« 이전계속 »
ing more shabby with each passing year until it became the property of the Daughters of the American Revolution. This organization tore down the addition and restored the Redoubt to its original state.
The histories of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, where they refer to the Redoubt at all, state almost unanimously that it was located outside of the fort, and a short distance west of it. In the light of the latest investigation, however, it appears beyond question that it was really a part of the old stronghold and most likely stood on the north bastion. To William McConway of this city, belongs the credit of calling attention to this fact and causing an investigation to be made.
Mr. McConway has long been interested in the early history of Pittsburgh, and particularly in that of the old fort at the Point. He made himself thoroughly familiar with the published accounts, and when doubt arose in his mind of their correctness, he examined the matter for himself. He knew of the existence of Lieutenant Ratzer's plan of the fort, and in the year 1909, he sent to London and had a copy made of it, and from his knowledge of the subject and a study of this plan reached the conclusion that the Redoubt was not located outside of the fort, but was part of the structure itself, and that it stood on the north bastion.
That Mr. McConway's copy of Ratzer's plan is an exact reproduction of the plan of Fort Pitt as preserved in the Crown Collection of Maps and Manuscripts in the British Museum, is apparent from a careful comparison, with the copy of Ratzer's plan as published in 1905 by The A. H. Clark Company of Cleveland. The writer became impressed by Mr. McConway's conclusion and made an independent investigation, becoming so deeply interested that he studied the entire history of Fort Pitt, the result being the present article.
The Redoubt is said to have been the headquarters of Colonel Henry Bouquet while at Fort Pitt and to have been erected by him in 1764. (7) In his day Bouquet was the most prominent figure in the British army in the West. He was at the junction of the Ohio and Monongahela rivers many times, and was there several times during the period
from 1763 to and including 1764. There is no record of the date on which he left Fort Pitt at the conclusion of the Kiyasuta and Pontiac War, but it was no doubt before the end of 1763. When the Indians became troublesome again the next year, he was in Philadelphia, (8) and from there was summoned to lead an army against the Indians on the Muskingum River, as has already appeared. On September 17, 1764, he arrived at Fort Pitt preparatory to entering upon this campaign on which he started on October 3rd, returning to Fort Pitt at its conclusion on November 28, 1764. The regular troops were immediately sent to garrison the different posts farther East, and the Provincials to their homes, Bouquet proceeding to Philadelphia, where he arrived early in January, 1765. (9) If the Redoubt was erected in 1764 by Colonel Bouquet, it must have been sometime between September 17th and the end of that year.
History has demonstrated that Colonel Bouquet was the best Indian fighter who up to his time had engaged in Indian warfare. Is it likely that such a seasoned campaigner so soon after having driven the besieging Indians of Kiyasuta and Pontiac from Fort Pitt, and having met the Muskingum Indians and forced them into making a lasting peace, would erect a building outside of the fort as his headquarters, or for any other purpose? Not even the merest tyro in military affairs would be guilty of such a violation of military science. Nor would an experienced military officer erect a redoubt between two bastions, the Redoubt being close to the north bastion and between that and the south bastion. Also would a Redoubt be erected in this location with loop holes facing in the direction of the fort, from which the enemy, if it captured the building, could fire on the fort? The fact that the Redoubt was loop-holed on all sides would indicate that it stood above the level of the rest of the fort, and that the purpose of the loop-holes was to enable the occupants to fire over the fort in all directions.
Zadok Cramer, Pittsburgh's first publisher, in his Navigator for 1808, writing of the ruins of Fort Pitt as they appeared at that time, says ***“within the embankment are still some of its barracks and a strong stone powder
magazine, the only remains of the British buildings." Nothing is said of any remnant of the fort being located outside of the fort. In the article on the Redoubt already referred to, published in The Pittsburgh Gazette of August 19, 1831, of which paper Neville B. Craig was the proprietor and editor, no claim is made that the Redoubt was located outside of the fort. This statement was not made until more than a decade later. In 1830, the Honorable Richard Biddle of Pittsburgh procured a copy of Lieutenant Ratzer's plan of Fort Pitt. This came into the possession of Neville B. Craig and his son, Isaac Craig, then twenty years of age. The two men published articles on the subject of the fort and the Redoubt in the American Pioneer of June, 1842, a monthly publication emanating from Cincinnati. (10) The article written by Isaac Craig was illustrated with Biddle's copy of Ratzer's plan, and on this several of the present streets were located. On this plan the Redoubt appears outside of the fort and just west of the north bastion and beyond the moat. In his description of the Redoubt, Neville B. Craig also states that it was located "on the outside of the ditch of the fort."
The descriptions of Fort Pitt and of the Redoubt as they were printed in these two articles, including the map, were followed in 1869 by A. G. Haumann, who drew and published a plan of Pittsburgh as it was supposed to be in 1795. In this plan even the mistake made in Ratzer's name was followed, being given as "R." Ratzer instead of "B." Ratzer, and the gardens as laid out by Ratzer east of the fort, were omitted. Haumann's plan with only slight variations has been republished many times since 1869, and has always been given out as if it were an original picture of Pittsburgh, instead of having been laboriously built up, mostly from data obtained from Neville B. Craig's History of Pittsburgh. The Craig articles and the Haumann plan have been religiously followed by all subsequent historians, except only by George H. Thurston, who said the Redoubt was erected within the fort. (11)
Neville B. Craig will always remain Pittsburgh's most eminent historian. To him the city is indebted for the preservation of much of the material relating to the early history of this community, and he is quoted oftener than
any other writer on the subject, yet he must be charged with error, unimportant though it may be, in approving the placing of the Redoubt outside of Fort Pitt. As Ratzer's plan, made in 1761, could not have had on it the Redoubt which is supposed to have been built at a later date, nor the Pittsburgh streets which came into existence in still more recent times, the question is, were these landmarks placed on the plan by Biddle or by Isaac Craig, with whose article the plan was published. The inference is, from a careful reading of the article, that the Redoubt, as well as the streets, were placed there by Isaac Craig with the approval by his father, Neville B. Craig.
No authority is given for placing the Redoubt outside of the fort and it must have been done, either because of a wrong construction of the plan, as for instance that the sally port of the fort led in the direction of the spot where the Redoubt was placed, or by reason of a mistaken recollection of Neville B. Craig of something which he had heard many years before.
The plan as published by Isaac Craig gives the scale as three hundred feet to the inch. Measuring from Marbury Street, the distance to the Redoubt is about nine hundred feet, while the actual distance as appears by the survey in the Deed Registry Office of the City of Pittsburgh, is six hundred and sixty-seven feet. The distance from Marbury Street as placed by Mr. McConway on the copy of the plan procured by him in London, to the center of the north bastion of the fort, is six hundred and sixty feet, which closely approximates the distance from Marbury Street to the location of the Redoubt as appears by the records in the Deed Registry Office of Pittsburgh. Any variation in the distance can be easily accounted for by the fact that the line of Marbury Street as placed by Mr. McConway, in conjunction with the fort, may be slightly different from Marbury Street as located on the ground. From this it would appear that Mr. McConway is right in assuming that the Redoubt stood on the north bastion of the fort.
That the bastions of the fort were above the level of the remainder of the fort is beyond doubt. The profile attached to Ratzer's plan shows the highest part of the