Fort Glass

 

Fort Glass was a stockade fort constructed in July 1813 in present-day Clarke County, Alabama, during the Creek War, which was part of the larger War of 1812. It was located near Suggsville.   

History: The Creek War began as a civil war within the Creek Nation but escalated, drawing in American settlers and the United States military. As tensions rose and attacks by the Red Stick faction of the Creek Nation increased, settlers in the Mississippi Territory (which included present-day Alabama) built temporary stockades for protection. Fort Glass was one of these forts, built by and named for Zachariah Glass.  

Constructed as a rectangular wooden stockade measuring 180 feet by 120 feet (approximately 60 yards by 40 yards), Fort Glass was made of hewn pine logs. In August 1813, Colonel Joseph Carson and his regiment of 200 mounted men were sent to reinforce the settlers in the area and garrisoned Fort Glass.

Soon after their arrival, Colonel Carson's men began building a new, larger fort just 225 yards northwest of Fort Glass. This new fortification was named Fort Madison, in honor of then-President James Madison, and became the headquarters for the surrounding military district. While Fort Madison served as the primary military post, soldiers continued to occupy Fort Glass as well.  

Following the Red Stick attack on Fort Sinquefield, settlers who had survived the massacre sought refuge at both Fort Glass and Fort Madison. Later in 1813, Fort Glass was abandoned.  

Present Day: Nothing remains of Fort Glass today. In 1858, the Fort Madison Church was built on the approximate site of Fort Glass. Archaeological surveys of the area have been conducted, but no defining features of the original fort have been found.

Fort Glass, though short-lived, played a role in the Creek War, providing a place of refuge and a military presence during a turbulent period in the history of Clarke County, Alabama.

Construction and Design:

• Hasty Construction: Built in July 1813, Fort Glass was likely constructed quickly using readily available materials. The urgency of the situation following increasing Creek hostilities meant there wasn't time for elaborate planning or construction.
• Materials: The use of "hewn pine logs" tells us it was a log stockade. Hewing logs involved roughly shaping them with axes to create flat sides that could be fitted together more tightly, offering better defense than simply using round logs with gaps.
• Rectangular Shape: The dimensions of 180 feet by 120 feet give us an idea of its size – a substantial enclosure, though not massive. This would have been large enough to house several families and the initial contingent of defenders.
• Stockade Walls: The pine logs would have been placed vertically in the ground, forming a defensive wall. They likely would have been pointed at the top to deter attackers from climbing over.
• Entrances: There would have been at least one, possibly two, reinforced gates made of heavy timbers. These would have been the most vulnerable points and would have been carefully guarded.
• Internal Structures: Inside the stockade, there would have been temporary shelters for the families seeking refuge. These might have been simple lean-tos or small cabins constructed from available materials. There would also have been space for livestock and storage of essential supplies.

Purpose and Function:

• Refuge for Settlers: The primary purpose of Fort Glass was to provide a safe haven for local settlers fleeing the threat of Creek attacks. Families would have gathered within its walls, seeking protection in numbers.
• Defensive Position: The stockade walls provided a defensive perimeter against attack. Defenders could fire upon attackers from behind the logs, offering a significant advantage.
• Military Garrison: The arrival of Colonel Carson's troops transformed Fort Glass into a military outpost. This provided a more organized defense and a base for patrols and potential offensive actions.
• Supply Storage: The fort would have served as a central point for storing food, water, ammunition, and other necessary supplies for both the settlers and the soldiers.

Daily Life:

• Crowded Conditions: With multiple families and soldiers living within the relatively small enclosure, conditions would likely have been crowded and potentially unsanitary.
• Constant Vigilance: Fear of attack would have been a constant presence. Guards would have been posted around the clock, and everyone would have been on alert.
• Limited Resources: Depending on the duration of their stay and the number of people seeking refuge, resources like food and water could become scarce.
• Military Activities: For the soldiers stationed there, daily life would have involved drills, patrols, maintaining the fort's defenses, and preparing for potential engagements.

Its Significance:

• Symbol of Resistance: Fort Glass represented the settlers' determination to defend themselves and their way of life in the face of danger.
• Temporary Security: While eventually superseded by Fort Madison, Fort Glass provided crucial temporary security during a critical period of the Creek War. It likely saved lives and prevented further attacks on the immediate vicinity.

While no detailed blueprints or personal accounts from within Fort Glass have survived, we can infer these details based on the common practices of constructing such forts on the American frontier and the historical context of the Creek War. The very existence of Fort Glass speaks to the perilous times and the community's response to them.

Common Features of Frontier Forts:

• Varying Scale and Permanence: Frontier forts ranged from small, temporary stockades like Fort Glass, built in response to immediate threats, to larger, more permanent blockhouses and fortified trading posts intended for long-term defense and control of territory.
• Local Initiative: Often, the initial construction of smaller forts was driven by local communities or individuals, as was the case with Zachariah Glass. These were acts of self-preservation in the absence of immediate government or military support.
• Adaptation to the Environment: The materials used for construction were typically whatever was readily available locally – logs (pine, oak, etc.), earthworks, and sometimes stone. The design was usually simple and practical, focused on defense rather than elaborate architecture.
• Strategic Location: Forts were often situated near important resources like water sources, trails, or settlements they were meant to protect. The proximity of Fort Glass to Suggsville highlights this.
• Multifunctional Spaces: Inside the fort, space was usually multi-purpose, serving as living quarters, storage, and a defensive platform.

Purposes of Frontier Forts:

• Protection from Attack: The primary purpose was to provide a secure refuge for settlers against hostile forces, whether Native American tribes or other threats.
• Military Outposts: Larger forts served as bases of operations for military expeditions, supply depots, and centers for asserting government control over a region.
• Trading Centers: Some forts, particularly those established by fur trading companies, also functioned as commercial hubs where goods were exchanged with indigenous populations.
• Symbols of Authority: The presence of a fort, even a small one, could represent the reach and power of a government or a group of settlers in a contested territory.

Fort Glass in this Context:

Fort Glass fits the mold of a smaller, temporary stockade built out of necessity by local initiative. Its construction was a direct response to the escalating violence of the Creek War and the perceived lack of immediate external protection. While it later served as a military garrison, its initial purpose was as a refuge for endangered families.

The swift construction and relatively simple design reflect the urgency of the situation. The choice of a stockade made of hewn pine logs was practical given the available resources and the need for a defensible structure. Its proximity to Suggsville underscores its role in protecting that local community.

The subsequent construction of the larger and more strategically important Fort Madison nearby is also typical of frontier defense strategies. As the conflict evolved and the need for a more permanent military presence grew, temporary structures like Fort Glass were often superseded by more substantial fortifications.

The story of Fort Glass, therefore, is a microcosm of the broader experience of frontier settlement and conflict in the early 19th century. It highlights the resourcefulness of the pioneers, the ever-present threat of violence, and the evolution of defensive strategies as the American frontier expanded.