Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Fort Monroe


Fort Monroe is a decommissioned United States Army coastal fortification located at Old Point Comfort in Hampton, Virginia, overlooking the Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads.
Constructed from 1819 to 1834 as part of the Third System of U.S. seacoast defenses following the War of 1812, it is the largest masonry fort ever built in the United States and the Western Hemisphere, encompassing 565 acres with extensive moats and stone walls.
Named for President James Monroe, the fort employed slave labor during its initial phases of construction and remained the third-oldest continuously active Army post until its closure in 2011.
During the American Civil War, Fort Monroe served as the sole federal military installation in the Upper South to stay under Union control throughout the conflict, functioning as a staging base for Union expeditions into Virginia and the site where escaped enslaved people were first designated "contraband of war" under General Benjamin Butler's policy, establishing it as an early refuge known as "Freedom's Fortress."
Postwar, it housed the imprisonment of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from 1865 to 1867 and later became a major center for Coast Artillery training until the mid-20th century.
Designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and a National Monument in 2011, Fort Monroe exemplifies enduring military engineering and strategic significance in American defense history.

Location and Physical Description

Geographical and Strategic Setting

Fort Monroe occupies Old Point Comfort, a low-lying peninsula at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Peninsula in Hampton, Virginia, spanning approximately 565 acres with its historic core encompassing a 63-acre stone fort surrounded by a moat. This site marks the convergence of the Chesapeake Bay to the west, Hampton Roads to the north, and Mill Creek to the east, positioning it on a narrow spit of land roughly 1 mile long and 0.5 miles wide amid the Tidewater region's sandy soils and beaches. The terrain's flat, water-encircled configuration, enhanced by historical landfill expansions such as 90 acres near Mill Creek, provided inherent defensive advantages against landward approaches while exposing seaward batteries to incoming threats. Strategically, Old Point Comfort's placement commands the primary maritime gateway to , the , and Norfolk's shipyards, enabling control over vital shipping lanes and blocking unauthorized access to interior waterways leading toward and the nation's capital. Since colonial times in 1609, the location has fortified defenses against naval incursions into , safeguarding colonial settlements like 30 miles upriver and broader regional commerce. Dubbed the "Gibraltar of the Chesapeake," the fort's deepwater channel position shielded it from Atlantic storms while mounting artillery—capable of firing over a mile—to dominate the harbor's narrow passages, including the channel to opposite Fort Wool. This configuration rendered it a of U.S. coastal defense systems, particularly the Third System post-War of , by funneling potential invaders into crossfire from its bastions and water batteries.

Architectural Design and Defensive Features

Fort Monroe's architectural design exemplifies the Third System of U.S. coastal fortifications, developed after the to counter naval threats with durable, standardized structures using brick and stone masonry. As the first and largest of these forts, it was engineered by French-born Colonel Simon Bernard, incorporating advanced principles of bastioned trace for mutual . The fort features an irregular pentagonal plan with seven fronts and seven bastions, spanning a perimeter that supported over 380 gun mounts, designed to hold a wartime exceeding 2,600 men. Its massive scarp walls, five feet thick and faced with granite, rise to form the foundation for brick-arched casemates and superstructures, creating the most elaborate Third System enclosure without encompassing civilian settlements. Key defensive elements include the encircling wet , approximately eight feet deep, which deterred assaults and enhanced the slope for clear fields of fire. Earthen ramparts back the , topped by a terreplein walkway for crews, while casemates—typically 16 feet wide with vaulted, bombproof ceilings—provided enclosed positions for guns via central embrasures and doubled as . This integrated system emphasized enfilade fire from bastions, structural resilience against bombardment, and self-sufficiency, rendering Fort Monroe a formidable barrier to approaches.

Pre-Modern History

Old Point Comfort and Early Colonial Significance

, a narrow projecting into the at the mouth of in southeastern , was identified by English explorers as a strategically vital landmark during the founding of . In 1607, Captain and early settlers initially referred to the site as Cape Comfort, noting its deep-water channel that provided safe anchorage and easy access for ships after the perils of transatlantic voyages. The name evolved to Point Comfort, and later to distinguish it from New Point Comfort farther north along the bay, reflecting its role as a navigational beacon and defensive chokepoint controlling entry to the and the colony's interior. This location's natural advantages—sheltered waters amid shifting sands and marshes—made it indispensable for maritime trade, supply lines, and early colonial expansion under the Virginia Company's charter. The site's defensive significance prompted rapid fortification following Jamestown's establishment. In 1609, colonists erected Fort Algernourne, the first structure at Point Comfort, a wooden designed primarily to signal threats—such as warships or Confederacy attacks—to the vulnerable upstream settlement 30 miles away via beacon fires or messengers. This outpost exemplified the colony's precarious early years, reliant on rudimentary defenses against European rivals and resistance amid resource shortages and the of 1609–1610. Subsequent reinforcements included additional batteries and, by the mid-18th century, Fort George, a more substantial earthwork fort armed with cannons to deter naval incursions during tensions with and . However, Fort George was obliterated by a hurricane in 1749, leaving the point undefended for decades until post-Revolutionary War efforts. These fortifications highlighted Old Point Comfort's function as Virginia's seaward gateway, enforcing customs, quarantining arrivals, and safeguarding exports that underpinned the colony's economy. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, served as a collection point and administrative hub, where colonial officials inspected vessels and levied duties on imports fueling and later Williamsburg. Its position enabled surveillance of Chesapeake traffic, contributing to the colony's growth from a fragile outpost to a prosperous society. A rudimentary , manned by a with a , was operational by the late 1700s to guide ships through hazardous shoals, underscoring the area's enduring navigational importance. Despite intermittent neglect and natural disasters, the point's early colonial role as a and economic laid the groundwork for later permanent defenses, demonstrating pragmatic adaptation to geopolitical threats without overreliance on unproven alliances or exaggerated native hostilities.

The 1619 African Landing: Facts and Context

In late August 1619, the English privateer ship White Lion, commanded by Captain John Colyn Jope, arrived at Point Comfort in the Virginia colony, carrying "20. and odd Negroes" who had been captured as prizes of war. These individuals, numbering approximately 20 to 30, originated from the Kingdom of Ndongo in west-central Africa (present-day Angola) and spoke Kimbundu; they had been enslaved by Portuguese forces during conflicts in Angola and transported aboard the Portuguese ship São João Bautista, bound for Veracruz, Mexico. The White Lion and its consort, the English ship Treasurer, intercepted the São João Bautista in the Gulf of Mexico earlier that summer under letters of marque authorizing attacks on Spanish and allied shipping during the Anglo-Spanish War. John Rolfe, a prominent colonist and secretary of the colony, documented the transaction in a letter to Sir Edwin Sandys of the , noting that and Abraham Peirsey, the cape merchant at Point Comfort, purchased the Africans "for victualls" valued at roughly 250 pounds of or equivalent provisions, as the privateers required supplies to continue their voyage. The remained at Point Comfort for about a month, during which additional captives may have been traded, before departing; the arrived shortly after but carried fewer Africans and soon left amid tensions with colonial authorities over unpaid debts. Point Comfort, a fortified at the mouth of the , served as the primary entry point for ships entering en route to , making it a logical stop for the privateers seeking to offload their human cargo amid the colony's labor shortages and precarious food supplies. The Africans' initial status in Virginia resembled that of European indentured servants rather than the later chattel slavery: they were bound for terms of service, often seven to nine years, in exchange for passage and sustenance, with opportunities for freedom upon completion. By the 1620 census, at least three—Antonio (later Anthony Johnson), Isabella, and William—were recorded alive, with Anthony and Isabella's child William baptized in 1624, indicating integration into Anglican practices; Anthony later secured land ownership and freedom through service. Hereditary, race-based lifetime enslavement did not solidify until the mid-17th century, influenced by economic pressures, legal precedents like the 1662 Virginia statute on maternal inheritance of servitude, and shifting labor demands from indenture to perpetual bondage. This landing thus introduced the first sustained African population to English North America but represented a pragmatic exchange in a wartime privateering context, not the immediate establishment of a slave-based economy.

Construction and Early Military Use

Design and Construction (1819–1834)

Following the , the initiated the Third System of coastal fortifications to address vulnerabilities exposed by British naval operations, including the bombardment of coastal cities and the campaign. Fort Monroe, located at to safeguard , represented a cornerstone of this defensive strategy due to the harbor's commercial and military significance. The fort's design was led by Brigadier General Simon Bernard, a Napoleonic-era engineer recruited by President to head the Board of Engineers for Fortifications. Bernard's plan adopted advanced European bastion principles, featuring an irregular pentagonal layout with large projecting bastions, extensive casemates for , and a surrounding to deter assaults and enhance water defenses. This configuration allowed for overlapping fields of fire and accommodation of up to 2,000 troops and over 350 in wartime. Construction began in 1819 under federal oversight, utilizing locally quarried stone and employing both military engineers and civilian laborers. The project encompassed not only the perimeter walls—measuring approximately 1.5 miles in —but also internal , magazines, and support structures essential for sustained operations. By 1834, the fort was substantially complete, earning the moniker " of the Chesapeake" for its imposing scale and strategic impregnability. As the largest and most elaborate Third System fortification, Fort Monroe exemplified the era's emphasis on massive works to counter naval threats with concentrated shore-based .

Initial Operations and War of 1812 Legacy

The vulnerabilities revealed during the , particularly the British naval squadron's penetration of in 1813, directly prompted the fort's development as a bulwark against future incursions. British forces captured the lighthouse on June 25, 1813, using it as a base to launch raids that culminated in the burning of Hampton on the same day, exposing the inadequacy of existing defenses like the outdated Fort . These events, combined with the broader threat to inland targets such as , via , underscored the strategic imperative for permanent fortifications, leading to fund the Third System of coastal defenses in 1817. Fort Monroe's hexagonal design and positioning were thus engineered to command the harbor's narrows, ensuring overlapping fields of fire to deter or repel enemy fleets—a doctrinal shift toward static emplacements informed by the war's lessons in naval superiority. Following its completion on November 1, 1834, Fort Monroe's initial operations centered on garrison duties by artillery companies, emphasizing harbor surveillance, armament maintenance, and defensive drills to safeguard shipping lanes critical for national commerce. The installation housed approximately 1,000 troops at full strength, with routines including the manning of 100 heavy guns along its water battery and casemates, periodic target practice on the Chesapeake, and coordination with adjacent Fort Calhoun (across the channel) for mutual support. Lighthouse operations at , integrated into the fort's perimeter, continued to aid navigation while serving as a sentinel post, reflecting the dual civil-military role inherited from pre-war structures. A key element of early operations was the perpetuation of the Artillery School of Practice, founded in by Abraham Eustis to standardize gunnery and siege tactics amid post-1812 reforms. This institution, the U.S. Army's first dedicated service school, trained officers in practical exercises using the fort's batteries, fostering expertise in coastal defense that aligned with the War of 1812's emphasis on artillery proficiency over infantry maneuvers. By the late 1830s, the school had evolved into a hub for experimental ordnance testing and tactical instruction, with no major conflicts interrupting these activities until the , thereby embedding the fort's legacy as a training nexus born from wartime exigencies. The absence of hostilities in the intervening decades validated the deterrent posture, as foreign powers respected the "Gibraltar of the Chesapeake" as an impregnable asset.

Role in the American Civil War

Strategic Control and Key Events (1861–1865)

Following Virginia's secession ordinance on April 17, 1861, and its ratification by voters on May 23, Fort Monroe maintained Union control as the only federal military installation in seceded territory to remain secure throughout the war, owing to its robust Third System fortifications, strategic position guarding Hampton Roads, and prompt reinforcements ordered by President Abraham Lincoln. Major General Benjamin F. Butler arrived to command the fort on May 22, 1861, with approximately 2,000 troops, immediately dispatching forces to occupy nearby Hampton and disrupt secessionist activities, prompting Confederate retaliation including the burning of Hampton on August 7, 1861, to deny its use as a Union base. The fort's dominance over Chesapeake Bay approaches enabled Union naval operations, including the May 1862 capture of after the , where federal ironclads neutralized Confederate naval threats originating from the fort's vicinity. In March 1862, Fort Monroe served as the assembly point for George B. McClellan's , with over 100,000 Union troops landing there by late April to advance up the York Peninsula toward , marking the war's largest amphibious operation up to that point, though it ultimately stalled at the and subsequent . Later, in May , Butler launched the from Fort Monroe, attempting to cut Confederate rail lines and support Ulysses S. Grant's , but Confederate forces under contained the advance in the Bermuda Hundred bottleneck. The fort's artillery, including the massive 20-inch known as the "Lincoln Gun" emplaced in 1862, provided overwatch for these operations and deterred Confederate assaults, ensuring sustained supply lines and naval access critical to Grant's successful Petersburg later that year.

Contraband Policy: Military Pragmatism and Refugee Influx

On May 23, 1861, three enslaved men—Frank Baker, James Townsend, and Shepard Mallory—fled to Fort Monroe from , following the arrival of troops in the area. Benjamin F. , commanding the fort, refused their return to Confederate John B. , who demanded them under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. declared the men "contraband of war," arguing that since they had been employed by the to construct fortifications hostile to the , they constituted military property subject to seizure, akin to enemy munitions or livestock. This rationale circumvented legal obligations to return fugitives while pragmatically denying labor to the enemy and providing it to forces. The policy's military utility lay in reallocating : contrabands were assigned tasks such as fortification work, entrenchment digging, and logistical support, with viewing their output as offsetting the costs of shelter and rations provided by federal authorities. By May 27, 1861, at least a dozen more enslaved individuals had reached the fort, with arrivals increasing daily and their collective assessed value exceeding $60,000. Congress retroactively endorsed the approach through the First Confiscation Act of August 6, 1861, which authorized seizure of property, including slaves, used in aid of rebellion. 's stance, dubbed the "Fort Monroe Doctrine," prioritized operational advantage over ideological commitments to slavery's preservation, though it inadvertently accelerated the war's evolution into a contest over bondage by sheltering self-emancipators. The influx strained Fort Monroe's capacity, prompting the establishment of extramural camps, including the Grand Contraband Camp in adjacent Hampton—the first and largest such settlement. Hundreds of runaways sought refuge there by late 1861, with the policy facilitating their employment in Union military endeavors and eventual wage labor. These camps served as de facto recruitment hubs for African American soldiers and laborers, underscoring the policy's causal role in undermining Confederate manpower while bolstering Northern logistics, though initial conditions involved rudimentary shelter and reliance on military provisioning. The approach reflected pragmatic adaptation to wartime exigencies rather than abolitionist fervor, as Butler avoided explicit freedom grants until the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, formalized broader liberation.

Imprisonment of Jefferson Davis and Other Confederates

, president of the , was captured by forces on May 10, 1865, near Irwinville, , and arrived at Fort Monroe on May 22, 1865, for imprisonment. He was confined in a cell within the fort's walls, initially under heavy guard and shackled with leg irons starting May 23, 1865; the irons were removed less than a week later amid public outcry over his deteriorating health. faced charges including , complicity in the assassination of President , and mistreatment of prisoners of war, though he was never brought to trial. The conditions of Davis's confinement were severe, with his cell converted from officer quarters by bricking over openings, resulting in a damp and restricted space; he was permitted limited exercise on the ramparts under supervision. Medical oversight was provided by surgeons, reflecting concerns over his physical decline during the two-year detention ending May 13, 1867, when he posted and was released. Fort Monroe also served as a prison for other Confederate personnel, particularly during the war's final phases. In the fall of 1864, roughly 600 Confederate officers were held in the casemates, where 13 died in due to and inadequate conditions. Post-surrender, the facility detained additional political and military prisoners from the defeated , though remained the most prominent figure, underscoring the fort's role in post-war accountability efforts.

Post-Civil War Military Evolution

Endicott Period and Coast Artillery Development (1868–1906)

Following the , Fort Monroe resumed its role as a primary artillery training facility after the release of in May 1867, with the Artillery School of Practice reestablished in November 1867 following an eight-year suspension. The fort's infrastructure saw expansions starting in 1874, including new officers' quarters such as Building 15 completed in 1878, and conversions like Building 27 to classrooms and laboratories around 1880 to support artillery instruction. Rising concerns over inadequate coastal defenses, prompted by advancements in naval technology and international tensions, led President to appoint the Endicott Board in 1885 under Secretary of War William C. Endicott. The board's 1886 report recommended a comprehensive modernization program, including construction of dispersed batteries, installation of breech-loading rifled guns on disappearing carriages, batteries, rapid-fire guns, searchlights, and mine defenses, to replace outdated forts and cannons. Congress authorized funding in 1890, initiating the Endicott Program, which emphasized concealed emplacements with earth-covered concrete structures for protection against naval bombardment. At Fort Monroe, implementation began in 1891 with the construction of 14 Endicott-era batteries by 1908, significantly enhancing ' defenses through advanced armament capable of longer ranges and higher accuracy. Key batteries included those mounting 12-inch disappearing rifles, 10-inch guns, and 12-inch mortars, reflecting the shift to steel and pneumatic or hydraulic systems. For instance, Batteries Anderson and Ruggles, completed in 1899-1900, each featured eight 12-inch M-1 mortars in two pits for high-angle fire against ships. Battery DeRussy, built 1898-1901, housed three 12-inch disappearing rifles on a two-tiered platform.
BatteryConstruction PeriodArmament
Anderson1898-19008 × 12-inch M-1 mortars
Ruggles1898-18998 × 12-inch M-1 mortars
DeRussy1898-19013 × 12-inch disappearing
1898-19012 × 10-inch disappearing rifles (Model 1888MI)
Parrott1901-19052 × 12-inch disappearing
Irwin19034 × 3-inch rapid-fire guns (Model 1898)
In 1900, Fort Monroe established an Artillery Board to evaluate and develop coastal defense technologies, later renamed the Coast Artillery Board in 1907, underscoring the fort's central role in doctrinal and matériel advancements. By 1906, batteries like Parrott were completed, integrating features such as sloped earthworks and parapets for and blast deflection, while training at the Artillery School incorporated live-fire exercises with these systems to prepare personnel for harbor defense operations. This era solidified Fort Monroe's position as a hub for transitioning U.S. from Civil War-era pieces to modern seacoast fortifications, directly influencing national defense strategy against potential ironclad and armored naval threats.

Coast Artillery School and Training Mission

The Coast Artillery School was established at Fort Monroe in 1907 following the legislative separation of the U.S. Army Artillery into distinct coast and field branches, with the school serving as the primary training institution for the newly designated Coast Artillery Corps. This reorganization built upon the fort's long-standing artillery education tradition, tracing back to the Artillery School of Practice founded there in 1828 by Brigadier General Abraham Eustis to centralize officer instruction in artillery principles and operations. The school's core training mission focused on equipping officers and enlisted personnel with specialized skills for seacoast defense, emphasizing practical and theoretical proficiency in gunnery, , fortification design, fire control mechanisms, and tactical deployment of heavy systems. Instruction incorporated hands-on exercises with Endicott-period emplacements, including battery operations, range estimation, and coordination of searchlights and electrical fire-control apparatuses, adapting to evolving threats from naval gunfire and early . By the , the curriculum expanded to include anti-aircraft defense training, reflecting interwar doctrinal shifts toward integrated harbor protection. In response to mobilization needs, Fort Monroe's facilities were augmented on July 30, 1918, to establish a dedicated , which coordinated advanced courses, refresher programs, and specialist for thousands of personnel deploying to coastal fortifications nationwide. The school maintained its role through the , conducting annual field exercises and testing experimental equipment, such as improved mortar detachments and gun mounts, to refine defensive tactics against modern warships. It remained operational until 1946, when obsolescence of fixed coastal defenses led to its relocation and the Corps' eventual disbandment in 1950.

20th Century Operations

World War I Defensive Role

Fort Monroe functioned as the headquarters for the Coast Defenses of during , overseeing the protection of and the approaches to Norfolk's naval facilities from potential naval incursions. This command role involved coordinating batteries across Fort Monroe, Fort Wool, and Fort Story, equipped with rapid-fire guns, disappearing rifles, and mortars designed to counter torpedo boats, cruisers, and battleships. Although U-boats operated off the U.S. East , sinking merchant vessels, the at Fort Monroe never engaged enemy ships, as no surface raiders threatened the bay directly. The fort's Coast Artillery School, established in 1907, expanded operations upon U.S. entry into the war in April 1917, serving as a primary hub for artillery personnel. The school emphasized rapid mobilization, recruiting, and instructing soldiers in gunnery, fire control, and emplacement operations, producing thousands of trained Coast Artillery Corps members who bolstered both home defenses and overseas units. Unlike in prior conflicts, training continued uninterrupted, reflecting the fort's strategic in sustaining defensive readiness amid fears of naval or . Armaments included World War I-era batteries such as Battery Irwin, mounting 12-inch guns and mortars for long-range shore bombardment defense, maintained in operational status throughout the war. These fixed defenses, supplemented by mobile rail-mounted artillery, formed a layered barrier against hypothetical fleets, underscoring Fort Monroe's role in the broader U.S. coastal fortification system that deterred aggression without direct combat.

Interwar Period Advancements

![Fort Monroe 1934.jpg][float-right] During the , the Coast Artillery at Fort Monroe adapted its curriculum to emphasize heavy mobile and anti-aircraft defense, reflecting evolving threats from aerial and naval advancements. By 1930, anti-aircraft was formally introduced, with the shifting focus in to prepare personnel for integrated harbor and air defense roles. This doctrinal evolution was advocated by leaders like Stanley Embick, who pushed for enhanced anti-aircraft capabilities within coast units. Infrastructure enhancements bolstered the fort's defensive and training capacities. Following devastating hurricanes in 1933, the seawall was extended and reinforced with concrete in 1934, funded by the and National Industrial Recovery Act to mitigate erosion and storm damage. The submarine mine depot relocated to Building 28 in 1930, improving logistics. New facilities included Building 37, headquarters for the Coast Artillery Board constructed in 1934 and featuring early , and expansions to Building 161 in 1938 to accommodate enlisted specialists. Training initiatives expanded, with the first Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) camps held in 1919 and continuing annually until 1941, drawing officer candidates for coast artillery roles. Civilian Conservation Corps camps processed thousands of enrollees in 1933–1934, including a segregated camp for Black men opened in July 1935, supporting broader military labor and training efforts. These developments positioned Fort Monroe as a central hub for modernizing U.S. coastal defenses amid interwar budgetary constraints and technological shifts.

World War II Contributions

During , Fort Monroe functioned as the primary headquarters for the Harbor Defenses of , coordinating the defense of , the second-largest U.S. Atlantic base for overseas operations, through minefields, anti-submarine nets, coast batteries, searchlights, , and hydrophones. The fort's Endicott-era batteries, including those with 12-inch mortars and disappearing guns, were maintained and modified; for instance, Battery Parrott's two 12-inch guns were removed in 1943 and replaced with 90-mm anti-aircraft guns, reflecting a wartime pivot toward aerial threats as fixed seacoast armaments proved increasingly obsolete against carrier-based and mobile naval forces. Mortars from Batteries Ruggles and Anderson were scrapped between 1942 and 1946, while Battery DeRussy was deactivated by 1944, underscoring the rapid technological shift away from static harbor defenses. The Coast Artillery School, established at Fort Monroe in 1907, intensified training efforts, graduating officers and enlisted personnel in coastal gunnery, anti-aircraft operations, and fire control until its relocation in 1946. An opened in 1941, including segregated training for African American candidates until began in 1942, with facilities like Building 163 (constructed 1940) dedicated to enlisted specialists and supported by over 250 temporary barracks, mess halls, and classrooms built northward along Ingalls Road to accommodate the influx. In 1943, units and a detachment arrived, followed by nurses' quarters (Building 167) in 1944 under Army Field Forces command, enhancing logistical support. By 1945, the fort processed thousands of returning coast artillery and anti-aircraft troops from overseas, aiding demobilization. Headquarters functions extended to the Third Coast Artillery District, with Building 37 serving administrative roles and Building 217 housing mine control systems through the war. A submarine net linked Fort Monroe to , bolstering anti-torpedo boat defenses, though the overall command shifted to Fort Story in 1941 as threats evolved. Post-Pearl Harbor expansions, funded partly by projects like seawall reinforcements after 1933 hurricanes, ensured infrastructural resilience, though by war's end, the obsolescence of heavy fixed guns rendered many batteries surplus. These efforts contributed to the unmolested operation of convoys, protecting critical supply lines despite no direct attacks on the harbor.

Cold War and Post-WWII Headquarters Functions

Following , Fort Monroe transitioned from coastal defense roles to serve as a central headquarters for U.S. Army command structures amid the emerging . In 1955, it became the headquarters for the Continental Army Command (CONARC), which was reorganized from the and tasked with overseeing active continental armies, the Army Reserve, and training installations across the . CONARC's activation reflected the Army's shift toward centralized management of ground forces in response to Soviet military expansion in and potential global contingencies. During the , CONARC at Fort Monroe directed training doctrines and force readiness for , emphasizing armored and capabilities to counter threats. The command coordinated exercises, equipment standardization, and personnel mobilization, supporting deployments such as those during the buildup and Berlin Crisis of 1961. By the late 1960s, amid lessons on doctrine and training deficiencies, CONARC evolved to address systemic reforms, culminating in its disestablishment on July 1, 1973. That same year, Fort Monroe hosted the establishment of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), which assumed responsibility for developing Army doctrine, training programs, and leader development to restore combat effectiveness post-Vietnam. TRADOC, under General , prioritized realistic training against Soviet-style forces, influencing the doctrine adopted in the 1980s for contingencies. The command's headquarters at Fort Monroe facilitated integration of new technologies like the tank and helicopter into training regimens, sustaining the Army's focus on high-intensity conflict through the Cold War's end.

Base Closure and Transition

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Process (2005–2011)

In May 2005, the Department of Defense submitted its initial (BRAC) recommendations, proposing the closure of Fort Monroe, , to eliminate excess infrastructure and consolidate training and doctrine functions. The 2005 BRAC Commission reviewed these proposals during site visits and hearings, including a base visit to Fort Monroe on May 25, 2005, where commissioners assessed its operational capacity and alignment with broader transformation goals. The Commission endorsed the closure, specifying the relocation of the U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) headquarters, Installation Management Agency Northeast Region headquarters, and several other units—including the Contracting Agency Northern Region office and Network Enterprise Technology Command elements—to , , while directing the Accessions and Cadet Commands to , . The Commission's final report, issued on September 8, 2005, justified the closure based on criteria outlined in the BRAC statute, emphasizing enhanced military value through consolidation at multi-purpose installations like , which offered superior training infrastructure and proximity to joint commands. This realignment aimed to reduce annual operating costs by an estimated $56.9 million after a one-time implementation expense of $72.4 million, while avoiding approximately $400 million in deferred maintenance and renovation at Fort Monroe. President approved the recommendations later that month, and with no congressional within the 45-day review period, the decisions became binding, initiating a statutory six-year implementation window. Implementation involved phased relocations coordinated by the Army, with TRADOC overseeing the transfer of its 33 schools and centers across 16 installations; the headquarters move to Joint Base Langley-Eustis (formerly Fort Eustis) occurred in June 2011. Environmental assessments addressed potential munitions response sites, projecting costs up to $192 million over decades, though core military disestablishment proceeded on schedule. Fort Monroe deactivated as an active Army post on September 15, 2011, marking the completion of BRAC 2005 actions for the installation, with retained enclaves for limited functions like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and excess property transferred for local reuse.

Debates Over Closure: Economic and Strategic Arguments

The 2005 (BRAC) recommendation to close Fort Monroe sparked significant local opposition in , centered on its role as an economic anchor supporting approximately 3,701 direct jobs, including 921 military positions, 1,223 federal civilian roles, and 248 contractor jobs by 2011, with ripple effects leading to a regional gross regional product decline of $614.1 million by 2020. Hampton officials emphasized the base's $538.6 million contribution to the city's gross product, representing a 7.4% loss, arguing that relocation of functions like the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) headquarters to nearby would not fully offset the disruption to local commerce, housing, and services dependent on the installation's presence. Proponents of closure, including the Department of Defense, countered that the move would yield $700 million in net savings over 20 years through consolidation, despite upfront environmental cleanup costs for and remediation. Strategically, opponents contended that shuttering Fort Monroe, long-serving as TRADOC's since , would hinder the Army's doctrinal development and efficiency, echoing earlier debates where closure was deemed counterproductive to manpower efforts due to the base's centralized command . Hampton leaders, including Mayor Ross A. Kearney , advocated retention by highlighting the fort's unique coastal position for harbor and its with regional assets, warning that dispersal could degrade operational cohesion despite the short-distance shift to . BRAC commissioners upheld the closure, asserting it enhanced overall value by aligning with post-Cold War force structure and eliminating redundant functions, with no evidence of diminished readiness from the realignment. These arguments persisted into congressional reviews, where representatives unsuccessfully sought overrides, prioritizing national savings over localized strategic continuity. Post-recommendation analyses revealed that while economic buffering occurred via job transfers—netting Newport News 1,507 positions and $153 million in gains—the strategic rationale held as TRADOC operations adapted without reported capability gaps, though critics noted unquantified intangible losses in institutional knowledge tied to the site's 188-year legacy. The debates underscored tensions between federal efficiency mandates and community reliance, with Hampton's ultimate pivot to reflecting acceptance amid limited alternatives.

Preservation and Designation

National Monument Status (2011)

On November 1, 2011, President Barack Obama issued a presidential proclamation designating approximately 325 acres of Fort Monroe as a national monument under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906, marking the first such use of the act during his presidency. The proclamation targeted the fort's core historic structures and landscapes, including the stone and brick fortifications designed by Simon Bernard and constructed between 1819 and 1834, in part using enslaved labor, as the largest surviving example of the Third System of U.S. coastal defenses. This action followed the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decision to shutter the installation, aiming to safeguard irreplaceable resources amid impending transfer of non-federal lands to state and local entities for redevelopment. The designation emphasized Fort Monroe's multifaceted historical role, from its early 19th-century military engineering to its function as "Freedom's Fortress," where thousands of enslaved individuals sought refuge and Union protection beginning in May 1861. Already recognized as a since 1960 and listed on the , the monument status integrated it into the National Park System to preserve its archaeological, architectural, and cultural attributes for public education and interpretation. Management responsibilities fell to the (NPS), which coordinates with the Fort Monroe Authority to ensure compatibility between preservation mandates and ongoing non-federal uses on adjacent properties. The directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a management plan within three years, focusing on resource protection, visitor access, and partnerships to mitigate threats from , development pressures, and impacts on the site's coastal location. This framework supported the site's inclusion in networks like the NPS Network to Freedom in 2012, highlighting its role in history without altering the BRAC-mandated transfer of over 1,600 acres outside the monument boundaries to for economic reuse.

Architectural and Cultural Preservation Efforts

The Fort Monroe Authority (FMA) administers preservation efforts through the Fort Monroe Design Standards, Volumes 1 and 2, approved on June 9, 2016, which draw from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, (NPS) Preservation Briefs, and guidelines for cultural landscapes and historic fortifications. These standards mandate rehabilitation that retains historic character, protects archaeological sites from ground disturbance, preserves viewsheds, and ensures new construction aligns with management zones in scale, materials, and density to safeguard the site's status. The FMA Committee reviews all projects impacting historic resources, such as Buildings 62 and 63 rehabilitation, prioritizing compliance with these guidelines. Architectural restoration projects emphasize of military-era structures while maintaining integrity. In 2023, Buildings 143 and 144 underwent historical renovations by Athens Building Corp., focusing on structural preservation for continued use. As of May 2025, conversion of Randolph Hall into 78 mixed studio, one-, and two-bedroom apartments proceeded, marking a major revitalization of over 500,000 square feet of historic buildings, with 90 Ingalls Road renovations initiating in June 2025. Fortifications like the batteries received protective repainting in early 2025 to combat elemental damage, while the Lighthouse began abatement in April 2025, with full restoration slated post-transfer from the U.S. by late 2025, expected to span one year. Cultural preservation integrates historical interpretation with site , notably through the NPS HOPE Crew program, which by 2018 had completed its 100th project at Fort Monroe—repairs to Building 50—training over 600 and veterans aged 18-25 in trades like and to address deferred exceeding $14.3 million nationwide. The First Landing Plaza, commemorating the 1619 arrival of the first enslaved Africans in English , advanced toward opening in late summer 2025, with its African Landing Memorial dedication planned for August 2025 to enhance interpretive . A 2025 Landscape Action Plan further supports long-term protection, incorporating public input to balance history, , and . ![Old Point Comfort Lighthouse at Fort Monroe][float-right]

Redevelopment and Contemporary Use

Fort Monroe Authority Initiatives

The Fort Monroe Authority (FMA), established by the in 2010 as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, manages the preservation, adaptive reuse, and economic redevelopment of the 565-acre former U.S. Army installation following its 2011 closure under the process. Its core initiatives prioritize balancing with sustainable revenue generation, including that integrates residential, commercial, and public access elements while collaborating with the on monument stewardship. Central to these efforts is the Fort Monroe Master Plan, adopted to guide long-term through adaptive of vacant historic structures, new in designated areas, and expanded open spaces for and recreation. Infrastructure improvements form an initial focus, exemplified by a $4.6 million project underway since 2025 to replace 6,000 feet of deteriorated 1940s-era water lines serving the site exclusively, marking the plan's foundational step toward habitability and further development. Residential initiatives drive private investment, with $18 million committed to converting underutilized historic buildings into ; notable is the Fort Monroe Lofts , launched in May 2025 in partnership with Echelon Resources, which transforms 67,000 square feet of Colonial Revival-era structures into studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom luxury apartments, slated for completion in early fall 2026 and expandable to additional sites. Broader renovation campaigns, greenlit in June 2025, encompass expansions alongside memorial enhancements and total over $50 million in projected public-private commitments to revitalize the . To enhance landscape and public appeal, the FMA initiated a competitive selection process in 2025 for a Landscape Action Plan, engaging international firms with expertise in projects like the Memorial to propose designs integrating history, , and across the site's beaches, casemates, and greenspaces, with finalists evaluated by October and public events planned for input. These efforts underscore strategies for revenue sustainability, though challenges persist, as evidenced by the 2024 collapse of a three-year-old agreement for a new and marina upgrade due to escalating costs and preservation constraints.

Recent Developments (2011–2025): Housing, Infrastructure, and Tourism

Following the 2011 base closure and establishment of the Fort Monroe Authority, redevelopment efforts emphasized mixed-use development integrating housing, infrastructure upgrades, and tourism to balance preservation with economic viability. The 2013 Master Plan outlined goals for accessible residential options, waterfront enhancements, and increased public access, including a proposed 7-mile trail and cultural programming to attract visitors. Progress has been incremental, hampered by funding dependencies, historic preservation requirements, and occasional project delays, with private investments totaling around $18 million in residential initiatives by 2025. Housing developments have centered on of military-era structures to create market-rate apartments. In September 2022, the Authority approved long-term leases to Resources for converting two historic buildings on Ingalls Road—a 39,000-square-foot former dormitory and a 26,000-square-foot vacant structure—into upscale one- and two-bedroom units targeted at young professionals, preserving facades while modernizing interiors; construction was anticipated to begin after permitting, with design phases advancing into 2023 for a total of 250–300 units across four parcels. Additional luxury options, such as Fort Monroe Lofts offering bay and fort-wall views, have been marketed for lease, contributing to residential revitalization outside the boundaries. Infrastructure improvements have included targeted maintenance and new facilities to support reuse. A $50 million state appropriation in 2025 funded upgrades, deferred repairs, and enhancements across the site, addressing aging utilities and buildings post-closure. The former was slated for conversion into a multi-purpose firing range in 2022, backed by an $11 million investment—including a $7.6 million Department of Defense grant and $3.7 million from Hampton—serving local and Langley-Eustis training needs. Waterfront infrastructure concepts from 2016, such as Continental Park and a kayak launch, align with broader plans for pedestrian trails and shoreline stabilization under the 2025 Landscape Action Plan. Tourism initiatives have focused on historical interpretation and visitor amenities to leverage the site's status. The 1619 African Landing Memorial received initial landscaping in 2025, marking the first major green space addition since 2011 and commemorating the arrival of the . The Landscape Action Plan, initiated in 2025, aims to boost visitation through preserved landscapes, adaptive building reuse, and enhanced trails, with competitions among firms for designs incorporating and . Proposed amenities like a 500-seat , 250-person , and marina expansion—initially planned for 2025 openings under Pack Brothers LLC—faced setbacks, including a 2024 deal collapse after three years, though phased construction for a and related facilities continues toward 2026–2027. The Illuminating Shadows Project expands narratives on Black history from 1619 onward, supporting educational .

Strategic and Historical Significance

Enduring Military Legacy

Fort Monroe served as a pivotal center for U.S. artillery training and doctrine development throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Established as part of the Third System of coastal fortifications following the , the fort hosted the Artillery School of Practice starting in the 1820s, where officers refined gunnery techniques and fortification strategies essential for defending key harbors. This early emphasis on professional military laid foundational principles for artillery employment that influenced subsequent U.S. coastal policies. From 1907 to 1946, Fort Monroe was home to the Coast Artillery School, the primary training facility for the U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps, coordinating instruction in anti-aircraft and harbor defense operations. The school trained thousands of officers and enlisted personnel, developing tactics that proved critical during World Wars I and II, including the deployment of fixed batteries and mobile units to protect American shores. Even after the school's relocation to Fort in 1946 amid the obsolescence of fixed coastal defenses due to air power and missiles, the fort's legacy in artillery innovation persisted through its role in transitioning Army forces toward doctrines. In 1973, Fort Monroe became the headquarters for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), which it hosted until 2011, fundamentally reshaping Army-wide training, leader development, and operational concepts. Under TRADOC, the installation supported post-Vietnam reforms, including the Army's shift to an all-volunteer force and the integration of advanced technologies, with doctrines formulated there influencing global deployments and force structures. This enduring institutional presence solidified Fort Monroe's status as a cradle of military adaptation, with TRADOC's relocation to preserving its doctrinal contributions in contemporary Army operations.

Commemorations, Controversies, and Interpretive Debates

Fort Monroe hosts annual commemorations in August marking the 1619 landing of the first Africans at Point Comfort, recognized as a pivotal event in the arrival of enslaved people to English , with events drawing participants to reflect on themes of , , and contributions to American history. The African Landing Memorial, under construction as of 2024, features a three-piece , 32 seating stones symbolizing the Africans transported from , and a symbolic line connecting to their origin, aiming to humanize the narrative of forced migration. These efforts, supported by the Fort Monroe Authority and , emphasize the site's dual role in slavery's introduction and later pathways. The imprisonment of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from May 1865 to May 1867 in the fort's casemates sparked immediate controversies over his treatment, including leg irons, isolation, and health deterioration, with critics decrying it as vengeful while supporters viewed it as justified retribution; Davis was indicted for treason but never tried, as federal authorities feared political backlash or inability to secure a conviction under constitutional protections. In 2019, the removal of Davis's name from a post-Civil War commemorative arch—erected in 1956—intensified debates, with proponents arguing it glorified treason and the Confederacy, while opponents saw it as erasing layered military history amid broader reevaluations of Confederate symbols. General Benjamin Butler's 1861 "contraband of war" decision, which refused to return three escaped enslaved men under the Fugitive Slave Act by classifying them as enemy property useful to the Union, was contentious at the time for circumventing federal law and exploiting labor—contrabands were compelled to work on fortifications—yet it set a precedent sheltering thousands and influencing emancipation policy. Interpretive debates center on balancing the fort's military legacy as a Union stronghold and coast defense hub against its reframing as "Freedom's Fortress," highlighting the irony of a site built by enslaved labor in the 19th century becoming a Civil War refuge, with critics arguing modern emphases on the 1619 landing and contraband policy risk overshadowing pre- and post-war strategic roles or introducing selective narratives that prioritize emancipation over wartime pragmatism. Scholars note a post-2011 national monument designation shift toward UNESCO-recognized "slave route" memory, including 2019's 400th anniversary events, but contend comprehensive interpretation must address myths—like exaggerated "freedom" claims without acknowledging contrabands' coerced labor—and avoid politicized omissions of the fort's full operational history, including its construction by thousands of enslaved workers whose stories remain underrepresented in records. Preservation advocates urge unvarnished accounts of "good, bad, and ugly" elements, cautioning against interpretations that might reflect institutional biases toward contemporary social themes over empirical military documentation. Despite these tensions, Fort Monroe's exhibits, including those on slavery's persistence, have resisted recent national park trends toward removal, maintaining focus on documented historical contingencies.

References

  1. [1]
    Fort Monroe National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)
    It has stood watch over the Parade Ground for about 500 years. Discover centuries of history at Fort Monroe.History & Culture · Operating Hours & Seasons · Plan Your Visit · Freedom's Fortress
  2. [2]
    Fort Monroe – DHR - Virginia Department of Historic Resources
    Dec 23, 2024 · Fort Monroe, built 1819-34, is a significant military site, a Civil War staging area, and a key coastal defense location, covering 565 acres.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  3. [3]
    Fort Monroe - Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources
    Begun in 1819 and completed in 1834, Fort Monroe is the largest masonry fortification constructed in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. Over time, ...
  4. [4]
    Fort Monroe | Hampton, VA - Official Website
    Named for James Monroe, the fifth President of the United States, Fort Monroe took 15 years to build. It was begun by employing slave labor, which was gradually ...
  5. [5]
    Presidential Proclamation -- Establishment of the Fort Monroe ...
    Nov 1, 2011 · Fort Monroe is the third oldest United States Army post in continuous active service. It was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960.
  6. [6]
    Fort Monroe during the Civil War - Encyclopedia Virginia
    It was the only federal military installation in the Upper South to remain under United States control throughout the American Civil War (1861–1865).
  7. [7]
    Freedom's Fortress (U.S. National Park Service)
    Feb 14, 2025 · Fortress Monroe in Virginia became the site of the first “contraband camp”; a spontaneous community of self-emancipated blacks where ...
  8. [8]
    Fort Monroe National Monument
    Fort Monroe has long been recognized for its military heritage associated with Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. But the fort also has an under-appreciated ...
  9. [9]
    Fort Monroe National Historic Landmark - NPS History
    Period(s) of Significance: 1819-1946. Significant Person(s) (only Criterion 2): N/A. Cultural Affiliation (only Criterion 6): N/A. Designated a National ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    The addition of these batteries maintained the strategic importance of Fort Monroe in defense of the. Chesapeake Bay. Batteries at Fort Monroe constructed ...
  11. [11]
    About Fort Monroe
    In 1819, construction of Fort Monroe began as part of a network of coastal defenses, known as the third system of U.S. fortifications. It was the largest ...
  12. [12]
    The Civil War in Hampton Roads: Fort Monroe
    Military installations at Old Point Comfort were built, repaired and expanded at various times throughout the colonial period, including an artillery battery ...
  13. [13]
    Third System of Coastal Forts (U.S. National Park Service)
    Aug 2, 2024 · Unlike First and Second system forts built between 1794–1812, Third System forts had durable construction materials and uniformity. Brick and ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Fort Monroe Historic Viewsheds
    Aug 9, 2010 · Designed as a bastioned work with seven fronts, holding 380 gun mounts and a compliment of over. 2600 men in time of war, the Fort was deemed ...Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
  15. [15]
    Fort Monroe: Stone Fort - Virginia Department of Historic Resources
    Jun 17, 2010 · Typical of Third System fortifications, the Fort is characterized by its impressive size, irregular plan and large bastions. The ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  16. [16]
    [PDF] ne Architecturar Hemage of Fort Monroe - National Park Service
    Mar 21, 2002 · Fort Monroe became a National Historic Landmark in 1961 which protected the nearly 600 acres from adverse development which might jeopardi the ...
  17. [17]
    Fort Monroe - Virginia Places
    The 10-foot thick walls behind the 8-foot deep moat could support 400 cannon of various sizes. The huge Lincoln Gun, installed at Fort Monroe in 1862 after ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    [PDF] FORT MONROE HISTORIC PRESERVATION MANUAL AND ...
    It also provides guidance for compatible building massing, materials, and architectural features that are appropriate to the character of the Fort Monroe NHL.
  19. [19]
    First Forts At Point Comfort - Virginia Places
    The first slaves brought to the new English colony in Virginia landed at Point Comfort. ... "Instructions for the Virginia Colony 1606," American History from ...
  20. [20]
    Point Comfort - Encyclopedia Virginia
    English colonists built fortifications at Point Comfort, where, in 1619, the first Africans entered Virginia. Ironically, nearly 250 years later runaway ...
  21. [21]
    Explore Hundreds of Years of Our Nation's History | Fort Monroe
    The area known today as Old Point Comfort has an extensive and complicated history that spans long before and after the occupancy of the US Army.
  22. [22]
    "Twenty and odd Negroes"; an excerpt from a letter from John Rolfe ...
    He also notes the arrival of “20. and odd Negroes,” the first Africans in Virginia. In greater detail he recounts a visit to Jamestown by a Patawomeck elder ...
  23. [23]
    Virginia's First Africans
    The White Lion landed at Point Comfort in late August. “He brought not any thing but 20. and odd Negroes,” John Rolfe wrote. The Africans were sold for food.Missing: primary sources
  24. [24]
    [PDF] 1619: Virginia's First Africans - Hampton.gov
    Dec 5, 2018 · In late August, 1619, around 30 enslaved Africans were brought to Virginia aboard the English privateer ship White Lion. At Point Comfort, they ...
  25. [25]
  26. [26]
    Arrival of the First Africans in 1619 (U.S. National Park Service)
    Aug 2, 2024 · The first ship carrying enslaved Africans arrived at Old Point Comfort on August 25, 1619. An English privateer ship captured them from a Spanish slave ship.Missing: primary sources
  27. [27]
    Fort Monroe @ Starforts.com
    Fort Monroe was designed by French military engineer Simon Bernard (1779-1839), who had served as aide-de-camp to Napoleon (1769-1821), and was thus less than ...<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Fort Monroe historic resources analysis
    The Construction Period: Fort Monroe was the largest fort constructed under the Third. System and the fort and buildings constructed during this time are ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  29. [29]
    Fort Monroe, Virginia – Freedoms Fortress - Legends of America
    With the destruction of Fort George, Old Point Comfort was once again unfortified, and the entire Chesapeake Bay was vulnerable to attack. Point Comfort ...Missing: position | Show results with:position
  30. [30]
    Fort Monroe's Lasting Place in History
    Jul 4, 2011 · After the British burned Hampton during the War of 1812, using the island and its lighthouse as a temporary base, Congress allocated money for a ...
  31. [31]
    History & Culture - Fort Monroe National Monument (U.S. National ...
    Feb 14, 2025 · Fort Monroe was not only a stronghold for the Union but was also a destination of enslaved people seeking to liberate themselves at “Freedom's Fortress.”Presidential Visits to Fort Monroe · Women at Fort Monroe: Before...
  32. [32]
    Completed on Nov. 1, 1834, historic Fort Monroe became much ...
    Nov 1, 2013 · Fort Monroe becomes headquarters of Army Ground Forces in 1946, the Continental Army Command in 1955 and the Army Training and Doctrine Command ...Missing: activities | Show results with:activities
  33. [33]
    Timeline of the Civil War | Articles and Essays
    ... fort in federal hands throughout the war. Fort Monroe was the starting point for McClellan's Peninsular Campaign in 1862 and for Butler's advance to ...
  34. [34]
    Ben Butler and the Contrabands - The Mariners' Museum and Park
    May 28, 2021 · On May 23, 1861, Butler sent Colonel J. Wolcock Phelps into Hampton. The Union troops marched into the town and then returned to the fort. In ...
  35. [35]
    Places in Civil War History: Maps of the Peninsula Campaign, Part 1
    May 9, 2018 · An ultimately failed attempt to capture Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital, by landing troops at Fortress Monroe in March 1862 and attacking northwest ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Foundation Document - National Park Service
    Fort Monroe, a vital Union stronghold within the Confederate states, was the site of key strategic war planning that included President Lincoln; a supply ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Fort Monroe Historic Viewsheds - DTIC
    Aug 9, 2010 · As a strategically located defensive fortification, views and firing lines have been critical to the design, planning and operation of Fort ...
  38. [38]
    Fort Monroe and the "Contrabands of War" (U.S. National Park ...
    Aug 2, 2024 · Any slave that could be wrested from the Confederacy would therefore, in a technical sense, become the property of the United States government.
  39. [39]
    General Benjamin F. Butler Reacts to Self-Emancipating People, 1861
    In order to avoid the issue of their freedom, Butler reasoned that these people “contraband of war,” and he had as much a right to seize them as he did to seize ...
  40. [40]
    The (Fort) Monroe Doctrine - The Library of Congress
    Summary: On May 27, 1861, Benjamin Butler, commander of the Union army in Virginia and North Carolina, decreed that slaves who fled to Union lines were ...Missing: policy | Show results with:policy<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    Civil War “Contraband Camps” by Chandra Manning - House Divided
    She and more than 400,000 others escaped to Civil War contraband camps, which sprang up everywhere the Union Army entered the Confederacy and amplified the ...
  42. [42]
    Imprisonment (1865-67) - The Papers of Jefferson Davis
    May 22: Imprisoned at Fortress Monroe · May 23: Manacled; irons removed less than a week later because of public outcry and Davis' ill health · [June] · August 21 ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] HABS !MG. -.VA--595 PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN ... - Loc
    Fort Monroe served as a staging area for strategic assaults along the Confederate seaboard.
  44. [44]
    Epilogue - The Civil War in America | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
    Though Davis was imprisoned for two years at Fort Monroe, he was never prosecuted for treason as originally intended. After traveling abroad, he settled in ...
  45. [45]
    Preserving Places of Captivity: Civil War Prisons in the National Parks
    Oct 31, 2022 · In the fall of 1864 around 600 Confederate officers were held in the fort's casemates. Thirteen Confederate prisoners of war died in captivity ...
  46. [46]
    Preserving Places of Captivity: Civil War Military Prisons in the ...
    Nov 26, 2017 · A small number of Confederate soldiers and political prisoners were held at Fortress Monroe in Virginia. Additionally, after 1863 it was an ...<|separator|>
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Batteries - Fort Monroe
    recommendations of the Board of William Endicott, Secretary of War under Grover Cleveland. Monumental and symmetrical, the formed concrete walls, piers, and ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] The Coast Artillery Journal. Volume 60, Number 6, June 1924 - DTIC
    the Coast Artillery School were held at Fort Monroe, Virginia on May 24, 1924, in the presence of many distinguished guests and thousands of visitors. The ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] The Coast Artillery Journal. Volume 67, Number 6, December 1927
    Coast Artillery Board, Fort Monroe, Va., February 28, 1927.-To the Chief of Coast Artillery, Through Commandant, C. A. School, Fort Monroe, Va. 1. Necessary ...
  50. [50]
    History of Fort Monroe - North American Forts
    The Endicott and World War Periods. The Coast Artillery School was here from 1907 to 1948, and the Coast Artillery Corps had a dominant presence at the fort.Missing: development 1868-1906
  51. [51]
    Fort Monroe National Monument | HISTORY OF FORT MONROE |
    Nov 3, 2024 · This was eventually replaced with a structure known as Fort Old Point Comfort in 1632. However, this fell into disrepair and was abandoned by ...
  52. [52]
    The Harbor Defenses of Chesapeake Bay
    Aug 7, 2021 · Documents on Ft Monroe and CAC and the AEF in WW1 including a thesis on The Coast Artillery Corps on the Western Front, 1917-1918, copies of ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] The Coast Artillery in WW I
    The nationís entry into the World War resulted in the full implementation of the CAC augmentation, enabling the creation of 105 new companies in 1916 and 1917.<|control11|><|separator|>
  54. [54]
    [PDF] historic context - Hampton - Fort Monroe
    The Third System forts were designed to be state-of-the-art for siege warfare in the early 1800s, and all of the forts were designed to be substantial masonry ...
  55. [55]
    Defending Hampton Roads Harbor in WWII - Daily Press
    Feb 25, 2018 · Hampton Roads was defended with mine fields, coast artillery, rapid-fire guns, searchlights, radar, hydrophones, and magnetic sensors.
  56. [56]
    Former Fort Story History - Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic
    As World War I gained momentum in Europe, Fort Story was integrated into the Coast Defenses of Chesapeake Bay, which included Fort Monroe (Headquarters) and ...
  57. [57]
    'Fort Monroe Online Heritage Project' to celebrate history, legacy
    Oct 28, 2009 · Fort Monroe had a critical coastal defense role during the Civil War and World Wars I and II. Fort Monroe has been the home of the TRADOC ...
  58. [58]
    Why a TRADOC?: TRADOC 50th Anniversary Series - Army.mil
    May 8, 2023 · Fort Monroe had also been home to several of TRADOC's predecessor commands, including CONARC. After all the details, why then a TRADOC? In ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] BRAC 2005 Commission Report
    Sep 8, 2005 · In 2005, the Secretary made more recommendations, with more complexity, than all four previous base closure rounds combined.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  60. [60]
    103-06A - A1 - Base Trip Report Army - Fort Monroe - VA
    Oct 23, 2024 · This is a base visit report for Fort Monroe, VA, from May 25, 2005, part of the 2005 BRAC Commission, which reviews military base structure.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    Army completes BRAC 2005 on time | Article | The United States Army
    Sep 28, 2011 · ... BRAC 2005. The relocation of that many people affected not just ... Fort Monroe, Va., and Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] The Impact of Military Base Adjustments on the Peninsula Economy
    Monroe in Hampton will be relocated to Ft. Eustis in Newport News. This will have the effect of buffering the regional impact from the closure of Ft. Monroe ...
  63. [63]
    Fort Monroe After Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
    Fort Monroe closed in 2011 due to BRAC, with land transferred to Virginia. The National Park Service manages part, and the Fort Monroe Authority manages the ...
  64. [64]
    BASES UNDER ATTACK: ARMY: CLOSING FORT MONROE ...
    May 22, 1993 · Closing Fort Monroe, home of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, would seriously interfere with the Army's efforts to reduce manpower ...
  65. [65]
    May 14, 2005: A DIRECT HIT - The Virginian-Pilot
    May 14, 2005 · “I hope it remains Fort Monroe,” said Hampton Mayor Ross A. Kearney ... But a similar argument over clean-up costs helped save the fort in 1993.
  66. [66]
    Oct. 28, 2005: HOUSE ENDS BRAC BATTLE - The Virginian-Pilot
    Oct 28, 2005 · Congress refuses to stop base closures. Fort Monroe will be shut down and Fort Eustis faces changes. The House refused to block proposed ...
  67. [67]
    Establishment of the Fort Monroe National Monument
    Nov 7, 2011 · Fort Monroe, designed by Simon Bernard and built of stone and brick between 1819 and 1834 in part by enslaved labor, is the largest of the Third System of ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] Fort Monroe National Monument - Virginia Conservation Network
    The November 1, 2011 designation of Fort Monroe National Monument was the first time President Obama used the Antiquities Act. The Fort Monroe National Monument.
  69. [69]
    Protecting Fort Monroe - National Parks Conservation Association
    Aug 14, 2012 · In November 2011, President Obama responded to broad and deep public support of using his executive powers to preserve 324 acres of the Old ...Missing: size management
  70. [70]
    Fort Monroe Becomes a National Monument - Obama White House
    Nov 1, 2011 · Today President Obama designated Fort Monroe -- a historic fort in Virginia's Tidewater region that was integral to the history of slavery, ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  71. [71]
    Foundation Document - Fort Monroe National Monument - NPS History
    The Fort Monroe camps quickly expanded outside the fort as the first and largest assemblage of contraband camps in the United States, providing aid to more than ...
  72. [72]
    National Park Service at Fort Monroe, VA | Plan Your Trip
    2011 – President Barack Obama signed a proclamation creating the Fort Monroe National Monument, one of 423 parks in the national park system. Become a ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  73. [73]
    Fort Monroe National Monument | TCLF
    In 2011 President Barack Obama designated 325 acres a national monument, included in the National Park Service Underground Railroad Network to Freedom in 2012.Missing: details | Show results with:details<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    Design Standards | Fort Monroe
    The Design Standards are based upon accepted preservation standards and practices described in National Park Standards (NPS) publications and guidance documents ...
  75. [75]
    Preservation | Fort Monroe
    This site provides a list of ongoing projects with the potential to affect historic resources at Fort Monroe and is designed to allow our stakeholders and ...Missing: size | Show results with:size<|control11|><|separator|>
  76. [76]
    20330 Ft. Monroe Buildings 143-144 Renovations Ft. Monroe, VA
    Oct 10, 2023 · Athens Building Corp. has been awarded the construction contract for historical renovations at Buildings 143 and 144 at Ft. Monroe.
  77. [77]
    Fort Monroe to Get Major Restoration, Military Barracks Makeover
    May 19, 2025 · The project will convert two historic buildings into a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments. The first building, Randolph Hall ...
  78. [78]
    Fort Monroe begins major renovation projects | 13newsnow.com
    Jun 7, 2025 · The Fort Monroe Authority has officially been given the green light to begin multiple long-awaited projects aimed at breathing new life into the historic site.
  79. [79]
    Projects underway at Fort Monroe helping shape future of ... - WTKR
    Apr 29, 2025 · Projects underway at Fort Monroe helping shape future of the historic site. Batteries, lighthouse, First landing Plaza receiving work.
  80. [80]
    Repairing History, Rebuilding Lives: HOPE Crew Celebrates 100th ...
    Jan 10, 2018 · Fort Monroe will become a base camp for HOPE Crew to train local youth, ages 18-25, in preservation trades.
  81. [81]
  82. [82]
    Fort Monroe Authority - Virginia Law
    "Fort Monroe Master Plan" or "Master Plan" means the plan that identifies the long-term vision for the reuse of the Area of Operation, key implementation ...Missing: initiatives | Show results with:initiatives
  83. [83]
    Strategic Objectives – Fort Monroe Authority
    Connectivity to pedestrian and vehicular areas, stormwater management, tree preservation, and landscaping will reflect and contribute to the current ambiance of ...Missing: initiatives | Show results with:initiatives
  84. [84]
    Master Plan - Hampton - Fort Monroe
    Learn more about Fort Monroe's plan to expand its 565 acres of land, including residential, retail, and dining spaces, and enhanced public access to the ...Missing: initiatives | Show results with:initiatives
  85. [85]
    Current Projects | Fort Monroe
    The Fort Monroe Authority is planning to replace the 1940s-era water line to Fort Monroe. The line serves the former base exclusively but runs through other ...Missing: initiatives | Show results with:initiatives
  86. [86]
    Fort Monroe to convert 2 historic buildings into luxury apartments
    May 7, 2025 · The new units are expected to be completed by early fall 2026, and eventually will be joined by two additional sites in the next few years, ...<|separator|>
  87. [87]
  88. [88]
    At state-run Fort Monroe, development, cost and history collide
    Feb 21, 2024 · The latest effort to build a new hotel and revamp the fort's marina just fell through nearly three years after a deal was inked.
  89. [89]
    Scott Martin Introduces Fort Monroe Authority's New Master Plan ...
    Aug 13, 2025 · The Fort Monroe Authority is currently engaged in several projects, including $18 million in private residential development and $50 million in ...
  90. [90]
    Reimagining the future of Fort Monroe: Apartments, firing range to ...
    Sep 19, 2022 · Fort Monroe Authority approved two long-term leases for three shuttered buildings on its grounds, igniting the process to turn two buildings into apartments ...
  91. [91]
    Fort Monroe development moving forward - Virginia Business
    Jan 30, 2023 · Apartments, a 250-person event center, a boutique hotel, a 500-seat restaurant, a marina and a firing range will soon dot the landscape at Fort Monroe.
  92. [92]
    Fort Monroe Lofts - LBD Investments
    Unique, 360-degree views of the Chesapeake Bay and the historic star-shaped stone walls of Fort Monroe will serve as backdrops to a luxury apartment community ...
  93. [93]
    Renovate and Repair Fort Monroe. HB1600 - Virginia State Budget
    There is hereby appropriated $50,000,000 the first year from the general fund for infrastructure upgrades, deferred maintenance, and improvements at Fort Monroe ...Missing: tourism initiatives
  94. [94]
    An update on Fort Monroe redevelopment projects
    Apr 30, 2025 · Hampton hopes to redevelop Fort Monroe into a landmark. Years of stagnation has slowed it. · Progress is slowly being made on the old Army base ...Missing: tourism | Show results with:tourism
  95. [95]
    1824 James Monroe - "The Artillery School" - State of the Union History
    It's predecessor, "The Artillery School" was founded in 1824 at Fort Monroe in Chesapeake Bay under President James Monroe and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun.Missing: operations | Show results with:operations
  96. [96]
    A Resilient TRADOC Changes with the Times: A 50 Year Overview
    Jul 27, 2023 · Well before there was a TRADOC, its future headquarters location at Ft. Monroe endured two hurricanes in 1936 and barely avoided shutting down ...
  97. [97]
    TRADOC celebrates 51 years as a US Army cornerstone | Article
    Jul 1, 2024 · TRADOC sustains its proud legacy of shaping the Army by training Soldiers and units, developing dynamic leaders, guiding the Army through ...
  98. [98]
    Why a TRADOC?: TRADOC 50th Anniversary Series - DVIDS
    Aug 5, 2023 · Fort Monroe had also been home to several of TRADOC's predecessor commands, including CONARC. After all the details, why then a TRADOC? In ...
  99. [99]
    Commemorate the First African Landing (U.S. National Park Service)
    Aug 30, 2024 · Americans come together at Fort Monroe each August to commemorate the landing of the first enslaved Africans in Virginia.
  100. [100]
    African Landing Memorial at Fort Monroe to tell story of pain ... - WHRO
    Aug 6, 2024 · The African Landing Memorial at Fort Monroe will include three main elements, as well as 32 seating stones representing the 32 African people taken to Old ...
  101. [101]
    1619 African Landing Memorial | Fort Monroe
    To learn more about the history of the first African brought to Virginia in 1619 and the memorial, which is currently under construction, please visit ...
  102. [102]
    African Landing Memorial
    The African Landing Memorial will commemorate an historical event that impacted the history of this nation and forever challenges the concept of freedom and ...
  103. [103]
    Today in Hampton History 1867 - Former Confederate President ...
    May 13, 2025 · Imprisoned for two years at Fort Monroe, Virginia, Davis was indicted for treason, but was never tried–the federal government feared that Davis ...
  104. [104]
    Uncloaking the Jeff Davis Myth - HistoryNet
    Sep 14, 2021 · Gen. Richard Taylor walked into a jail cell at Fort Monroe, Va., where its occupant, Jefferson Davis, welcomed him with a silent handshake.
  105. [105]
    Confederate President Jefferson Davis' name removed from arch at ...
    The name of Confederate President Jefferson Davis has been removed from an arch at the Fort Monroe historic site in Hampton, ...
  106. [106]
    Freedom's Fortress and the “Contraband Decision”
    Jan 19, 2023 · In the early days of the Civil War, three enslaved men and one officer's decision transformed a Virginia stronghold into a beacon of liberty.
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Fort Monroe - Hampton, VA Reconnaissance Study
    Because of its commander's “Contraband” decision, it became a site of hope for thousands of enslaved persons seeking freedom. The Fort experienced the full ...
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Reinterpreting Fort Monroe - eScholarship
    It all began at Fort Monroe, the place known as “Freedom's Fortress,” where determined African Americans changed the trajectory of America from slavery to ...
  109. [109]
    I Just Wanted a Little Background Info on Fort Monroe...
    Aug 24, 2022 · The United States Army began construction of Fort Monroe in 1819 and named it for President James Monroe. The U.S. Army remained here until the ...Missing: key | Show results with:key<|separator|>
  110. [110]
    Opinion: Fort Monroe should be focused on its history, not its name
    May 1, 2021 · History is good, bad and ugly. Fort Monroe should be a place where the whole story and the unvarnished truth is shared in an inclusive, ...
  111. [111]
    Fort - Fort Monroe's rich history is often accompanied by myths and ...
    Mar 16, 2025 · Fort Monroe's rich history is often accompanied by myths and misconceptions. Let's set the record straight with the real story.
  112. [112]
    National parks exhibits related to slavery are being removed. Not at ...
    Fort Monroe has no plans to change any of its exhibits or signage pertaining to slavery as several other national parks have ...