FORT FOSTER AND THE SECOND SEMINOLE WAR
Fort Foster and Why It Matters
During the Seminole Wars in Florida, the United States Army constructed over two hundred fortifications in its efforts to push the Seminoles South and force them into compliance with the United States Government’s plan to remove them to the west.[i] The major tactic of General Thomas Jesup, the supreme commander in Florida, was the construction of numerous fortifications that supplied the troops with the materials required to wage a successful campaign. The fortifications throughout Florida served many practical purposes such as supply depots, hospitals, and staging centers in warfare against the Seminoles. Without the military presence and capabilities of the forts in Florida, the United States Government would have been engaged in a longer and less effective campaign against the Seminoles.
The Second Seminole War should be understood as an insurgency, a violent uprising against the government. The Seminoles actions of rebellion in response to the orders of the United States to leave Florida resulted with the beginning of a new strategy of warfare, which ended the ability of the military to confront a standing army. Fort Foster represents the role that forts played in both the strategy and tactics of a counterinsurgency. By understanding the role Fort Foster played in the Second Seminole War the actual political and military functions of forts are observed. Examining the military tactics and documented records reveal the public perceptions of wars in the nation’s history.
Fort Foster was a Second Seminole War fort constructed at General Thomas Jesup’s order to protect the Hillsborough River crossing (see Appendix A). The role Fort Foster and its predecessor Fort Alabama played in the Second Seminole War was typical of many forts of the period. The history of Fort Foster provides a perspective of the significance of forts and their functions in the Second Seminole War. Fort Foster and many other Seminole War forts helped protect transportation routes and established a military presence among the Seminoles. Presaging the important roles played by the more storied forts of the American West after the Civil War, Fort Foster was an essential part of the limited success the American military had during the Second Seminole War. Frontier Forts are commemorated for their ability to provide safety, facilitate westward expansion and foster cultural blending.[ii] Fort Foster and other Seminole War forts are not celebrated for the role they played in the Second Seminole War for numerous reasons: the war was unpopular because the United States never was able to claim victory, it is remembered as a stain on the country’s past, and most would prefer to forget it.
Mark Todd, Fort Fosters Role Was Brief, Tampa Tribune, July 9, 1972.
The defensive fortification protected a geographically important location. The Hillsborough River crossing was one of four river crossings on the Fort King Road and each of the bridges came under attack from the Seminoles. Protecting the bridges at Fort Foster, and other fortifications along the Fort King road was key in allowing effective troop movement to the center of the state. The Fort King Road connected the army’s major supply distribution site on Florida’s west coast at Fort Brooke with the Indian Agency located near the earliest established reservation at Fort King. The Fort King Road was utilized to move food, weapons, tools, troops, and building supplies to the interior of Florida.[iii]
Fort Foster and many other forts in central Florida housed large amounts of rations and ammunition. This allowed forces to stay in the field for longer periods of time to engage the enemy. Two major offensive forces passed through Fort Foster. The first was led by General Edmund Gaines in February of 1836 and the later was led by General Jesup through the winter of 1836 through 1837.[iv]
Fort Foster Sketcha General Jesups Papers National Archives Washington D.C.
The ability to move tools and building supplies helped the army to continue its military buildup through Florida. The heavy majority of forts were concentrated in the interior from Gainesville south to Fort Myers.[v] Colonel William Foster and his unit began the construction of Fort Foster on the bank of the Hillsborough River at the first river crossing on the Fort King Road. Prior to the completion of the project, the Colonel Foster’s unit proceeded to the Withlacoochee and commenced construction on Fort Dade. Fort Foster was completed and began its role in the Second Seminole War shortly after Colonel Foster departed the post. Military buildup in central Florida continued with the construction six defensive posts essential to the counterinsurgency. Fort Dade, Fort Cooper, Fort Drane, Fort Clinch, Fort Izard, and Fort King were all constructed and resupplied through Fort Foster.[vi]
Primarily a command and logistical post, Fort Foster nonetheless experienced ferocious Seminole attacks during the Second Seminole War. In this regard, Fort Foster and the myriad of army posts in Florida endured frequent assaults throughout the campaign to pacify the Seminoles. Camp Izard in Marion County was a hastily constructed fort that was attacked. Fort Clinch in Levy County was attacked and burnt by the Seminoles. Fort Cooper in Citrus County was under attack for thirteen days then later abandoned. Fort Foster was no exception as it faced numerous Seminole attacks and attempts to burn the bridge of the Fort King Road spanning the Hillsborough River.[vii]
The examination of the role Fort Foster played in the Second Seminole War portrays the value and importance of military forts in counterinsurgency situations. A military presence destabilizes the insurgencies ability to operate. The fort acts as a visual representation of the counterinsurgencies ability to operate in the Seminoles territory. The fort is able to provide supplies and troops to continuously antagonize the enemy. The permanent structure sends a message that the counterinsurgency force is committed to obtaining a long-term solution and is capable of taking actions through force. The fort is symbolically announcing the presence of the counterinsurgency and offering hope to the population that has been under the control of the insurgency’s leadership. The fort is tremendously useful in psychological and physical warfare. The United States Army has utilized the knowledge of the Second Seminole War to write counterinsurgency tactics utilized in modern conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Examining the actions and results of the Second Seminole War has shaped the way the military has developed policy pertaining to counterinsurgency operations.[viii]
While the Seminole Wars have receded from public memory and its military history has become mostly the province of academic and military historians, Fort Foster has an ongoing history. The study of Fort Foster and its role as a Seminole War Fort has been enhanced by the steps taken by the state of Florida. Only three structures from the Second Seminole War currently remain. They include a barracks from Fort Dallas, the reconstructed Fort Christmas, and the reconstructed Fort Foster. Only Fort Foster remains at its original location and the surroundings closely resemble what a person would have seen at the time. The Historic site of Fort Foster also contained a large amount of archaeological items recovered from the time period. Once the archaeological remains of the fort were compared to maps created by men stationed at Fort Foster it became unmistakable that it was the exact location of the fort. During the 1970’s the state of Florida undertook the reconstruction of Fort Foster. The state reconstructed the fort, the bridge and built a small museum to display some of the many objects found at the site.[ix]
Fort Foster depicts the necessity of the Second Seminole War forts. The role the forts served allowed the United States the ability to have any success in engaging and capturing the Seminole forces. The forts played a vital role in protecting the transport of troops, tools, rations, and ammunition to the interior. Many forts protected geographically important locations and displayed American power by creating impressive defensive structures throughout Florida. The reconstruction of forts in Florida allows people to study and understand the importance of frontier military forts, counterinsurgency movements, and cultural interactions of the American past.
The Second Seminole War was the longest Indian war totaling seven years. By the end of the conflict, eighty percent of the American population opposed the war.[x] The brutal tactics sickened the American public and many started to feel the Seminoles deserved to remain in the land they fought so hard to maintain.
Many of the men who served in the Second Seminole War would later see action in the Mexican American War such as General Winfield Scott and General Zachary Taylor. Several men went on to fight in the Civil War, including the notable officers William Sherman, George Meade, and Braxton Bragg.[xi]
The war forced the army to develop a guerrilla style of warfare that was later utilized in international conflicts. The navy and army worked closely together, more so than any previous conflict, to fulfill missions and transport supplies.[xii]
Prior to the Second Seminole War Florida was a land of unknown terrain, but through the military operations and letters the men sent home, Florida became a place more familiar to the American people. The population of Florida grew throughout the war and continued to grow once the war concluded. In 1830 the recorded population in Florida was 34,730.[xiii] By 1850 the population in Florida more than doubled reaching 87,445 citizens, and by the time the Seminole Wars no longer threatened citizens, the population grew to 391,422 in 1890.[xiv] The influx of population helped make Florida a state only three years after the end of the war.
The archaeological site Fort Foster is located directly adjacent to state-owned land and across from highway 301. The land Fort Foster occupied belonged to the Thomas family who was utilizing the majority of their property as a ranch. In the early 1970’s the Thomas family went through the process of having a portion of their property, and ultimately Fort Foster added to the list of the National Register of Historic Places.[xv] An archaeological survey was conducted in 1971 and the report positively portrayed Fort Foster. The Thomas family was successful in its attempt to have the site added to the National Register of Historic Places and within a short period of time, the family sold the land containing the historical post to the State of Florida. On December 28, 1973, Robert Thomas signed the property deed over to the State of Florida.[xvi] Once the State Park System acquired Fort Foster, the inspection and protection of the resource were the first priorities.
The first task of the park service was to survey and photograph the site. Daniel Penton was hired and sent to photograph the military structures and areas of geographical importance.[xvii] A historical inspection of the site revealed the location of the fort in regards to the river. The flora on the site was typical of the region:
the vegetation on the site includes pine, cypress, live oak and other hardwoods and scrub palmetto. The area on the north bank of the Hillsborough River, facing the site of Fort Foster, exhibits typical hammock vegetation. The over story of the pines and hardwoods on the site has effectively reduced the under story growth, producing an environmental setting very similar to the original situation.[xviii]
The landscape was later noted to enhance both the aesthetic and historical value of the site. The physical remains of the two bridges are still observable as is the Fort King Road.
As archaeologists surveyed the fort, they noted that very little human-caused disturbance of the fort had occurred since its abandonment in the middle of the nineteenth century.[xix] Upon the conclusion of the archaeological survey, a representative of the United States Department of the Interior recorded that Fort Foster is probably one of the best extant examples of a Second Seminole War post.[xx] The site was archaeologically well documented and offered a rich variety of materials recovered in the fort, in the Hillsborough River, and in the surrounding area. “The combination of research and archaeological excavations should result in a vivid picture of life at a frontier fort during the Second Seminole War.”[xxi]
A wealth of archaeological remains have been discovered around the fort. Some of the items include buttons, kaolin pipes, leather shoes, bone toothbrushes, eyeglasses, harness hardware, spurs, pocket knives, and tools.[xxii] The archaeological artifacts, in addition to the remains of two bridges, leave little doubt that the location is, in fact, Fort Foster. When the data is compared to the Randolph map of 1843 it becomes clear that the fort is in the same location (see Appendix C).
Plat map of Fort Foster date unknown Colonel Foster’s Journal Florida Archives Tallahassee, Florida
The Fort Foster site was designated as an item of interest to be reconstructed in 1976 as part of the State of Florida’s Bicentennial celebration.[xxiii] The reconstruction of Fort Foster included two blockhouses, a magazine house, a storehouse and the erection of a twelve to fourteen-foot high palisade wall that surrounded all the buildings.[xxiv] Every effort to reconstruct the fort as accurately as possible was taken, but on a few occasions, alterations were needed. The men under Colonel Foster used southern long-leaf yellow pine. No trees in the area met the specifications for reconstruction, so trees were purchased from the Tallahassee area.[xxv] The same techniques and technologies utilized in the original construction were used by the reconstruction crew to create the most authentic results possible. The fort was fully reconstructed and opened to the public on February 1, 1980.[xxvi]
Fort Foster has remained open to the public since February 1, 1980. An estimated seventy-eight people visit Fort Foster each weekend.[xxvii] The park office has been converted into a small, yet very informative museum. The museum helps educate the visitor on the history of the Seminole Wars and posts constructed within Florida. The museum has an interesting collection of archaeological artifacts on display ranging from plates to bayonets. The artifacts on display help the viewer get an idea of what life at the fort would have been like on a daily basis. Numerous pipes found suggest that the men enjoyed a smoke and were able to acquire tobacco.[xxviii] It would appear that dishes were used by some of the men because three pieces of different style plates have been found.[xxix] Rifles and bayonets are presented in the next display case.[xxx] The small museum and the artifacts it displays gives the visitor a view of their military duties. The tour continues as the visitors walk past a collection of the original beams from the 1836 constructed bridge that spanned the Hillsborough River. The park staff then proceeds to Fort Foster, the visitors enter the stockade through the main gates then proceed to view the blockhouses, storehouse and the tour concludes at the bridge.
In addition to the tour, the Hillsborough River Park staff provides educational opportunities to Tampa Bay area schools the second week of February. During the second week of February, Fort Foster is staffed by time period craftsmen who provide students with live demonstrations of common tasks and jobs of the people who were stationed at Fort Foster. Demonstrations range from candle making to the firing of the six-pound cannon.
Interpretation of the fort is presented through a neutral viewpoint, especially on the ethical dimensions of the Second Seminole War, which is enhanced by presenting facts and allowing the guest to arrive at their own conclusions.[xxxi] The fort hosts two reenactments of historical skirmishes each year. The reenactments allow park guests to get a realistic sense of warfare during the Second Seminole War; both white re-enactors and current members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida have participated in Seminole War reenactments at Fort Foster.
Hillsborough River State Park offers guests the ability to experience one of only three remaining structures from the Second Seminole War in Florida. Despite the importance of the fort during the Second Seminole War and the historical accuracy, the reconstructed Fort Foster has remained a relatively unknown historical resource throughout Florida and the Tampa Bay area. After the 1850’s the fort faded into obscurity until the 1970’s. The designation as a historical landmark and the ultimate reconstruction in 1980 brought the fort to the attention of thorough Tampa Tribune readers. Only a slim collection of journal entries and a handful of newspaper articles highlight the existence of Fort Foster, the most recent entry coming as late at 1994.
Fort Foster is an excellent example for the study of a typical Seminole War fort. Forts were first used as a military post in Europe in the eighteenth century as a way to impede the advance of an invading army.[xxxii] The use of the military forts has been adapted by the Americans prior to the Revolutionary War. Indian War era forts in the United States have been held in high esteem and are celebrated throughout the western United States. Many frontier forts of the Indian War era have been reconstructed and commemorated for the success they gained in America’s expansion. Seminole War forts are part of the same time period and played a vital role in opening settlement opportunities in Florida, but do not receive the same recognition. Seminole War forts differ to frontier forts of the American West: in their construction, the functions the forts served, and their place in American memory.[xxxiii]
In the Seminole Wars, the army constructed most of the defensive structures from tall and straight growing pine trees, which were abundant in the area.[xxxiv] Florida was an environment that offered the bounty of densely wooded hammocks, dry areas of densely wooded land, in most locations. The army took advantage of the lumber resources in the construction of planned forts and quickly assembled defensive structures that offered protection on several occasions. Frontier forts of the American West were composed of a variety of materials. Frontier Fort Larned of Kansas was constructed using sandstone. Fort Union in Northern New Mexico was originally constructed using logs, but due to the weather, the structure was torn down and replaced by adobe buildings in 1862.[xxxv]
The materials of construction were not the only difference between the forts because the defensive abilities also differed. Seminole War forts were surrounded by a picket constructed of logs usually fifteen to twenty feet high. Two blockhouses were usually built to minimize the number of troops required to defend the fort. The blockhouses were constructed at opposite corners of the fort to allow adequate flanking fire.[xxxvi] Many of the frontier forts in the American West did not have a stockade, as attacks on the forts were unusual. Fort Smith constructed in 1817 in Arkansas marked the transition of walled forts to open forts.[xxxvii] In the rare occasion that the western frontier fort did come under attack, people could take up defensive positions within the structure.
Both types of forts were necessary to supply commodities to groups nearby, thus they usually contained storehouses. Seminole War forts used the storehouses to hold items vital to the war such as additional rations, weapons, and tools. Frontier forts used the storehouses to supply items to accommodate travelers and weapons to provide safety, but also possessed large amounts of goods to facilitate trade with Native American groups.[xxxviii]
Construction materials and defensive features of the forts were evidence of the different functions of Seminole War forts and frontier forts of the American West. The Seminole War forts were a tactic used to establish a formal military presence in an area the Seminoles operated. The forts were able to house and outfit troops, supply offensive missions to the interior, and serve as a military hospital when needed. Fort Brooke, a Seminole War fort located at Tampa Bay, sent troops to the interior of Florida continuously from the start of the Second Seminole War until the conclusion of the Third Seminole War. One of the battles that Fort Foster equipped troops for was a victorious battle at Hatchee-Lustee, near present-day Disney World.
The Seminole War forts often came under attack. The military function of equipping and dispatching troops was quickly realized by the Seminoles, and the forts became targets. Fort Cooper, located in Citrus County, was under attack for thirteen consecutive days and was able to repel the Seminoles. Fort Clinch of Levy County was attacked and put under siege for a month, then abandoned and burnt by the Seminoles on April 11, 1826.[xxxix]
Treaties were arranged and peace talks often occurred at Seminole War forts. Deceit and trickery became a weapon of choice when a compromise could not be reached. Military forts were used to capture Seminole Chiefs under white flags of truce. The forts were used as a temporary prison, holding Seminoles that would later be transferred to the west. Fort Lauderdale accepted the surrender of forty-four Seminoles and held them until transport was arranged. Fort Brooke was the major port on the western coast of Florida, where Seminoles were gathered and shipped west.
Western Frontier forts, especially in Texas, were utilized to establish authority in the region. General Worth and General Brooke both served in the Second Seminole War. Once in Texas, they constructed Fort McIntosh and Fort Duncan as a method to establish military strength.[xl] The fort construction continued, and by 1849 a string of twelve forts was established that created a southwestward line to the Mexican border.[xli]
Beyond Texas, frontier forts were scattered throughout the west. Territorial acquisition succeeded by emigration and settlement brought whites increasingly into a confrontation with Indians and raised the need for military posts in settled areas.[xlii] Many of the western forts were established to help ensure safe passage to people traveling west, most often on the Oregon and Santa Fe Trails. Like the Seminole War forts, frontier forts became locations to sign treaties with Native Americans, such as Fort Laramie with the treaty of 1866.[xliii] Frontier forts became a framework for army deployment, which created a way to supply and move troops to areas of uprisings.
The cry for additional fort construction was common among all Indian War era locations. The cost and inability to man the fortifications was a constant struggle. Lieutenant General William Sherman, commanding the division of Missouri said: “Were I or the department commanders to send guards to every point where they are clamored for, we would need alone on the plains a hundred thousand men…”[xliv]
Fortifications during the Indian Wars played a pivotal role in the expansion and settlement of the country. Frontier forts have been positively remembered as places that offered protection to settlers and travelers. The frontier forts were places of trade and cultural blending that can be celebrated today in the current social climate. In comparison, the Seminole War forts are not as celebrated. Perhaps the negative association of the forts was due to the fact they were locations of skirmishes and places of entrapment and death. This deters the ability or desire to celebrate the past. The most obvious reason to neglect the Seminole War forts is the desire of the American public to erase the war from our past. The Seminole Wars were a stain on the country at the time they were fought and the tactics and moral reasoning allowed the wars to continue far beyond the desire of the American public. The inability to admit a moral lapse in reasoning and fear of destroying the country’s pride led to the virtual eradication of the Seminoles in Florida. The Seminole War forts are objects that remind us that the decisions of our political leaders were not perfect and American history contains shameful acts. The forts of the Seminole Wars are important reminders that we must learn from our past so we can prevent the victimization of other cultures in the future.
Seminole War forts offer great opportunities to learn from the past and the American military has taken full advantage of studying the counterinsurgency. Until 2006, the Second Seminole War was used as a guide in reviewing the operational environment, the nature of anticipated operations, and national and multinational strategic direction.[xlv] An insurgency is described as a method of using violence to achieve political goals.[xlvi] A counterinsurgency involves all political, economic, military, paramilitary, psychological, and civic actions that can be taken by a government to defeat an insurgency.[xlvii] Avoiding the creation of new insurgents and forcing existing insurgents to end their participation is vital to defeating an insurgency. The Army has developed an action plan to rationally and successfully deal with counterinsurgencies. This is accomplished by studying the actions of officers and the geography of the Second Seminole War.
According to Colonel Matthew Moten, it is imperative to have focused objectives in a counterinsurgency because “war carries you away from the original goal you were fighting for.”[xlviii] Army doctrine indicates that conditions for a self-stabilizing long-term peace is the main goal of a counterinsurgency.[xlix] The goal should be to achieve a set of conditions that at some point will allow withdraw of the elements of United States power and leave things on a self-sustaining course. The goal of the Second Seminole War was to move every Indian from Florida territory to Arkansas, a task that proved to be impossible.
Studying the history of the Second Seminole War provided the army with an opportunity to study the leadership of tactical and operational command. Seven commanders served as head of the operations during the Second Seminole War and three of them asked to be relieved of their duty. In October of 2013, the United States Army Combat Studies Institute published a study of leadership using Dade’s Battle in December of 1835 as an example.[l] The leaders of the Second Seminole Wars used a paradigm heavily influenced by the Napoleonic Wars. That method of thinking exposed flaws in their concepts of operations and operational design.[li] The study exposed the inabilities to understand the environment, to anticipate and adapt to uncertainty, to recognize change, and to lead transitional operations. It became evident that the military lacked senior officers who were willing to think creatively and critically.
The Seminoles became a formative foe and relied on their strengths to prolong the war. The strengths displayed by the Seminoles included being indigenous to the territory, their knowledge of geography, established intelligence networks, and motivation to stay in Florida. These strengths led to altered battle tactics that allowed the Seminoles to operate without encountering heavy losses, as well as their ability to endure hardships. In contrast, the white forces were unfamiliar with the geography of Florida and were hampered by the hot summer and the sickness it brought. The vulnerabilities of the Seminoles included limited personnel, resources, and technology that led to insufficient combat power.
The Army’s studies on the Second Seminole War have led to some important guidelines for successful counterinsurgency operations. For example, Robert Thompson suggests that the government must secure the base area before conducting a military campaign.[lii] Jesup used this strategy once he was appointed to command in Florida. Not only did he establish his command in a centralized and well-fortified location, but he built up the surrounding area with forts to supply the interior and central command. According to Charles Callwell, other tactics necessary for a successful counterinsurgency include a succession of blows to paralyze the enemy, matching the enemies’ mobility and inventiveness, and seizing what the enemy prizes most. Those tactics were imposed by Worth as he campaigned during the summer months to increase the frequency of battles. He also employed the use of boats to engage the enemy deep into the Everglades. He encouraged troops to seize women and children when the opportunity presented itself, thus hoping to destroy the will of the Seminole warriors in efforts to end the war.
The Second Seminole War played a valuable role in the establishment of army doctrine. This led to the United States counterinsurgency policy, which was developed by studying the decisions of leaders and the geography that affected the Second Seminole War. The army’s plan to destroy the insurgent force and their complexes resulted in the ideology requiring the: expansion of the control area, isolation of guerrillas from support, demonstration of government support for people in the area, and the harassment of the insurgents to prevent the buildup of personnel and resources.[liii]
The army did not build Fort Foster to inform subsequent tactical doctrine any more than the “rediscovery” of the Fort in the 1930s reflected an attempt to explain the history of the Second Seminole War or elucidate the role of the United States Army forts in the 19th Century. Rather, Fort Foster and the War were products of historical contingency— history being lived forward. It is evident that the material existence of the Fort and its actual reconstruction has provided a basis for examining the past and illustrating the importance of operational details in the complex matrix of United States history as well as the history of First
[i] “Florida Seminole Wars Heritage Trail,” Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, last modified 2015, accessed October 12, 2015, https://Archive.org/stream/floridaseminolewarsheritagetrail#page/n57/mode/2up.
[ii] Robert Utley, Frontiersmen in Blue: The United States Army and the Indian, 1848-1865, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981), 4.
[iii] Jerry Morris, The Fort King Road Then and Now, (Dade City: Seminole Wars Foundation, 2009), 3.
[iv] “Florida Seminole Wars Heritage Trail,” Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, last modified 2015, accessed October 12, 2015, https://Archive.org/stream/floridaseminolewarsheritagetrail#page/n57/mode/2up.
[vi] “Florida Seminole Wars Heritage Trail,” Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, last modified 2015, accessed October 12, 2015, https://Archive.org/stream/floridaseminolewarsheritagetrail#page/n57/mode/2up.
[viii] Joyce Morrow, Tactics in Counterinsurgency, (Washington D.C.: Department of the Army, accessed October 14, 2015), http://www.us.army.mil.
[ix] Frank, Laumer. Dade’s Last Command, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1995, 33.
[x] Russell Crandall, America’ Dirty Wars: Irregular Warfare from 1776 to the War on Terror, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 53.
[xii] Crandall, America’s Dirty Wars, Ibid.
[xiii] “Florida Population Chart,” United States Census Bureau, resident population and apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives, last modified July 21, 2000, accessed October 12, 2015, http://www.census-charts.com/population/pop-fl-1790-2000.
[xvi] Property deed, Florida Archives, 1973, Tallahassee, Florida Archives Building.
[xvii] Property Photographs, Florida Archives, 1974, Tallahassee, Florida Archives Building.
[xviii] National Register of Historical Places Register Form, Florida Archives, 1971, Tallahassee, Florida Archives Building.
[xxi] National Register of Historical Places Register Form, Florida Archives, 1971, Tallahassee, Florida Archives Building.
[xxiii] John Van Gieson, “Tampa Fort, Mission To Be Restored,” Tampa Tribune, June 18, 1972, Section B, 7
[xxiv] Panky Glamsch, “Fort Foster Being Rebuilt,” Tampa Tribune, March 21, 1978, Section D, 1.
[xxvi] Panky Snow, “Rangers Relive Past at New Fort Foster,” Tampa Tribune, January 19, 1980, Section D, 3.