the same 

time, foundation work progressed at the northwest pit, which was brought to the same 

condition during the month of December. 

Meanwhile, progress was made constructing the mortar platforms of the southern mortar 

pits. By the end of November 1893, the pits at that end of the battery were ready for the 

stones of the granite rings and the hold-down bolts. However, delays in the assembly of the 

carriages in the northern pits, and requirements for laborers in other portions of the battery 

construction, delayed further work at the southern end until March the following year. 

The Ordnance Department began delivering the mortar carriages to the Mortar Battery in 

June 1893. Once the mortar platforms of the northern end of the battery were complete, the 

assembly of the carriages commenced. Early in the assembly process, which began in January 

1894, it was discovered that adjustments had to be made to the granite ring of the platform to 

allow the spring recoil cylinders of the carriage to fit on the platform. Lt. McGregor quickly 

solved this problem, and reported that the platforms would be ready for the Ordnance 

Department to resume assembly of the carriages as fast as they wanted (see the subsequent 

section “Mortar Carriages and Mortars”). When work resumed on the southern mortar 

platforms in March, the granite was cut after the hold-down bolts and stones were set in 

place. 

 27 McGregor to Gillespie, April 24, 1894; File 1708, incl. 45; General Correspondence and Record 

Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 28 Warren to Gillespie, Oct. 19, 1893; File 1708, incl. 17; General Correspondence and Record 

Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

205 

Beginning with the northwest pit, the mortar carriages at the north end of the battery were 

assembled during February and March (see the subsequent section “Mortar Carriages and 

Mortars”). By the end of March, four of the eight pits were ready to receive their carriages. 

Work was completed on the platforms by mid-April, and the battery was near completion. 

Mortar Battery – Armament

Mortar Carriages and Mortars 

Eight mortar carriages for the north end of the Mortar Battery were ordered by the Chief of 

Engineers in March 1893. All of the mortar carriages were Model 1891, and were 

manufactured by the Builders Iron Foundry in Providence, Rhode Island. The first four 

carriages were delivered by the Ordnance Department on June 10, 1893, for assembly and 

installation in the northeast pit. The masonry walls and slopes of northeast pit had been the 

first completed, and the foundations for the mortar platforms were slated to be the first 

constructed. By the end of October, Lt. Warren reported that the Ordnance Department had 

four more carriages at the Proving Ground ready for delivery, and that two carriages for the 

southern end of the battery were on rail cars near the battery. 

As previously discussed, progress continued on the masonry foundations for the mortar 

platforms and carriages through the fall and winter of 1893. The metal base ring was 

essentially the first component of the mortar carriage assembly. These were in place at the 

north end of the battery by the end of November. The first attempt at assembling the 

carriages of the north end pits in January 1894 encountered some complications. It was 

discovered that the diameter of the granite ring of the platform was too small to allow the 

spring recoil cylinders of the carriage to sit in the well of the platform. Lt. McGregor alerted 

Lt. Col. Gillespie to this problem in a letter dated January 24, 1894. In that correspondence, 

McGregor described the dilemma and offered the following solution: 

The lowest horizontal diameter of this cylinder is between three and 

four inches below the top surface of the stone, and it swings, in place, 

within 1⁄2 inch of the inside edge of the lower roller path. As the stone 

comes 1 1⁄2 inches inside the lower roller path it will be necessary to cut 

away this projection to a depth of 4 inches around the entire circles, as 

shown in red on the accompanying tracing.29

Stone cutters were immediately put to work cutting away the excess granite of the stone rings, 

and they had completed this task at the northern end of the battery by February 15. This 

same process was completed at the south end of the battery as the mortar platforms were 

assembled. 

 29 McGregor to Gillespie, Jan. 24, 1894; File 1708, incl. 33; General Correspondence and Record 

Cards, 1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

206 

During the final weeks of February and through March, the Ordnance Department worked 

on assembling the mortar carriages of the northwest pit. The Engineers were responsible for 

assembling the other 12 carriages for the Mortar Battery. In his March 1894 monthly report, 

Lt. McGregor noted that the first carriage was ready for its mortar on March 3. 

All of the mortars emplaced at the Mortar Battery were 12-inch, breech-loading, rifled 

mortars, Model 1886, which had a cast-iron body enclosed in built-up steel hoops from the 

mortar’s mid-section back to the breech.30 They also were manufactured by the Builders Iron 

Foundry. The first mortar was delivered by the Ordnance Department and installed on 

March 10, 1894. Though the report does not specify in which pit this work was performed, it 

is assumed that the Engineers were working in the northeast pit, since this one was the first 

completed. The remaining three mortar carriages of that pit were ready for the mortars, but 

a defect was discovered in the trunnion beds. The report states that the two sides of the 

trunnion beds were not level. The problem was corrected by the Ordnance Department 

without significant delay. 

The Ordnance Department delivered two additional mortars during the month of March, 

and by the end of June 1894, the northern pits were completed and ready for service. At the 

southern end of the battery, the southeast pit was near completion and serviceable in the 

event of war, and the carriages of the southwest pit were mostly assembled. By the fall of 

1894, all 16 mortars were in place and serviceable (fig. 132). 

Proof-Firing 

The first test of a completed mortar emplacement was carried out on June 22, 1894, with Lt. 

Col. Gillespie and the Commanding Officer of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground in 

attendance (Appendix F). The Engineers chose the southeast gun of the northeast pit for that 

test, since it would subject the concrete structure and slope of the battery to the greatest 

pressure. Due to the close proximity of the mortar to the concrete wall and slope, Lt. Col. 

Gillespie and company feared there would be damage to the masonry. The mortars were 

raised to an elevation of 45 degrees, and the 630-pound shot was propelled by more than 60 

pounds of brown prismatic gunpowder. Lt. Col. Gillespie’s report to Chief Engineer Casey 

the following day detailed the proof-firing, and noted that the only damage sustained from 

the blast of the mortar was to the sod covering the upper slope. By all accounts, the first test 

was successful, and minimal damage was sustained by the masonry of the battery.31

Upon the completion of the first test, the Commanding Officer of the Proving Ground 

recommended that each mortar and carriage at the Mortar Battery be proof-tested. These 

tests would serve to proof the mortar, carriage, and platform of the emplacement, and would 

also provide valuable information regarding the accuracy of the mortars when fired in volleys 

from separate pits. The proof-firing of each mortar was completed on November 25, 1894.32

 30 SAHO Park Historian Thomas Hoffman. 

31 Gillespie to Casey, June 23, 1894; File 1708, incl. 47; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; RG77; NAB. 32 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 178. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

207 

Ammunition Tracks 

As with Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery required a system of railroad tracks to deliver 

ammunition from the wharf to the battery, and to move the ammunition within the battery. 

The completion drawings of the Mortar Battery depict the ammunition service tracks 

installed at the battery. The main line previously laid to facilitate the construction of the 

battery ran from the wharf to the site. The ammunition service line ran though the entrance 

of the battery to turntables positioned at the entrance to each end of the battery. From the 

turntable, the track led to the western pits at each end of the battery. The track continued 

into the transverse gallery and through to the eastern pit at each end of the battery. 

Turntables were also positioned at the junction of the transverse galleries (between each pair 

of mortar pits) and the main gallery that ran between the north and south ends of the battery. 

The tracks in the main gallery gave access to the magazines and storage rooms of the battery. 

Thus, the ammunition service tracks enabled the Engineers and later the Artillery Corps to 

efficiently transport ammunition from the wharf to the battery. 

Construction of the portions of the ammunition track inside the battery was begun in 

November 1893. During the month, 120 linear feet of track were laid in the main gallery, and 

the turntables for the transverse galleries had arrived at the site. The turntables at the 

entrances to the north and south ends of the battery were positioned in the following month, 

as was the one at the north end transverse gallery. By January 1894, the main gallery was 

completed, and the line for a permanent track connecting the ammunition service track with 

the wharf line was laid out. Construction of the track continued as the battery neared 

completion, and it was ready to receive ammunition deliveries by June 1894. 

To augment the ammunition delivery, an overhead trolley and hoist system was put in place 

in November 1895. The system consisted of an overhead rail in the main gallery, which ran 

along the arch of the barrel-vaulted ceiling and intersected the transverse galleries at both 

ends of the battery. The rail was installed in two sections and fastened with iron hangers 

spaced 5 feet apart. A block and tackle with a capacity of 1,000 pounds was attached to the 

rail at each end of the Mortar Battery. The overhead system was used for raising the mortar 

shells off the railroad cars and loading the ordnance onto the shot trucks for delivery to the 

mortars.33

 33 McGregor to Gillespie, March 18, 1895; File 7345; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 

103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

208 

Figure 108. “Northern Mortar Pits, Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

209 

Figure 109. “Battery Reynolds, Fort Hancock, N.J. Showing Telephone Booths. Dec. 20, 

1905.” Battery McCook and Battery Reynolds added in handwritten script to identify redesignation of Mortar Batteries. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

210 

Battery Alexander McCook 

northwest 

pit 

northeast 

pit 

Battery John F. Re

ynolds 

southwest 

pit 

southeast 

pit 

perimeter ditch 

counterscarp wall 

counterscarp 

gallery 

Figure 110. Mortar Battery (not to scale). 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

211 

Figure 111. “Plans and Sections of a Half Sunk Mortar Battery near Sandy Hook Light, Sandy Hook, New Jersey, 

October 1890.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

212 

Figure 112. “Mortar Battery at Sandy Hook, N.J. Plan showing general arrangement of 

working plant in use, June 30, 1892.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

213 

Figure 113. Detail of concrete plant from “Plans and Sections of a Half Sunk Mortar 

Battery near Sandy Hook Light, Sandy Hook, New Jersey, October 1890.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

214 

Figure 114. Concrete mixers in operation at Mortar Battery plant, 

Nov. 14, 1892. 

Figure 115. Mortar Battery, as seen from lighthouse, June 7, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

215 

Figure 116. Northwest pit during construction, June 7, 1892. 

Figure 117. Commencing construction of counterscarp wall, near 

north entrance, July 29, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

216 

Figure 118. Mortar Battery: Detail of counterscarp gallery, from sheet no. 4 of four 

completion drawings, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

217 

Figure 119. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Maxim Automatic Machine Gun adapted for use in the Counterscarp Galleries 

of the Battery, September 1892.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

218 

Figure 120. Construction of concrete slopes around the two northern 

pits, May 1, 1893. 

Figure 121. Mortar Battery, excavation and construction of 

foundations for mortar emplacements; note inverted 

cement barrels protecting bolt locations.
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

219 

Figure 122. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Plan of Battery.” Sheet no. 1 of 4, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

220 

Figure 123. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Horizontal Section at Reference (10.25).” 

Sheet no. 2 of 4, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

221 

Figure 124. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Vertical Sections through Battery.” 

Sheet no. 3 of 4, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

222 

Figure 125. “Mortar Battery No. 1, Sandy Hook, N.J. Counterscarp Gallery, Main Entrance, and Mortar 

Platform.” Sheet no. 4 of 4, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

223 

Figure 126. Mortar Battery, moving sand to the superior slope, ca. 1892. 

Figure 127. Lancaster bucket grapple at work in east borrow pit, 

November 11, 1892. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

224 

Figure 128. Mortar Battery, as seen from lighthouse, February 8, 

1893; view shows covering of battery with sand. 

Figure 129. Mortar Battery, construction of mortar platforms; view 

shows granite base ring and steel roller path. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

225 

Figure 130. Detail of mortar platform, from sheet no. 4 of four completion 

drawings, 1895. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

226 

Figure 131. South end of Mortar Battery, as seen from lighthouse, 

March 13, 1893; view shows counterscarp wall and trestle over 

wall during construction. 

Figure 132. Mortar Battery, view of mortar pit showing mortars 

mounted on carriages, June 30, 1894. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

227 

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE 

Introduction

The extant portions of the Mortar Battery provide some clues to the original appearance of 

the structure. However, alterations and the forces of nature have obliterated portions of the 

original battery. The following section relies on written and graphic documentation from the 

time of construction of the Mortar Battery, and on later photographs and drawings. Plans of 

the Mortar Battery with room numbers are provided as references to the mortar pits, 

galleries, and interior rooms of the battery (figs. 133-135). The numbered plans include 

partitions that were constructed in the 1920s and 1940s. The set of four completion drawings 

should be referred to for a sense of the original configuration of the battery (figs. 122 – 125). 

The description of the original appearance is meant to augment the information discussed in 

the previous section on construction. 

The Mortar Battery was constructed with four mortar pits containing 16 mortars when fully 

armed. The interior of the battery was planned with two ends, each end containing two pits, 

with a structure for the magazines and storage positioned between the two ends. The interior 

portion of the Mortar Battery was surrounded by a perimeter ditch, which in turn was 

enclosed by the counterscarp wall. 

Mortar Battery – Exterior Elements

Entrance 

The main entrance to the Mortar Battery was constructed between December 1892 and 

November 1893, and was situated in the northwest corner of the counterscarp wall. Upon 

completion of the battery, an arched doorway in that location was the only means of 

accessing the ditch of the battery, and from there the entrances to the north and south pits of 

the battery. The doorway measured 10 feet wide by 10 feet high, and was equipped with 

double doors. Completion drawings of the Mortar Battery depict the entry doors with four 

gun loops (fig. 125). Thus, the main entrance formed the first defense for the battery. 

The entrance was flanked by splayed retaining walls that held back the sand covering the 

perimeter of the counterscarp wall. The splayed walls sloped from the top of the 

counterscarp wall at reference 25.0 down to a semicircular pad at reference 4.0. The 

retaining wall was constructed with concrete in the same manner as the counterscarp, and 

was finished with bluestone coping. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

228 

Counterscarp Wall and Galleries 

The counterscarp walls and galleries were constructed as the Mortar Battery’s primary 

defense. The counterscarp walls enclosed the battery on all sides, and had one entrance in 

the northwest corner. The galleries were located in the southwest and northeast corners of 

the counterscarp, and were designed to provide defense for the ditch of the battery. 

Sectional plans of the Mortar Battery show that the exterior portion of the wall was 

constructed in a stepped manner, and that the interior was flat. The foundation of the 

concrete counterscarp wall was a 13-foot-wide footing set at reference 7.0, approximately 3 

feet below the level of the interior ditch. The wall was 7 feet thick at the base (reference 

10.0). It was stepped in 1 foot for every 3 feet of rise, which made the wall 3 feet thick at the 

top (reference 25.0). Upon the completion of the battery, the exterior portions of the 

counterscarp wall were covered with a sand embankment. 

The counterscarp galleries were situated in opposite corners of the counterscarp in order to 

provide machine gun cover on all sides of the ditch surrounding the interior portions of the 

Mortar Battery. The height of the counterscarp at both of those corners rose 5 feet from 

reference 25.0 to reference 30.0. Lt. Warren’s letter to Lt. Col. Gillespie dated September 2, 

1892, noted that the gallery to the northeast would require additional cover, since it would be 

exposed to fire coming from the rear as well as the ditch. Accordingly, his estimate for the 

northeast gallery included twice as much concrete as the southwest gallery. The lieutenant’s 

letter described the plan of the galleries as follows: 

In general plan the galleries consist of segmented arches with ten feet 

span and three feet rise, supported upon bench walls five feet in height, 

arranged as relieving arches, their soffits perpendicular to the 

counterscarp wall so as to prevent the destruction of the galleries by 

fire coming down the ditch. Communication is had between the 

arches by a four-foot arched passageway in the bench walls and 

between the two sets of casemates by a similar arched room designed 

for magazine purposes. Access to the gallery is had by a four-foot door 

and passage communicating with the ditch and so arranged as to be 

screened from fire coming down the ditch.1

Lt. Warren also noted that the portion of the ditch in front of the galleries would be lower 

than the rest of the perimeter ditch, to protect the gun-port embrasures and simplify the 

drainage. Drawings of the northeast gallery show a concrete-lined ditch at the corner of the 

gallery in front of the embrasures. The completion drawings of the Mortar Battery depict the 

counterscarp galleries almost exactly as described by Lt. Warren (fig. 118). 

 1

 Lt. J.G. Warren to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, Sept. 2, 1892; Letters Sent; Vol. III, p. 40; Entry 

815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

229 

Perimeter Ditch 

The Mortar Battery was constructed with a defensive ditch. The counterscarp wall 

previously described formed the outside wall of the ditch, and the scarp formed the inside 

wall of the ditch. The ditch surrounded the interior portions of the battery on all sides, and 

was constructed as part of the battery’s defense. The ditch measured 462 feet long on the 

north and south sides of the battery, and 607.3 feet long on the east and west sides of the 

battery. The ditch was 30 feet wide, and the ground level of the ditch was at reference 10.0. 

Entrance galleries to the north and south mortar pits were accessed from the west ditch. 

Sand Cover 

As previously mentioned, the outside wall of the counterscarp was covered with sand upon 

the completion of the battery. The sand embankment was at a 2:3 grade, and Lt. Col. 

Gillespie had estimated that it would take 16,225 cubic yards of sand to fill the glacis.2

The interior portions of the Mortar Battery were buried under more than 150,000 cubic yards 

of sand, leaving only the mortar pits and the entrances at each end of the battery open.3

 The 

sand covering the battery started at grade (reference 10.0) on the inside of the perimeter 

ditch. The sand embankment sloped up from that at a 1:2 grade, and leveled off at reference 

45.7. From that level, the sand gently sloped up to reference 50.0 at its highest point. At each 

pit and along the entrance galleries, the sand cover sloped down toward the concrete slopes 

of the structure, and abutted the concrete at reference 35.0. As previously described, the 

sand served as a natural defense for the battery, and was covered with native plant material in 

an effort to hold it in place. 

Mortar Battery – Interior Elements

North End 

This area is depicted in figure 133. 

 2

 Gillespie to Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers, Oct. 18, 1890; Letters Sent; Vol. I, p. 

16; Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 3

 Warren to Gillespie, March 1894; Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New York: United 

States Engineer Bureau). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

230 

Entrance Gallery 

The entrance gallery (Room 101) of the north-end pits was 10 feet wide and 121 feet in length 

from the ditch to the northwest mortar pit. At the west end of the entrance, the vertical 

concrete walls sloped up from grade to reference 20.0. At that point, the vertical wall 

transitioned to a 45-degree slope that was constructed up to reference 35.0, and which 

continued into the west mortar pit. The sand cover of the battery sloped from reference 35.0 

to the top of the battery (see the subsequent section “Sand Cover”). 

The dynamo room (room 102), which housed the electrical plant for the battery, was located 

on the north side of the entrance gallery. The room was 10 feet wide by 14 feet long, with 

concrete floors, walls, and arched ceilings. 

Mortar Pits 

The entrance gallery opened into the northwest mortar pit (room 103). All four mortar pits 

of the battery were the same size, measuring 40 feet wide by 60 feet long. The vertical 

concrete walls of the mortar pit were constructed up to reference 20.0 approximately 10 feet 

above the floor level of the pit. From that point, the concrete blast slope extended up to 

reference 35.0, where it abutted the sand slope. 

The northwest mortar pit was equipped with four mortars grouped toward the Atlantic 

Ocean, or northeast end of the pit. The mortar platforms were spaced 20 feet on center, with 

10 feet from the center to the side and front walls, and 30 feet to the back wall. However, the 

mortars were not centered on the platforms. Lt. Col. Gillespie explained to Chief Engineer 

Casey that when the battery was designed, it was expected that the centers of the mortar 

carriage would line up with the centers of the platform. However, the type of carriage used at 

the battery was designed with trunnions that extended 3 feet 3 1⁄2 inches beyond the center of 

the platform, which brought the muzzle of the mortar closer to the wall of the pit. When the 

mortar was fired at a 45-degree angle, the muzzle was only 18 inches from the crest of the 

wall.4

An arched doorway in the east wall of the northwest pit led to the transverse gallery of the 

north end, which in turn led to the interior of the Mortar Battery and the northeast pit. The 

northeast pit (room 111) was planned and constructed in the same manner as the northwest 

pit. The one exception was that the doorway from the transverse gallery on the west wall was 

the only point of entry. 

 4

 Gillespie to Casey, June 23, 1894; File 1708, incl. 47; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 

1893-94; Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

231 

Galleries 

The transverse gallery (room 108) connecting the northwest and northeast pits was 8 feet 

wide, 80 feet long, and 9 feet high. The gallery was constructed with concrete walls 8 feet 

thick that transitioned to an arched ceiling that started 4 feet above the floor level. The arch 

formed a barrel-vaulted ceiling for the length of the gallery, except at its midpoint, where the 

main, longitudinal gallery of the battery intersected it. 

At this intersection, an alcove (room 107) was constructed in the north or outside wall. The 

alcove measured 10 feet wide by 8 feet long, and was labeled a “Firing Recess” on the 

completion drawings. 

The longitudinal main gallery (rooms 112, 119, and 126) of the Mortar Battery connected the 

north and south ends of the battery, and provided access to the magazines and storage 

rooms. The longitudinal gallery was 10 feet wide and 237 feet 3 1⁄2 inches long, measuring 

from the north transverse gallery to the south transverse gallery. Like the transverse gallery, 

the concrete walls of the gallery were 8 feet thick, with a barrel- arched ceiling 9 feet high. 

Magazines and Storage Rooms 

The magazines and storage rooms were situated at the center of the battery, and were 

accessed from the main longitudinal gallery (fig. 134). A group of four rooms extended out 

on either side of the gallery. The rooms on the west side (rooms 113 – 118) serviced the north 

end of the battery, and the ones on the east side (rooms 120 – 124) serviced the south end. 

Each group of rooms consisted of three storage rooms and a large magazine. All of the 

adjoining walls of these rooms were 4 feet thick, and the exterior walls were 8 feet thick. The 

interior height of all the rooms and galleries of the Mortar Battery was at reference 19.0, 

which was 9 feet above the finished floor level. 

On the west side of the longitudinal gallery, the north room (room 113) measured 10 feet 

wide by 14 feet long. The full width of the room was directly open to the gallery, and a 

doorway in the south wall led to the next store room. The doorway measured 3 feet wide by 

6 1⁄2 feet high. 

The next room was an L-shaped room (room 114) that connected to the magazine to the 

west, and to a storage room to the south. Room 114 measured 10 feet wide by 16 feet long. It 

had three arched doorways, each measuring 3 feet wide by 6 1⁄2 feet high. A doorway on the 

west wall led to the magazine (now Rooms 115-117), and the doorway on the south wall led to 

the storage room (room 118). 

The original magazine was 10 feet wide by 58 feet long, with concrete walls that extended up 

to a barrel-vaulted ceiling. The south storage room measured 16 feet wide by 20 feet long, 

and had a vaulted ceiling. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

232 

The storage rooms and magazine complex on the east side of the longitudinal gallery were the 

same size, but were laid out from south to north in order to better service the south end of the 

battery. 

South End 

This area is depicted in figure 135. 

The south end of the Mortar Battery was laid out in the same manner as the north end. The 

only structural difference was the absence of the dynamo room off the entrance gallery. The 

transverse gallery followed the same configuration, and had a “firing recess” along the south 

wall opposite the longitudinal gallery. The longitudinal gallery at the south end of the Mortar 

Battery was longer than at the north end, but was otherwise constructed in the same manner. 

The length of the south gallery to the center of the battery was 142.65 feet, versus the 94.65-

foot length of the north gallery. This was due to the orientation of the mortar pits and the 

design, which placed the interior portions of the battery roughly equidistant from the closest 

pit walls. 

As previously mentioned, the storage rooms that serviced the south end of the battery were 

oriented in the opposite direction as those for the north end. Otherwise, the mortar pits were 

constructed to the same specifications, and the interior portions were similar. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

233 

ALTERATIONS 

Upgrades and Maintenance, 1895-1901

Some minor repairs were performed at the Mortar Battery during the first fiscal year after its 

completion. One of those was the repair of the blast slopes of the mortar pits. Sections of the 

sod on the slopes had to be replaced due to damage sustained when the mortars were fired. 

The doors of the battery were also repaired in fiscal year 1896.5

Although the Mortar Battery had been completed during F.Y. 1895, it was noted that the 

battery remained unmanned at the beginning of F.Y. 1896.6

 The Mortar Battery was 

maintained by the Engineer Department during the first three years of its existence, and was 

turned over to the Artillery Corps in March 1898.7

Lt. Col. Gillespie estimated F.Y. 1898 projects for the Mortar Battery to include repair of the 

slopes, painting the hoists and trolley, and keeping in repair the batteries and electrical 

system.8

 During the fiscal year, the electrical wiring was removed from the wooden conduits 

and placed in iron pipes. The painting and slope repairs were completed as proposed by 

Gillespie. 

F.Y. 1898 work began with the replacement by the Ordnance Department of eight of the 

index rings of the mortar platforms. This work included new paving under the index rings. 

The first eight were replaced by the end of August 1898. Upon the successful completion of 

that project, new index rings and paving materials were ordered for the remaining eight 

platforms, which were installed by the Ordnance Department during the summer of 1899.9

The condition of the interior slopes of the Mortar Battery continued to be a problem. The 

post commander of Fort Hancock, Major Burbank, wrote the Adjutant General on March 28, 

1900, requesting a solution to the instability of the slopes. Major Burbank had witnessed 

first-hand the “dislodgement of a quantity of turf revetment of the slope in front of the 

mortar used” after one of the mortars in the northeast pit was tested by the Ordnance 

Department. The major commented on the steep pitch of the slopes, and noted that upon 

inspecting the other mortar pits, he was concerned that more turf would be lost and large 

 5

 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, September 1983), p. 181. 6

 2nd Lt. Robert McGregor to Gillespie, July 23, 1895; File 11776; General Correspondence 1894 -

1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 7

 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 181. 8

 Gillespie to Brig. Gen. William Craighill, Chief of Engineers, Oct. 27, 1896; File 13121; box 278; 

General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 9

 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 182. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

234 

amounts of material would be deposited in the pits.10 Past experience and Major Burbank’s 

request resulted in the regrading of the interior slopes to a slope of 1:2. The grading and 

replacement of the sod cover was completed by the end of F.Y. 1900.11 This solution may 

have stabilized the interior slopes of the battery, but in May 1901 Burbank – now a colonel – 

reported that large amounts of sand were drifting into the emplacements, onto the guns, and 

into the gears of the armament at the Mortar Battery. Col. Burbank suggested covering the 

batteries with cinders to reduce the sand erosion. After some experimentation, Major 

William Marshall agreed that a cover of 3 to 4 inches of wet cinders appeared to stabilize the 

sand slopes, and this material was applied to the sand slopes of the Mortar Battery before the 

end of 1901.12

Another recurring problem at the Mortar Battery resurfaced in 1900. Apparently the 

drainage system was not sufficient for the mortar pits, and the condition was brought to 

Marshall’s attention in August. Upon inspecting the battery, Marshall proposed that wells 3 

feet in diameter be dug through the foundations of the mortar pits, which would require 

about 4 feet of excavation. Marshall recommended that the Chief Engineer make an 

allotment of $280 for the proposed work.13

In F.Y. 1901, the electric lighting system was upgraded with the addition of a new 

accumulator, armored distribution wires, and moisture-proof fixtures.14

Naming the Mortar Battery

Mortar Battery No. 1 was designated Battery John Reynolds by General Order No. 78, issued 

by the War Department on May 25, 1903. Major General John F. Reynolds had graduated 

from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1841; he served with the Artillery in the 

Mexican War, and at the outbreak of the Civil War was commissioned a lieutenant colonel, 

14th Infantry of the Union Army. Reynolds was rapidly promoted, and by the fall of 1862 was 

a major general commanding the 1st Corps, Army of the Potomac. He was killed at the battle 

of Gettysburg on July 1, 1863, while leading his troops. The designation of the Mortar 

Battery in his honor was a tribute to his service and gallantry. 

The Mortar Battery was divided into two distinct batteries in 1906. By General Order of the 

War Department, the north end of the Battery Reynolds was designated Battery Alexander 

McCook. Alexander McCook was one of the “Fighting McCooks” – a family from Ohio 

known for having 15 members serving in the Union Army during the Civil War. Like General 

Reynolds, Alexander McCook was a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the Civil War. 

 10 Major J.B. Burbank, Office of the Post Commander, Fort Hancock, N.J., to Adjutant General, 

Dept. of the East, N.Y.C., March 28, 1900; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort Hancock, July 

1889 – Dec. 1906; Vol. I, p. 139; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 11 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 182. 12 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 216. 13 Major William Marshall to Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson, Chief of Engineers, Sept. 22, 1900; Press 

Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Vol. I, p. 139; Entry 814; RG 77; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 14 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 181. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

235 

Alexander McCook spent his entire career in the service of the U.S. Army, and retired as a 

major general in 1895. 

The division of the Mortar Battery apparently caused some confusion as to the division and 

designation of the mortar pits. On March 7, 1906, now-Lt. Col. Marshall sent a letter and 

blueprint of the Mortar Battery to the District Commander, Southern Artillery District of 

N.Y., clarifying the renaming of the battery (fig. 109). 

Battery Telephone Booths and

Battery Commander Stations

Observation of the activity at each mortar pit and communication between the pits and the 

range and position-finding systems was important. To assist in that process, four telephone 

booths – one in each pit – were constructed at the Mortar Battery in 1905. Lt. Col. Marshall 

transmitted to Lt. Hurlbut, his assistant at Sandy Hook, blueprints of the telephone booths 

on April 29, 1905. Marshall also informed Assistant Engineer Hurlbut that $4,800 had been 

allotted for the construction of the four telephone booths.15

Two plans of the telephone booths depict the overall design and plan of the two booths for 

the west pits (fig. 136) and the east pits (fig. 137). Though the plans are not dated, they 

appear to be from the period of construction, and the booths as depicted correspond with the 

extant structures. In addition, the plan dated December 20, 1905, shows the position of the 

telephone booths at Battery Reynolds (fig. 109). 

Each booth was perched above its pit, in the southwest corner. The booths of the northwest 

and southwest pits were located at the end of the entrance gallery, and were supported by an 

arched concrete bridge at the height of the breast wall. The booths in the northeast and 

southeast pits were situated just above the entrance to the transverse gallery, and were 

supported by an arch spanning the corner of the pit (figs. 138-139). Each booth was 

rectangular and constructed of reinforced concrete. Small windows in the northeast corner 

of each booth gave the occupants a view of the pit below. The window openings were 

constructed with embrasures, presumably to protect the observers. The booths were 

accessed from the ground level via concrete steps with iron railings. 

It is interesting to note that the plans for the telephone booths depict a blackboard mounted 

on the southeast side of each booth. As shown, the blackboards were divided into four rows 

that were marked from top to bottom with “Elev[ation], Azimuth, Charge, Project[ile].” The 

firing information on elevation, azimuth, charge, and projectile was relayed from the 

battery’s plotting room to the telephone booth. Personnel in the telephone booth used the 

blackboards to communicate firing data to the personnel manning the mortars below. 

 15 Lt. Col. Marshall to Lt. Hurlbut, April 29, 1905; folder 116, enclosure 1, box 32; Letters Received 

Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

236 

Work on the telephone booths was carried out in the summer and fall of 1905, and the booths 

were near completion when the December 20th plan was drawn. Assistant Engineer Hurlbut 

notified Lt. Col. Marshall on January 12, 1906, that the telephone booths were complete, the 

electrical conduit was being laid, and all that remained was the installation of the electric 

lamps.16

Another component of the observation and communication system at the Mortar Battery was 

the battery commander stations. Lt. Col. Marshall forwarded tracings of the battery 

commander stations to Chief Engineer Mackenzie on February 15, 1906 (figs. 140-141). 

Battery commander stations were planned for both Battery Alexander and Battery Reynolds. 

The stations were constructed at the crest of the hill covering the battery, and faced northeast 

with a view of the battery pits and the Atlantic Ocean. 

The battery commander stations were constructed with 8-inch-thick, reinforced-concrete 

walls that were set 2 feet 8 inches into the ground, and which sat on a footing 16 inches wide 

by 10 inches thick. The roof was also constructed of 8-inch-thick reinforced concrete. It had 

a slight pitch and was equipped with gutters and copper leaders for drainage. A steel door 

was located at the back of the building on the southwest elevation, and a band of narrow 

windows stretched across the northeast elevation. The grade on the northeast elevation was 

gradually raised up to the level of the observation windows to form a berm along that side of 

the station. 

The interior of the battery commander stations measured 6 feet wide by 10 feet long, with a 

ceiling height of 7 feet. The floor of the station was a 6-inch-thick slab of concrete. Like the 

fire-control stations at Battery Potter, the battery commander stations were constructed with 

a band of windows along the northeast elevation that wrapped around the side elevations. 

The observation windows were set about 4 feet above the floor level, and measured 

approximately 2 feet 3 inches wide by 11 3⁄4 inches high. A concrete pedestal for optical 

azimuth instruments was situated at the center of the windows, and was set with its center 16 

inches from the front wall. The pedestal was supported by a 2-foot-square pier that extended 

3 feet 6 inches below the floor level. The horizontal axes of the instruments were set at 

reference 52.0 for Battery McCook and reference 56.0 for Battery Reynolds. Each battery 

commander station had direct communication with the telephone booths at their respective 

ends of the battery. 

Work on the battery commander stations was completed by November 8, 1907, when Lt. Col. 

Marshall wrote Chief Engineer Mackenzie that they were ready for transfer to the Artillery 

Corps. Marshall made his final inspection of the stations on December 12 and turned them 

over to the Fort Hancock commander.17

 16 Hurlbut to Marshall, Jan. 12, 1906; folder 116, enclosure 3, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 17 Marshall to Brig. Gen. Alexander Mackenzie, Chief of Engineers, Nov. 8, 1907; File 35510, incl. 

887; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

237 

Mortar Battery Tower and Station

Historic photographs depict a tower inside the west counterscarp wall of the Mortar Battery 

(figs. 142 and 159). The tower is listed as a “Meteorological Station” on a ca.-1910 map (fig. 

15) and a plan of Battery Reynolds dated September 1910 (fig. 145). The Fort Record Book 

for Fort Hancock documented that the meteorological station at the Mortar Battery 

originally served as the battery commander’s station for Battery Reynolds (prior to the 

division of the battery). The station was completed by the Engineers on May 30, 1901, and 

transferred to the Artillery Corps on September 3 that same year. The post record book 

indicates that the meteorological station was installed by November 1907, which was 

confirmed by the 1910 plans.18 It seems likely that the role of the station was changed after 

the construction of the battery commander stations on top of the Mortar Battery. The 

meteorological station was further documented by the “Report of Completed Works” in July 

1921. That report noted that the station was inside the Mortar Battery, and was a wood 

structure on a steel tower. The report further documents that the station measured 15 feet 

square and was surrounded by a 3-foot walkway (fig. 143).19 The tower and station later 

served as the “Command Post & Observation Post for Group 2” during World War II (fig. 

163), but only the concrete base of the tower remains today. 

Trolley System Improvements

Efforts were made to improve the 1895 trolley system at the Mortar Battery beginning in 

January 1907. Assistant Engineer Hurlbut’s initial plan recommended the extension of the 

trolley into the mortar pits, and the addition of a parallel trolley in the main gallery. The 

improved system would allow a marked efficiency in the ammunition delivery for each pit. 

Hurlbut’s plans for the improved trolley system were forwarded to the New York District 

Engineer Lt. Col. Marshall on January 31, accompanied by an estimate of $2,000 for the 

project.20 Col. Marshall approved of the plans, and recommended that additional passages 

for powder carriers be tunneled out from the magazines to the transverse galleries. Marshall 

sent his proposal to Chief Engineer Mackenzie on February 28, 1907, with an estimated 

project amount of $9,000.21 The proposed improvements were approved by Chief Engineer 

Mackenzie, and the requested funds for the project were allotted in March 1907.22

 18 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, October 1924, p. 84. 

19 “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J., July 1, 

1921”; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 20 Hurlbut to Marshall, Jan. 31, 1907; folder 9, enclosure 5, box 34; Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 21 Marshall to Mackenzie, Feb. 28, 1907; folder 9, enclosure 1, box 34; Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 22 Abbott (for Mackenzie) to Marshall, March 27, 1907; folder 9, box 34; Correspondence Relating 

to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

238 

As the Engineer on site, Lt. Hurlbut had a different opinion about the best way to proceed. 

He felt that tunneling through the concrete and sand for the passages recommended by Lt. 

Col. Marshall would be dangerous and would require skilled labor. Hurlbut suggested an 

alternate plan that involved widening the transverse galleries at both ends of the Mortar 

Battery, and the longitudinal gallery that connected Reynolds and McCook.23

Assistant Engineer Hurlbut’s proposal included widening the transverse galleries by 2 feet on 

the outside wall, which would create 10-foot-wide galleries. The widening was to include 

expanding the arch of the ceiling and thus slightly raising the ceilings, as well as rounding the 

corners leading into the longitudinal gallery. The longitudinal gallery was to be widened by 2 

feet 6 inches on each side, creating a 15-foot-wide corridor between the transverse gallery 

and the magazines (a section of the longitudinal gallery at the middle of the Mortar Battery 

remained 10 feet wide). The wider galleries allowed for the passage of both the ammunition 

and the powder along the corridors without the necessity of additional tunneling.24

Hurlbut communicated his plan to Marshall on March 22, 1907. The proposal included a 

comparison of the estimated costs for constructing the powder passages proposed by 

Marshall, and the alternative of widening the galleries. The estimate for the tunneling 

included expert laborers for that purpose, and was $5,000 more than the $9,500 estimate for 

widening the longitudinal galleries. Both estimates included widening the transverse galleries 

and the cost of a new trolley system and electric lights.25

Lt. Col. Marshall was duly impressed by Hurlbut’s solution, and approved of the plan to 

widen the longitudinal gallery. He forwarded tracings of the proposed modifications to 

Chief Engineer Mackenzie on April 24, 1907 (fig. 144). Marshall explained that the tunneling 

would be too dangerous; widening the existing galleries would provide an equally efficient 

manner for moving the powder, and would also allow room for the new ammunition trolley 

system. The modifications to the Mortar Battery were approved by Brig. Gen. Mackenzie on 

May 2, 1907.26

The Coast Artillery Corps had to suspend their practice at Batteries Reynolds and McCook 

during the modifications to the Mortar Battery. At the time, the 55th Company, Coast 

Artillery was assigned to Battery McCook. In March 1907, Capt. P.R. Ward, Coast Artillery, 

requested that the 55th be reassigned to Battery Richardson. The Adjutant General approved 

the move in April, and scheduled the transfer to take place after the next practice.27 The 

Chief of Engineers notified Lt. Col. Marshall that the assignment change for the 55th was 

 23 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 186. 24 “Fort Hancock, N.J., Proposed Modification of Batteries Reynolds & McCook,” drawn under the 

direction of Lt. Col. Wm. Marshall, Corps of Engineers, USA, April 1907, by J.C. Letts, Draftsman. 

Drawer 45, Sheet 88-17; RG 77; NACP. Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit (GATE-10864). 25 Hurlbut to Marshall, March 22, 1907; folder 9, enclosure 7, box 34; Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 26 Marshall to Mackenzie, April 24, 1907; endorsed by Mackenzie May 2, 1907; folder 9, enclosure 

16, box 34; Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 27 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 188. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

239 

postponed until the target practice was completed.28 Once the Coast Artillery Company had 

relocated, the project was begun. 

Assistant Engineer Hurlbut estimated that widening the galleries would require removing an 

approximately 93.4 cubic yards of concrete in each transverse gallery, and approximately 291 

cubic yards in the longitudinal gallery. The process involved drilling holes in the concrete 

and then blasting away the concrete. Once the galleries had been widened, the walls and 

ceiling would be grouted with a Portland cement concrete, which Hurlbut estimated would 

take 130 barrels of cement for the transverse galleries and 150 barrels for the longitudinal 

gallery.29 The drilling and blasting process was time-consuming, and was still incomplete in 

February 1908. 

The widening of the transverse galleries required some alterations to the doors leading from 

the mortar pits to the gallery. The existing double doors would need to have material added 

to them to make them wider. This, said Hurlbut, would make the doors too heavy for their 

hinges. Hurlbut proposed that a two-foot-wide steel plate be riveted to each door, and that 

the doors should be hung from a trolley on brackets that could be salvaged from the old 

trolley system. Lt. Col. Solomon W. Roessler, who had replaced Lt. Col. Marshall when the 

latter was appointed as Chief of Engineers, approved Hurlbut’s modifications to the doors.30

Though the project was moving along, in August 1908 Lt. Col. Roessler notified the Chief of 

Engineers that it would require an additional $2,000 to complete. Chief Engineer Marshall 

approved the expenditure, and allotted the funds from the appropriation for “Modernizing 

Older Emplacements.”31

The modifications to Battery McCook were completed by August 19, 1908, except for the 

doors. At that point, Col. Roessler informed Lt. Col. Henry L. Harris, District Commander, 

South Artillery District, that the Coast Artillery could resume practice at Battery McCook.32 

Assistant Engineer Hurlbut was directed to turn the battery over to the Coast Artillery, and 

practice resumed at Battery McCook. 

Problems with the grout in sections of Battery Reynolds’ longitudinal gallery delayed the 

return of that battery to the Coast Artillery. In November Hurlbut found some hollow spaces 

in the grouting of the new arch. He determined that the problem was caused during the 

application of the concrete grout, which he presumed had seeped into the more porous 

Rosendale concrete when the second application of grout was forced into the forms. The 

solution to the problem was to place expansion bolts every 3 feet on both sides of the center 

arch in the longitudinal gallery and patch the concrete. The plan was approved by Lt. Col. 

 28 Mackenzie to Marshall, April 12, 1907; folder 9, enclosure 13, box 34; Correspondence Relating 

to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 29 Hurlbut to Marshall, March 29, 1907; folder 9, enclosure 11, box 34; Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 30 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 188. 31 Lt. Col. Solomon W. Roessler to Marshall, August 5, 1908, with reply from Marshall; folder 9, 

enclosures 29 & 30, box 34; Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; 

RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 32 Roessler to Col. H.L. Harris, District Commander, South Artillery District, Fort Hancock, New 

Jersey, August 19, 1908; folder 9, enclosure 35, box 34; Correspondence Relating to Fortification 

Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

240 

Roessler, and the work was completed by January 1, 1909. Battery Reynolds was 

subsequently turned over to the Coast Artillery Corps.33

Maintenance of Drainage and Electrical Systems

During fiscal year 1911, Lt. Col. Roessler prepared plans of both Battery Reynolds and 

Battery McCook that showed the layout of each battery and detailed the drainage and 

electrical systems (figs. 145-146). The plans were prepared for the Coast Artillery Corps, and 

included the following instructions for the care of the Mortar Batteries: 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR GARRISON 

1. Floors and pavements are graded to fall towards strainers at 

drain inlets. Arrows indicate direction of flow in drains. Inlets 

in magazine, storerooms and long gallery drain into the 

underlying sand. 

2. All drains shall be carefully inspected and cleaned at least once 

a week. Occasionally the pipes should be flushed by means of 

hose run from hydrants. 

3. The rooms and passages must be swept and all rubbish 

removed at least once a week; care must be taken that the holes 

in strainers are kept open and free from dirt; sweeping must be 

removed to such a place that they will not be carried into the 

drains by wind or water. 

4. Immediately after each rain the earth slopes shall be carefully 

inspected; any slight tendency to gully or slough shall be at 

once remedied; any serious gullying shall at once be reported 

in writing to the District Engineer. 

5. No person shall be allowed to walk upon the earth slopes, 

except when necessary to inspect or repair them. 

6. All doors should be opened from daylight until 2 P.M. on clear 

days when there is a good breeze and temperature is above 60°. 

7. Lights ( * ) are controlled from switch-boxes, located as shown 

on plan. Conductors are partly in conduits and partly in 

exposed armored cable.34

As noted in the instructions, the Coast Artillery Company garrisoned at each battery was 

responsible for the maintenance of the drainage and electrical systems, and for reporting any 

deficiencies to the Engineers. 

 33 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 189. 34 “Plan Showing Drainage and Electrical Systems, Battery Reynolds, Fort Hancock, N.J., 

September 1910.” Approved by Roessler Sept. 9, 1910; Chief of Engineers Wm. H. Bixby Sept. 14, 

1910; and Acting Secretary of War Robert Shaw Oliver Sept. 17, 1910; Sheet 88-20, Drawer 45; RG 77; 

NACP. Also see “Plan Showing Drainage and Electrical Systems, Battery McCook, Fort Hancock, N.J., 

February 1911”; Sheet 88-21, Drawer 45; RG 77; NACP. Copies at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

241 

Installation of Ventilator Shafts

Item # 6 of the previously cited instructions noted that the doors to the batteries should be 

left open on clear breezy days. That was indicative of the poor ventilation of the interior 

rooms of the Mortar Battery. The magazines were especially affected by the lack of air, and 

were rarely free of moisture or condensation. Assistant Engineer Hurlbut forwarded an 

estimate for the installation of two ventilator shafts for the Mortar Battery, one at the end of 

each magazine, to Lt. Col. Roessler on October 18, 1911.35 

Hurlbut’s plan proposed digging a 6-foot-square shaft down through approximately 22 feet 

of sand to the top surface of each magazine. This shaft would be positioned over the thick 

concrete end wall of the magazine. At the bottom of the shaft, a hole 20 inches in diameter 

would be drilled 8 feet farther, down through the magazine ceiling and into the end wall. 

Then, a 20-inch-square shaft would be cut through the end wall of the magazine, extending 2 

feet to intersect with the 20-inch hole at a right angle. The 6-foot-square shaft would be lined 

with vitrified-tile sewer pipe 20 inches in diameter and capped with a galvanized iron globe 

ventilator. Concrete would be poured in around the sewer pipe to help secure it in place. 

Hurlbut estimated that each ventilator would cost $494.89 for a total of $989.78, which he 

rounded up to $1,000 in his request to Lt. Col. Roessler.36

Lt. Col. Roessler forwarded the request to Chief Engineer Bixby and included a plan entitled 

“Ventilating Flues for Magazines, Batteries Reynolds and McCook.” The plans depicted the 

construction of the 6-foot-square shaft and the position of the drilling apparatus, as well as a 

section view of the completed ventilator flue (fig. 147). On October 30, 1911, Brig. Gen. 

Bixby approved the project and allocated funds from the “Preservation and Repair of 

Fortifications” Act of March 4, 1911.37

Work was begun on the ventilator shafts as soon as the season’s target practice was 

completed. The workmen had connected the ventilator shafts with the magazines by midMay 1912, and then cut the 20-inch-square shaft from the inside of the magazine to the shaft. 

The ventilators were completed on June 18, 1912.38

 35 Hurlbut to Roessler, Oct. 18, 1911; folder 9, enclosure 45, box 34; Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 36 Hurlbut to Roessler, Oct. 18, 1911; folder 9, enclosures 45 & 46, box 34; Correspondence Relating 

to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 37 Roessler to Bixby, Oct. 23, 1911, with endorsement by Bixby, Oct. 30, 1911; folder 9, enclosure 

46, box 34; Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast Region (NY). 38 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 192. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

242 

Disarming the Mortar Battery

A plan of the Mortar Battery records the serial numbers of mortars and carriages that were in 

place in 1915 (fig. 148). During World War I, the complex of Fort Hancock defenses was 

expanded by the addition of a battery in Navesink emplaced with four mortars. In order to 

arm the Navesink battery, four mortars were transferred from Reynolds and McCook. On 

July 29, 1917, Assistant Engineer G.W. Kuehule notified the District Engineer in New York 

City that the following 12-inch mortars and spring-return carriage were being dismounted at 

the Mortar Battery and transferred to Navesink: Battery Reynolds - Pit A #3, Mortar #20 and 

Carriage #4; Pit B #1, Mortar #21 and Carriage #25. Battery McCook - Pit A #3, Mortar #18 

and Carriage #12; Pit B #1, Mortar #58 and Carriage #9 (fig. 149).39

With the end of World War I, Fort Hancock and the country experienced a rapid 

demobilization of armed forces. From December 1918 through June 1919, the forces 

assigned to the Sandy Hook defenses were reduced from 24 officers and 1,535 enlisted men 

to 15 officers and 386 enlisted men. The number of troops assigned to Fort Hancock was also 

reduced, and by June 1919 the command had been reduced to “caretaker status.”40 During 

this same period, it was determined that Batteries Reynolds and McCook were obsolete, and 

that their 12-inch mortars and carriages were surplus to the nation’s defenses. Consequently, 

all of the remaining mortars and carriages of Batteries Reynolds and McCook were salvaged 

and sold to civilians during the winter and spring of 1920.41

Switchboard Room

The Mortar Battery emplacement was not abandoned by the Army. By January 1921 

discussions had begun to use some of the galleries of Battery McCook as a protected 

switchboard room. In April of that year, the Chief of Engineers allotted $20,000 for the 

construction of a protected switchboard room in the north end of the longitudinal gallery of 

Battery McCook, room 112 (fig. 133).42

Plans for the switchboard room submitted on August 16, 1922, depicted the alterations to the 

transverse and longitudinal galleries of Battery McCook (fig. 150). At each end of the 

transverse gallery, new doorways were constructed with double swinging doors leading to 

the mortar pits. The doorways were installed just inside of the hanging steel doors, and plans 

 39 Asst. Engineer G.W. Kuehule to District Engineer Officer, 2nd District, NYC, July 29, 1917; folder 

9, enclosure 63, box 34; Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 

77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 40 Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

New York/New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, May 1981), pp. 

397-404. 

41 Fort Record Book, October 1924, p. 106. 

42 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 195. Also see Record Card No. 347, Record Cards for 

Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 801; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

243 

indicated that the doorway to the northeast pit was constructed with “grating” and “grating 

doors.” The “grating” of the doorways and doors was made of steel bars,43 and it is seen in 

later photographs of the battery. 

The interior of the transverse gallery was designated the “Corridor,” and ventilation pipes 

and utility cables were hung from the arched ceiling. At the intersection of the transverse and 

longitudinal galleries, partition walls were constructed leading to both the longitudinal 

gallery and the alcove or “firing recess” on the east side of the transverse gallery. The walls, 

which are extant, were constructed with tile blocks with a single-width doorway centered in 

the wall. The partitioned room on the east side of the transverse gallery was designated the 

“Storage Battery Room.” The storage batteries provided the power for the switchboards. 

The plans noted that the floors and walls of the room were finished with two coats of “acid 

proof paint.”44

As previously described, a partition wall was constructed at the north end of the longitudinal 

gallery where it intersected the transverse gallery. Another partition wall was constructed at 

the junction of the longitudinal gallery and the storage rooms, near the center of the battery. 

The partitioned area formed a room that measured 15 feet wide and 35 feet 1 inch long. This 

room was designated the “Switchboard Room” (figs. 150 -151). The plans noted that the 

floor of the room was covered with “1⁄4 inch cork carpet,” and that the walls were finished 

with two coats of “cement white.” Five switchboard panels were installed in the room to 

service the fire-control system at Fort Hancock. The vertical panels stood approximately 7 

feet tall, and were installed over an open trench in the floor of the room. The open trench 

was cut into the concrete floor of the room; it carried the utility cables to a covered trench in 

the transverse gallery and then to the storage battery room.45

The protected switchboard room was constructed and equipped by the end of August 1922. 

The switchboard room was transferred to the post commander by the District Engineer on 

September 2, 1922.46

Harbor Defense Command Post (HDCP)

and World War II

The establishment of the HDCP at Sandy Hook in the late 1930s also led to some alterations 

at the Mortar Battery. The command center for the Harbor Defenses was located in the 

interior rooms of the Mortar Battery, which became known as the “catacombs of Fort 

Hancock” and later “The Bombproof.”47 At the same time, the Mortar Battery continued to 

serve as the fire-control switchboard room, and was also used as part of the Sandy Hook 

 43 “Fort Hancock, N.J., Fire Control-Switch Board and Storage Battery Rooms, Aug. 16, 1922.” 

Drawer 45, Sheet 118-58; RG 77; NACP. 

44 “Fire Control-Switch Board and Storage Battery Rooms, Aug. 16, 1922.” 

45 “Fire Control-Switch Board and Storage Battery Rooms, Aug. 16, 1922.” 

46 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 195. 47 Interview with Ed Biedermann, Technical Sergeant stationed at Fort Hancock 1940 – 1945; July 4, 

1981. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

244 

telephone communications.48 The adaptation of the Mortar Battery from a defense 

emplacement to a communications and command post that supported the defensive efforts at 

Sandy Hook changed the character of the structure. 

During this same period, sections of the Mortar Battery’s counterscarp were demolished. 

The southeast, northwest, and northeast angles, and the counterscarp defenses at the 

northeast corner, were removed in 1938. A new entrance was cut through the southwest wall 

near the entrance gallery to Battery Reynolds (fig. 152).49 This new entrance was used by the 

troops that manned the HDCP at the Mortar Battery.50

Though the switchboard room was in the same location, historic photographs and Sergeant 

Biedermann’s account indicated that the equipment in the room was upgraded circa 1941 

(fig. 154). The photograph appears to be the same view as the 1922 photograph (compare 

figs. 151 and 155), but the switchboard panels are seen on the east side of the room, and 

personnel are seated along the west wall in the area where the original switchboard was 

located. Mr. Biedermann stated that one of his first duties at the Mortar Battery was to install 

equipment in the switchboard room. When he started his duty there, there were two flush 

panels, and he assisted in the installation of more boards. His account suggests that the 

panels installed in 1922 had been removed, and that new panels were installed when he 

started his tour in 1940. The upgrade of the switchboard room was confirmed by a Signal 

Corps inspection report dated July 17, 1941, that documented five switchboards in the room, 

as well as other equipment.51 Mr. Biedermann said that after the beginning of World War II, 

18 men from the 245th Coast Artillery Company were stationed in the fire-control room.52

The use of the battery as the HDCP led to further alterations to the interior galleries, storage 

rooms, and magazines. A ca.-1944 floor plan of the Mortar Battery depicted the addition of 

partitions and the layout of the rooms, and included a room schedule (fig. 153; see figs. 133- 

135 for room number references). The room schedule indicated that the commanding 

general of the post had an office and room in the west magazine (rooms 116 and 117). The 

other rooms west of the longitudinal gallery were used as “S-1/intelligence” (room 114), the 

Executive Officer’s office (room 115), and the Sgt. Major’s office (room 118). The 

switchboard room remained in the longitudinal gallery of Battery McCook (room 112), and 

there was also a radio room (room 124), a chart room (room 122), and a message center 

(room128), among others. Latrines for the enlisted men and the officers were also added to 

the transverse gallery of Battery McCook (rooms 105a, 105b, and 106). 

The ca.-1944 plan depicts an air lock at each end of the battery. The north air lock (room 

104) at Battery McCook was located at the west end of the transverse gallery, while the south 

air lock (room 130) for Battery Reynolds was located at the intersection of the transverse and 

longitudinal galleries. The air locks were installed as part of the gas-proofing of the HDCP at 

the Mortar Battery. The north air lock took up the entire width of the transverse gallery, and 

was 5 feet 10 inches deep. The west partition wall was a 12-inch-thick brick wall, and the east 

wall was a 6-inch-thick brick wall. The air lock was entered via a doorway in the west wall, 

 48 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 195. Also interview with Ed Biedermann. 49 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 195. 50 Interview with Ed Biedermann. 

51 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 195. 52 Interview with Ed Biedermann. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

245 

and a doorway on the east wall led to the interior corridor. The south air lock was a 

rectangular room constructed at the corner of the transverse and longitudinal galleries. It 

was constructed with 12-inch-thick brick walls, and the interior measured 5 feet 6 inches 

wide by 7 feet 2 inches long. The air lock was entered through a doorway on the west wall of 

the room, and a doorway on the north wall led to the interior corridor. Both rooms were 

equipped with ventilation systems that included a fan unit and ventilation pipes. The rooms 

were built with gas-proof doors, and were constructed to be airtight.53

Drawings of the gas-proofing, labeled “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense 

Command Post, Former Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds” were prepared in 1942 and 

certified complete in June 1944 (figs. 156-157). Detail plans depicted the piping and 

ventilation systems for the battery and the door details. The gas-proof doors were installed 

in the air-lock rooms, which were commonly known as the “de-gassers.” Upon entering the 

battery, the process as described by Sergeant Biedermann was that personnel would ring a 

bell for the outside door to be opened. The personnel would enter the air lock, and once the 

door was closed, fans would come on to de-gas the chamber and its occupants. After about 

30 seconds, the personnel would then enter through the next gas-proof door into the 

corridors and rooms of the HDCP. Mr. Biedermann noted that the communications staff, of 

which he was one, would park their cars in the northwest pit of Battery McCook and enter 

through the north air lock (fig. 158). The other HDCP staff entered the battery by the 

lighthouse (the new entrance in the southwest wall) and then through the south air lock. Mr. 

Biedermann further noted that after the bombing at Pearl Harbor, an armed guard was 

stationed outside the air-lock rooms. A World War II-era photograph shows a guard station 

at the entrance gallery to the southwest mortar pit (fig. 159).54

The ventilation system associated with the gas-proofing primarily consisted of large intake 

and exhaust ducts and a generator that ran the system. The generator room was located at 

the east end of the north transverse gallery, and extended into the northeast mortar pit of the 

Mortar Battery (fig. 160). The generator room was equipped with a large generator and two 

compressors. The ventilating instructions for the generator room included the following 

explanation of operation: “Generator fan will draw cool outside air into the generator room 

through the intake duct and exhaust it through the radiator, exhaust duct, corridor and 

opening “D” to the outside.”55 The ductwork for the system was hung from the ceiling, and it 

ran throughout the interior rooms of the battery.56

As indicated by the ca.-1944 plans, the HDCP used some of the battery’s rooms as they were, 

and altered others by constructing partitions. The south end of the longitudinal gallery that 

was formerly part of Battery Reynolds was divided into four rooms (fig. 153; see fig. 135 for 

room number references). The room schedule notes that these were used for enlisted men, 

 53 “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery 

McCook – Reynolds, Gas Proof Detail Doors, certified June 6, 1944.” Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

Hook. 

54 Interview with Ed Biedermann. 

55 “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery 

McCook – Reynolds, Generator Room Ventilation System, March 1944.” Copy at Gateway NRA, 

Sandy Hook (GATE mortarbattery3). 56 “Generator Room Ventilation System, March 1944.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

246 

message center, Navy liaison, and S-4 (transportation).57 The plans indicate that the room 

used for the enlisted men (room 129) had been constructed before the HDCP moved into the 

battery. The plan notation “6-inch hollow tile partition installed by others”58 suggests that 

the wall was already in place. Proceeding down the corridor, the partitions of the other 

rooms were built with 2 by 4 framing and plywood paneling. The change in materials further 

indicates that the enlisted men’s room was constructed during a separate alteration. The 

room may have been part of the alterations to the battery in 1922, but the documents from 

that period did not indicate that any changes were made to the longitudinal gallery of Battery 

Reynolds. 

As previously described, the generator room extended into the northeast pit of the battery. 

The walls that were added in the former mortar pit were constructed of reinforced concrete. 

Southeast of the generator room, additional walls were built for an L-shaped corridor and a 

boiler room. The plans indicated that the boiler room housed an oil-fired boiler (extant 

pieces of which can be found in the northeast pit).59 Mr. Biedermann recalled that the 

switchboard room had been equipped with hot-water radiators attached to the walls prior to 

switching to a hot-air system.60 The boiler may have been used with either one or both of 

those systems. 

Concurrent with other alterations for the HDCP, the Mortar Battery was soundproofed. The 

soundproofing was achieved by the application of asbestos sprayed on the arched ceilings of 

the galleries, storage rooms, and magazines. Drawings of the soundproofing indicate that a 

1-inch-thick asbestos layer was sprayed above the spring line of the arched walls. The plans 

noted that the material was “K & M Sprayed Limpet Asbestos.” The application generally 

avoided the cables and ducts, but did include the exterior of the large ceiling duct in the 

switchboard room.61

A “Report of Completed Works” documented that the modifications to the Mortar Battery in 

1943 cost $41,625.27. An additional $200 was spent on the ventilating system for the 

generator room in 1944. The report also notes that the battery was “concealed by camouflage 

netting and paint.”62 This was in addition to the Mortar Battery’s existing natural cover. The 

netting camouflage is seen in period photographs of the Mortar Battery (e.g., figs. 152 and 

161-162), and was apparently in place during the battery’s use as the HDCP. 

 57 Interview with Ed Biedermann. Mr. Biedermann stated that S-4 referred to the transportation 

personnel. 58 “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery 

McCook – Reynolds, Gasproofing General Layout, certified June 6, 1944.” Copy at Gateway NRA, 

Sandy Hook. 59 “Generator Room Ventilation System, March 1944.” 

60 Interview with Ed Biedermann. 

61 “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery 

McCook – Reynolds, Soundproofing Details, certified May 16, 1944.” Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy 

Hook. 

62 “Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, N.J. July 1, 

1921, corrected May, 1944”; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

247 

Antiaircraft Defenses at the Mortar Battery

The Mortar Battery was one of four locations chosen for antiaircraft installations in the 

1920s. Circa 1922 Battery B was mounted on the superior slope of the battery, armed with 

two 3-inch antiaircraft guns, Model 1917 (fig. 164).63 The battery was chosen because its 

interior offered space for ammunition storage and shelter for personnel. 

When the antiaircraft defenses at Sandy Hook were revised in 1937, an additional gun and 

mount was added to the superior slope of the Mortar Battery. This additional armament was 

moved from one of the disarmed antiaircraft batteries elsewhere at Sandy Hook. The 

antiaircraft defenses on the Mortar Battery were redesignated Gun Battery No. 2.64 A World 

War II-era Corps of Engineers plan of Sandy Hook depicts three “A.A.C. Guns” on the 

superior slope of the Mortar Battery (fig. 163). Mr. Biedermann confirmed that there were 3-

inch anti-aircraft guns on top of the Mortar Battery, and he stated that the guns practiced 

firing at targets towed by airplanes.65 The observation post for the antiaircraft defenses was 

also installed at the Mortar Battery, and the antiaircraft group command post and message 

center were installed in an interior room, or “bombproof,” of the battery.66

In addition to the antiaircraft guns, an antiaircraft machine-gun platoon – armed with four 

.50-caliber machine guns – was stationed at the Mortar Battery as part of the revised 

antiaircraft defenses at Sandy Hook.67 The machine guns were mounted on concrete 

platforms on top of the battery. One of the machine-gun emplacements is depicted in the 

background of the photograph of training for the 3-inch gun (fig. 164). 

After World War II

After World War II, the number of troops stationed at Fort Hancock was once again reduced. 

The deactivation of the New York Harbor Defense Program in 1950 meant the end of the 

associated activities at the Mortar Battery. The documents reviewed did not indicate 

whether the switchboard room remained active, but the closing of Fort Hancock in 1950 

most likely signified the end of that function, as well. 

The Mortar Battery does not appear to have undergone any significant alterations during the 

remainder of Fort Hancock’s years as a U.S. military reservation. Reactivation of Fort 

Hancock during the Korean War did not appear to include further use of the Mortar Battery. 

Fort Hancock was once again active during the Cold War, for the deployment of Nike missile 

defenses. During the 1960s, the interior galleries and storage rooms of the Mortar Battery 

functioned as the post’s fallout shelter. The electrical and generator systems remained 

operative at that time, and the Army set up beds, chairs, and tables there, and stocked the 

 63 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 368. 64 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 369. 65 Interview with Ed Biedermann. 

66 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 195. 67 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 369. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

248 

rooms with emergency rations and tins of drinking water.68 However, by the time Fort 

Hancock was deactivated in 1974 and turned over to the Department of the Interior, the 

Mortar Battery was vacant. 

National Park Service

The goal of the National Park Service as stewards of the Mortar Battery has been to preserve 

the structure. Initial efforts in 1977 included a plan to partially restore Batteries Reynolds 

and McCook, along with other significant batteries.69 The General Management Plan (GMP) 

and GMP Amendment for Gateway NRA called for the rehabilitation of the Mortar Battery in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

70

Early efforts at Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, to interpret the Mortar Battery included 

opening some of the mortar pits to visitors, posting interpretive signs, and establishing a 

walkway on the top of the battery that was lined with a post-and-cable safety railing in the 

late 1970s. The trail along the top of the battery was closed ca. 1990 due to increased erosion 

caused by visitor-made trails off the established pathways. The southwest mortar pit is 

currently open to the public, and the interpretive signs have been updated. 

The park included the Mortar Battery in the project “Stabilization of Historic Concrete 

Batteries at Fort Hancock.” This project included core testing of the masonry of the battery, 

and culminated in a 1990 report with recommendations for stabilization. The report noted 

“that in spite of the poor quality of concrete, both lower walls and upper slopes could still be 

functional today.”71 This was attributed to the low density, and subsequent low structural 

loading, of the concrete, as well as the relative thickness of the concrete walls and slopes. 

The report did note that the reinforced-concrete structures of the battery commander 

stations and the telephone booths are subject to different factors, and may not be as durable 

as the battery structure.72

The recommendations of the 1990 report stressed the importance of removing the invasive 

vegetation from the mortar pits. The report also recommended keeping one pit open to the 

public, and backfilling the other three in an effort to stop vegetative growth and the freezethaw cycle in the exposed concrete. Since then, the park has made efforts to remove 

vegetation from the northwest mortar pit, but the southeast and northeast pits are still 

overgrown. 

 68 Thomas Hoffman, Park Historian. 

69 Jack E. Stark, NARO Regional Director, to Superintendent, Gateway NRA, July 7, 1977. Copy at 

Northeast Region Offices, 115 John Street, Lowell, MA. 70 General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretation Prospectus: 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, January 1990), p. 9. 71 Todd Rutenbeck, Stabilization Investigations, Historic Concrete Batteries, Fort Hancock, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation, June 1990), p. 17. 72 Rutenbeck, Stabilization Investigations, p. 18. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

249 

The park is currently in the process of planning the preservation and rehabilitation of three 

Endicott System batteries, which includes the Mortar Battery. The NPS Project Management 

Information System (PMIS) states that the repairs on the Mortar Battery Potter will focus on 

removing vegetation and stabilizing the concrete in all four mortar pits, and will reestablish 

the walkway on top of the battery to again allow visitor access to that area. The work will also 

address visitor safety concerns outside and inside the battery.73 The preservation of the 

Mortar Battery will enhance the park’s interpretation of the history of Fort Hancock and the 

coastal defenses of the United States. 

 73 Project Information Management System (PMIS) 57952. NPS website 

(http://165.83.198.10/pmis_search_projectdetail.cfm). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

250 

Figure 133. Mortar Battery, north end (Battery McCook). Not to scale. 

101

102

northwest pit 

103 

104

105b

106

107

108 

110 109

northeast pit 

111 

112 

201

202

105a

N 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

251 

Figure 134. Mortar Battery, interior. Not to scale.

117

112 

116

114

113 

120 

119

118

121

124

122

123

126 

125

115

N
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

252 

Figure 135. Mortar Battery, south end (Battery Reynolds). Not to scale. 

135

204

southwest pit 

134 

126 

127 128 129

131

133

southeast pit 

132 

203

130

N 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

253 

Figure 136. “Fort Hancock Battery Reynolds Booth for West Pits.” Ca.-1905 plans for Mortar Battery telephone 

booths for northwest and southwest pits. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

254 

Figure 137. “Fort Hancock Battery Reynolds Booth for Pits A & B.” Ca.-1905 plans for Mortar Battery telephone 

booths for northeast and southeast pits. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

255 

Figure 139. Mortar Battery, telephone booth in northwest mortar pit. 

Figure 138. Mortar 

Battery, telephone 

booth in northwest 

mortar pit, ca. 1920. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

256 

Figure 140. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Concrete B.C. Station for Battery Alexander McCook, February 1906.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

257 

Figure 141. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Concrete B.C. Station for Battery Alexander McCook, February 1906.” Note says: “A similar 

station will be built for Battery Reynolds....” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

258 

Figure 142. Detail of aerial photograph of Fort Hancock, ca. 1930: view 

of Mortar Battery, showing tower and station inside west counterscarp 

wall. 

Figure 143. Plan of 

meteorological station 

inside west 

counterscarp wall of 

Mortar Battery, 

July 1, 1921. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

259 

Figure 144. “Fort Hancock, N.J., Proposed Modification of Batteries Reynolds and McCook, April 1907.” Alterations for 

the improved trolley system. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

260 

Figure 145. “Plan Showing Drainage and Electrical Systems, Battery Reynolds, Fort Hancock, N.J., Sept. 1910.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

261 

Figure 146. “Plan Showing Drainage and Electrical Systems, Battery Alexander McCook, Fort Hancock, N.J., Sept. 1910.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

262 

Figure 147. “Ventilating flues for Magazines, Batteries Reynolds and McCook, Fort Hancock, N.J., 

Oct. 1911.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

263 

Figure 148. “Coastal Defenses of Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, Batteries Reynolds and 

McCook, 16- 12-inch mortars.” Plan of the Mortar Battery with serial numbers of 

guns and carriages, 1915. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

264 

Figure 149. Mortar Battery, balloon aerial view, circa 1919. Note that each mortar pit has only three mortars 

per pit; the fourth set of guns and carriages for each had been moved to the Navesink battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

265 

Figure 150. “Fort Hancock, N.J. Fire Control Switchboard and Storage Battery Rooms. August 16, 1922.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

266 

Figure 151. Mortar Battery, interior of switchboard room, ca. 1922. 

Figure 152. Mortar Battery, opening in counterscarp wall, ca. 1944. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

267 

Figure 153. Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, General 

Layout, ca. 1944. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

268 

Figure 154. Mortar Battery, switchboard room (room 112), ca. 1941. 

Figure 155. Mortar Battery, interior of switchboard room, ca. 1922. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

269 

Figure 156. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, Gasproof 

Piping Details, certified June 6, 1944.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY:MORTAR BATTERY

270 

Figure 157. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense Command Post, Former Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, 

Gasproof Door Details, certified June 6, 1944.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

271 

Figure 158. Mortar Battery, view of northwest pit with vehicles as 

described by Ed Biedermann, ca. 1944. 

Figure 159. Mortar Battery, sentry post at the southwest entrance to mortar pits, 

ca. 1944. Note observation tower at left side of photograph. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

272 

Figure 160. Detail of generator room. From “Harbor Defenses of New York, Harbor Defense 

Command Post, Former Mortar Battery McCook – Reynolds, Generator Room Ventilating 

System, March 1944.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

273 

Figure 161. Southwest corner of Mortar Battery, 1943; view from lighthouse 

during training exercises. Note netting and camouflage 

over battery on left side of photograph. 

Figure 162. Battery 

Reynolds, southwest 

entrance gallery (room 

135), 1943. Note 

netting over battery at 

top of photograph. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

274 

Figure 163. Detail from map of Sandy Hook, N.J. during World War II, 

showing Mortar Battery and surrounding structures. 

Figure 164. Antiaircraft gun mounted on the top of the Mortar Battery. Lt. 

Brian P. Emerson, 245th Coast Artillery, instructs on the working of a 3-inch 

antiaircraft gun, ca. 1942. Note also the .50-caliber machine-gun 

emplacement on hill in background.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

275 

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Introduction

The following physical description of the Mortar Battery is meant to augment the 

descriptions in the preceding sections “Original Appearance” and “Alterations.” Much of the 

existing material appears to be original, and so has been described previously. The addition 

of the telephone booths and battery commander stations, and the alterations related to the 

switchboard room and the Harbor Defense Control Post (HDCP), were also discussed in the 

section “Alterations.” Those descriptions should be considered as part of the current 

physical description, and will not be reiterated here. 

Plans of the Mortar Battery with battery and mortar pit designations (fig. 110) and plans with 

room numbers (figs. 133 -135) that were included in previous sections provide references to 

the gun pits, galleries, and interior rooms of the battery. The photographs included with this 

section are intended to illustrate the current physical description. This report does not 

include a condition assessment, but many of the following descriptions will note existing 

conditions as part of the existing physical characteristics. A separate report, Structural 

Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, 

includes a section on existing conditions at the Mortar Battery.1

 It should be noted that the 

current condition, as documented in many of the photographs included with this report, is 

poor. The interior rooms of the battery retain asbestos soundproofing that is in a 

deteriorated condition. Due to the hazards associated with the deteriorated asbestos, the 

interior rooms of the battery were only toured during the initial site visit. Nevertheless, many 

of the extant elements of the Mortar Battery are significant and can be stabilized. 

Mortar Battery – Exterior Elements

Counterscarp Walls 

As previously described, sections of the counterscarp wall were demolished in 1938. The 

sections of the counterscarp wall still intact include the west wall, a portion of the south wall, 

and the southwest gallery. On the exterior of the counterscarp, the west wall is the most 

prominent (fig. 165). The sand and vegetation that once covered the exterior of the 

counterscarp wall has either eroded or been removed, exposing the stepped concrete 

 1 Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (May 2005), section 2, pp. 

1-2 and 5. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

276 

structure of the wall. The massive concrete walls rise approximately 15 feet above grade to a 

flat ledge. In the southwest corner the wall is thicker at the ground level, and 5 feet higher, to 

reinforce and protect the counterscarp gallery. The opening in the west wall that was cut 

through in the 1930s is now the primary visitor access to the battery. The exterior concrete of 

the counterscarp appears to be in good condition, with some cracking and vegetation 

growing along the wall. At the southwest corner where the concrete wall is thicker, there is 

evidence of spalling. In addition, vegetation is especially dense along the south wall. 

The interior walls of the extant sections of counterscarp retain their original configuration 

(fig. 166). The concrete walls rise straight up to the top of the counterscarp, and are covered 

with a concrete parge coat. The top of the wall is sloped up to the higher level near the 

southwest corner. At the southwest corner, the walls are pierced with round ventilation 

holes and the gun ports of the counterscarp gallery. The arched doorway to the counterscarp 

gallery is located on the south interior wall of the counterscarp. Beyond this point, the 

counterscarp wall was demolished, and the area is not accessible. 

There is vegetative growth at the base of the wall and against the wall, as well as vine growth 

on the wall. The concrete parge coat is spalling in many areas, and efflorescence was evident. 

Overall, the extant counterscarp walls appear to be stable and well-preserved. 

Counterscarp Galleries 

The northeast counterscarp gallery was demolished in 1938, along with the adjacent sections 

of the counterscarp wall. The southwest counterscarp gallery is extant and retains its original 

configuration. The gallery is accessed from the perimeter ditch through an arched doorway. 

The doorway has an arched wooden door, which is clad with an exterior steel plate and has 

two gun loops (fig. 167). The door is hung from two large strap hinges and pintles set in the 

concrete jamb of the doorway. 

The interior of the counterscarp gallery is a series of four 10-foot-square arched rooms. The 

rooms are connected by 4-foot-wide corridors. The two rooms at the corner of the gallery 

are connected by a wider angled corridor, which essentially forms one large trapezoidal 

room. The floors of the gallery are concrete. The vertical concrete walls are 5 feet high; they 

support the arched ceilings, which span 10 feet and are 3 feet high. The walls and ceilings 

appear to be parged with concrete and finished with paint. Each room has an arched alcove 

retaining the mounting shelf, gun port, and embrasure for the machine gun mount formerly 

here (fig. 168). The frame for the vertical steel shutter that once protected each gun port is 

still in place, but the shutters are missing. 

Overall, the counterscarp gallery appears to be stable, but some deteriorated conditions were 

noted. The grade at the entry doorway is too high, allowing water to flow into the corridor. 

The wooden and steel elements of the door are deteriorated and should be repaired. The 

interior of the gallery is damp, with standing water on the floor. The parging and finishes on 

the walls and ceilings are deteriorated. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

277 

Perimeter Ditch 

The sections of the perimeter ditch that are still accessible are those along the extant 

counterscarp wall (fig. 110). The extant perimeter ditch extends along the west side of the 

battery, and terminates at the northwest and southwest corners. The pathway is about 8 feet 

wide and is paved with sand and gravel. The superior slopes of the Mortar Battery begin 

along the east side of the ditch and extend to the top of the battery. The entrance galleries for 

both Battery McCook and Battery Reynolds are also located on the east side of the ditch. 

There are manhole covers for access to the original drainage system along the pathway. At 

the southwest corner in front of the counterscarp gallery, the open drainage system originally 

installed by the Engineers has filled with sand and vegetation. 

This section of the perimeter ditch has been left open for visitor access. The gravel pathway 

is well-defined, but vegetation is encroaching on both sides. Other sections of the original 

perimeter ditch were overgrown and not accessible. 

Sand Cover 

The sand cover has deteriorated over time. The sand that covered the extant section of the 

counterscarp wall has completely eroded (fig. 165). The sand covering the interior portions 

of the battery has remained more stable, but has suffered some erosion. The embankments 

above the perimeter ditch are overgrown with vegetation and practically inaccessible (figs. 

169 and 171). Most of the sand on the superior slope remains intact, but densely overgrown. 

Mortar Battery – Interior Elements

Overview 

The interior spaces of the Mortar Battery retain the overall original configuration and 

alterations previously described. Unless otherwise noted, the galleries, storage rooms, and 

magazines retain the original concrete floors, walls, and arched ceilings that were part of the 

original structure. The removal of the armament and the addition of tile, brick, and wooden 

partitions to the interior of the battery created more rooms and changed the character of the 

structure. As a communications and command post, the interior of the battery was no longer 

designated as Batteries Reynolds and McCook, but rather as the Harbor Defense Command 

Post, which functioned as a single unit. 

The overall condition of the interior spaces appears to be stable, but some of the added 

materials are deteriorated; their physical integrity is questionable, and most of the finishes 

are degraded. Large sections of the extant ductwork are corroded and have fallen from the 

ceilings. The asbestos that covers the arched ceilings throughout the interior creates a 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

278 

hazardous environment. These conditions make the interior spaces of the battery 

inaccessible to the public. However, the rehabilitation of the Mortar Battery and removal of 

safety hazards could lead to limited access to these rooms. These issues are addressed in the 

subsequent section “Recommendations.” 

North End (Battery Alexander McCook) 

North Entrance Gallery 

The north entrance gallery (room 101) is 10 feet wide, and extends from the perimeter ditch 

to the northwest pit (fig. 169). The floor of the gallery is concrete, and it has a set of railroad 

tracks that run into the mortar pit and the battery. The walls are vertical and of concrete. At 

the beginning of the entrance, the walls are ramped from grade to 10 feet above grade. The 

walls continue at 10 feet above grade through the rest of the gallery. Above the 10-foot line, 

the concrete is sloped up toward the top of the battery. The north side of the wall has three 

small concrete hoods set about 8 feet above grade, which are remnants of earlier light fixtures 

(fig. 170). A doorway to the former dynamo room (room 102) is located on the north wall at 

the east end of the entrance gallery. On the south side of the wall, steps were cut into the 

concrete to access the telephone booth that spans the east end of the gallery. The steps are 

deteriorated, and are closed off by metal grating added by the NPS in 2003. 

Dynamo Room 

This space, designated room 102, is located on the north side of the north entrance gallery 

(room 101). It was originally labeled “Dynamo,” and so would have housed the electrical 

plant for the battery. The doorway to room 102 has a cast-iron gate, but no other door is 

extant. The room is 10 feet wide by 14 feet long, with concrete floors and walls. Typical of 

the battery, the room has an arched concrete ceiling. 

Northwest Mortar Pit 

The northwest pit (room 103) retains its original configuration (fig. 171). The mortar pit is a 

D-shaped, open concrete structure that measures 40 feet wide by 60 feet long. It is typical of 

the four gun pits at the Mortar Battery. 

The floor of the mortar pit is covered with concrete that is broken and cracked. Vegetation 

grows between the cracks and in areas where the concrete is missing. The outlines of the 

bases for the four mortar platforms are still discernible in the concrete floor. 

The walls of the mortar pit rise 10 feet above grade and are curved at the north end to form 

the D-shape of the pit. The pit is accessed from the entrance gallery on the west side, and has 

an arched doorway on the east side to the transverse gallery and the interior of the battery. 

The curved corners of the pit have rounded indentations in the wall that were apparently 

made to allow room for the muzzles of the two front mortars when in the horizontal (loading) 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

279 

position (fig. 172). Though these indentations were not part of the original specifications for 

the battery, they were likely created soon after the guns were in place. Documentation on the 

installation of the guns did note that they were installed off-center, and this may have been 

the reason for slightly carving out the walls (see the previous section “Original Appearance, 

North End, Mortar Pits”). The vertical walls of the mortar pit are cracked and spalling. 

There is evidence of efflorescence, and vegetation is growing against and on the walls. 

The concrete walls of the pit transition to an angled blast slope. The blast slope was also 

constructed with concrete, and follows the D-shaped configuration of the pit. The lower 

sections of the slope appear to have had a concrete parging, which has spalled off in some 

places. The stratification of the layers of concrete is clearly visible on the upper portions of 

the blast slopes. There is evidence of cracking and spalling on the blast slopes, as well as 

vegetation. However, the overall mass of the slopes appears to be stable. 

The superior slope of the battery continues beyond the blast slope to the top of the battery. 

That slope was originally covered with sod to control erosion. The sand and earth slopes are 

currently covered with grasses and dense vegetation. 

Likewise, the top of the battery is now covered with grasses and dense vegetation. There are 

remnants of pathways lined with a post-and-cable safety railing for visitor access. The 

pathways are currently closed to the public; the post-and-cable railing is in disrepair, and 

would not provide adequate safety for visitors. 

North Transverse Gallery 

The north transverse gallery (room 108) is accessed via an arched doorway (fig. 174) in the 

east side of the northwest pit. This original doorway was altered twice. When the gallery was 

widened in 1907-08, a steel door was hung from rollers on a rail above the doorway. Later, 

when the north air lock (room 104) was built in the west end of the transverse gallery, a 

smaller doorway was cut through the rolling door. This was fitted with a hinged steel door, 

and became the entry doorway to the north air lock. 

Proceeding into the north air lock, the brick walls that were erected to create the airtight 

room are intact. The east doorway of the air lock is also equipped with the gas-proof door 

installed in the 1940s. 

East of the air lock along the north wall of the transverse gallery are the latrines for the 

enlisted men and the officers (rooms 105a, 105b, and 106). These rooms are separated by 

wooden partitions. Some of the bathroom fixtures are intact, but most are broken. 

At the midpoint of the transverse gallery, where it is intersected by the main longitudinal 

gallery of the battery, is room 107. This space was constructed in the north or outside wall as 

a “Firing Alcove”; it served as a storage battery room in the 1920s through 1940s. The tile 

wall that partitioned the room from the transverse gallery is still intact. The doorway to the 

room is centered on the tile wall. The concrete floor of room 107 has two raised concrete 

pads that were used as bases for the storage batteries. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

280 

Beyond the midpoint, the transverse gallery leads to the generator room (room 109) for the 

1944 ventilation system. The generator room occupies the east end of the transverse gallery, 

and extends into the southwest corner of the northeast mortar pit. A brick partition 

separates the corridor from the generator room. The doorway to the generator room is 

equipped with a steel gas-proof door. The ductwork for the ventilation system runs above 

the doorway. As previously described, the portion of the room that extends into the pit has 

concrete walls and a flat concrete ceiling. Rusted pieces of pipe and ductwork hang from the 

ceiling of the generator room. 

Also part of the structure in the southwest corner of the northeast mortar pit is an L-shaped 

corridor and former boiler room (room 110). The floors of these rooms are concrete, and the 

walls and flat ceilings consist of reinforced concrete. 

Northeast Mortar Pit 

The northeast mortar pit (room 111) is accessed from the transverse gallery through the 

concrete generator room and boiler room built in the pit’s southwest corner circa 1944. As 

previously described, all of the mortar pits were constructed with the same configuration. 

The northeast pit retains its basic D-shape, but a large amount of sand has accumulated on 

the floor, and the pit is completely overgrown. The walls and blast slopes of the mortar pit 

are also overgrown. Overall, the concrete shows typical signs of deterioration, but appears to 

be relatively stable. 

The alterations to the pit are still evident. On the south wall of the pit, the concrete stairway 

to the telephone booth is extant; it includes sections of a pipe railing. The stairway is falling 

apart, and the bottom steps are missing. The reinforced-concrete structure that housed the 

ca.-1944 boiler room and generator room occupies the southwest corner of the mortar pit. 

That structure is overgrown with vines and other vegetation. The walls of the structure 

appear to be stable, but the roof may not be sound. 

North Longitudinal Gallery 

The north longitudinal gallery (room 112) is a 15-foot-wide arched corridor (fig. 175). 

Although the room was adapted for use as a switchboard room, it still retains the original 

configuration of the longitudinal gallery that serviced Battery McCook. The original 

concrete walls and arched ceiling remain intact, with some later alterations still in place. The 

hollow tile partitions erected at either end of the gallery for the switchboard room are also 

intact (fig. 176). Large ducts that were part of the 1944 ventilation system still hang from the 

ceiling, and the asbestos soundproofing that was sprayed on the arched ceiling and ductwork 

is also extant. However, the ductwork and its asbestos covering are severely deteriorated, 

and large sections of both are falling from the ceiling. The condition of the asbestos on the 

ductwork and the ceiling create a hazardous environment in the room. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

281 

West Storage Rooms and Magazine 

A doorway at the south end of room 112 leads to an L-shaped room (room 113). This room is 

formed by a short section of the longitudinal gallery, and an adjacent storage area to its west 

(fig. 177). The walls and ceilings of the room are formed by the concrete structure of the 

battery. The gallery section has a partition at its south end with a doorway that leads to the 

centermost section of the longitudinal gallery (room 119). The partition was wood-framed 

and paneled. There are remnants of the tile flooring that was installed over the concrete 

floor when the battery served as the HDCP in the 1940s. 

Proceeding into the original west magazine area, the first space encountered is the L-shaped 

room 114. Its original function appears to have been to connect the magazine with a storage 

room. It was labeled as S-1 in the 1944 plans of the battery; according to Ed Biedermann, S-1 

referred to Intelligence operations.2

 The walls and ceiling are concrete; doorways in the 

room lead to the magazine and a storage room. 

The west magazine area of the battery was subdivided into three rooms ca. 1942 (rooms 115-

117). Partitions were wood-framed with paneling. The rooms were used as the offices of the 

commanders at the HDCP. Each room retains the concrete walls and barrel-vaulted 

concrete ceiling of the original design. 

The former storage room (room 118) was also used by the officers of the HDCP. The room 

has the concrete walls and vaulted concrete ceiling characteristic of the original construction. 

An east doorway leads to the south end of the longitudinal gallery of the battery. 

The center section of the battery’s longitudinal gallery was partitioned off at either end to 

create a room at the center of the battery (room 119). This room retains the concrete side 

walls and vaulted ceiling of the original structure. Moreover, this section of the longitudinal 

gallery was not widened during the 1907-08 alterations to the battery, and so retains the 

original 10-foot width of the gallery. The end partitions, installed ca. 1942, are wood-framed 

with paneling. 

South End (Battery John F. Reynolds) 

South Entrance Gallery 

The south end of the Mortar Battery is very similar to the north end. Like the north entrance 

gallery (room 101), the south entrance gallery (room 135) is 10 feet wide and defined by the 

10-foot-high concrete walls. Railroad tracks that once served as part of the ammunition 

service still run the length of the entrance gallery and continue into the southwest mortar pit. 

The north wall of the entrance gallery has light recesses with concrete hoods and remnants of 

the light fixtures. A stairway to the telephone booth is cut into the south wall of the gallery; it 

 2

 Interview with Ed Biedermann, Technical Sergeant stationed at Fort Hancock 1940 – 1945; July 4, 

1981. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

282 

is closed off with metal grating. The telephone booth overlooking the southwest mortar pit 

spans the east end of the entrance gallery. 

Southwest Mortar Pit 

The southwest mortar pit (room 134) was designed and constructed in the same manner as 

the other mortar pits (fig. 173). The floor of the pit is concrete, and the former locations of 

the four mortars are evident. The concrete floor is cracked and broken, but appears to be 

stable. The concrete walls form the D-shape characteristic of the Mortar Battery, and they 

transition to the blast slopes, which in turn lead to the superior slope and the top of the 

battery. The concrete walls and slopes of the southwest mortar pit exhibit signs of 

efflorescence, cracking, and spalling, but appear to be stable. Some vegetation was present in 

this mortar pit, but it appears that greater efforts have been made to control the growth here. 

South Transverse Gallery 

With the exception of the south air lock that juts into the gallery, the south transverse gallery 

(room 131) retains the form and character of the original structure. The floors are concrete, 

and the rails of the ammunition service are extant in the center of the gallery. The concrete 

walls and vaulted ceilings are intact, as is the “firing recess” (room 133) on the south wall of 

the gallery. At its east end the transverse gallery leads to the southeast mortar pit, and at its 

west end it leads to the southwest mortar pit. The arched doorway at the west end retains its 

sliding steel door, which has a smaller hinged door cut into it. 

Southeast Mortar Pit 

The southeast mortar pit (room 132) retains the concrete D-shape typical of the mortar pits 

at this emplacement. The pit is accessed through an arched doorway from the transverse 

gallery of Battery Reynolds. The pit resembles the northeast pit in design, construction, and 

overall condition. The floor of the southeast pit is covered with sand and dense vegetation. 

The concrete walls and slopes of the pit are also overgrown. 

The only major alteration to the southeast pit since original construction was the addition of 

the telephone booth, which is extant. The booth was constructed over the southwest corner 

of the pit. A concrete stairway was constructed along the south wall of the pit to provide 

access between the pit and the telephone booth. The stairway is also extant, but in poor 

condition. 

South Longitudinal Gallery 

The longitudinal gallery continues south of room 124. In 1944, four rooms (rooms 125, 127, 

128, and 129) were built along the east wall of this gallery, leaving a long narrow corridor 

(room 126, fig. 179). Room 125 is accessed from a doorway at the south end of room 124; the 

other three rooms (127, 128, and 129) are accessed from the corridor. The concrete floors in 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

283 

these rooms have remnants of the tile floor installed in the 1940s. The concrete structure of 

the longitudinal gallery forms the outside walls and vaulted ceilings of these rooms. The 

partition walls are constructed with either hollow tile (rooms125, 127, and 129), or are woodframed with paneling (room 128). A 12-inch-thick brick partition separates rooms 128 and 

129. A doorway at the south end of the corridor leads to the south air lock. 

The south air lock (room 130) is located at the intersection of the longitudinal gallery and the 

south transverse gallery (fig. 180). The air lock is a small rectangular room with concrete 

floors and brick walls. The walls extend up to the vaulted concrete ceiling of the transverse 

gallery. The south air lock has two doorways that are equipped with gas-proof doors. The 

doorway on the west wall of the room leads to the south transverse gallery (room 131). 

East Storage Rooms and Magazine 

The east magazine area (rooms 120 – 124) also retains the original configuration of the 

concrete emplacement. The concrete floors, walls, and vaulted ceilings are intact, with few 

alterations or additions; the rooms convey the original purpose of the interior of the battery. 

The only partition on the east side of the longitudinal gallery is a masonry wall built between 

rooms 122 and 123. Since the partition is located at the east end of the magazine, the 

magazine retains the appearance of a long ammunition-storage corridor (fig. 178). 

Like room 113, room 124 is an L-shaped space formed by a short section of the longitudinal 

gallery and a former storage area east of the gallery. In the 1944 plans, room 124 was 

partitioned into two rooms. The storage area was used as a radio room, and the short section 

of the longitudinal gallery was a corridor. The partition was later removed, and the current 

configuration forms a corridor (room 124). 

Telephone Booths 

All four telephone booths of the Mortar Battery (rooms 201 – 204) are intact. The booths are 

rectangular structures constructed of reinforced concrete. As previously explained, the 

booths were built on concrete platforms positioned at the southwest corners of each mortar 

pit. The floors, walls, and ceilings are all of concrete, and three small windows pierce the 

northeast corner of each booth. The windows were constructed with embrasures that 

allowed the observers a clear view of the mortar pit. Each booth had a single doorway on the 

west wall, but the sliding doors here are no longer extant. 

The telephone booths for the two west mortar pits (rooms 201 and 204) were built over the 

inner ends of the two entrance galleries here (figs. 181-182). The platforms of the structures 

are supported by concrete arches that span the entrance gallery (fig. 183). The telephone 

booths for the east pits (rooms 202 and 203) were constructed over the southwest corner of 

each pit and supported by arches that spanned that corner of the pit (fig. 184). The 

positioning of rooms 202 and 203 required that the northeast corner of each booth be 

“clipped.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

284 

Overall, the telephone booths appear to be stable structures. There is evidence of spalling, 

and some of the metal reinforcing material is exposed. This was especially evident on the 

underside of the supporting platforms. The pipe railings that extended around the perimeter 

of the booth platforms are corroded and missing sections, and access to the booths is limited. 

As described previously, the booths are linked to the mortar pits via concrete stairways that 

are in varying states of deterioration. There are also stairways leading from the booths to the 

top of the battery. These stairways are extant, but are deteriorated and overgrown. 

Battery Commander Stations 

The battery commander stations are extant at the Mortar Battery. The rectangular structures 

are located on the top of the battery, and originally had a clear view of the mortar pits that 

they commanded and the Atlantic Ocean. The top of the Mortar Battery is now heavily 

vegetated, and the views from the battery commander stations are obstructed. The south 

battery commander station has less vegetation surrounding it, and is more accessible than the 

north station (fig. 185). 

Both battery commander stations are rectangular structures of reinforced concrete. The 

foundations are poured concrete and have no finishing detail. The foundation of the south 

station is exposed, while the foundation of the north station remains below grade. The 

exterior concrete walls of the structures are scored with horizontal v-grooves every 6 inches. 

The roofs are constructed of concrete and have a shallow-pitched hip profile. The interior 

floors, walls, and ceilings are exposed, unfinished concrete. The instrument pedestals are 

extant at the north end of the buildings, but are rusted. The windows and doorways are in 

their original locations; the tilt sashes and sliding steel doors are not in place, but the door for 

the south booth is resting against the back of the structure. The extant steel used in the 

construction of the windows, including the plate at the lintel and the corner supports, is 

corroded, as is the extant steel at the doorway. The original woodwork that was associated 

with the doorways and windows is no longer extant. 

Overall, the battery commander stations appear to be in stable condition. However, there is 

some minor spalling and evidence of some larger cracks. The west elevation of the south 

station exhibits a significant crack and some minor spalling. The crack starts at the top 

corner of the window and continues to the roof. The roof structure is also cracked at this 

location. There is some rust staining on both the exterior and interior concrete surfaces. 

Additionally, it should be noted that the 1990 Stabilization Investigations noted that “the later 

additions (1907) are more in danger of failure.”3

 This is due in part to the exposed location of 

the booths, to the thin nature of the concrete, and the means of construction, which 

apparently used insufficient concrete covering for the reinforcing materials.4

 3

 Todd Rutenbeck, Stabilization Investigations, Historic Concrete Batteries, Fort Hancock, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation, June 1990), p. 18. 4

 Rutenbeck, Stabilization Investigations, p. 18. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

285 

Figure 165. Mortar Battery, exterior view of west side of 

counterscarp wall, 2006. 

Figure 166. Mortar Battery, view of counterscarp wall interior and 

southwest counterscarp gallery, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

286 

Figure 168. Mortar Battery, interior view of gun port embrasure in 

southwest counterscarp gallery, 2006. 

Figure 167. Mortar 

Battery, exterior doorway 

to southwest counterscarp 

gallery, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

287 

Figure 169. Mortar Battery, entrance gallery to southwest mortar pit, 

Battery Reynolds, 2006. 

Figure 170. Mortar Battery, extant light fixture in entrance gallery to 

southwest mortar pit, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

288 

Figure 171. Mortar Battery, view of northwest mortar pit from top of 

battery, 2006. 

Figure 172. Mortar Battery, section of wall in mortar pit with rounded 

indentation to allow for swing of gun barrel, 2006.
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

289 

Figure 173. Mortar Battery, view of southwest mortar pit from top of 

battery, 2006. 

Figure 174. Mortar Battery, doorway and altered steel door from 

southwest mortar pit to transverse gallery, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

290 

Figure 175. Mortar Battery, within Battery McCook, north end of 

longitudinal gallery (room 112), 2006. 

Figure 176. Mortar Battery, within Battery McCook, hollowtile partition wall at north end of longitudinal gallery 

(room 112), 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

291 

Figure 177. Mortar Battery, within Battery McCook, corridor and 

storage area (room 113), 2006. 

Figure 178. Mortar Battery, within Battery Reynolds, east 

magazine (room 122), 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

292 

Figure 179. Mortar Battery, within Battery Reynolds, south end of 

longitudinal gallery (room 126), 2006. 

Figure 180. Mortar Battery, within Battery Reynolds, west end of 

transverse gallery (room 131) and south air lock (room 130), 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

293 

Figure 181. Mortar Battery, telephone booth at southwest mortar 

pit, Battery Reynolds, 2006. 

Figure 182. Mortar 

Battery, telephone booth 

at southwest mortar pit, 

Battery Reynolds, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

294 

Figure 183. Mortar Battery, supporting arches of telephone booth at 

southwest mortar pit, Battery Reynolds, 2006. 

Figure 184. Mortar 

Battery, telephone booth 

at southeast mortar pit, 

Battery Reynolds, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: MORTAR BATTERY

295 

Figure 185. Mortar 

Battery, battery commander 

station for Battery 

Reynolds, located on top of 

superior slope at south end 

of battery, 2006. 

297

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY:

BATTERY JOHN GUNNISON

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

299

CHRONOLOGY OF 

DEVELOPMENT AND USE 

Introduction

Emplacements constructed during the latter part of the Endicott System included smallercaliber rapid-fire batteries.1

 When it was completed in 1905, Battery John Gunnison was Fort 

Hancock’s smallest-caliber disappearing gun battery. It was also one of the last Endicott 

System emplacements constructed on Sandy Hook. The subsequent sections on the 

development and use of Battery Gunnison discuss the history of the structure from planning 

and construction to present condition. Some information relevant to Sandy Hook and Fort 

Hancock was included in the section on historical context, and will not be repeated in the 

same detail in this section. Research for this report uncovered some primary source 

materials regarding the development and use of Battery Gunnison. Previous reports by 

Edwin Bearss were also relied upon for information about the battery. The reader may want 

to refer to Mr. Bearss’ reports for additional information and details. 

Battery Gunnison – Construction

The initial attempts to construct a 6-inch disappearing gun emplacement on Sandy Hook 

southeast of the existing Endicott System batteries – the eventual location of Battery 

Gunnison – were thwarted by the Ordnance Department. Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson, Chief 

of Engineers, had approved the construction of two 6-inch rapid-fire guns at Fort Hancock 

on April 25, 1898, and $16,000 was allotted from the appropriation for “National Defense” 

for the construction of the emplacements. Upon approval of the plans for the battery by 

Chief Engineer Wilson, work had begun on the emplacement in July 1898. However, the 

location of the 6-inch battery interfered with operations at the Sandy Hook Proving Ground, 

and work was temporarily stopped in August. When the project resumed near the end of that 

month, the Ordnance Department complained once again, and the project was finally shut 

down on August 30, 1898.2

 1

 Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, September 1983), p. 308. 2

 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 336. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

300

Though Brig. Gen. Wilson subsequently reallocated the original funding for the construction 

of the 6-inch emplacement,3

 the project was not completely abandoned. Major William 

Marshall was informed in November 1902 that funds had been appropriated that year for the 

construction of two 6-inch rifles on disappearing carriages at Fort Hancock. The letter from 

Major Abbot noted that personnel at Fort Hancock should proceed with selection of the site. 

A provisional allotment of $36,000 had been made for the construction of the emplacements, 

but no expenditures were to be made without the authority of the Chief of Engineers.4

 This 

correspondence began the next phase of planning for the construction of the 6-inch rapidfire battery that would become Battery Gunnison.5

The search for a site for the 6-inch emplacement commenced in 1903, and one was chosen, 

but on June 25 Assistant Engineer Hurlbut informed Major Marshall that it was too near the 

proving ground’s powder magazine (fig. 186). Hurlbut did indicate that a new area south of 

the unsuitable site would be surveyed, and by the end of June a new site had been chosen (fig. 

187).6

Planning for the 6-inch emplacement progressed, and on August 2, 1903, Major Marshall 

forwarded plans and some specifics about the battery to Chief of Engineers George L. 

Gillespie. Marshall’s correspondence noted that the 6-inch rapid fire guns would be 

mounted on Model 1903 disappearing carriages. Major Marshall noted the following details 

regarding the location of the emplacements: 

The location recommended commands the southern approach to Fort 

Hancock, and is about 125 yards southeasterly from the site indicated 

for 4 six-inch guns in the approved project for defense. This 

modification is made to avoid interference with a powder magazine of 

the Ordnance Department. 

The site is on the reservation of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground.7

Major Marshall estimated the cost of the two 6-inch rapid-fire gun battery to be $45,000, 

which he noted was high because the cost of clearing the remote site and extending the 

railroad to the site. The blueprints forwarded under separate cover included plans for the 

construction railroad spur, as well as a plan showing the fields of fire of the guns.8

 3

 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 336. 4

 Major Abbot, by order of Acting Chief of Engineers, to Marshall, through Col. Mansfield, Div. 

Engineer, Eastern Division, Nov. 15, 1902; file 96, enclosure 1, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 5

 Though previous reports did not cite this fact, Battery Gunnison was the only 6-inch emplacement 

on disappearing carriages being planned at Fort Hancock in 1902 – 1903. In addition, this letter was 

filed with other correspondence relating to Battery Gunnison. For those reasons, it was determined 

that the 6-inch emplacements referenced in the letter were those eventually constructed for Battery 

Gunnison. 

6

 Hurlbut to Marshall, June 25 and 30, 1903; file 96, enclosures 4 and 5, box 32; Letters Received 

Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 7

 Marshall to Gillespie, August 2, 1903; file 96, with enclosure 1, box 32; Letters Received Sandy 

Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 8

 Marshall to Gillespie, August 2, 1903. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

301

Chief Engineer Gillespie notified Marshall on September 14, 1903, that $45,000 had been 

allotted from the “Gun and Mortar Batteries” appropriation, Act of March 3, 1903, for the 

construction of the 6-inch emplacements.9

 Four days later, Marshall informed Hurlbut that 

he was to proceed with the construction of the battery with the available funds.10

The final site of the 6-inch gun emplacements was 1,600 feet southeast of the Mortar Battery 

(fig. 187).11 However, communications between now-Lt. Col. Marshall and Asst. Eng. 

Hurlbut in September 1903 suggest that the exact location for the emplacements had not 

been determined, and that there remained some difficulty in situating the battery so close to 

the Sandy Hook Proving Ground. While staking out the site on September 25, Hurlbut 

determined that the north gun would be 100 feet from the railroad tracks that ran along the 

eastern shoreline of Sandy Hook. He felt that the battery should be moved back 50 to 60 feet, 

but was apparently overruled by Lt. Col. Marshall. Review of the maps of the area and the 

siting near both the proving ground and the powder magazine may have made it impractical 

to move the battery to the location desired by Hurlbut. As of September 29, 1903, the north 

gun was located 100 feet from the railroad tracks, and the south gun was located 130 feet 

from the tracks.12 At that time, Asst. Eng. Hurlbut felt that it would be necessary to build a 

traverse to protect the new work from the firing at the proving ground.13

Work on the battery during the latter part of 1903 included the extension of the railroad 

2,100 feet for construction of the emplacements, and the clearing of the site. In March 1904 

the plant for the construction of the battery was positioned, and construction began on the 

emplacements soon thereafter. The battery was constructed with a south emplacement (no. 

1) and a north emplacement (no. 2) that were connected by a traverse, as recommended by 

Asst. Eng. Hurlbut. The traverse contained rooms for personnel and storage of equipment 

and ammunition. 

The traverse of the battery and the parapet walls of the emplacements were protected by sand 

embankments. The sand embankments were constructed on the east/front side of the battery 

and the north and south flanking elevations. The sand fill extended over the roof of the 

traverse where it was 3 to 4 feet thick. The embankment sloped toward the east and flanking 

sides down to grade approximately 50 feet from the crest of the slope. The sand embankment 

was placed during the construction of the battery, and was an important part of the battery’s 

defenses. 

As construction of the battery progressed, it became apparent that the cost of construction 

had been underestimated, and that an additional $20,000 would be needed to complete the 

project. Upon Lt. Col. Marshall’s request for that amount on June 23, 1904, Chief of 

Engineers Mackenzie allotted funds, and work on the battery continued.14

 9

 Gillespie to Marshall, Sept. 14, 1903; file 96, enclosure 3, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA Northeast Region (NYC). 10 Marshall to Hurlbut, Sept. 18, 1903; Vol. III, p. 57; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 11 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 338. 12 Hurlbut to Marshall, Sept. 25 and 29, 1903; file 96, enclosures 10 and 11, box 32; Letters Received 

Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 13 Hurlbut to Marshall, Sept. 25 and 29, 1903. 

14 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 338. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

302

By a General Order issued by the War Department on December 27, 1904, the 6-inch rapidfire gun battery was named Battery Gunnison, in honor of John W. Gunnison.15 Gunnison 

was from Goshen, New Hampshire, and graduated second in his class from the U.S. Military 

Academy at West Point, class of 1837. John Gunnison enjoyed a successful career in the 

military, eventually earning the rank of captain in 1853. In May of that year, Capt. Gunnison 

was put in charge of an expedition with the mission of surveying a central route for a railroad 

to the Pacific Coast. At Sevier Lake in Utah Territory, Gunnison had divided his party in 

order to expedite the survey. On the morning of October 26, 1853, Gunnison and seven of 

his survey party were killed by Pahvant Utes seeking vengeance for the slaying of one of their 

chiefs. It was initially thought that the Utes were acting under the direction of the Mormons, 

but that was later proven untrue.16

The documents reviewed suggest that the battery was not complete by the end of December 

1904 when the first disappearing carriage for the 6-inch emplacement arrived at Sandy Hook 

(see the subsequent section “Armament”).17 Construction on Battery Gunnison continued 

through most of the following year. On November 2, 1905, Brig. Gen. Mackenzie informed 

the Military Secretary and the Secretary of War that the “two emplacements for 6-inch rifles 

on disappearing carriages, constituting Battery Gunnison, Fort Hancock, N.J.” was complete 

and ready for transfer. On November 11, Asst. Eng. Hurlbut submitted a list of the articles to 

be turned over to the Artillery Corps with the two 6-inch emplacements. The list included 

the following: 

16 Yale & Towne padlocks 

43 Steam tight fixtures for electric lights 

1 switch box 

1 recording ampere ammeter on switchboard 

1 latrine with three frost-proof water closets 2 hydrants 

10 speaking tube mouth pieces 

10 flexible tube mouth pieces18

The list noted that the latrine was turned over on a memorandum receipt. The plans of 

Battery Gunnison indicate that the latrine was a separate structure situated nearby. The 

other items transferred accounted for some of the fixtures that were installed at the battery 

by the Engineers. The two emplacements at Battery John Gunnison were officially 

transferred to the Artillery Corps on December 5, 1905.19 

 15 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p.339. 16 Information on John W. Gunnison from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Gunnison. 17 Marshall to Maj. Henry Harris, Artillery Corps, Dec. 29, 1904; file 96, enclosure 18, box 32; 

Letters Received Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 18 Hurlbut to Marshall, Nov. 11, 1905; file 96, enclosure 21, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 19 Mackenzie to the Military Secretary, Nov. 2, 1905; endorsed by F.C. Ainsworth, Military 

Secretary, Nov. 2, 1905, and Robert S. Oliver, Acting Secretary of War, Nov. 3, 1905; final endorsement 

U.S. Engineering Dept., New York, Dec. 14, 1905; file 96, enclosure 19, box 32; Letters Received Sandy 

Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

303

Battery Gunnison – Armament

Major Henry L. Harris, Artillery Corps, Fort Hancock, N.J., notified Lt. Col. Marshall on 

December 29, 1904, that the first of the 6-inch disappearing carriages for the new 

emplacement had been received at Sandy Hook. Since the battery was incomplete, Harris 

was instructed to haul the L.F. Model 1903 disappearing carriage to the emplacement to 

await mounting.20 In January 1905, Lt. Col. Marshall ordered Asst. Eng. Hurlbut to make 

railroad track and cars available to Major Harris in order to transport the carriages and guns 

from the wharf to the battery.21

However, it appears that the carriages and guns were not actually mounted until after the 

battery was turned over to the Artillery Corps in November 1905. The documents that 

transferred Battery Gunnison to the Artillery Corps at that time indicate that the transfer was 

of “two emplacements for 6-inch rifles on disappearing carriages,”22 but they do not 

reference any armament. This suggests that the carriages and guns had not been mounted 

when the battery was transferred from the Corps of Engineers to the Artillery Corps. 

The Fort Record Book for Fort Hancock provides further evidence that the two carriages and 

gun no. 1 were mounted in 1906, and that gun no. 2 was mounted in 1908, all under the 

supervision of the Ordnance Department. The data for Battery Gunnison confirms that 

emplacements no. 1 and no. 2 were received by now-Lt. Col. Harris on December 5, 1905. It 

further notes that the disappearing carriage for emplacement no. 1, Model 1903 L.F., serial 

no. 52, was mounted on February 12, 1906, under the supervision of 1st Lt. Beckham, 

Ordnance Department, Fort Hancock, N.J. The gun for emplacement no. 1, a 6-inch breechloading rifle, Model 1903 O.D., serial no. 5, was mounted on the same day under the 

supervision of Ordnance Officer 2nd Lt. William Jones. Lt. Jones also supervised the 

mounting of the carriage for emplacement no. 2 in March 1906. Emplacement no. 2 was 

equipped with a disappearing carriage, Model 1903 D.C., serial no. 57. The Fort Record 

Book also documented that the 6-inch breech-loading rifle for emplacement no. 2, Model 

1903 O.D., serial no. 34, was not mounted until March 14, 1908.23 This was confirmed in a 

communication from Asst. Eng. Hurlbut to Lt. Col. Marshall on March 17, stating that the 6-

inch disappearing gun at emplacement no. 2 was mounted (fig. 188).24 The disappearing 

carriages for Battery Gunnison were manufactured by Detrick and Harvey Machine 

 20 Marshall to Harris, Dec. 29, 1904; file 96, enclosure 18, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 21 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 338. 22 Mackenzie to the Military Secretary, Nov. 2, 1905; file 96, enclosure 19, box 32; Letters Received 

Sandy Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 23 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, October 1924, revised Nov. 4, 1942, p. 74; Entry 

224; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 24 Hurlbut to Marshall, March 17, 1908; Armament, Miscellaneous; folder 20, box 35; 

Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). Edwin Bearss wrote that one of the guns at Battery Gunnison was dismounted and then 

remounted in 1908, but the documents reviewed and the Emplacement Book suggest that 1908 was 

when the gun was first mounted. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

304

Company, Baltimore, Maryland, and the 6-inch breech-loading rifles were fabricated at the 

U.S. Army’s Watervliet Arsenal.25

The Emplacement Book for Battery Gunnison appears to confirm the dates noted in the Fort 

Record Book. The Emplacement Book records that the 6-inch gun at emplacement no. 1 was 

first proof-fired on April 14, 1906, and that the gun at emplacement no. 2 was first proof-fired 

on August 27, 1909. The Emplacement Book records active service for both of these guns 

until July 1942 (see the subsequent section “Alterations”).26

 25 Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, October 1924, revised Nov. 4, 1942, p. 74; Entry 

224; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 26 Battery Gunnison Emplacement Book; Entry 222; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

305

Figure 186. Detail of 1901 Sandy Hook map, depicting railroad tracks and 

powder magazine near future site of Battery Gunnison. 

Figure 187. Detail of 1905 Sandy Hook map, depicting railroad tracks and 

powder magazine near Battery Gunnison (circled). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

306

Figure 188. Battery Gunnison, north emplacement (no. 2) with 6-inch gun on disappearing 

carriage, August 11, 1932. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

307

ORIGINAL APPEARANCE 

Introduction

The following descriptions are based on historical documents reviewed during research and 

observations of existing elements. Although construction plans were not found, drawings of 

the drainage and electric systems from 1905 provide an original floor plan and room 

designations for Battery Gunnison. Also, and a blueprint for the original steel doors provides 

some information about original elements (figs. 189-190). These plans, along with plans from 

the 1940s, historic photographs, and the observation of extant materials, provided the 

following information on the original configuration and appearance of the battery. 

Battery Gunnison – Exterior Elements

Overview 

Battery John Gunnison was planned as a D-shaped concrete battery facing southeast, with 6-

inch gun emplacements on the south (no. 1) and the north (no. 2) sides of the battery, and 

storage rooms situated between the emplacements. The battery was constructed of 

reinforced concrete, and portions of the battery were covered with sand. A plan of the 

battery depicting the drainage and electrical systems in 1905 was the only early full plan 

found during the research (fig. 189). The plan also depicts the layout of the battery and 

identifies the interior spaces, and so is considered to document the original configuration of 

Battery Gunnison. 

The perimeter concrete walls formed the “D” configuration of Battery Gunnison. Typical of 

Endicott System batteries, Gunnison was designed as a partially covered battery that would 

blend in with the surrounding landscape. Thus, the sand and ground cover on the east 

elevation of the battery sloped from the ground level up to the parapet wall that protected the 

emplacements. Given the D-shape of the battery, a similar contour extended around the 

north and south flanking sides of the battery. The sand cover also extended over the center 

of the battery, covering the roof of the traverse. Historic photographs of the battery suggest 

that the sand embankments were covered with sod and low shrubbery. The vegetation was 

probably similar to that used at the Mortar Battery, which was marsh sod and native heath. 

The sand embankment and vegetation were important parts of the camouflage and defense 

for the battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

308

In contrast to the east side of the battery, the approach from the west revealed the exterior 

concrete walls and battery commander station flanked by the south and north emplacements. 

The concrete platform that forms the base of the battery was one step above grade. The 

concrete platform extended from the south side of the battery to the north, and the interior 

rooms and emplacements were accessed from there. 

Emplacements 

Emplacement no. 1 was located on the south side of the battery, and was constructed behind 

the parapet wall. The basic configuration of the emplacement was a series of concentric 

circles and semicircles, with the mount for the disappearing carriage at the center. The 

foundation of the emplacement was a semicircular concrete platform approximately 18 

inches above the base platform of the battery. The next level of the emplacement formed the 

loading platform, and was approximately 5 feet above the base platform. The loading 

platform was also semicircular in shape, and was supported by reinforced-concrete walls that 

were built on top of the base platform. The outer walls of the loading platform were 

constructed with recesses that were intended for reserve ammunition (fig. 191).27 The 

loading platform could be accessed via seven concrete steps at the south side of the platform, 

or four steps from the foundation level of the emplacement at the east edge of the platform. A 

circular depression in the loading platform formed the pit for mounting the disappearing 

carriage Model 1903 and the 6-inch breech-loading rifle. 

The emplacement was protected by a parapet wall along the east and south sides of the 

loading platform (fig. 192). The southeast corner of the parapet wall was semicircular in 

form to accommodate the positioning of the armament for the emplacement. The 

reinforced-concrete parapet wall rose to a crest that was approximately 9 feet above the level 

of the loading platform. The south wall sloped gently toward grade level, and the east wall 

extended toward the concrete structure of the interior of the battery. A set of seven concrete 

steps leading from the loading platform to the top of the parapet wall were cut into the south 

wall of the parapet. Beyond the crest of the parapet, a concrete apron sloped toward the 

exterior of the battery and eventually to the sloped sand cover. 

Emplacement no. 2 was located on the north side of the battery (fig. 189), and was the mirror 

of emplacement no. 1. 

Traverse (Main Block) 

The traverse of the battery measured 64 feet along its west elevation. The north and south 

side walls measured 53 feet from the west elevation to the parapet wall. The exterior walls at 

the west elevation of the battery were 3 feet thick, and the walls of the ammunition storage 

rooms were 13 to 14 feet thick. 

 27 Marshall to Gillespie August 2, 1903; file 96, with enclosure 1, box 32; Letters Received Sandy 

Hook 1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

309

The exterior concrete wall of the west elevation was built up to elevation 26.5, which was 

approximately 12 1⁄2 feet above the base platform (fig. 193). The wall was capped with 

concrete coping that extended around the perimeter of the exterior wall. At the north and 

south ends of the west elevation, approximately 6 feet from the corner, the wall sloped down 

at a 45° angle for about 3 feet. This created what appeared to be a flat-topped hip-roofed 

structure. 

The west rooms of the battery were accessed through doorways on the west elevation. There 

were four doorways on that elevation, and each was equipped with a steel door hung on 

wrought-iron hinges and pintles. During the planning of the battery, Lt. Col. Marshall had 

instructed Asst. Eng. Hurlbut to that the doorway and window openings at Battery Gunnison 

should be constructed to match those of a similar battery at Fort Hamilton. Marshall 

included blueprints of the steel doors and shutters ordered for the battery at Fort Hamilton, 

which were marked up to create the order for Battery Gunnison (fig. 190).28 The doorways 

were 3 feet wide, and the steel doors were 3 feet 3 inches wide, overlapping the recessed 

doorway surround. 

Lt. Col. Marshall’s letter also indicated that the windows should be made to the specifications 

of the fixtures used at Fort Hamilton. There were four windows on the west elevation of the 

structure. The windows were 2 feet 6 inches wide by 3 feet 6 inches high, and were 

constructed with splayed jambs. Steel grates and shutters detailed in the blueprints were 

installed in the windows. The doorways and window openings on the west elevation had 

cast-in-place concrete lintels, which provided the only decorative detail on the west 

elevation. 

The north and south side walls of the traverse of the battery mirrored one another. On both 

elevations, an 8-foot-wide doorway leading to the interior corridors and ammunition rooms 

was located 15 feet from the west corner. The doorway had double steel-grate doors that 

swung on steel pins set in a steel plate. Approximately 3 feet east of the doorway, a recess in 

the wall originally served as a “telephone station” for the adjacent emplacement. The 

recesses were 3 feet square with a ceiling height of 6 feet 5 inches. Despite their names, they 

were equipped only with speaking tubes for communications within the battery (see the 

subsequent section “Utilities”). Historic photographs and extant evidence indicate that these 

recesses were equipped with sliding steel doors. 

Both the south and north walls had three recesses along the elevation at a height of about 9 

feet above grade. The recesses were 14 inches wide by 18 inches high by 8 inches deep, with 

splayed sides and molded edges. These recesses were part of the original lighting system, and 

were depicted in plan in the 1905 drawings (fig. 189). At the east end of the wall was an 

additional rounded recess. The plans indicate that this was the location of a hydrant for each 

emplacement; these were also included in Asst. Eng. Hurlbut’s list of transfer articles.29

 28 Marshall to Hurlbut, Jan. 20, 1904; Vol. III, p. 142; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 29 Hurlbut to Marshall, Nov. 11, 1905; file 96, enclosure 21, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

310

At the east end of the south wall of the traverse was a doorway in the east parapet wall (fig. 

195). This doorway allowed personnel to carry ammunition out of the powder passage inside 

the battery and up a flight of steps to the loading platform. The doorway was equipped with a 

steel door that swung open toward the south wall of the traverse. Here, the door fitted into a 

recess in the wall – presumably created to make the opening as wide as possible. The same 

arrangement of doorway, door, and recess was used on the north wall of the traverse, except 

in a mirror image of the south doorway. 

Plans of Battery Gunnison indicate that the roof over the main block was a low-pitched roof 

with multiple slopes. Like the rest of the structure, the roof was constructed of concrete as 

much as 6 feet thick in some sections. During the construction of the battery, Lt. Col. 

Marshall wrote Asst. Eng. Hurlbut with instructions for waterproofing the roof structure. 

The correspondence noted that the waterproofing should consist of tarred 40-pound felt 

applied in five thicknesses and coated with hot coal tar at 138° F. The roof of the battery was 

pierced by two ventilation chimneys. Each ventilator was a rectangular concrete chimney 

with two ventilation stacks (fig. 194). There were also four ventilation stacks for the interior 

rooms (rooms 101, 102, 103, and 104) at the west end of the battery (see the subsequent 

section “Interior Elements”). These stacks vented along the west edge of the battery’s roof. 

All of the ventilation stacks were capped with metal vent caps. The ventilation system 

assured that the interior rooms of the Battery Gunnison remained dry. The roof was covered 

with sand and sod soon after it was constructed. 

Battery Commander Station 

The battery commander station for Battery Gunnison was perched on the west side of the 

roof of the battery (figs. 193-194). The station was constructed on a slab of concrete on top of 

the roof. The slab also formed the floor of the station. The station was accessed via two 

metal staircases on the west side of the battery. There was a landing at the top of the stairway 

that was cantilevered over the west wall and supported by I-beams. The landing formed the 

west end of the room. 

The double stairway on the west elevation of the traverse provided access to the battery 

commander station. Review of historic photographs and plans from the 1940s indicated that 

the metal stairway leading to the station were approximately 2 feet 6 inches wide, with 18 

metal steps ascending to the landing. The risers of the stairs were open, and the treads 

appear to have been metal grating. Both staircases were constructed with pipe railing and 

metal balusters spaced every two steps. 

The east, north, and south walls of the battery commander station were constructed of 

reinforced concrete and were 4 1⁄2 feet high. Historic photographs depict that the west wall, 

which was built on the extended platform, was wood-framed with clapboard siding. 

A band of windows positioned above the concrete walls wrapped around the north, east, and 

south sides of the structure. Though the windows are no longer extant, historic photographs 

suggest that they were similar to those used on the battery commander stations at the Mortar 

Battery. Photographs depict the windows tilted down when in the open position. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

311

The roof of the station was a hip roof with a wide soffit. The roof is not extant, but historic 

photographs and park personnel document that it was wood-framed.30

The interior of the station had a concrete pedestal for the observation equipment. On the 

east wall were three speaking tubes for communication within the battery. 

Battery Gunnison – Interior Elements

Overview 

Figure 195 shows the interior layout of Battery Gunnison. The rooms along the west end of 

the battery were accessed through doorways on the west elevation of the structure (fig. 193). 

There were four rooms here – a storage room at each end, and a guard room and an office 

between them. As previously described, the exterior concrete walls at this section of the 

battery were 3 feet thick. The ammunition storage rooms for Battery Gunnison were located 

in the interior core of the battery, and were protected by thicker exterior concrete walls and 

the sand embankment to the east. The interior partition walls were also constructed of 

concrete and were 2 feet thick. They were constructed with concrete footings that were set 

approximately 3 feet below the floor level, and which were 4 feet wide at the base. 

Storage Battery Room 

The storage room (room 101) in the northwest corner of the battery was labeled the “Storage 

battery Room” on the 1905 plans, which suggests that it held a large battery that assisted in 

the generation of electricity for Battery Gunnison. The room measured 10 feet 9 inches wide 

by 16 feet long, with a jog in the southeast corner where the width narrowed to 8 feet. The 

floors, walls, and ceiling of the room were concrete. A recess with splayed sides in the north 

wall housed the electric light fixture for the room. The doorway was near the northwest 

corner, and a window was located approximately 4 feet south of the doorway. The doorway 

had a steel door, and the window had steel grating and a steel shutter, which were described 

previously. 

 30 SAHO Park Historian Thomas Hoffman. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

312

Guard Room 

South of the storage battery room was the guard room (room 102), which was a rectangular 

room measuring 10 feet wide by 20 feet 9 inches long. The guard room was also accessed 

from a doorway on its west elevation, and a window was to the left of the doorway. As with 

the other rooms, the floors, walls, and ceilings were concrete. A recess for a light fixture was 

cut into the north wall. An opening 3 feet wide by 1 foot high in the east wall opened into the 

shell room, for ventilation and communication. The 1904 blueprints for the steel doors 

included shutters for these openings. The 1905 plans indicate that a “fireplace” was situated 

in the middle of the north wall of the room. It is not known whether this was an open 

fireplace or a flue for a stove, but given the depth of the “fireplace” depicted on the plans, it 

seems likely that it was equipped with a shallow coal-burning stove. The room was 

presumably used by the military personnel manning and guarding the battery. 

Office 

The office (room 103) was located south of the guard room and was a mirror of that room. 

The partition wall between the two rooms was at the center of the battery. The office was set 

up in a similar manner as the guard room, and had a “fireplace” and a light fixture recess on 

the south wall. The east wall of the room also had an opening into the shell room that was 

probably equipped with a steel shutter. In the northwest corner of the room was a switchbox 

to control the lighting for the battery. 

Store Room 

The store room (room 104) next to the office was the mirror of the storage battery room 

(room 101). The doorway to the room was situated near the southwest corner of the room, 

and a single window was located north of that. The south wall contained a splayed recess for 

the room’s electric light fixture. 

Shell Room 

The 8-foot-wide exterior doorways on the north and south elevations each led to corridors 

that in turn led to the shell room (room 105) of the battery. The corridors on both sides of 

the battery measured 8 feet wide by 19 feet long and were mirror images of each other. 

Where the corridors entered the shell room, their walls were slightly splayed. 

The shell room was 12 feet wide by 38 feet long. This was an open room for the storage of the 

projectiles used by the 6-inch guns. A shallow drainage trough was installed around the 

perimeter of the room, and it drained into the system for the entire battery. The exterior 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

313

concrete walls of the room were as much as 13 feet thick, and the concrete roof was 

approximately 6 feet thick. Both the north and south walls had recesses for lighting fixtures 

and speaking tubes. The west wall had doorways into the guard room and the office, as 

previously described. The east wall was a concrete partition wall between the shell room and 

the cartridge room (room 106). The shell room had a flat concrete ceiling that was pierced 

with a series of ventilation holes near the east wall. The ventilation holes were connected to 

larger vent pipes that extended up through the concrete roof of the battery. Doorways at the 

north and south ends of the east wall provided access to the cartridge room. 

The doorways were built with jambs that angled toward the interior of the battery, which 

accommodated the thicker exterior walls of the adjacent cartridge room. The splayed 

doorways were 4 feet wide and framed with 2-foot-thick concrete walls. Each doorway was 

equipped with a steel door a quarter of an inch thick, hung on wrought-iron hinges and 

pintles. The detail drawings of the doors and extant evidence indicate that the original doors 

were installed on the cartridge-room side of the wide jamb. The extant pintles for the 

original doors are anchored into the exterior wall of the cartridge room (see the subsequent 

section “Alterations”). 

Cartridge Room 

The eastern storage magazine was designated the cartridge room (room 106) in the 1905 

drawings.31 It was a rectangular room measuring 14 feet 3 inches wide by 36 feet long. Like 

the shell room, the cartridge room had a shallow perimeter drainage trough that fed into the 

drainage system for the battery. The exterior walls of the room were 14 feet thick at this 

section of the battery, and the east and west walls were 2-foot-thick concrete partition walls. 

The south and the north walls had two recesses for electric light fixtures. There were no 

speaker tubes evident in the cartridge room. The cartridge room had a flat concrete ceiling 

that was pierced with a series of ventilation holes near the west wall. The ventilation holes 

were connected to larger vent pipes that extended up through the concrete roof of the 

battery. Doorways to the adjoining rooms were located in the ends of the east and west walls. 

The west-wall doorways to the shell room (room 105) were described previously. The 

doorways to the powder passage (room 107) were located at the north and south ends of the 

east wall. Each doorway was 4 feet wide and passed through the 2-foot-thick partition wall. 

The doorways were equipped with steel doors similar to the interior doors described 

previously. 

 31 Plan Showing Drainage and Electric Systems, Battery John Gunnison, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, 

November 1905; Sheet 128-4, Drawer 45; RG 77; NACP. This room was designated the powder room 

in 1942 drawings (see the subsequent section “Alterations”). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

314

Powder Passage 

The east doorways of the cartridge room led to the powder passage (room 107). This was a 

long, narrow corridor that ran along the east side of the traverse and extended beyond it at 

both ends. The function of the passage was to provide a way for ammunition to be carried 

out of the interior rooms up to the gun emplacements. At each end of the corridor, three 

concrete steps ascended to a landing that occupied the space beyond the traverse. The west 

wall of each landing contained a doorway that led out to the adjacent emplacement. 

The floor of the powder passage had a perimeter drainage trough and drains to the main 

system. The east wall of the passage was the exterior wall of the battery, and so was more than 

11 feet thick. There were two lighting recesses on the wall, and a steel rack for equipment. 

The north and south end walls each had a recess for electric lighting. As explained 

previously, the north and south ends of the west wall contained the exterior doorways to the 

emplacements. 

The doorways here had both steel-grating doors and steel-plate doors. The grating door was 

on the inside of the doorway and swung into the corridor. The door was hung on a pintle 

near the top of the jamb, and a gudgeon or pintle set into the concrete threshold of the 

doorway. The steel-plate door opened outward, and was hung on wrought-iron hinges and 

pintles set into the door jamb. Outside these doorways, a concrete stairway along the east 

parapet wall ascended to the loading platform of the emplacement. 

Utilities 

Speaking Tubes 

Battery Gunnison was constructed with speaking tubes for communication between the 

“telephone” recesses in side walls of the traverse, the battery commander/observation 

station, and interior rooms. Lt. Col. Marshall’s instructions to Asst. Eng. Hurlbut in January 

1904 were that the speaking tubes would open into the telephone recesses, and that they 

should be placed near one corner to leave the rest of the wall space open.32 Among the 

articles turned over to the Artillery Corps in 1905 were speaking-tube mouthpieces and 

flexible tube mouthpieces.33

Extant brass fittings for the speaking-tube system at Battery Gunnison indicate how 

communication within the battery was accomplished. Each brass fitting for the tube system 

is labeled to indicate where the tube connected. In the south-wall telephone recess (for 

emplacement no. 1) were three tubes marked “Shell Room,” “Gun Booth No. 2,” and 

“Observation.” Similarly, the recess at emplacement No. 2 could communicate with the shell 

 32 Marshall to Hurlbut, Jan. 20, 1904; Vol. III, p. 142; Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort 

Hancock, July 1889 – Dec. 1906; Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 33 Hurlbut to Marshall, Nov. 11, 1905; file 96, enclosure 21, box 32; Letters Received Sandy Hook 

1901-1906; Entry 829; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

315

room, observation station, and recess no. 1. Speaking tubes in the shell room corresponded 

with the telephone recesses, and the observation station could communicate with both 

telephone recesses and the office. Though not placed near the corner of the recess as 

instructed by Lt. Col. Marshall, the speaking-tube system was the original means of 

communication within Battery Gunnison. 

Electrical System 

In addition to the speaking-tube system, the Engineers also turned over 43 “steam tight” 

electric light fixtures to the Artillery Corps. The splayed recesses in the concrete walls for the 

light fixtures have been described previously. The recesses in the interior rooms were 

approximately 4 feet off the ground, and were 1 foot 4 inches wide by 2 feet high and 1 foot 

deep, with quarter-round molded outside edges. The exterior recesses were located higher 

on the south and north walls of the main block of the battery, and were smaller. There were 

also recessed fixtures in the parapet walls of both emplacements that were covered over by 

later alterations. The light fixtures for Battery Gunnison were controlled from a switchbox in 

the office.34 Battery Gunnison was connected to the main power plant of Fort Hancock in 

November 1911.35

Communication Systems 

The communication systems for Battery Gunnison were installed soon after the battery was 

completed. The Fort Record Book indicates that the initial system was installed in November 

1907, but does not provide the details of that system.36 Presumably it was a system that 

included communication to the recently complete fire-control station on Battery Potter and 

the battery commander station at Gunnison. Edwin Bearss noted that a terminal booth was 

installed at one of the emplacements in 1908,37 and the Emplacement Book noted that a 

standard communications system was installed in 1909.38 

The schematic of Battery Gunnison’s communications in 1909 indicated that orders were 

communicated to the battery commander station. The plan also diagramed the routes of 

communication for the battery (fig. 196). The diagram indicates that a system of 

communication between “Spotters” and “Readers” for each emplacement, the plotting room, 

and the battery commander station was coordinated for positioning and firing the guns. 

 34 Plan Showing Drainage and Electric Systems, Battery John Gunnison, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, 

November, 1905; Sheet 128-4, Drawer 45; RG 77; NACP. 

35 Hurlbut to Roessler Nov. 23, 1911; file 38651-494; General Correspondence 1894 -1923; Entry 

103; RG 77; NAB. 

36 Fort Record Book (revised Nov. 4, 1942), p. 74. 

37 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 340. 38 Battery Gunnison Emplacement Book. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

316

The Signal Corps installed telautographs and telephones at the emplacements in February 

1910.39 The telautograph reproduced handwriting and drawings by transmitting the 

movements of an electromagnetically controlled pen along a line to a similar pen at the 

receiving end.40 The noise of the battery made the use of telephones impractical, so the 

telautograph was installed at many U. S. coastal defense fortifications.41 However, the 

telautographs at Battery Gunnison were discontinued in 1911.42 Otherwise, the 

communication system for the battery continued as diagramed by the Coast Artillery. 

 39 Fort Record Book (revised Nov. 4, 1942), p. 74. 

40 CHIPS - The Department of the Navy Information Technology Magazine, website reference 

http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/03_spring/webpages/DaleSpring2003.htm. 41 CHIPS. 42 Battery Gunnison Emplacement Book. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

317

Figure 189. “Drainage and Electrical Systems for Battery John Gunnison, Fort Hancock, New Jersey. October 1905.” 

Plans showing emplacements and interior room layout and room designations. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

318

Figure 190. “Battery Gunnison, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Details of Steel Doors, Shutters, and Gratings for 

Two 6-inch R.F. Gun Emplacements. July 6, 1904.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

319

Figure 191. Battery Gunnison, view of retaining wall of emplacement 

loading platform, showing recesses for ammunition, ca. 1930. 

Figure 192. Battery Gunnison, view of north emplacement loading 

platform and parapet wall, ca. 1930. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

320

Figure 193. Battery Gunnison, view of west elevation of traverse and 

battery commander station, ca. 1930. 

Figure 194. Battery Gunnison, view looking from south emplacement toward 

south elevation of traverse, showing battery roof with vent chimney and 

battery commander station, ca. 1940. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

321

101 

102 

107 

106 

105 

103 

104 

Figure 195. Battery Gunnison, 1905 plan of battery with modern room numbers added. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

322

Figure 196. “Battery Gunnison, Schematic Communication Diagram.” 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

323

ALTERATIONS 

1908 to 1940

Battery Gunnison, like all similar batteries, needed a plotting room to function. The 1905 

plans of the battery did not include such a space, but in 1909 one of the rooms below the 

battery commander station was converted to a plotting room.43 This was most likely the 

former office (room 103), since it already had a communication link with the battery 

commander station and was located beneath that station. Documents from 1942 indicate 

that by that time, Battery Gunnison had two separate plotting rooms (not joined as they are 

today).44 The single large plotting room extant today combines the original guard room 

(room 102) and office (room 103). It seems likely that the guard room and the office were 

each converted to a plotting room sometime after the battery was completed – the office in 

1909, and the guard room sometime before 1942. 

Records document general maintenance and minor improvements to Battery Gunnison, but 

no major alterations were undertaken until the World War II era. A damaged retaining wall 

at the battery was repaired in September 1915.45 Regular maintenance at the battery included 

painting the ironwork, repairing the electrical wiring, and maintaining the drainage system, 

as well as repairs to the battery commander station’s windows.46 

Sand erosion was a problem at many of the emplacements at Fort Hancock, and Battery 

Gunnison was among them. A letter dated January 9, 1929, from the District Engineer to the 

Chief of Engineers noted that Battery Gunnison was one of five batteries that had suffered 

from sand erosion, and that the sand cover should be replaced.47

 43 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 340. 44 Brig. Gen. Haines, Headquarters New York-Philadelphia Sector, Fort Hamilton, N.Y., to 

Commanding General, Eastern Defense Command, August 17, 1942; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 

45 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 340. 46 Preservation and Repair, Miscellaneous; folder 16, box 35, Correspondence Relating to 

Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 47 Capt. R. Wilkinson to Chief of Engineers, Jan. 1, 1929; Preservation and Repair, Miscellaneous; 

folder 16, box 35, Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930; Entry 802; RG 77; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

324

1940 - 1945

U.S. military strategy at the beginning of World War II included a new plan for the harbor 

defenses of the continental United States.48 It had become evident that guns mounted on 

disappearing carriages were not capable of the same speed and range of fire of similar-size 

guns mounted en barbette. Guns mounted en barbette fired over parapet walls, and were 

typically mounted on carriages that were protected by an armored enclosure, and in some 

cases a gun shield.49 This design allowed the gun to be serviced more quickly than a gun on a 

disappearing carriage, and also provided a greater field of fire. Battery Gunnison’s 6-inch 

guns used disappearing carriages, and so the “Modernization of Harbor Defense Projects, 

Continental United States” authorized the abandonment of that battery on September 27, 

1940.50

Nevertheless, the Emplacement Book for Battery Gunnison indicates that its 6-inch gun 

emplacements on disappearing carriages remained active into 1942. The 1940 modernization 

project also called for a review of the effectiveness of Battery Peck. Battery Peck’s 6-inch 

rapid-fire guns, Model 1900, did use barbette pedestal mounts. However, the location of 

Battery Peck provided only limited coverage of the southern approach to New York Harbor 

via the Ambrose Channel, and the plotting room of the battery was not large enough to allow 

the installation of necessary new equipment. Apparently Battery Gunnison was kept active 

while the Local Board, Harbor Defenses of New York determined how to effectively utilize 

the resources at Fort Hancock. 

The Local Board, Harbor Defenses of New York, met at Fort Hancock on July 28, 1942, to 

determine whether the barbette guns at Battery Peck could be relocated. One possible 

solution discussed by the board was to remove the existing guns from Battery Gunnison and 

construct new platforms for mounting Battery Peck’s guns at Gunnison. 

The board’s initial recommendations called for the transfer of the guns at Battery Peck to 

Battery Halleck.51 However, Brig. Gen. R.E. Haines, Commanding, Headquarters, New York 

– Philadelphia Sector, Fort Hamilton, N.Y., also reviewed the proposal to relocate Battery 

Peck’s guns. Haines noted that Battery Gunnison was well sited to command the approaches 

to New York Harbor, and that the emplacements at Gunnison could be modified to 

accommodate Battery Peck’s 6-inch guns mounted on barbette carriages. Haines also noted 

that if the War Department should modify its policy of abandoning all disappearing-carriage 

batteries, then Battery Gunnison as constituted should be kept in the Harbor Defense Project 

to “ameliorate the situation caused by the limitations of Battery Peck.”52 The 

“indorsement”of Brig. Gen. Haines’s letter by Lt. Col. S.E. Senior, Asst. Adjutant General, 

 48 Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory History 

(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1970), p. 116. 49 Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbette. 50 Fort Record Book (revised Nov. 4, 1942), p. 27c. 51 Brig. Gen. Philip Gage, President, Commanding General, Local Board, Harbor Defenses of New 

York, July 28, 1942; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 52 Brig. Gen. Haines, Headquarters New York-Philadelphia Sector, Fort Hamilton, N.Y., to 

Commanding General, Eastern Defense Command, August 17, 1942; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

325

recommended that if the relocation of Battery Peck was not possible, the battery should be 

placed in “Class C” caretaker status, and that Battery Gunnison should be placed in “Class A” 

status.53 The importance of the site at Battery Gunnison, and the need to modernize the 

emplacements there, was apparently recognized by the War Department. Recommendations 

to relocate the 6-inch guns on barbette mounts from Battery Peck to Battery Gunnison were 

approved on February 22, 1943.54

After its rearmament, Battery Gunnison was assigned to Harbor Entrance Control Post #1 

atop Battery Potter.55 As part of the harbor entrance control system, Battery Gunnison 

served as an active part of the harbor entrance control system from 1943 through 1945. 

During this period, Gunnison was operated as an Examination Battery.56 The primary 

function of the Examination Battery was to track targets identified by the Advanced Harbor 

Entrance Control Post #1 and to fire upon the targets when ordered. The orders were 

typically given as instructions to fire “bring-to” shots with inert ammunition. This was 

intended to stop the ship so that proper clearance could be given for it to continue into New 

York Harbor. The orders for destructive fire were “Destruction fire with armor piercing 

(high explosive) ammunition begin firing.”57 The documents reviewed indicated that Battery 

Gunnison fired “bring to” shots on two occasions in 1943.58

New Battery Peck 

Brig. Gen. Haines’s letter included an “informal estimate” for converting Battery Gunnison 

that totaled $24,380. Among other items, the estimate included raising the emplacement 

platforms, gas-proofing the plotting room, cutting a doorway through the partition in the 

plotting room (thus joining the two smaller plotting rooms), and installing two shell hoists.59

Gunnison’s original 6-inch guns, Model 1903, serial nos. 5 and 34, and the disappearing 

carriages, Model 1903, serial nos. 52 and 57, were dismounted and removed from the battery 

to allow the modifications to commence. The guns were shipped to the Watervliet Arsenal 

on May 10, 1943, and the carriages were dismantled by Samuels Sons Iron and Steel 

Company, Brooklyn, N.Y., and sold as salvage on November 2, 1944.60 This marked the end 

of Battery Gunnison’s function as an Endicott System battery, and the beginning of the New 

Battery Peck. 

 53 Haines to Commanding General, Eastern Defense Command, August 17, 1942; also Lt. Col. S.E. 

Senior, Asst. Adjutant General, Nov. 9, 1942, 5th Ind.; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 54 Fort Record Book (revised Nov. 4, 1942), p. 27c. 

55 Major C.G. Bovis, Coast Artillery Corps, “History of HECP [Harbor Entrance Control Post], Fort 

Wadsworth, New York.” Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 56 Michael Murray, Army Ground Forces Association, citing “History of the New York - 

Philadelphia Sector.” 57 “History of HECP”; Enclosure “M”, p. 1. 

58 “History of HECP”; Section V, pp. 11 – 12. 

59 Haines to Commanding General, Eastern Defense Command, August 17, 1942. 60 Battery Gunnison Emplacement Book. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

326

Plans for the modifications to Battery Gunnison dated February 16, 1943, depicted the 

alterations and additions to the battery in eight sheets of drawings. The drawings showed 

general plans as well as alterations to the emplacement platforms, including the new plotting 

room, gas-proof doors and shutters, and ammunition hoists, and other details for the 

modernization of Battery Gunnison (figs. 197-199).61

One major modification necessary to emplace Peck’s 6-inch guns on barbette mounts at 

Battery Gunnison was to raise the semicircular platform of each existing emplacement by 

approximately 6 feet. The outer walls of the original loading platform were retained, but the 

ammunition recesses were filled in with reinforcing bars and concrete. A retaining wall was 

built above the existing semicircular wall of each emplacement. The plans indicate that the 

new retaining walls were constructed with a footing 3 feet 6 inches deep and 1 foot thick; the 

walls themselves were 1 foot 3 inches thick. The new retaining walls supported the concrete 

gun platform of the modernized emplacement. 

The new concrete gun platform consisted of two areas. One was a level area around the 

perimeter of the gun platform, and the other was the area on which the gun carriages were 

mounted. The level area of the platform was constructed with a concrete slab laid on top of 

compact fill that was added over the original platform of the disappearing gun. The retaining 

wall held the fill in place and formed the outer wall of the new platform. The existing gun 

wells were filled with concrete to support the area of the platform where the gun carriages 

were mounted. This section of the platform was raised approximately 1 foot above the level 

of the perimeter platform, and the outer edges sloped down to the level of the gun platform. 

The alteration of the gun platforms also required the removal of concrete from a large section 

of the existing parapet wall. The plans indicate that a section 4 feet 7 inches thick that 

followed the horizontal arc of the guns rotation was removed from the parapet wall. The 

section of wall was finished with a smooth parge coat of concrete. 

Each new platform was accessed by two cast, reinforced-concrete stairways (fig. 198). A 

stairway located near the east parapet wall had 12 steps, and another stairway on the west 

side of the platform had 14 steps and a landing leading to the loading platform. The west 

stairway was supported by four reinforced-concrete piers on concrete footings. Both 

stairways were equipped with 1 1⁄2-inch pipe railings that also extended around the perimeter 

of the new platform. 

The efficiency of the modified battery depended partly on the speed of the ammunition 

delivery system. The ammunition for the original guns at Battery Gunnison had been carried 

to the emplacements by the Artillery personnel. The new armament would require a more 

effective form of delivery (fig. 198). This problem was solved by bringing to Battery 

Gunnison the hand-cranked ammunition hoists that had served the guns when they were at 

Battery Peck. These were installed on concrete base pads in the 8-foot-wide corridors that 

led to the shell room. 

 61 “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions, Fort Hancock, 

New Jersey, Feb. 16, 1943,” 8 sheets; Corps of Engineers, War Department. Copies at Gateway NRA, 

Sandy Hook. The descriptions of the alterations are based on the 1943 drawings and observation of 

existing conditions. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

327

However, getting the ammunition from the shell room to the loading platforms on the roof of 

the battery required extensive modifications to Battery Gunnison. First, a shaft measuring 2 

feet 8 inches by 3 feet 4 1⁄2 inches had to be cut through the 3-foot-thick concrete ceiling of the 

corridor above each hoist. The top of the shaft, at roof level, was covered by a three-sided 

“shed” with a roof, all constructed of concrete. Just in front of the shaft opening, a concrete 

shelf with metal runners was built to help unload the ammunition delivered by the hoist. In 

addition, a concrete platform was created in front of the shaft opening to provide work space 

for the personnel unloading the hoist. The platform measured 6 feet to the edge of the roof, 

and was 10 feet 8 inches wide. A knee-high retaining wall was constructed on either side of 

the hoist shed, enclosing three sides of the platform; it was open at the roof edge. 

Ammunition passed from the hoist platform to the loading platform of the emplacement by 

means of a new concrete bridge. As with the stairways and platform, both sides of each 

bridge were equipped with a pipe railing. 

The modification of Battery Gunnison included some interior alterations, as well. The initial 

planning of the project proposed cutting a doorway in the partition between the two existing 

plotting rooms (formerly the guard room and the office, Rooms 102 and 103, respectively). 

However, the final plan called for removed practically all of the partition, creating a large 

plotting room with an overall measurement of 20 feet 9 inches wide by 22 feet long. The 1943 

plans indicate that a new concrete floor was laid in the plotting room after the partition was 

removed, and that the original floor drains were sealed (fig. 197). The 2-foot-thick walls that 

partitioned the new plotting room from the adjacent rooms remained intact, as did the 

concrete ceiling. 

When the new plotting room was created, some of the existing openings of rooms 102 and 

103 were altered. On the west wall, the two windows and the north doorway were bricked 

up, with the exception of a 1-foot-square vent shaft left in the location of the former north 

doorway. This vent shaft was fitted with a steel gas-proof shutter. The southern doorway on 

the west wall was widened to 4 feet 2 1⁄2 inches, and a steel gas-proof door was installed here 

(fig. 199). On the east wall of the new plotting room, the two openings into the shell room 

were also bricked up; again, a 1-foot-square vent shaft with a steel gas-proof shutter was 

created in the location of the former southern opening. A new doorway was cut into the 

north wall of the plotting room, connecting it to the former battery storage room (room 101). 

This doorway was equipped with a steel door that, according to the plans, was a “semi-gasproof” door. The original recesses for the “fireplaces” in both the north and south walls were 

sealed during the alterations to the battery. The south wall of the new plotting room was 

otherwise unaltered. Once the original openings had been sealed and the new openings 

equipped with gas-proof doors and shutters, the new plotting room provided a gas-proof 

environment for the Artillery personnel. 

Additional alterations to Battery Gunnison at that time included the creation of an air lock in 

the former storage battery room (room 101), and the conversion of that room for storage of 

service equipment for chemical warfare. The air lock measured 4 feet 6 inches square on the 

interior, and was constructed in the southeast corner of the room. The air lock was 

constructed of brick, and the doorway from the storage room was equipped with a steel gasproof door. The original window in the storage battery room was sealed with bricks, but the 

original steel door was left intact. The plans indicate that the room was also used as the 

heater room. For that purpose, a new flue was cut through the ceiling, and a new chimney 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

328

was constructed at the roof level. Along with other alterations to the new plotting room, the 

air lock ensured that the plotting room remained impervious to a gas attack. 

The gas-proof system installed at Battery Gunnison required a means of venting the plotting 

room and the air lock. A new system consisting of vent pipes 4 inches in diameter and a 

blower were installed at the battery to exhaust air and bring in fresh air. The pipes were hung 

from the ceiling in the plotting room and secured to the west exterior wall. These pipes led to 

the “intake” stacks, which were installed at the northwest and southwest corners of the main 

block of the battery. 

Improvements to Battery Gunnison at the time also included updating some of the electrical 

service, and the installation of a hot-water heating system. The plans suggest that the 

improvements to the electrical system occurred only in room 101 and the new plotting room, 

but that they included the installation of light fixtures along the perimeter railing of each 

emplacement. The new boiler installed in room 101 was connected to four radiators in the 

new plotting room. The other rooms of the battery remained unheated. 

The alterations and additions to Battery Gunnison were completed by May 1943,62 and the 

plans were “certified as constructed” on October 21, 1943.63 After the alterations were 

completed, the armament from Battery Peck was transferred to Battery Gunnison. This 

included the two 6-inch guns, Model 1900, serial nos. 27 and 28, and their barbette carriages, 

Model 1900, serial nos. 12 and 17. The modernized battery was designated as New Battery 

Peck (fig. 200). It featured shell hoists, a large gas-proof plotting room, and updated systems. 

The battery was no longer assigned to the Mine Command, but was now part of the defenses 

against motor torpedo boats.64

During this same period, additional support structures for Battery Gunnison and the 

defenses of Sandy Hook were constructed. These were depicted in one of the World War II 

maps of Fort Hancock (fig. 202). 

1945 – 1974

The rapid reduction in the armed forces and defense spending after victory in World War II 

led to the deactivation and removal of most of the coastal defense guns at Sandy Hook. 

However, the 6-inch guns at New Battery Peck/Battery Gunnison were retained until 1948, 

when they were replaced by a pair of similar 6-inch guns that were removed from Battery 

Livingston at Fort Hamilton and mounted on the existing barbette carriages.65 These guns 

remained in place until the mid-1960s, when the guns and carriages were moved to a 

Smithsonian Institution facility at Silver Hill, Maryland. It was intended that they would be 

installed in a new Armed Forces Museum. However, plans for the museum were 

 62 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 343. 63 “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions.” 

64 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 343. 65 Bearss, The Sandy Hook Defenses, p. 343. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

329

subsequently abandoned, and the 6-inch guns and carriages were returned to Fort Hancock 

on February 19, 1975, and later remounted at Battery Gunnison.66

Battery Gunnison was maintained by the Artillery Corps until Fort Hancock was turned over 

to the Department of the Interior in 1974. The concrete bridge from the shell hoist to the gun 

platform at the north emplacement was demolished prior to the transfer of the battery from 

the U.S. military to the National Park Service. 

1974 – Present

The National Park Service has maintained and preserved Battery Gunnison since 1975. Soon 

after acquiring Fort Hancock, the park determined that Battery Gunnison should be 

restored, and that it should have its 6-inch guns and carriages reinstalled and painted olive 

drab green to match its World War II color (fig. 201).67 Since that time, the park has 

maintained Battery Gunnison as the only armed emplacement at Sandy Hook. 

Battery Gunnison’s location at the head of Gunnison Beach, and its consequent accessibility 

for interpretive programs, make it an important feature of the Coastal Fortification Zone at 

Sandy Hook, which is zoned for resource protection.68

Though Battery Gunnison was not one of the specific batteries investigated by the 1990 

project “Stabilization of Historic Concrete Batteries at Fort Hancock,” the effort was 

designed to provide data that could be applied to all of the batteries at Fort Hancock.69 The 

technical information and the recommendations of the report have been taken in to 

consideration in the maintenance of Battery Gunnison. 

The National Park Service demolished the concrete bridge from the south emplacement’s 

loading platform to the adjacent shell-hoist shed on the roof of the battery in 2001 due to 

safety hazards. In 2003 the park addressed additional safety concerns; one project included 

the replacement of the metal pipe railing on the stairways of the battery emplacements and 

around the perimeter of the gun platforms of each emplacement. The park installed new 

rolling doors in the entrance doorways to the interior of the battery, and installed new 

lighting inside the battery in 2003. 

 66 Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1948-1974, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

November 1982), p. 3; also Park Historian Hoffman. 67 Jack E. Stark, NARO Regional Director, to Superintendent, Gateway NRA, July 7, 1977. Copy at 

Northeast Region offices, 115 John Street, Lowell, MA. 68 General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretation Prospectus: 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, January 1990), p. 13. 69 Todd Rutenbeck, Stabilization Investigations, Historic Concrete Batteries, Fort Hancock, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, June 1990). 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

330

Since 2003 a volunteer group, the Army Ground Forces Association, has been conducting 

living-history demonstrations and performing maintenance at Battery Gunnison. The group 

has painted the interior rooms of the battery, and has repaired the north shell hoist. 

Battery Gunnison is included in the park’s plan to rehabilitate, preserve, and interpret 

significant Endicott System gun batteries at Fort Hancock. The Project Management 

Information System states that the repairs at Battery Gunnison will focus on stabilizing 

spalling concrete and deteriorated walkways. These repairs will address critical visitor safety 

concerns, and allow increased access to Battery Gunnison.70

 70 Project Information Management System (PMIS) 57952. NPS website http://165.83.198.10/ 

pmis_search_projectdetail.cfm. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

331

Figure 197. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Feb. 16, 

1943.” Sheet no. 1 of 8. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

332

Figure 198. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions, Structural Details No. 3, Fort 

Hancock, New Jersey, Feb. 16, 1943.” Sheet no. 4 of 8. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

333

Figure 199. “Harbor Defenses of New York, Battery Gunnison, Alterations and Additions, Gasproof Door and Shutter, Fort 

Hancock, New Jersey, Feb. 16, 1943.” Sheet no. 7 of 8. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

334

Figure 200. Battery Gunnison, gun emplacement with 6-inch rapidfire gun on barbette carriage. 

Figure 201. Battery Gunnison, gun emplacement after reinstallation 

of 6-inch guns on barbette carriages by park, 1977. 
DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

335

Figure 202. Detail of Battery Gunnison/New Battery Peck and surrounding structures during World War II. 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

337

CURRENT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

Introduction

The following physical description of Battery Gunnison is meant to augment the descriptions 

in the preceding sections “Original Appearance” and “Alterations.” The extant elements of 

the battery are both original features and alterations that date to the modernization of the 

battery in 1943 and thereafter. Those descriptions should be considered as part of the 

current physical description, and will not be reiterated here. 

A plan of Battery Gunnison with room numbers is provided as a reference for the interior 

rooms of the battery (fig. 195). The south emplacement is emplacement no. 1, and the north 

emplacement is emplacement no. 2. The photographs included with this section are 

intended to illustrate the current physical description. An existing condition assessment of 

Battery Gunnison was the subject of a separate report, Structural Analysis and Historic 

Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery.

71 Therefore, a section on 

existing conditions was not included with this report. However, it should be noted that the 

current condition is good, as documented in many of the photographs provided in this 

report. The interior rooms of the battery appear to be dry and well-maintained. The exterior 

of Battery Gunnison does have areas of deteriorated and spalling concrete, but the 

stabilization of the battery should address these issues and make the battery safe and 

accessible. 

Battery Gunnison – Exterior Elements

Overview 

The overall configuration of Battery Gunnison retains the D-shape of the original structure. 

The eastern portions of the battery remain buried in sand and covered with vegetation (fig. 

203). The natural cover of the battery extends up to the parapet wall and covers the roof of 

the main block of the battery. The natural cover appears to be stable, but may be subject to 

erosion. In some cases, the vegetation has become overgrown and obstructs the original 

range of the battery. 

 71 Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (May 2005), section 2, pp. 

1-2 and 5. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

338

As described in the section on alterations, portions of the concrete parapet wall were 

removed when the guns from Battery Peck were moved to Battery Gunnison (fig. 204). With 

the exception of these alterations, the parapet wall appears to retain its original form. Some 

spalling has occurred, and reinforcing bars are exposed in some sections. This condition 

exists primarily along the curved section in front of the guns, which is the portion of the wall 

that was altered in 1943. 

A concrete slab platform that forms the foundation of Battery Gunnison extends west of the 

main block. Based on the plans reviewed, the platform appears to be approximately 6 inches 

thick and is constructed of reinforced concrete. The platform forms the walkway around the 

perimeter of the main block, and extends along the west side of each emplacement. The 

walkway appears to be stable but cracked, and vegetation has grown up in many of the 

cracks. 

Emplacement No. 1 

Emplacement no. 1, at the south end of Battery Gunnison, is comprised of some original 

elements and some 1943 alterations (fig. 205). The base of the emplacement is a semicircular 

concrete slab that is 18 inches above the foundation platform; this is accessed by two 

concrete steps at the junction of the base and the traverse of the battery. From this concrete 

base, there is access to the doorway into the powder passage (room 107) and to the east 

stairway of the emplacement. 

The semicircular retaining wall was constructed on the previously described base. The wall is 

comprised of the original wall and the sections of retaining wall added in 1943. This 

reinforced-concrete structure rises approximately 10 feet above the level of the lower 

platform and forms the outer wall of the emplacement. The wall shows signs of efflorescence 

and spalling. 

The concrete retaining wall supports the gun platforms of the emplacement. As previously 

described, the perimeter of the gun platform is a concrete slab over compacted fill. The area 

of the platform where the gun carriages are mounted rises above the perimeter of the 

platform. It also is constructed of reinforced concrete. The pedestal-mounted barbette 

carriage for the gun is centered on the raised part of the gun platform, and the 6-inch gun is 

mounted on the carriage. The gun platform has pipe railing extending around its perimeter 

that was installed by the National Park Service. 

The platform of the emplacement is accessed by two concrete stairways. On the west side of 

the emplacement is a freestanding cast-concrete stairway that leads from the perimeter 

platform to a landing at the level of the loading platform. The stairway landing is supported 

by four reinforced-concrete columns that are 1 foot thick and which rest on 3-foot-square 

footings. The footings and columns closest to the retaining wall were built on top of the 

emplacement’s base level, and the outer footings and columns extend from the perimeter 

platform level. The stairway has 1 1⁄2 -inch pipe railing on both sides that was installed by the 

National Park Service; this is connected to the perimeter pipe railing at the level of the gun 

platform. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

339

The east stairway leads up from the emplacement’s base level and was attached at the top of 

the retaining wall. This stairway was also constructed from cast concrete and equipped with 

pipe railings on either side. 

The cast-concrete bridge that had connected the loading platform of the emplacement with 

the shell-hoist shed on the roof of the battery was demolished by the National Park Service in 

2001. 

Emplacement No. 2 

Emplacement no. 2 (fig. 206), at the north end of Battery Gunnison, is a mirror image of 

emplacement no. 1, and it retains the same elements as the southern emplacement. The 

northern emplacement has similar conditions of spalling concrete and some vegetative 

growth. Both emplacements at Battery Gunnison appear to be stable. The emplacements 

retain their integrity as the modernized 1943 battery, and are currently armed with 6-inch 

guns mounted en barbette (fig. 207). 

The exterior walls of the traverse of the battery have not been extensively altered since the 

1943 modernization. The west wall retains the vestiges of the original openings of the battery 

(fig. 208). Three of the four windows were sealed with brick in 1943, as was one of the 

doorways. The north and south doorways are in their original locations, and retain their 

original steel doors. The one remaining doorway near the center of the battery was altered in 

1943, and its extant steel door dates from that period. All of the steel doors are difficult to 

operate. The only original window is at the south end of the battery; it retains its original 

steel shutters. This elevation was originally constructed with a concrete bas-relief sign that 

read “BATTERY JOHN GUNNISON.” However, the John Gunnison portion of the sign was 

chipped away when the battery was redesignated New Battery Peck in 1943. 

The west wall has a large area of rust staining under the supports for the battery commander 

station, and other smaller areas of rust staining, as well. There is efflorescence below the two 

center windows and in other portions of the wall. Both the north and south corners show 

signs of water problems that are related to the roof drainage system. Overall, the west wall 

appears to be stable, with only minor spalling at the corners. 

The elements of the north and south exterior walls mirror each other and are in similar 

condition. Each of the two 8-foot-wide doorways to the interior passages of the battery is 

equipped with a modern roll-up door that was installed by the park. The original steel-grate 

double doors are intact behind the modern door. Each wall’s telephone recess is intact, and 

its speaking-tube fixtures are extant (figs. 209-210). The plans from 1943 noted that some of 

the speaking tubes were sealed, but these tubes were not tested during the site visit. The steel 

door for the telephone recess is no longer in place. East of the telephone recess, the recess 

for the original hydrant remains. Beyond that, the recess in the wall for the iron door from 

the powder passage is also intact. Along the top of the wall, three splayed recesses for light 

fixtures are extant, but they are no longer used for lighting. The cornice of the wall is formed 

by a 6-inch-wide coping that runs the length of the wall, and also forms the edge of the roof. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

340

The north and south walls of the main block appear to be in good condition. There are some 

areas of water staining on the walls and cornice, which appear to be associated with roof 

drainage problems (fig. 211). 

Roof 

The roof of the battery remains covered with sand and low-growing vegetation (fig. 204). 

The natural cover of the roof appears to be stable, but may be subject to erosion. It appears 

that the thick concrete roof structure below the cover is intact and stable. The concrete vent 

chimneys on the north and south sides of the roof are extant, but the vent caps are missing. 

Other chimneys rising from the interior of the battery appear to be sealed. The north and 

south edges of the roof structure were constructed with gutters and drains in efforts to keep 

the interior of the battery dry, and to conduct the water away from the structure (fig. 212). 

This drainage system is not working properly, and there is standing water in the gutters. As 

previously noted, the water is also overflowing the gutters and running down the exterior 

walls, causing water stains and standing water at the base of the walls. 

The remains of the battery commander station are situated on the west side of the battery at 

the roof level. The wooden elements of the station are no longer extant. The reinforcedconcrete walls that form the lower sections of the north, east, and south elevations of the 

structure are intact. The floor of the station is intact, including the cantilevered section that 

extends beyond the west wall. The steel I-beams that support the cantilevered section of 

floor are also intact, and are causing rust stains on the west wall. The iron stairway that 

provided access from the ground level was removed by the National Park Service circa 1976. 

The concrete “sheds” over the two shell hoists on the roof of Battery Gunnison (fig. 213) date 

to 1943. Their concrete walls and roofs remain, as do the concrete retaining knee walls on 

either side of the sheds. The concrete shelves in front of the hoist openings are deteriorated; 

the metal runners they once supported are not extant. The interior walls of the shell-hoist 

shafts are painted white. 

Battery Gunnison – Interior Elements

The interior of Battery Gunnison is relatively unchanged since the 1943 alterations and 

additions to the battery. The interior of the battery appears to be stable, and the rooms are 

clean and well-maintained. All of the interior rooms at Battery Gunnison are currently wired 

with metal conduit pipes and utility light fixtures with sealed globes that are protected with 

wire cages. Overall, the interior rooms appear to be dry, and they do not exhibit the same 

levels of moisture found in other batteries in the park. The volunteer reenactment group, the 

Army Ground Forces Association, has been responsible for maintaining Battery Gunnison 

since 2003. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

341

Along the west side of the battery, the interior rooms currently consist of the storage room 

for chemical-weapons service equipment (room 101), the 1943 plotting room (rooms 102 and 

103), and the store room (104). Room 101 is currently used as a general storage room by both 

the park and the Army Ground Forces Association. The 1943 air lock is intact and complete 

with its gas-proof doorway (fig. 214). The plotting room can still be accessed from the 

exterior through a doorway in the west wall, which was upgraded to a gas-proof doorway in 

1943. The plotting room is also accessible from room 101 through the air lock (fig. 215). The 

concrete floors, walls, and ceiling retain their 1943 configuration, along with some original 

elements, as described previously. The original windows and one of the original doorways 

were sealed with bricks in 1943, but these former openings are still evident. They retain their 

1943 alterations, including the 1-foot-square vents with steel shutters. The pipes for the 1943 

ventilation system that hung from the ceiling of the plotting room have been recreated for 

display and interpretive purposes. The plotting room is currently used by the reenacting 

association, and has been equipped with a plotting board and various World War II 

communications equipment. The store room is used by the park and the association to store 

supplies, paint, and other material for the maintenance of the battery and the guns. The 

room retains its original configuration, as well as the original iron grating in the window and 

the original steel shutters on the exterior of the window. The original steel door to this room 

is also extant. 

The three rooms along the west side of the battery are well-maintained and have been 

recently painted. The floors remain unfinished concrete. The walls are currently painted 

white with a black base. The black paint is applied from the floor level to chair-rail level – 

approximately 3 feet above the floor. The upper portion of the walls and the entire ceiling 

are painted white. The steel doors and shutters are painted black. 

The corridors that lead from the north and south exterior doorways to the shell room (room 

105) in the interior of the battery retain the 1943 features previously described. The shell 

hoists that were installed in 1943 for raising the ammunition to the roof level are extant in 

both corridors. However, the hoist mechanism in the south corridor has been partially 

dismantled. The hoist mechanism in the north corridor is still operative (fig. 216), and its 

steel components have been painted green. 

The shell room has not been significantly changed since the 1943 alterations (fig. 217). The 

concrete floor, walls, and ceiling appear to be stable and are well-maintained. The floor is 

unfinished and features a perimeter drain. The walls and ceiling are painted white with a 

black baseboard-height strip at the bottom of the wall. The corners of the room are painted 

with a black vertical strip that mimics a corner board. The steel doorway surrounds and 

doors, as well as the other steel elements in the room, are painted black. The room retains 

some original features, including the recesses for electrical light fixtures (the lights are not 

extant) and the brass fixtures for the speaker tubes leading to the emplacement telephone 

recesses. The doorways to the powder room retain the gas-proof doors that were installed in 

1943. 

The cartridge or powder room (room 106) also retains some original elements and 1943 

alterations (fig. 218). The floor, walls, and ceilings of the room are well-maintained and 

appear to be stable. The original recesses for light fixtures remain, but the fixtures do not. 

The powder room is painted in the same manner as the adjacent shell room. The east-wall 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

342

doorways to the powder passage are equipped with gas-proof steel doors that date to the 1943 

alterations. 

The powder passage (room 107) remains relatively unchanged since the original construction 

of Battery Gunnison. The alterations to the battery in 1943 did not affect this area, and the 

concrete walls, floors, and ceiling retain their 1904 configuration. The walls and ceiling have 

been painted in a manner similar to the shell room, but are otherwise unchanged. The 

original recesses for light fixtures are extant, but the modern lighting equipment does not use 

them, being mounted to the ceiling. The steel rack attached to the east wall appears to date to 

the original period of construction, and probably held ramming rods and gun-barrel cleaning 

rods. The north and south ends of the powder passage each retain the three concrete steps 

that ascend to exterior doorways located next to the east ends of the north and south walls of 

the traverse (fig. 205). As previously described, the doorways allowed ammunition to be 

carried out of the powder passage and up to the loading platforms of the guns. The doorways 

retain their original steel-grating doors and the exterior steel doors that open into the 

recesses in the north and south walls of the traverse. 

In summary, the interior spaces of Battery Gunnison retain many original elements and 1943 

alterations. The rooms appear to be dry and well-maintained. Stabilization of the exterior of 

the battery will ensure the continued stable condition of the interior rooms of the battery. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

343

Figure 203. Battery Gunnison, view of sand embankment and north gun 

emplacement, looking south, 2006. 

Figure 204. Battery Gunnison, view of north emplacement from roof of 

traverse, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

344

Figure 205. Battery Gunnison, view of south emplacement, looking 

east, 2006. Note doorway to powder passage, located between 

traverse (at left) and emplacement (at right).

Figure 206. Battery Gunnison, view of north emplacement retaining 

wall and west stairway, looking east, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

345

Figure 207. Battery Gunnison, south gun mounted on barbette 

carriage, 2006. 

Figure 208. Battery Gunnison, west and south elevations of traverse of 

battery, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

346

Figure 210. Battery 

Gunnison, brass fixture 

for speaking-tube system 

connecting to the shell 

room, 2006. 

Figure 209. Battery 

Gunnison, southelevation “telephone” 

station; shows brass 

fixtures for speakingtube system on east wall 

of booth, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

347

Figure 212. Battery 

Gunnison, gutter at south 

edge of roof, 2006. 

Figure 211. Battery 

Gunnison, southwest 

corner of battery; 

shows cornice coping, 

down- spout, and water 

damage, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

348

Figure 213. Battery Gunnison, 1943 shell-hoist shed for south 

emplacement, 2006. 

Figure 214. Battery Gunnison, 1943 air lock in storage room (room 

101) for chemical-weapons service equipment, 2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

349

Figure 215. Battery Gunnison, 1943 plotting room, looking northwest, 2006. 

Figure 216. Battery 

Gunnison, shell hoist 

for north emplacement, 

2006. 
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY: BATTERY GUNNISON

350

Figure 217. Battery Gunnison, shell room (room 105), looking 

southeast, 2006. 

Figure 218. Battery Gunnison, cartridge/powder room (room 106), 

looking south, 2006. 
351 

CHARACTER-DEFINING 

FEATURES AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

353 

INTRODUCTION 

A historic structure may be significant for its architectural features and/or its association with 

historic events and persons. The character-defining features (CDFs) of a structure are those 

visual features and elements that define the structure and contribute to its historic integrity. 

To retain the historic integrity of a structure, it is important to retain and preserve its CDFs. 

Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison are all part of the Coastal 

Fortification Zone within the Fort Hancock Gateway Village, and will play a role there in the 

interpretation of the coastal defenses of the United States and Sandy Hook. The proposed 

treatment for Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery Gunnison, in accordance with 

the GMP and GMP Amendment, is rehabilitation and interpretation.1

 The rehabilitation of a 

structure includes the retention of CDFs. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation address this in the definition of “rehabilitation,” which is “the process of 

returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible 

an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property 

which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”2

 The Secretary of the 

Interior further addresses rehabilitation in the following standards: 

1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that requires minimal 

change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive 

materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a 

property will be avoided. 

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that 

create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements 

from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be 

retained and preserved. 

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of 

deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old 

in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will 

be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 

 1 General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretation Prospectus: 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New Jersey (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, January 1990), pp. 9 and 13. 2

 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995), p. 61. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

354 

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means 

possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be 

disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic 

materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work 

shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, 

size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its 

environment. 

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner 

that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its 

environment would be unimpaired.3

The following sections will identify the character-defining features and make 

recommendations for the rehabilitation of Battery Potter, the Mortar Battery, and Battery 

Gunnison. Rehabilitation efforts are proposed in a project submitted to the NPS’s Project 

Management Information Systems (PMIS): “Repair Structural Elements for Safe Visitor 

Access at Batteries Gunnison, Potter & Mortar – Sandy Hook” (PMIS #57952). The work 

would also provide increased visitor access, and enhance the park’s historic attractions and 

programs.4

A separate report, Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, was prepared in support of the PMIS rehabilitation project. 

This report includes recommendations for the stabilization of Battery Potter, the Mortar 

Battery, and Battery Gunnison. The recommendations deal with the issues of masonry 

stabilization, water infiltration, drainage, ventilation, erosion, vegetation, lighting, and 

hazardous materials and conditions.5

 Upon review, the recommendations of that report do 

appear to conform to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and would 

assist in the stabilization of the historic gun batteries at Fort Hancock.

This HSR does not contain a section on landscape characteristics. However, they are 

important to the history and context of the gun batteries. Other reports generated on this 

subject for Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, should be consulted prior 

to any work on the site.6

 In addition, a project entitled “Prepare Sandy Hook Cultural 

Landscape Plan for Batteries at Sandy Hook,” PMIS #10288, has been funded and is expected 

to begin in the fall of 2007. 

 3

 NPS website http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/stanguide/rehab/rehab_standards.htm. 4

 PMIS Project Detail Sheet, PMIS #57952. NPS website http://165.83.198.10/pmis_search_ 

projectdetail.cfm. 5 Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, 

Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey (May 2005), section 2, pp. 

1-4. 

6 These include but are not limited to the following: Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan for Fort 

Hancock, by Lisa Nowak and H. Elliot Foulds; Cultural Landscape Report for Proving Ground and 

Wartime Expansion Areas, by Norma E. Williams; and Historic Landscape Assessment for Fort 

Hancock, by H. Elliot Foulds. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

355 

BATTERY POTTER 

Character-Defining Features

Exterior Elements 

Design and Context 

• The overall massing and configuration of the D-shaped concrete battery. 

• The sand embankments that surround the battery, and the native vegetation that held 

the sand in place and served as camouflage, including marsh sod, native heath, and 

cedars. 

• The overall design of Battery Potter as the first Endicott System “Gun-lift Battery,” 

including the arrangement of the two emplacements. 

• The “defensible entrance” of Battery Potter, including the fortress-like design with its 

gun ports and gun loops with embrasures. 

• The chemin de ronde, as part of the defenses for Battery Potter, and as an integral part of 

the masonry construction. 

• Extant features of the ammunition-delivery system, including overhead trolleys in shot 

magazines, narrow-gauge rail road tracks, and turntables, as well as openings in loading 

galleries for ammunition lifts. 

• Extant features of the stabilized ruins of the primary fire-control stations, including the 

layout of the stations on the terreplein of Battery Potter, the standard design features of 

the stations, and the extant elements of the fire-control station for the Mortar Battery. 

Materials 

• Massive battery structure constructed of concrete made with “Rosendale” natural 

cement. 

• The granite blocks used to construct the defensible entrance, and used on the cornice of 

the exterior walls; additional significance because they were reused from the “Fort at 

Sandy Hook.” 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

356 

• The exterior doors, including the steel-grate doors and gates, and the steel-clad wooden 

doors. 

• The concrete-slab foundation for the former Mortar Battery’s fire-control station, 

situated in the southwest corner of the battery’s terreplein. 

• The concrete piers for “Type A” range-finding instruments, on the concrete slab 

foundation of the former fire-control station for the Mortar Battery. 

• The exterior cast-iron stairway added in 1915 to provide additional access to the 

terreplein of Battery Potter. 

• The terraced concrete platform near the northwest corner of the battery’s terreplein 

that was initially used as a range-finding pier, and was later used to launch weather 

balloons. 

• The steel signal tower on the north side of the chemin de rounde. 

Interior Elements 

Plan 

• The layout of interior galleries, rooms, and magazines – including the long transverse 

galleries and the expansive main gallery/boiler room and accumulator room – which 

conveys the function of the spaces, and the use of the two halves of the battery relative 

to the north and south emplacements. 

• The design and elements of the loading galleries on the second story, especially the 

change in design from the north emplacement, which was constructed with an inclined 

arch ceiling, to the south emplacement, which was constructed with a flat ceiling using 

steel I-beams. 

• The unique features that were built to accommodate the gun-lift mechanism, including 

niches in the walls of the first-story magazines and the second-story casemates that 

allowed access to the large bolts holding the gun-lift guide rails in place. 

• The interior plan of the defensible entrance and the elements related to the defense of 

the battery, including gun loops with embrasures and gun ports with mounting shelves 

for Gatling guns. 

Floors 

• The flagstone floors in sections of the first story, and in the loading galleries on the 

second story. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

357 

• The extant elements of the ammunition-delivery tracks, including the rails and 

turntables in the galleries, and especially the gun metal/bronze turntables and rails in 

the magazine galleries. 

Walls 

• The niches in the concrete walls for the auxiliary lantern lighting, which had initially 

been planned as the primary light source for the battery. 

• The granite walls in the second-story loading galleries. 

• The granite blocks used in construction of the north and south gun-lift shafts, to better 

anchor the bolts for the mechanism. 

Ceilings 

• The vaulted concrete ceilings, which are characteristic of the construction methods. 

• The granite ceiling of the north loading gallery, constructed with an inclined vault. 

• The ceiling of the south loading gallery, which is by contrast supported with steel Ibeams. 

Doorways 

• The arched doorways and arched wooden doors, including the double doors in the 

magazine galleries, and the single doors for the magazines and casemates. 

Stairways 

• Both of the north and south stairways from the first story to the second story, including 

the cast-iron stairways, which appear to be original. 

• The spiral stairway from the second-story gallery to the terreplein, including the castiron spiral stairway. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

358 

Miscellaneous 

• Elements of the ammunition hoist and overhead trolleys in the shell magazines. 

• The remaining elements of the steam-powered boilers that powered the gun lifts, 

including the circular shaft in the concrete ceiling of the main gallery/boiler room 

(room 111) for the smokestack, and the extant water pipes on the north side of the main 

gallery. 

Recommendations

PMIS #57952, “Repair Structural Elements for Safe Visitor Access at Batteries Gunnison, 

Potter & Mortar – Sandy Hook,” notes that the rehabilitation of Battery Potter will include 

repairs to deteriorated and spalling concrete, as well as rehabilitation of the safety railings 

and the addition of platforms to the terreplein. The following recommendations specifically 

address the CDFs of Battery Potter identified in the preceding section. These 

recommendations should be used to guide the proposed rehabilitation, and continued use 

and interpretation, of Battery Potter. 

Exterior Elements 

• Retain and preserve the overall massing and configuration of the D-shaped concrete 

battery and the north and south emplacements. This should include the stabilization of 

spalling concrete surfaces, and the removal of vegetation growing on the concrete 

surfaces. The stabilization should take in to account that “Rosendale” cement was a 

primary component of the concrete, and repairs should be compatible with the 

character of that concrete. 

• Erosion of the sand embankment has historically been a problem. Efforts to control the 

erosion should include replacing areas of loss with new sand, and management of the 

vegetation growing on the embankments. Where possible, the sand embankments 

should be rehabilitated to match the original grade and appearance. Overgrown 

vegetation should be removed, and new vegetation should be planted to match the 

historic plant materials where possible. The upcoming cultural landscape report (PMIS 

#10288) should address the best way to maintain and preserve the embankments that 

surround Battery Potter. 

• The granite-block defensible entrance of Battery Potter should be retained and 

rehabilitated. The preservation of the façade should include repointing of the granite 

blocks following the recommendations of the Structural Analysis and Historic 

Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery. The roof of the 

defensible entrance also requires repairs and possibly replacement. The repairs should 

be performed with materials that resemble the original materials, but provide a better 

seal against water infiltration. The recommendation of the Structural Analysis and 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

359 

Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery should be 

followed in this regard. The steel grate and gates and steel-clad wooden doors installed 

in the entrance doorway of the defensible entrance should be preserved. 

• If feasible, the park should reinstall the “BATTERY POTTER” lettering over the steel 

gates of the defensible entrance. The 1904 bronze letters were a significant feature 

signifying the designation of the battery as “Battery Potter.” The letters should be 

replaced with replica bronze letters based on the extant letters in the park’s collection. 

Alternatively, the letters could be replicated using fiberglass (or “sign foam”) painted to 

match the bronze letters. 

• The rehabilitation and preservation of the masonry should include the retention of the 

chemin de ronde and the parapet wall. The vegetation growing in the perimeter 

walkway should be removed, and the spalling concrete of the parapet wall repaired. 

The stabilization of this feature may require the addition of drains at the base of the 

parapet wall. 

• To reduce water infiltration into the interior of the battery, the terreplein and the roof 

of the superior slope should be repaired and possibly replaced. The repairs should be 

performed with materials that resemble the original materials but provide a better seal 

against water infiltration. The recommendation of the Structural Analysis and Historic 

Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery should be followed 

in this regard. In addition, drainage from the roof should be promoted by clearing 

existing drains and pitching the new roofs towards the sides of the battery. 

• The remaining portions of the primary fire-control stations are in ruinous condition. 

However, these structures are an important part of the history of Battery Potter, and 

significant to the interpretation of the battery and the coastal defenses. The condition 

of these structures continues to deteriorate, and interim efforts to stabilize and 

mothball them as advised by the Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization 

Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery should be undertaken as soon as 

possible. The remains of the stations on the terreplein of Battery Potter should be 

retained and stabilized. If feasible, one or two of the stations should be rehabilitated for 

interpretive purposes. The extant elements of the Mortar Battery fire-control station 

building should also be stabilized and preserved. 

• The exterior cast-iron stairway added to the southeast corner of the battery is in good 

condition and should be retained. The rehabilitation of the stairway should preserve 

the original elements of the stairway, and any elements added for stability and/or safety 

should be executed in compatible materials matching the existing design. 

• Related structures west of Battery Potter, including the central power house and coal 

shed, and the two switchboard buildings, should be rehabilitated and preserved. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

360 

Interior Elements 

• The interior of Battery Potter is subject to high humidity. Efforts to reduce this should 

include the previous recommendations to reduce water infiltration, and to improve air 

flow and ventilation within the battery. The ventilation recommended in the Structural 

Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery

would improve the air flow through the battery. The interior humidity levels should be 

monitored; additional vents could be added on the terreplein if necessary. 

Plan 

• The interior plan of Battery Potter should be retained and preserved, including the 

elements unique to the gun-lift mechanism and the defensible entrance. The 

rehabilitation of the interior spaces should not include the construction of any walls 

that would partition these rooms or affect the original plan of the interior. 

• The plan and the extant elements of the loading galleries on the second story should be 

retained and preserved. The north loading gallery was altered to accommodate a 

stairway to the roof, but it still retains most of its original configuration and should be 

preserved. The south gallery retains original elements and should be preserved, 

including the iron ladder to the loading gallery. Access to the south loading gallery 

should be limited, since the iron ladder is severely corroded, and there are no safety 

railings at the loading-platform level. 

Floors 

• The floors on the first story of the battery include sections of flagstone, as well as extant 

elements of the ammunition-delivery tracks. These elements should be retained and 

preserved. Extant sections of track should be left in place; it is not necessary to replace 

missing sections. Repairs to the flagstone should be done with compatible materials. 

Walls and Ceilings 

• The interior walls and ceilings should be preserved, including the granite elements of 

the loading galleries. Repairs to the concrete should take into consideration the 

characteristics of the existing materials, and should be done with compatible materials. 

The lighting niches should not be covered. Rehabilitation of the granite surfaces should 

be confined to cleaning and repointing with a compatible mortar. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

361 

Doorways 

• The arched doorways and the extant arched wooden doors in the interior of Battery 

Potter should be retained and preserved. Any repairs to the doors should be performed 

with in-kind materials. If feasible, the extant doors that are currently not hanging in the 

doorways should be rehabilitated and installed in their corresponding doorways. 

Stairways 

• The stairways from the first to the second story, and the spiral stairway from the second 

floor to the terreplein, should be retained and rehabilitated. The cast-iron elements of 

all the stairways appear to be original and should be rehabilitated. The spiral stairway 

should be rehabilitated and preserved for the interpretation of the site. However, the 

stairway should remain closed to the public, but accessible for viewing and 

interpretation. In addition, the iron ladder leading to the south loading gallery is the 

only extant element of its kind at the battery, and should be retained and preserved. 

• The concrete stairway from the north loading gallery to the roof should be preserved 

and rehabilitated to maintain access to the roof from the interior of the battery. 

Miscellaneous 

• The extant elements of the ammunition-delivery system should be retained and 

rehabilitated. This includes sections of the railroad track and turntables, as well as the 

overhead trolleys in the shell magazines. The elements of the overhead trolleys should 

be rehabilitated as recommended by the Structural Analysis and Historic 

Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery.

Accessibility 

Compliance with ADA accessibility requirements should be part of the rehabilitation of 

Battery Potter. The existing structure can accommodate some of these needs, and portions of 

the battery can be made accessible. The following recommendations should guide the 

placement of ADA accessible facilities. 

• The first story of Battery Potter should remain accessible. The existing concrete 

walkways should be improved to provide a stable surface from the parking lot to the 

battery. The first-story floors of the battery should be rehabilitated to provide an even 

surface for improved accessibility. 

• Additional interpretive panels that describe the second story and terreplein level should 

be installed at the first story. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

362 

MORTAR BATTERY 

Character-Defining Features

Exterior Elements 

Design and Context 

• The overall mass and design of the Mortar Battery as the prototype mortar battery of 

the Endicott System. 

• The sand embankments covering the battery, and the native vegetation placed to hold 

the sand and camouflage the battery. 

• The counterscarp wall as a defense for the battery, including the southwest 

counterscarp gallery. 

• The general layout of the Mortar Battery, with the north and south ends that are mirror 

images of one another. 

• The design of the mortar pits, including the layout for mortars on rotating carriages, 

and the sloped upper crest of the concrete walls. 

• The telephone booths situated above the entrance gallery into each mortar pit, and the 

battery commander stations situated on the top of the battery, which are all relevant to 

the development of the Mortar Battery and the interpretation of the site. 

• Elements of the antiaircraft defenses installed on the superior slope of the Mortar 

Battery, including three emplacements for 3-inch antiaircraft guns, and the concrete 

platforms for the .50-caliber machine-gun mounts. (One such platform has been 

located; three others may be extant.) 

Materials 

• The concrete structure, constructed of “Rosendale” natural cement. 

• The sand cover and slopes, and native vegetation planted on the slopes, which were part 

of the original design and construction. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

363 

• The extant elements of the ammunition-delivery tracks in the entrance galleries and 

mortar pits. 

• The extant steel brackets for implement racks on north wall of northwest mortar pit. 

• The steel doors located in the doorways to the transverse galleries, which were altered 

during the 1944 changes to the battery, but which still display their original 

configuration. 

Interior Elements 

Plan 

• The design and layout of the interior galleries and magazines, which performed 

important functions at the Mortar Battery. 

• The interior plan, which reflects the division of the north and south ends of the battery. 

• The interior plan of the switchboard room (room 112), and modifications to the interior 

galleries and magazines that reflect the change in use to the Harbor Defense Command 

Post during World War II. 

• The north and south air locks, which underscore the change in use of the Mortar 

Battery, and illustrate the method of gas-proofing it, during World War II. 

Floors 

• The extant elements of the ammunition-delivery tracks in the south transverse gallery. 

Walls 

• The tile partition walls of the 1922 switchboard room in the north longitudinal gallery. 

• The brick partition walls of the south air lock, and the adjacent partition at the southern 

end of the longitudinal gallery. Also the brick partition walls of the north air lock. 

Ceilings 

• The vaulted concrete ceilings, which are characteristic of the construction methods. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

364 

Doorways 

• The gas-proof doorways and doors in the north and south air locks. 

Recommendations

PMIS #57952 notes that the rehabilitation of the Mortar Battery will include the removal of 

invasive vegetation and the stabilization of concrete surfaces. The rehabilitation will also 

include the removal of hazardous materials and conditions from the interior of the battery. 

The PMIS statement also provides for the reestablishment of the elevated walkway along the 

top of the battery. At this time, the park has not made a final decision regarding the 

feasibility and safety of a walkway along the top of the battery. This issue should be further 

studied and addressed in the upcoming cultural landscape report (PMIS #10288). The 

following recommendations specifically address the CDFs of the Mortar Battery identified in 

the preceding section. These recommendations should be used to guide the proposed 

rehabilitation, and continued use and interpretation, of the Mortar Battery. 

Exterior Elements 

Design and Context 

• The general plan and layout of the Mortar Battery should be retained and preserved as 

representative of the first battery of its type constructed for the Endicott System. The 

extant sections of the counterscarp wall and counterscarp galleries should be preserved, 

as well as the layout of the north and south ends of the battery, including the placement 

of the guns and carriages within each pit. 

• The telephone booths and the battery commander stations should be retained and 

preserved. These structures appear to be stable, and should require minimal 

rehabilitation. Repairs to these structures should be performed with in-kind materials 

that are compatible with the original reinforced concrete. Extant steel doors currently 

resting against the exterior of the stations should be rehabilitated and rehung. 

• Extant elements of the antiaircraft defenses should be retained and preserved. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

365 

Materials 

• The rehabilitation of the Mortar Battery should include the stabilization of spalling 

concrete surfaces and the removal of vegetation growing on the concrete surfaces. The 

stabilization should take in to account that “Rosendale” cement was a primary 

component of the concrete, and repairs should be compatible with the character of that 

concrete. 

• The sand and sod cover of the upper slopes and top of the battery should be stabilized 

and maintained. Erosion of the slopes has historically been a problem, and documents 

indicate that the sod was often replaced. Efforts to control the erosion should include 

replacing areas of loss with new sand and sod, and management of the vegetation 

growing on the embankments. The upcoming cultural landscape report (PMIS #10288) 

should address the best way to maintain and preserve the sand cover and vegetation at 

the Mortar Battery. 

• Extant sections of the ammunition-delivery tracks in the entrance galleries and mortar 

pits should be retained. 

• The rehabilitation of the Mortar Battery should include the retention of the steel doors 

hanging at the doorways to the transverse galleries. Repairs to the doors should be 

performed in-kind. 

Interior Elements 

Plan 

• The overall plans and layout of the interior galleries and rooms of the Mortar Battery 

should be retained. The rehabilitation of the interior of the battery should preserve the 

original spaces, and also any later changes identified as CDFs. If the abatement of 

hazardous materials requires the removal of later elements, this work should be 

performed with attention and sensitivity to original materials and CDFs. 

• The north and south air locks should be retained and rehabilitated. The preservation of 

these features should include the retention of the gas-proof doorways and steel doors. 

Any repairs to the elements of the air locks should be done with compatible materials. 

If the rehabilitation requires repointing of the brick walls, the mortar should be 

compatible with the existing materials. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

366 

Floors 

• Extant sections of the ammunition-delivery tracks in the south transverse gallery should 

be retained and preserved. 

Walls 

• Some of the later partitions should be retained, including the tile walls of the 

switchboard room in the north longitudinal gallery, and the brick walls of the south air 

lock and the adjacent partition at the southern end of the longitudinal gallery. The 

partitions for the north air lock should also be retained. Any repairs to the interior wall 

surfaces should be performed with in-kind materials. The removal of hazardous 

material should avoid damaging the CDFs identified in the preceding section. 

Ceilings 

• The vaulted concrete ceilings of the Mortar Battery should be retained and 

rehabilitated. The rehabilitation of the arched ceilings should include the removal of 

deteriorated sections of the later ventilation system, as well as the removal of hazardous 

materials. The removal of hazardous materials on the ceilings should be performed in a 

manner that does not damage the concrete ceilings. Repairs to the concrete ceilings 

should be performed with compatible materials. 

Accessibility 

Compliance with ADA accessibility requirements should be part of the rehabilitation of the 

Mortar Battery. The existing structure can accommodate these needs, and the following 

recommendations should guide the placement of ADA accessible facilities. 

• The gravel walkways into the Mortar Battery should be improved to provide a stable 

hard surface for improved accessibility. In addition, the concrete floors in the mortar 

pits should be stabilized and rehabilitated to provide safe access to the interior portions 

of the battery. 

• The existing doorways in the north and south air locks of the battery should be wide 

enough provide adequate access to the interior of the battery. The thresholds of the air 

locks are approximately 6 inches above the floor level. Ramps should be installed to 

allow access over these thresholds to the interior of the battery. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

367 

BATTERY GUNNISON 

Character-Defining Features

Exterior Elements 

Design and Context 

• The siting of Battery Gunnison relative to the range of the battery over the southern 

approach to New York Harbor. 

• The overall design and layout of Battery Gunnison as a typical Endicott System battery 

with two disappearing gun emplacements and a traverse, which was covered by sand 

embankments and native vegetation. 

• The extant concrete walls of the battery commander station. 

• Extant elements of the communication system, including the “telephone” niches in the 

south and north walls of the traverse, the brass fittings for the speaker tubes, and the 

telephone boxes in the north and south emplacements. 

• The 1943 alterations to the gun emplacements to modernize the battery and 

accommodate the 6-inch barbette-mounted guns. 

• The south and north emplacements at Battery Gunnison, including the 6-inch guns 

mounted on barbette carriages. 

Walls 

• The exterior reinforced concrete walls of the battery, including the parapet walls and 

the walls of the traverse, including the niches for water hydrants. 

• The bas-relief signs for the battery cast in the original concrete: one reading 

“ERETCTED 1907,” the other reading “BATTERY GUNNISON,” in which “Gunnison” 

has been carved away, presumably when the battery became New Battery Peck. 

• The retaining walls of the loading platforms for both the south and north 

emplacements, including the extant features of the original walls and the 1943 

additions. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

368 

Fenestration 

• The windows and doorways in Battery Gunnison, which show original design and 1943 

alterations. 

• The steel doors in original and altered doorways, including original doors of steel 

grating and steel-plate doors, as well as the exterior gas-proof door to the plotting 

room. 

• The steel shutters in windows and vents, including the original shutters on the 

southernmost west-wall window, and the 1943 gas-proof shutters on the vents. 

Stairways 

• The concrete stairways at both the south and north emplacements, including the extant 

elements of the stairway to the original loading platform, and the stairways to the 1943 

loading platforms. 

Walkways 

• The concrete platform that forms the walkway along the west side of the battery. 

Interior Elements 

Plan 

• The overall layout of interior rooms at Battery Gunnison, which includes original 

spaces and 1943 alterations. 

Floors 

• The concrete floors with a perimeter drainage system. 

Walls 

• The concrete walls with splayed recesses for light fixtures. 

• The brick walls of the air lock. 

• The extant steel implement racks on the walls of the powder passage (room 107). 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

369 

Doorways 

• The interior doorways between the shell room (room 105), the powder room (room 

106), and the powder passage (room 107), including the 1943 gas-proof doors and 

extant evidence of original doors. 

• The gas-proof doorways and doors between room 101, the air lock, and the plotting 

room. 

Utilities 

• The extant elements of the speaking-tube system, including brass fixtures in the 

telephone recesses of the traverse, battery commander station, and shell room. 

• The shell hoists located in the north and south corridors, especially the north shell 

hoist, which has been restored to working order and greatly aids in the interpretation of 

Battery Gunnison. 

Recommendations

PMIS statement 57952 notes that the rehabilitation of Battery Gunnison will include repairs 

to deteriorated and spalling concrete, and the rehabilitation of the walkways at the battery. 

The following recommendations specifically address the CDFs of Battery Gunnison 

identified in the preceding section. These recommendations should be used to guide the 

proposed rehabilitation, and continued use and interpretation, of Battery Gunnison as the 

only armed battery within Fort Hancock. 

Exterior Elements 

Design and Context 

• The overall design and location of Battery Gunnison should be retained and preserved. 

This should include the layout of the north and south emplacements, the arrangement 

of the traverse (main block) of the battery between the two emplacements, and the 

recessed “telephone” stations along the exterior walls. 

• The preservation of Battery Gunnison should include the rehabilitation of the concrete 

structure, and the management of vegetation growth on and around the battery. A 

landscape preservation professional should be consulted on the best way to maintain 

and preserve the sand embankments and vegetation that surround Battery Gunnison. 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

370 

• The preservation of the battery should also include the retention of the extant elements 

of the battery commander station situated on the roof of the battery. If feasible, the 

missing elements of the station should be replaced to enhance the interpretation of the 

site. 

• The 1943 alterations to the gun emplacements during the modernization of the battery 

should be retained and preserved. The preservation of the north and south 

emplacements should include the retention of the 6-inch guns mounted on barbette 

carriages. The preservation of these elements should include the rehabilitation of the 

concrete surfaces, and the continued maintenance of the guns and carriages. The 1943 

improvements to the ammunition-delivery system at the battery included the 

construction of a concrete bridge between the traverse and each emplacement. The 

bridges deteriorated and were removed for safety reasons. If feasible, the bridges 

should be replicated based on historic photographs and plans, to enhance the 

interpretation of the site. 

Walls 

• Exterior reinforced-concrete parapet walls and the walls of the traverse of the battery 

should be retained and rehabilitated. Repairs to the concrete elements should be 

performed with in-kind materials, and should be compatible with the original materials. 

The rehabilitation of the exterior concrete walls should follow the recommendations of 

the Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, 

Mortar Battery. 

• The preservation and rehabilitation of exterior concrete elements at Battery Gunnison 

should encompass original elements and also the 1943 additions to the retaining walls of 

the loading platforms for both the south and north emplacements. The rehabilitation of 

these elements should be performed as previously recommended. 

Fenestration 

• The windows and doorways at Battery Gunnison should be preserved and rehabilitated. 

The preservation of these elements should retain the extant original features as well as 

the 1943 alterations. All extant steel doors and shutters should be retained and 

rehabilitated. Repairs to these elements should include the application of rustinhibiting coatings, and should be performed with compatible materials. Regular 

maintenance on the steel elements is recommended. 

Stairways 

• The concrete stairways at both the south and north emplacements should be retained 

and preserved, including the extant elements of the stairway to the original loading 

platform and the stairways to the 1943 loading platforms. The stairways leading to the 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

371 

loading platforms and the structure supporting the stairways should be stabilized and 

repaired. The repairs should be performed as recommended in the Structural Analysis 

and Historic Characterization Battery Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery. 

• If feasible, the metal double stairway leading up to the battery commander station 

should be reconstructed based on documentary and photographic evidence, to enhance 

interpretation. 

Walkways 

• The concrete platform that forms the walkway along the west side of the battery should 

be retained and rehabilitated. The rehabilitation should include the removal of 

vegetation growing between the cracks and against the battery walls, and repairs to the 

cracked and spalled concrete. Repairs to the concrete should be performed with inkind materials. 

• If feasible, the concrete bridges at both emplacements that connect the gun platforms to 

the shell-hoist platforms on the roof of the traverse should be reconstructed based on 

documentary and photographic evidence. 

Interior Elements 

Plan 

• The existing plan of the interior rooms at Battery Gunnison, which includes original 

spaces and 1943 alterations, should be retained and preserved. Existing partitions 

should not be removed, nor should additional partitions be constructed. The 

rehabilitation of the battery and the retention of the existing plan allows for the 

interpretation of both the original battery and the modernization of the battery in 1943. 

Floors 

• The existing concrete floors with the perimeter drainage system should be retained and 

preserved. The floors appear to be in stable condition, and the rehabilitation of the 

battery should require minimal work on the floors. In addition, the extant drain covers 

should be retained and rehabilitated, and any missing drain covers should be replaced 

in kind. 

Walls 

• The interior walls of Battery Gunnison, including the concrete walls and the brick walls, 

should be retained and preserved. The preservation of the walls should include the 
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

372 

retention of the splayed recesses for light fixtures and other original elements. Repairs 

to the interior walls should be performed with compatible materials. 

• The interior wall and ceiling finishes were not analyzed for this report. However, the 

finishes appear to be compatible with the wall and ceiling materials, and are an 

important part of the maintenance of the interior spaces. It is recommended that the 

interior finishes be maintained. 

Doorways 

• The interior doorways and steel doors, including original elements and 1943 alterations, 

should be retained and preserved. The rehabilitation of these elements should include 

repairs with compatible materials. The steel elements of the doorways and doors 

should be regularly maintained and coated with rust-inhibiting coatings. 

Utilities 

• The extant elements of the speaking-tube system, including the brass fixtures in the 

telephone booths, the battery commander station, and the shell room, should be 

retained and preserved. 

• The shell hoists located in the north and south corridors should be retained and 

preserved. The north shell hoist should continue to be maintained in working order. 

The shell hoist for the south corridor, currently in the museum collection, should be 

rehabilitated and placed on site. In addition, the park has in its museum collections 

ammunition tables for the shell hoists, which should be returned to the site to enhance 

interpretation. 

Accessibility 

Compliance with ADA accessibility requirements should be part of the rehabilitation of 

Battery Gunnison. The existing structure can accommodate these needs; the following 

recommendations should guide the placement of ADA accessible facilities. 

• The concrete walkways around the perimeter of Battery Gunnison should be 

rehabilitated to provide a stable surface and improved access to the battery. 

• The shell magazine and the powder room are currently accessible, and should remain 

accessible when the battery is open. 

• Additional interpretive panels should be installed to describe the plotting room, the gun 

emplacements, and other inaccessible portions of the battery. 
373

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

375 

PRIMARY SOURCES 

Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group (RG) 77: 

Fort at Sandy Hook, N.J.; General Correspondence, 1890 – 1892. Entry 96; RG 77; 

NAB. 

General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94. Entry 98; RG 77; NAB. 

Name & Subject Index to Series 103 (Document Files),Sandy Hook (N.J.) Part I (1894-

1903) and Part II (1904-1919), Sandy Hook (N.J.) Proving Ground; Commanding 

Officer and Proof Officers, Part I (1894-1910) and Part II (1910-1917). Entry 99; RG 

77; NAB. 

General Correspondence, 1894-1923. Entry 103; RG 77; NAB. 

Correspondence, Blueprints, and Reports Relating to Defense, 1873 – 1918. Entry 

225; RG 77; NAB. 

Press Copies of Letters Sent by John Newton (Nov. 1868- Sept. 1877), H. M. Benham 

(Jan. 1880- July 1882), and G.L. Gillespie (July 1882-May 1884) relating to 

Fortification Projects, 1868-1877, 1880-1884. Entry 797; RG 77; NARA - Northeast 

Region (NY). 

Press Copies of Letters Sent by John Newton relating to River and Harbor Projects 

and Fortifications, Dec. 1870- June 1873; April 1875 – October 1884. Entry 756; RG 

77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Letters and Reports Sent Relating to New York River And Harbor Projects And 

Fortifications, 1871-1889. Entry 762; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Registers of Letters Received by John Newton and his successors relating to Rivers 

and Harbors and Fortifications, January 1871-March 1889. Entry 779; RG 77; NARA - 

Northeast-NYC. 

Letters and Reports Received Relating to River and Harbor Projects, January 1871-

March 1889. Entry 782; RG 77; NARA – Northeast Region (NY). 

Letters and Reports Sent relating to Fortifications, 1878-1886. Entry 795; RG 77; 

NARA- Northeast Region (NY). 

Correspondence Relating to Fortification Projects 1907 -1930. Entry 802; RG 77; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

376 

Press Copies of Letters Sent Relating to Fort Hancock. July 1889 – Dec. 1906. 4 Vols. 

(arranged chronologically). Entry 814; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Letters and Reports Sent Relating to Gun and Mortar Batteries at Sandy Hook. 5 

Vols. Entry 815; RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Letters Received relating to Fort Hamilton and Sandy Hook, 1901-1906. Entry 829; 

RG 77; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Lift Gun Battery, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New York: United States Engineer 

Bureau). Bound volume of monthly reports from Sept. 1891 through March 1894 sent 

from Corps of Engineers at Sandy Hook to Col. Gillespie at the N.Y. Engineer Office. 

The New York Public Library, Call # VWN. 

Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 1894, Engineer Bureau, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New 

York: United States Engineer Bureau). Bound volume of miscellaneous reports and 

annual reports from 1891 through 1894 sent from Corps of Engineers at Sandy Hook 

to Col. Gillespie at the N.Y. Engineer Office. The New York Public Library, Call # 

VWN. 

Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook, New Jersey (New York: United States Engineer Bureau). 

Bound volume of monthly reports from August 1891 through March 1894 sent from 

Corps of Engineers at Sandy Hook to Col. Gillespie at the N.Y. Engineer Office. The 

New York Public Library, Call # VWN. 

Records of the Office of the Quarter Master General, Consolidated Correspondence File 

1794 – 1915. Record Group (RG) 92: 

Sandy Hook, N.J. Box #982; RG 92; NAB. 

Fort Hancock, N.J. RG 92; NAB. 

Records of U.S. Army Coast Artillery Districts and Defenses. Record Group (RG) 392: 

Emplacement Books for Gun Batteries at Fort Hancock, N.J. Entry 222; RG 392; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Fort Record Book, Fort Hancock, N.J. Entry 224; RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region 

(NY). 

Documents relating to the Gun Lift Battery, Sandy Hook, N.J. Entry 224; RG 392; 

NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

“History of Fort Hancock and of the Defenses of Sandy Hook,” 1939. Entry 317; RG 

392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

377 

Major C.G. Bovis, Coastal Artillery Corps. “History of HECP [Harbor Entrance 

Control Post], Fort Wadsworth, New York.” Copy at Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook. 

“Report of Completed Works – Seacoast Fortifications, Sandy Hook, Fort Hancock, 

N.J. July 1, 1921, corrected May, 1944.” RG 392; NARA - Northeast Region (NY). 

Photographic records consulted: 

Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77: 

Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. RG 77 F, box 2 of 38; NACP. 

Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. RG 77 F, box 5 of 38; NACP. 

Cartographic records consulted: 

Records of the Office of the Quarter Master General, Record Group 92: 

Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground. 89 Records. RG 92; NACP. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

378 

SECONDARY SOURCES 

Bearss, Edwin C. Historic Resource Study, The Sandy Hook Defenses, 1857 – 1948, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey. Denver: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service, September 1983. 

-----. Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895-1948, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

New York/New Jersey. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, May 1981. 

-----. Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1948-1974, Gateway National Recreation Area, 

Sandy Hook Unit, New Jersey. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, November 1982. 

Bender, Donald E. The Nike Missile System, A Concise Historical Overview. 

Http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/N-view.html. 

Chadwick, Ian. Henry Hudson: Henry Hudson’s Third Voyage 1609: The New World. 

Http://www.ianchadwick.com/hudson/hudson_03.htm. 

Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP. Section 02080 Asbestos Removal, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, Batteries Mortar & Potter. Albany, NY: Clough, 

Harbour & Associates LLP for Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, September 2005. 

A Dictionary of Military Architecture Fortification and Fieldworks from the Iron Age to the 

Eighteenth Century. Http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/madict.html. 

“History of DuPont and the Government.” Http://www2.dupont.com/Government/en_US/

gsa_contracts/Government_Projects.html. 

Edison Coatings, Inc. History of Rosendale Cement. Http://www.rosendalecement.net.

Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott. Structural Analysis and Historic Characterization Battery 

Gunnison, Battery Potter, Mortar Battery, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New 

Jersey. New York: Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, May 2005. 

Ennis, Marie, PE. Structural Conditions Assessment, Mortar Battery Tunnel Complex, Sandy 

Hook, New Jersey. New York: Einhorn, Yaffee, Prescott, February 2006. 

Environmental Assessment, Adaptive Use of Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving 

Ground Historic District. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service in 

association with Sandy Hook Partners LLC, February 2002; revised July 2003. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

379 

Freeman, Joe C., et al. Seacoast Fortifications Preservation Manual. San Francisco, CA: 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1999. 

General Management Plan Amendment: Development Concept Plan and Interpretation 

Prospectus: Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York/New 

Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 1990. 

General Management Plan, Gateway National Recreation Area, New York / New Jersey. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, August 1979. 

Greenwood, Richard E. “Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic 

District,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form, June 28, 

1976. 

------. “Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” National 

Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form, revised November 9, 1982. 

Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture an Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York: W.W. 

Norton & Company, Inc., 1998. 

Hoffman, Thomas. The Defenses of Sandy Hook. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit. 

-----. Sandy Hook Lighthouse. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit. 

King, John P. The British were the first Europeans in the Highlands. 

Http://www.highlandsnj.com/ news/html/NewsDocs/Eurpoean%20Settlers.html.

Kroll, Naomi D., and Sharon K. Ofenstein. Historic Structure Report, Building 25, Enlisted 

Men’s Barracks, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National 

Recreation Area. Lowell, MA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

February 2002. 

Lee, James J. III. Officers Club, Building No. 114, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Historic Structure Report. Lowell, MA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region, Historic 

Architecture Program, 2006. 

Lewis, Emanuel Raymond. Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory 

History. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1970. 

McKee, Harley J. Introduction to Early American Masonry Stone, Brick, Mortar, and Plaster. 

Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1973. 

Rose, Theodore F., H.C. Woolman, and T.T. Price. Historical and Bibliographical Atlas of the 

New Jersey Coast. Philadelphia, PA: Woolman & Rose, 1878. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

380 

Rutenbeck, Todd. Stabilization Investigations, Historic Concrete Batteries, Fort Hancock, 

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA, New Jersey. Denver: Bureau of Reclamation, June 

1990. 

Salter, Edwin, and George C. Beekman. Old Times in Old Monmouth County, NJ. Freehold, 

NJ: James S. Yard, 1890. 

Sullivan, Judith Q. Building 32, Quartermaster’s Storehouse, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. Lowell, MA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Historic Architecture Program, 1993. 

Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995. 

Williams, Norma E. Cultural Landscape Report for Proving Ground and Wartime Expansion 

Areas. Brookline, MA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 1999. 
381

APPENDICES 

383

APPENDIX A. 

Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report for 

Fort at Sandy Hook, Mortar Battery No. 1, 

Gun Lift Battery No. 1, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. J.G. Warren to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, June 30, 1892 

Fiscal Year 1892 Annual Report, p. 7

Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 1894, Engineer Bureau, Sandy Hook, New Jersey

United States Engineer Bureau, New York 





























413 

APPENDIX B. 

Fiscal Year 1893 Annual Report 

of the Chief of Engineers, 

Gun and Mortar Batteries, 

Mortar Battery No. 1, and 

Gun Lift Battery No. 1, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie to Brig. General Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers, July 8, 1893 

File 3259; F.Y. 1893 Annual Report; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94 

Entry 98; Record Group 77; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 





















435 

APPENDIX C. 

Granolithic Pavement, 

Gun Lift Battery No. 1, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. J.G. Warren to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, Dec. 19, 1892 

Miscellaneous Reports, 1892 - 1894, Engineer Bureau, Sandy Hook, New Jersey

United States Engineer Bureau, New York 





441 

APPENDIX D. 

General Description of 

Gun-Lift Battery No. 1, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, Dec. 24, 1894 

File 9716, enclosure 2; General Correspondence 1894 -1923 

Entry 103; Record Group 77; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 



























469 

APPENDIX E. 

Report for the Mortar Platforms in 

Mortar Battery No. 1, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, March 5, 1894 

File 1708, incl. 40; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94 

Entry 98; Record Group 77; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 









479 

APPENDIX F. 

Report on the Proof Firing at 

Mortar Battery No. 1, 

Sandy Hook, New Jersey 

Lt. Robert McGregor to Lt. Col. George L. Gillespie, June 23, 1894 

File 1708, incl. 47; General Correspondence and Record Cards, 1893-94 

Entry 98; Record Group 77; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 







National Park Service 

U.S.Department of the Interior 

 

 Historic Architecture Program 

 Northeast Region 

 Boott Cotton Mills Museum, 4th Floor 

 115 John Street 

 Lowell, MA 01852 

 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM

 Cover photograph: Battery Potter, Proof Firing March 1894. Gateway NRA Museum Collection, Sandy Hook (Catalog # GATE 7795).