Old Fort on the Beach

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#1
Thanks to a tip from Historian C. G. Beynon, it seems that there use to be an old military fort located just on Burlington side of the Canal. This fort is shown on a map from an 1875 Atlas that is part of the Library's Special Collections section.(Member Bobbythefinch also posted this map in another thread) The school house on Van Wagners'(Now Barangas) can be seen and a large building is also shown at the cut off of what is now the entrance to Van Wagner's Beach from Beach Blvd. I have no idea what that structure was or used for, anyone?
Colwyn Beynon also added a little more history to the fort, he told me that a wagon carrying the soldier's pay got stuck in a bog near the fort and sunk, it was never recovered.
I might have to get a metal detector.
 

Attachments

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#2
Historian C.G. Beynon :tbu: may have shed some light on what the large structure is on the old map.
"The only large building that may have survived in 1875 may have been the Kingshead Inn. A British Army stop over and watering hole."
C.G. Beynon.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#3
I have checked many sources to find some info on this fort, but no one seems to know much about it's existence. There are articles all over the net concerning other forts on the Great lakes, but not a word on this one from the Canal area. Further proof can be found though in Mary Weeks-Mifflin & Ray Mifflin's book Harbour Lights Burlington Bay. On page 8(Photo #1) of the book a map drawn by the British Admiralty in 1815 shows the layout of the block house and battery along the sides the canal on the Burlington side. Structures of the Fort are on both sides of the Burlington Outlet, this shallow crossing was filled in when the present day canl site was being built. Turn to page 58(Photo #2) and you will see the first train coming over the new swing bridge from the north side 1878. In the background, bottom right, you will see very clearly the block house and battery. Still looking for more, thanks to Ray Mifflin and Colwyn.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#4
Another possible example of a fort located on the Beach was sent in by Colwyn. Colwyn writes, "the picture painted (Burlington Bay) by John H.Caddy about 1851 shows the escarpment in the background with the Red Hill Valley point prominently in the center. You will notice on the right in the photo a tower with two windows which may be a small Martello defensive tower in common use at that time. I can't think of any other reason for a tower to be located on the north side of the canal?"

The painting that Colwyn refers to is attached, (With permission of the Royal Ontario Museum © ROM.), the second attached painting, also by Caddy shows the Burlington Channel very early in it's existence. Notice that the newly built lighthouse has no resemblance of the tower shown in the first painting, yet it is the same artist.
 

Attachments

Fred Briggs

Beach History Moderator
May 27, 2004
64
0
6
86
Stoney Creek
hamiltonbeachcommunity.com
#5
The errors in this thread have been piling up and compounding to the point where I feel I have to set the record straight. It's difficult to know where to start, so in the interest of clarity, I have decided to begin with the first posting in the thread and take them one at a time up to the most recent posting.
On the 1815 Saltfleet Map, scotto has stated The school house on Van Wagner's (now Baranga's) can be seen. The two-storey poured concrete Van Wagner's Beach schoolhouse with a basement wasn't built until 1905, and that building was modified several times before it was closed, and finally converted to Baranga's, and then there were more additions that brought it up to its present size. Prior to 1905, the previous schoolhouse at Van Wagner's Beach was a single storey frame building with one classroom and a separate room for the teacher. That was built around 1830 or 1840, so it would have been there (a little to the east of the later cement school) in 1875. However, it wouldn't be any larger than all the other buildings on Van Wagner's and Burlington Beach, which are represented by small black squares. Why it would be represented by such a large drawing, in a 3-dimensional side view, is a bit of a mystery. It isn't a church because the first church there was the above described frame school that was closed in 1905, when it was replaced by the cement school, and it was sold to the Anglican Church in 1917.
A large building is also shown at the cut off of what is now the entrance to Van Wagner's Beach from Beach Blvd. I have no idea what the structure was or used for, anyone In scotto's next posting, Colwyn Beynon is quoted as saying "The only large building that may have survived in 1875 may have been the Kingshead Inn. A British Army stop over and watering hole."
The King's Head Inn, formally named Government House, was burned by the Americans in May of 1813, and never rebuilt. Later buildings were built in the same area, including 2 hotels, by a father and son named Fitch. The latter Fitch's Hotel was referred to as the King's Head Inn by the local population, but it certainly wasn't frequented by the British Army. All 3 of those building were farther east, at the intersection of the Beach Road from Hamilton (which crossed the water from Red Hill Creek, or Lottridge's Creek, flowing into Burlington Bay) and the road which crossed the beach and continued along the lakeshore to Niagara-on-the-Lake.
I don't believe that structure on the map was a building at all, but rather it was the filtering basin for the Hamilton water supply. The filtering basin was originally dug around 1858, but it was enlarged more than once over the years before it was finally reduced back nearer to its original size, in the position where some of us still remember it, where the go-carts are now.
I know nothing about the lost soldier's pay.
The 1815 Admiralty Map shows the œre doubt, a cannon position, which the British put in place on the north side of the natural outlet from Little Lake to Lake Ontario, to impede an American attack by water on their fortifications on Burlington Heights, now in the Hamilton Cemetery near the High Level Bridge, during the War of 1812. I don't know what the 2 small structures are on the south bank. I think scotto just made a small slip when he wrote "the layout of the block house and battery along the sides the canal on the Burlington side." As he quickly pointed out, the fortifications were built on the Burlington outlet, the shallow crossing filled in when the present canal was built.
But then we have a huge error. The picture on page 58 of Harbour Lights is reported as "the first train coming over the new swing bridge from the north side in 1878" This may have been a misconception of the caption which accompanied the picture: "The first locomotive to cross the new railway swing bridge at the canal was engine J.M.Williams. It crossed the canal from the north side on January 15th, 1878. "I don't know which locomotive was the first to cross the new bridge in 1878. It may well have been the J.M.Williams, and this may very well have been the same locomotive, but it wasn't the same bridge!
The original bridge was first swung across the canal (by hand) on January 10,1877. Five days later the bridge was tested by crossing and re-crossing it at different speeds, we must assume, both ways. Regular service began the following month. The lighthouse keeper Capt. George Thomson reported in his diary that the first passenger train crossed the bridge going north on February 13th, 1877. I'm curious as to why it didn't come back until 11 months later!
But that isn't important. What is important here is that the wrought-iron bridge was replaced by a new bridge over the winter of 1902 to 1903, and the picture under consideration was believed to have been taken around 1910. (Pictures of both bridges, showing just how different they were, and including the circa 1910 photograph, can be found on page 337 of Hamilton's Other Railway by Charles Cooper)
Two faint buildings, one quite large, are described as the block house and battery. Does anyone have any evidence that the fort survived until around 1910?
The last posting is very curious. Colwyn Beynon is quoted as writing "the picture (Burlington Bay) by John H. Caddy about 1851 shows the escarpment in the background with the Red Hill Valley point prominently in the center. You will notice on the right in the photo a tower with two windows which may be a small Martello defensive tower in common use at that time. I can't think of any other reason for a tower to be located on the north side of the canal?"
Well, I see the tower, and it's very interesting!
Caddy lived in Hamilton from 1851 to 1881, but he could also have painted it earlier, though it isn't likely (see a short bio and account of his extensive travels at http://www.goldiproductions.com/canada_site/art/art13_caddy.html)
The water colour painting of the canal is very interesting. We are looking at the canal from Lake Ontario, and the Ocean House, built in 1875, is on the left or south side. The Railway bridge is on the north side. I don't see any signs of the buildings near the lakeshore described as a blockhouse and battery! This has to have been painted between 1875 and 1881, and if the 2 buildings seen in the train-on-the-bridge picture weren't there, they must have been built between 1881 and ~1910!
Returning to the first picture, how does Colwyn place it as north of the canal?
If Little Lake (later called Burlington Bay) is on the left, then we must be looking north. Where do we stand to look north along the bayshore and see the bay on the west and the Red Hill Valley point north of us? The scene in the distance doesn't look like the "Burlington Plain" (through which Plains Road now runs), does it? I see a house nearer the Lake Ontario side, behind the tree (it may be quite a distance from the water), and I see the racks for drying nets along the bayshore. I don't know what those angled posts are for along the water line.
Perhaps we are looking south, Lake Ontario is on the left, and the point is along the escarpment when looking toward Winona and Fifty Point. But the beach seems too low. Where is the high ridge.
How sure are we that this picture is Burlington/Hamilton Beach at all? I would love to see the original picture, and read the official description of what is depicted, when it was painted, etc., and I have another idea about that tower, but I wouldn't dare even suggest it without more information.
And that brings me to the reason why I'm pulling this thread apart. I don't do it to embarrass anyone, or to show off. My research isn't based on repeating something else that has been repeated and repeated again and again. It consists of putting the picture together from a little bit here, a little bit there, with heavy reliance on original pictures and documents, comparing them with many others to build up a clear picture of the truth. False facts really screw up that process, because they interfere with the process and make it more difficult to fit all the facts together, so it's very important to make use of critical reading, and careful observation of many small details to make sure that everything is copasetic. Until I can prove something to my own satisfaction, it's only a theory. And I don't like to see other people misled by incorrect information either.
To Colwyn Beynon, please contact me. We have to talk! My mind is always open, but I need to see your evidence!
 

Fred Briggs

Beach History Moderator
May 27, 2004
64
0
6
86
Stoney Creek
hamiltonbeachcommunity.com
#7
Actually, I had it almost finished and then sent it up accidently. I then started editing it to finish it and was called to supper. Then when I tried to continue, I lost it. When I tried to edit it again I had lost all the previous additions, so I deleted it and started out again around midnight, but using Word this time, and completely reorganized the whole thing. Then I copied and pasted it into the Message Box.
I always have problems with Message Boxes on the Internet because I always start a new paragraph with a TAB and they always interpret that as a Continue, or an Upload Command. It drives me nuts!
 

Fred Briggs

Beach History Moderator
May 27, 2004
64
0
6
86
Stoney Creek
hamiltonbeachcommunity.com
#8
See! I tried to add something, and accidently posted it! I was going to say that much of the time was used checking my facts from my many notes and sources, and the rest was trying to organize it so that it could be followed! Good Luck! I always figure that people should spend a few minutes reading and rereading what I take hours to write, because it's often full of careful writing, and deserves to be read carefully, and understood. That's why I never take part in Chat Lines where people jump right in without thinking and send drivel!
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#9
Fred Briggs said:
On the 1815 Saltfleet Map, scotto has stated "The school house on Van Wagner's (now Baranga's) can be seen. The two-storey poured concrete Van Wagner's Beach schoolhouse with a basement wasn't built until 1905, and that building was modified several times before it was closed, and finally converted to Baranga's, and then there were more additions that brought it up to its present size. Prior to 1905, the previous schoolhouse at Van Wagner's Beach was a single storey frame building with one classroom and a separate room for the teacher. That was built around 1830 or 1840, so it would have been there (a little to the east of the later cement school) in 1875. However, it wouldn't be any larger than all the other buildings on Van Wagner's and Burlington Beach, which are represented by small black squares. Why it would be represented by such a large drawing, in a 3-dimensional side view, is a bit of a mystery. It isn't a church because the first church there was the above described frame school that was closed in 1905, when it was replaced by the cement school, and it was sold to the Anglican Church in 1917.
That was an assumption made by myself as the building seemed to be in the same spot where Barangas is now, it is most likely a school as you suggest and the large 3-dimensional picture is larger than life, but the icon such as that one is still used on some maps today to show area schools, churches, etc. I should of checked my dates, but we were more interested in the Fort at the time,
Fred Briggs said:
"a large building is also shown at the cut off of what is now the entrance to Van Wagner's Beach from Beach Blvd. I have no idea what the structure was or used for, anyone" In scotto's next posting, Colwyn Beynon is quoted as saying "The only large building that may have survived in 1875 may have been the Kingshead Inn. A British Army stop over and watering hole."
The King's Head Inn, formally named Government House, was burned by the Americans in May of 1813, and never rebuilt. Later buildings were built in the same area, including 2 hotels, by a father and son named Fitch. The latter Fitch's Hotel was referred to as the King"s Head Inn by the local population, but it certainly wasn't frequented by the British Army. All 3 of those building were farther east, at the intersection of the Beach Road from Hamilton (which crossed the water from Red Hill Creek, or Lottridge's Creek, flowing into Burlington Bay) and the road which crossed the beach and continued along the lakeshore to Niagara-on-the-Lake.
I don't believe that "structure" on the map was a building at all, but rather it was the filtering basin for the Hamilton water supply. The filtering basin was originally dug around 1858, but it was enlarged more than once over the years before it was finally reduced back nearer to its original size, in the position where some of us still remember it, where the go-carts are now.
When checking the Library's Special Collections section I found many of these atlases from around the 1875 era including the Wentworth one. Like the Fort and other buildings on that map, there wasn't much information to check except for the odd book by Mifflins, Gary Evans and Dorothy Turcotte. If these atlases were compiled at the same time, some of their data could be dated as there were no computers and poor communication back then to help with the effort. Was the Fitch building that large? There are a couple of very knowledgeable old fellows at the Steam Museum, if it was a filtering basin, they would know. When quoting Colwyn, I should use his whole message as he probably added a disclaimer on this knowing the dates were out of whack.

Fred Briggs said:
The 1815 Admiralty Map shows the cannon position, which the British put in place on the north side of the natural outlet from Little Lake to Lake Ontario, to impede an American attack by water on their fortifications on Burlington Heights, now in the Hamilton Cemetery near the High Level Bridge, during the War of 1812. I don't know what the 2 small structures are on the south bank. I think scotto just made a small slip when he wrote "the layout of the block house and battery along the sides the canal on the Burlington side." As he quickly pointed out, the fortifications were built on the Burlington outlet, the shallow crossing filled in when the present canal was built.
But then we have a huge error. The picture on page 58 of Harbour Lights is reported as "the first train coming over the new swing bridge from the north side in 1878" This may have been a misconception of the caption which accompanied the picture. The first locomotive to cross the new railway swing bridge at the canal was engine J.M.Williams. It crossed the canal from the north side on January 15th, 1878. I don't know which locomotive was the first to cross the new bridge in 1878. It may well have been the J.M.Williams, and this may very well have been the same locomotive, but it isn't the same bridge!
The original bridge was first swung across the canal (by hand) on January 10,1877. Five days later the bridge was tested by crossing and re-crossing it at different speeds, we must assume, both ways. Regular service began the following month. The lighthouse keeper Capt. George Thomson reported in his diary that the first passenger train crossed the bridge going north on February 13th, 1877. I'am curious as to why it didn't come back until 11 months later!
But that isn't important. What is important here is that the wrought-iron bridge was replaced by a new bridge over the winter of 1902 to ~ 1903, and the picture under consideration was believed to have been taken around 1910. (Pictures of both bridges, showing just how different they were, and including the circa 1910 photograph, can be found on page 337 of Hamilton's Other Railway by Charles Cooper)
Two faint buildings, one quite large, are described as the "block house and battery". Does anyone have any evidence that the fort survived until around 1910?
As written in the Harbour Lights book "The first locomotive to cross the railway swing bridge at the canal was engine J.M. Williams. It crossed the canal from the north side on January 15, 1878." This was just some side talk as we were mostly interested in the buildings that are located in the background, if not part of the Fort, what could they be??
I have checked over fifty sites and some books and found a great wealth of information on ships and forts from the 1800's, but very little on the canal one.
Good to see some history added to the canal bridges here as I didn't know there was another short lived bridge before the swing bridge and you don't mean the radial bridge?
This could be another thread all on it's own.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#10
Fred Briggs said:
The last posting is very curious. Colwyn Beynon is quoted as writing "the picture (Burlington Bay) by John H. Caddy about 1851 shows the escarpment in the background with the Red Hill Valley point prominently in the center. You will notice on the right in the photo a tower with two windows which may be a small Martello defensive tower in common use at that time. I can't think of any other reason for a tower to be located on the north side of the canal?"
Well, I see the tower, and it's very interesting!
Caddy lived in Hamilton from 1851 to 1881, but he could also have painted it earlier, though it isn't likely (see a short bio and account of his extensive travels at http://www.goldiproductions.com/canada_site/art/art13_caddy.html)
The water colour painting of the canal is very interesting. We are looking at the canal from Lake Ontario, and the Ocean House, built in 1875, is on the left or south side. The Railway bridge is on the north side. I don't see any signs of the buildings near the lakeshore described as a blockhouse and battery! This has to have been painted between 1875 and 1881, and if the 2 buildings seen in the train-on-the-bridge picture weren't there, they must have been built between 1881 and ~1910!
Returning to the first picture, how does Colwyn place it as north of the canal?
If Little Lake (later called Burlington Bay) is on the left, then we must be looking north. Where do we stand to look north along the bayshore and see the bay on the west and 'the Red Hill Valley point" north of us? The scene in the distance doesn't look like the "Burlington Plain" (through which Plains Road now runs), does it? I see a house nearer the Lake Ontario side, behind the tree (it may be quite a distance from the water), and I see the racks for drying nets along the bayshore. I don't know what those angled posts are for along the water line.
Perhaps we are looking south, Lake Ontario is on the left, and the point is along the escarpment when looking toward Winona and Fifty Point. But the beach seems too low. Where is the high ridge.
How sure are we that this picture is Burlington/Hamilton Beach at all? I would love to see the original picture, and read the official description of what is depicted, when it was painted, etc., and I have another idea about that tower, but I wouldn't dare even suggest it without more information.
The first Caddy painting was found by Colwyn on page 7 of "Hamilton Panorama of our Past", yes there does seem to be something off about the escarpment and I have been trying to get a high level picture of all the surrounding area and talk this one out with Colwyn, but I haven't yet(A couple now attached). The Royal Ontario Museum calls this work by Caddy, Burlington Bay, so hopefully they have their facts straight and it is north shore of the beach near the canal.
You are correct about Caddy's second painting, no buildings at all that show any fortifications on the north side, yet there is a structure of some kind shown in Mifflins' book that somewhat looks like on old fort and there would be no need for this after the war of 1812.

Fred Briggs said:
And that brings me to the reason why I'm pulling this thread apart. I don't do it to embarrass anyone, or to show off. My research isn't based on repeating something else that has been repeated and repeated again and again. It consists of putting the picture together from a little bit here, a little bit there, with heavy reliance on original pictures and documents, comparing them with many others to build up a clear picture of the truth. False facts really screw up that process, because they interfere with the process and make it more difficult to fit all the facts together, so it's very important to make use of critical reading, and careful observation of many small details to make sure that everything is copasetic. Until I can prove something to my own satisfaction, it's only a theory. And I don't like to see other people misled by incorrect information either.
To Colwyn Beynon, please contact me. We have to talk! My mind is always open, but I need to see your evidence!
Fred, if I wait and dissect every message and picture I find or receive to make sure the facts are completely correct, we would all be dead and gone by time I got around to it. Again, it is difficult to research anything where very little information exists, today we seem to at least have little more. I do try to stay away from the old saying, "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story", and the Burlington Races is a good example. The story of Commander Yeo is written in many books as being true only because someone said it was, but did it really happen, not likely. Please, do try and join in a little earlier next time and maybe we all can get the story straight the first time.
 

Attachments

Fred Briggs

Beach History Moderator
May 27, 2004
64
0
6
86
Stoney Creek
hamiltonbeachcommunity.com
#11
No, the Radial Bridge (Swing Bridge for pedestrians and automobiles as well as the Radial Cars) wasn't built until 1896.
The Fitch Hotel was definitley not that large. The Fitch son, who built the second hotel, called the one his father built "rough hewn". The second one, the one the son built and operated, was eventlually moved to Burlington Beach around Station 5, and was used there as a private dwelling. Exactly which house has to be settled with more research on my part, and I hope to include the informatin in my long awaited (by me, at least) video on Beach history.
That video will also include a verbal description, pointing out the actual sites, of the filtering basin(s) down through the years. The information (already videotaped) is presented on site by Ian Kerr-Wilson, longtime Curator of the Hamilton Museum of Steam and Technology until his recent move to the position, I believe, of Curator of Dundurn Castle. The filtering basin, at its largest, was that big! I don't have the various dates at hand except by viewing all the videotape again and making notes.
I'm sorry I didn't get to this thread until so late, but I was extrememely busy in September preparing for a convention of a society of which I am President and a Film Festival in Port Stanley, and that was followed by the cleanup and then the Dynes Beach Reunion.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#12
They have some good pictures at the Steam Museum(Use to be the water works), maybe they have something on that basin. Also, one of the older maps we have posted from the library show two conduits exiting from the pumping station and heading to the Beach, could be part of the basin??
I did ask the Historian person from the Library about that stucture and she had no real answer.

 

Fred Briggs

Beach History Moderator
May 27, 2004
64
0
6
86
Stoney Creek
hamiltonbeachcommunity.com
#13
If the historian person is Margaret Houghton in Special Collections, I'm surprised that she wasn't able to help you. There is a book named Hamilton's Old Pump, by William James and Evelyn M. James, published in 1978. There are 2 copies in Special Collections (which you can't check out) and 1 copy in Non-Fiction which I think you can borrow (and it's on the shelf right now!). The book is 352.60971352 JAM. If you cant get it, I can lend you my own copy.
The filtering basin(s) were on shore, and a pipe ran from the basin to the water works, or pumping station. Lake water flowed through the sand into the basin and then ran downhill (through a large pipe) to a lower position in the water works, from where it was pumped up to the reservoir, part way up the escarpment. Later, with increased water use due to increased population, water intake pipes from the filtering basin extended out into the lake because it didn't pass through the sand quickly enough. A second basin was added, and then the two were joined together, and at least one more pipe connected up to the water works. Finally, the intake was put futher out into the lake, and connected directly to the water works/pumping station and the filtering basin wasn't used any longer. Of course, the story is more compicated than that, but that's the jist of it in a nutshell.
Later, sand filteration became a part of the water works, as it still is, and when I was a boy a tour of the water works was part of the curriculum at Beach Bungalow/Bell Cairn School. That's why I was a little surprised to read that it was your first visit to the water plant. Is that because you didn't attend school on the beach, or didn't they do that in later years? Heck, when I was in school there were only four fabrics - cotton, wool, silk, and linen - and we learned the characteristics of each of them! Things change, don't they!
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#14
For the little time I was at Bell Cairn, I don't remember trips at anytime, the Steam Museum should be mandatory though as it is history from our backyard.

I asked Margaret about the large structure on the Beach that was shown on the 1875 map, all she said it was that it was a building, nothing about a filtering basin. I guess it is back to the Library, that's four books I need now.
BTW, good info Fred. :rock:
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#15
Back to the Fort subject. I scanned Frank Wood's original picture of the Locomotive travelling over the swing bridge and cropped only the section that shows the building(s) in the background. A little more can be seen, but it's still not clear whether or not if it is an old military fortification.
 

Attachments

Drogo

Moderator
Feb 8, 2005
402
2
18
#16
Re the building in the 1851 painting with permission of the ROM. I think that may have been the mastlight that was at the old outlet and part of the old fort's buildings. It was there before any other light. I believe it was discontinued use after they built the pier on the lake side and put a new lighthouse on it. Don't mean to butt in but this is my area of interest as well. I sent other opinions to Scott and he has my permission to put them up if he thinks they are of any interest.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#17
Drogo;
Thanks for the added info. :tbu: Below is is a few more comments that were e-mail to me. I have also attached a much clearer picture of the area that maybe somewhat newer. This picture is from page 89, Hamilton; A Panarama Of Our Past and as Drogo writes, the main structure is different than the first picture with the locomotive. The mystery continues.


E-mail quote
Drogo said:
In "Harbour Lights-Burlington Bay" by Mary and Ray Mifflin" there is a drawing of the old outlet and fort. That isn't the design of the fort. My guess would be Chisholms and yes you have my permission to post that to the list. However there was another square building. There was the battery, blockhouse, an oven for heating cannonballs, a navigational lightmast and a wooden swing bridge. It could be a revised building. However I'd bet money it belonged to John Chisholm. You probably have this book so I'm likely repeated what you know already.
"At the outlet, John Chisholm continued the maintenance of the mast light at the blockhouse, but it failed to aid the schooner Union the following year when, according to the Niagara Gleaner of September 24, 1825, it went aground near Burlington outlet."
"A few other personalitites living at the beach in the early 1830s were as follows:
Colonel William Chisholm continued to maintain a presence at the canal by establishing a large general merchandise store north of the canal, even though he moved his shipbuilding industry to 16 Mile Creek......"

This one is interesting as well!

"Captain Willet Green Miller lived at the canal and was a master shipwright who, over the years, built or helped build a score of sailing vessels."
It goes on later to say a storm took out his building, so he was close to the water, and he moved to Wellington Square.
Drogo said:
Scott
I just printed the two pictures of the old fort under the train bridge. I wish you could move that damned sailboat out of the way. If you look at both of them at the same time I think you will see the the sailboat pic is newer and they aren't the same building. If you look at the giant outhouse type structure out at the end of the pier you will see it is in both pics BUT the older building that isn't too clear was closer to it. Also the roofs are entirely different styles. The old picture is a cottage style sloped on four sides whereas the clearer one is straight two-sided roof. Also the clearer one seems closer to the water. It was probably the ship-builders building. These pics are extremely interesting. I do agree the train picture has a far older building in it.
Lastly; Had another thought as the shipbuilder over there is known to have gone into the lake so is that the possible fate of the old fort. I would bet money that something of it would be found in the water off the beach under tons of sand. Being wooden I don't think your metal detector will work.
 

Attachments

Drogo

Moderator
Feb 8, 2005
402
2
18
#18
Does anyone have a year for the construction of the Old Fort? Old Fort sounds so disrespectful. We should name it. Fort Geneva perhaps. Or Fort Macassa. We could drive historians crazy in 50 years. The reason I ask the age is in Lady Simcoe's Diaries she doesn't mention it. She mentions the gap into the bay (note attached said 1 1/2 miles from present canal but the author has made other blatant mistakes) but never mentions a fortress at the same time she is fully describing the King's Head. It may not have been there in 1796 but was definitely there 1815. It's a small timeframe but needs to be narrowed down. My thought is after finding the gap useful in the War of 1812 the British probably manned it to prevent the Americans from ever taking that harbour.
Also has anyone ever pulled George Campbell's news articles in the Burlington Gazette? I just heard of them. I intend to go this week to try to get copies. If I'm the only one who hasn't read them fine but it's new information I will make it available to the forum.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#19
Drogo said:
Does anyone have a year for the construction of the Old Fort? Old Fort sounds so disrespectful. We should name it. Fort Geneva perhaps. Or Fort Macassa. We could drive historians crazy in 50 years. The reason I ask the age is in Lady Simcoe's Diaries she doesn't mention it. She mentions the gap into the bay (note attached said 1 1/2 miles from present canal but the author has made other blatant mistakes) but never mentions a fortress at the same time she is fully describing the King's Head. It may not have been there in 1796 but was definitely there 1815. It's a small timeframe but needs to be narrowed down. My thought is after finding the gap useful in the War of 1812 the British probably manned it to prevent the Americans from ever taking that harbour.
I agree that that Fort should have a name and with such little information available on the subject, I doubt there was ever an official one. The two you suggest sound fine and Colwyn likes the title of Fort Brock, all very good names. Maybe we should have a vote.

Drogo said:
Also has anyone ever pulled George Campbell's news articles in the Burlington Gazette? I just heard of them. I intend to go this week to try to get copies. If I'm the only one who hasn't read them fine but it's new information I will make it available to the forum.
Never heard of those articles, see what you can find and please ask if they may be posted, the copyright laws are always getting in the way.
 

Drogo

Moderator
Feb 8, 2005
402
2
18
#20
I understand the copyright laws enough to know that if I don't get permission on something not in the public domain I can't reproduce the entire article. I also know that I can use pieces in discussion so you will get all the knowledge one way or another. The Gazette is no longer in business so I guess it's the libraries' call on what state their articles are in.
 
Top Bottom