To reconstruct the appearance of the fort and the kinds and uses of the various buildings which composed it, one begins with the finds of the archaeologists. In locating its outlines, they uncovered evidence that Fort McIntosh was unusually large for a frontier fort; indeed it was the largest between Fort Pitt and the Mississippi. Documentary evidence adds to the conviction that it was an impressive structure for its day and region.
First, there is the report of the Board of War to Congress in 1782, in which Fort Pitt is referred to as deteriorating, and Fort McIntosh as having been well constructed. General McIntosh, in addition to having skilled axemen, had commandeered the services of a team of boatwrights who had been originally sent to Fort Pitt to build the boats for the Clark expedition.
Commissioner Arthur Lee refers to "well hewn logs", indicating they had been squared. Adjutant Ebeneezer Denny of the 1st American Regiment wrote in his journal that he found "exceedingly good quarters" and that "Fort Pitt and Fort McIntosh" were handsome places. Griffith Evans, clerk to the Pennsylvania Commissioners, added that the buildings were as "Sharp and handsome as could be expected."
An article in the Columbian Magazine in 1790, refers to the "accommodation for the soldiers and officers as being very commodius." Even the sarcastic comment by Col. Brodhead on McIntosh's "hobby horse" suggests it was not a typical frontier blockhouse. And finally, there is the statement by Lt. Col. Cambray, the French artillery officer, the first engineering officer in the Western Department, that it was designed to "keep the savages in awe."
Archaeologists and documentary researchers disagree on its shape. Lee wrote that it was "built in the form of an irregular square, the face to the river being longer than the side to the land." The article in the Columbian Magazine said, "it consisted of a number of log buildings which altogether formed a tetragon". Evans wrote that "the work is built of wood of a pentagonal form." As noted earlier, Lee's description was more nearly accurate.
When it came to plotting the finds of the archaeologists on a site plan, there is no question but they had found the main structure, or structures, extending 330 or 340 feet along the river side of the site. In terms of the standard surveyor's measurement of the period, this would be the exact equivalent of five "chains".
If the same type of measurement is applied in projecting the location of the structures forming the north side of the fort, a distance of two chains (or 133 feet) would place the test square dug in front of the Reibel house within the north wall of the fort. It also accommodates the hypothesis concerning a below-ground powder magazine somewhere in the area occupied by the Reibel house, and also the large fired sandstone found by workmen alongside the Mengon residence in 1979.
As added proof, the small drawing of the fort on the McLean survey map of 1785, (first thought to be merely a symbol), was enlarged and compared with the site plan as plotted. The similarities could not be accidental. When one remembers that McLean had been a quartermaster with the McIntosh expedition when the fort was being built, and his drawing was done while he was quartered in the fort in 1785, the conclusion is that the sketch is remarkably accurate.
Making this hypothesis even more plausible was the fact that McLean's sketch pictured the fort as four separate rows of buildings. The plan of surveyor Daniel Leet, who laid out the town plan of Beaver in the same year and who also had been with the troops building Fort McIntosh, had the same design.
From quarters inside the fort in 1785 Arthur Lee wrote in his journal that the fort covered an area equal to the square of fifty yards or 2,500 square yards. The parade ground located by the archaeologists is 2,650 yards.
When bastions are added to the plan, the distance between the apexes of those on the SW and SE corners is between 390 and 400 feet.
Including all areas in a line drawn between the apexes of the four bastions, the total area of the fort is 86,016 sq. feet, not too far from Private Cuppy's recollections of about two acres or 87,120 sq. feet.
Accurate reconstruction of the appearance of the bastions is more difficult. The archaeologists found the foundations for the flank of the SW bastion, but the cut for the railroad and the houses on River Road obliterated all traces of the others.
All contemporary accounts in diaries, journals, letters, and orders enumerate four bastions, but the accounts stop there. But the minute sketches on the survey plans of Alexander McLean and Daniel Leet show full bastions. It is probable that Cambray designed pretty much the same size bastion at McIntosh as he did a few weeks later at Fort Laurens, although the angles of the sides are somewhat different.
Captain Ferguson's report to Col. Harmar in 1787 that he was repairing the fraises of the bastions indicates that their walls were built of two tiers of logs, at least four feet apart, from the top of which projected the fraises, or pointed logs. It also locates the partial founda. tion of the SW bastion corner as the support for the inner tier. Militia on fatigue duty with axes, spades, and picks, might have been engaged in filling the interstices between these two tiers.
McIntosh's orders of November 3, 1777 to Lt. Col. Campbell, to "Place the bastions in a proper state of defense ... the barracks may be finished last", shows the primary role of the bastions in the fort's defense. The fact that no trenches were found which would have been dug for a stockade, and the note by Evans that the buildings served as both fortifications and barracks, support the premise that the back walls of the cabins formed the fort's outer walls, relying on the bastions for protection.
There are several references to "blockhouse" including McIntosh's use of the word "tower" in his orders to Campbell on November 3, 1778. Private Cuppy in his recollections places a blockhouse on the side opposite the river and to the right of the gate.
The drawing in the Columbian Magazine shows an overhanging structure on the river side. The accuracy of this detail may be somewhat open to question, since the artist apparently worked from someone else's verbal description. But it is known that a gate or "salli port" to the river bank was located on the south wall.
While it was unusual for a fort to have two blockhouses, in the absence of definite proof to the contrary, we are inclined to accept the description of an eye witness. The rendering made in 1790 shows what appears to be supports for the overhang. This may have been the artist's concept of a palisade wall built to shield the river gate from direct fire.
As to the 20 chimneys serving the four buildings of the fort, it is difficult to believe that these would have been made completely of stone. The boulders common to the site could not have been set up without mortar, and problems of hauling the stone from the hillside a half mile away also makes this unlikely.
A hint that easily worked sandstone from the hillside was used to form backwalls and jambs, and only the lower part of the chimneys, comes from the orders of January 22, 1779, "the chimneys to be swept clean once a week and when not secured well with mortar the soldiers will be obliged to secure them the best way possible."
The discovery of several hundred pieces of forged iron, and the fireplace (Feature #7) along the river side and closest to the SW bastion may locate the blacksmith shop; this could have been the armorer mentioned in the General Orders of October 18, 1778, when the ,soldiers in each regiment ordered to march are to take their pieces by companies that want repairs to the armors and have them done."
There is a question about the exact location of the powder magazine. The discovery of a tunnel or room-like underground space during the excavation of the cellar of the (Reibel) house about 1900 suggests that this might indeed have been the area of the powder magazine. If this assumption were correct, this would plot its position beside the main gate, a somewhat odd thing, since this was usually the main point of any attack. Col. Cambray's instructions to Sgt. Somerville on where to store his powder is confusing, for he ordered him to "prepare a room, close, remote and inside the fort," and "to fit in the parc of the artillery a proper place with tents or any soever means, where the powder can be deposed in safety until the room for the artillery stores are finished inside the fort."
On December 28, 1784, Captain Finney reported to Col. Harmar that the artillery had been brought opposite the salliport and fired. This might be an incident reported by Lee of the officers making merry one night and shooting off one of the pieces. In an earlier directive, Col. Neville at Fort Pitt had admonished his caretakers, sergeants Lee and McClure, that the cannons were the property of the United States.
Until the cataloging of all the artifacts is completed and until excavation can be made beneath River Road, only assumptions can be made as to the purposes of the various buildings. The types of buttons and buckles found near Features #19 and #20 indicate it could have been a barracks for the enlisted men, and at the opposite end of the south wall the artifacts associated with Feature #11, pieces of wine bottles, wine glasses and chinaware might mean the officers mess was in that building.
The heaviest concentration of heavy armament, a six pound cannon ball, a grenade, or mortar shell, and more than 300 cannisters were found between Features #8 and #9, and a number of rifle parts and musket hardware were uncovered near Feature #9.
The small amount of personal gear in contrast to the large number of hand-forged wrought iron nails found in the ashes of the fireplaces of Feature #16 could indicate a storeroom.
A large number of bone fragments were found throughout the dig, supporting British notes of the day that the Americans were poor housekeepers. The heaviest concentration of large fragments was found in the area of the SW bastion. Interestingly, among 60,000 fragments not one whole bone was found. Every one had been cracked to get the marrow.
McIntosh's order to Lt. Col. Campbell to finish hanging the gates and their underpinnings suggest they were heavy, and from the Regimental Orders of February 12, 1779, ". . . and those in the outhuts are to come into the fort when the gates are to be locked and delivered into the hand of the commanding officer as usual," hints that there may have been a postern gate.
The mention of outhuts in the above orders
is one of several reporting the existence of such buildings, which
may have been used by the women who followed the army or by packhorsemen.
Horse Master Brady reported 521 horses enroute to Cumberland,
and another 200 plus wintering after the return from Fort Laurens.
This means there were also about 100 packhorsemen to be accommodated.