DOCSLIB.ORG

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’S Civil War Battlefields

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’S Civil War Battlefields U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields State of Alabama Washington, DC May 2011 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields State of Alabama U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program Washington, DC May 2011 Authority The American Battlefield Protection Program Act of 1996, as amended by the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016, 17 December 2002), directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. Acknowledgments NPS Project Team Paul Hawke, Project Leader; Kathleen Madigan, Survey Coordinator; Tanya Gossett, Paul Hawke, Reporting; Matthew Borders, Historian; Kristie Kendall, Program Assistant Battlefield Surveyor(s) Kathleen Madigan and Matthew Borders, American Battlefield Protection Program; Joseph E. Brent, Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. Respondents Bill Rambo, Confederate Memorial Park; Mike Wise, Crooked Creek Civil War Museum; Blanton Blankenship, Fort Morgan State Historic Site; Jo Ann Flirt, Historic Blakely State Park; Michael Henderson, Historic Fort Gaines Cover: Dry moat and walls at Fort Morgan. The fort is a defining feature of the Mobile Bay battlefield. Photograph by Matthew Borders, 2009. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields DRAFT – State of Alabama Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3 SYNOPSIS ........................................................................................................................ 5 METHOD STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 7 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................................... 7 QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................... 11 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF ALABAMA’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS ................... 12 QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS ........................................................................................................... 12 CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 12 REGISTRATION ........................................................................................................................... 15 STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 16 PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................................................... 18 ADVOCACY ............................................................................................................................... 19 INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES ........................................................................... 20 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 43 APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS ................................................ 43 APPENDIX B. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS .......................... 44 APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ............................................... 45 APPENDIX D. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 48 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields DRAFT – State of Alabama Introduction The information in this report fulfills, in part, the purposes of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016). Those purposes are: 1) to act quickly and proactively to preserve and protect nationally significant Civil War battlefields through conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of those battlefields from willing sellers; and 2) to create partnerships among state and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil War battlefields. The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park Service, to update the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. The CWSAC was established by Congress in 1991 and published its report in 1993. Congress provided funding for this update in FY 2005 and FY 2007. Congress asked that the updated report reflect the following: • Preservation activities carried out at the 384 battlefields identified by the CWSAC during the period between 1993 and the update; • Changes in the condition of the battlefields during that period; and • Any other relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. In accordance with the legislation, this report presents information about Civil War battlefields in Alabama for use by Congress, federal, state, and local government agencies, landowners, and other interest groups. Other state reports will be issued as surveys and analyses are completed. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields DRAFT – State of Alabama 3 Figure 1. CWSAC Battlefields in Alabama. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields DRAFT – State of Alabama 4 Synopsis There are seven CWSAC battlefields in the State of Alabama – Athens, Day’s Gap, Decatur, Fort Blakely, Mobile Bay, Selma, and Spanish Fort. Historically, these battlefields encompassed nearly 102,400 acres.1 Today approximately 45,400 acres, or 44 percent, retain suffucient significance and integrity to make them worhy of preservation.2 In 1993, the CWSAC used a four-tiered system that combined historic significance, current condition, and level of threat to determine priorities for preservation among the battlefields. Table 1 indicates how the CWSAC prioritized Alabama’s Civil War battlefields in its study. Table 1. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 CWSAC Priority Battlefield County I Critical Need Mobile Bay (AL003) Baldwin, Mobile II Comprehensive Preservation Possible N/A N/A III Additional Protection Needed Day’s Gap (AL001) Cullman, Morgan Fort Blakely (AL006) Baldwin IV Fragmented/Destroyed Athens (AL002) Limestone, Morgan; Giles County, TN Decatur (AL004) Lawrence, Limestone, Morgan Selma (AL007) Dallas Spanish Fort (AL005) Baldwin Currently, the battlefields indentified as Priority I and III sites retain a high degree of integrity. While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, Day’s Gap, Fort Blakely, and Mobile Bay have experienced relatively little change to their terrain and aboveground features in nearly 150 years (see table 3).3 At Fort Blakely, the State of Alabama protects portions of the battlefield within Historic Blakeley State Park and the W.L. Holland and Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Areas. The state also preserves a portion of Mobile Bay at Fort Morgan State Historic Site. Additional lands at Mobile Bay are protected by the Federal government (Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge) and the Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board (Historic Fort Gaines and the Dauphin Island Audobon Bird Sanctuary). Within the Day’s Gap Study Area, only 40 acres (less than 1 percent of the battlefield lands that retain integrity) are protected. The protected land is owned by the Civil War Trust, a non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of endangered Civil War battlefields. 1 Using GIS software, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the seven battlefields in Alabama represent 102,396.35 acres. 2 Using GIS software the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries for the seven battlefields in Alabama represent 45,499.46 acres. 3 The condition of archeological resources within the battlefields was not assessed. Future studies are needed to determine the degree of archeological integrity associated with subsurface and underwater battle deposits. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields DRAFT – State of Alabama 5 While the CWSAC determined that Athens did not retain enough integrity to merit preservation, the American Battlefield Protection Program’s (ABPP) resurvey of the site has shown that more than 13 percent of the battlefield does retain integrity. Much of the landscape has been altered and fragmented; however, essential landscape features in the Sulphur Creek Trestle Core Area north of the City of Athens remain much as they were during the battle. In addition, a small portion of the battlefield is protected by the State of Alabama as part of the Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area. Decatur, Selma, and Spanish Fort are in urban settings and have suffered from modern intrusion. All three battlefields
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deep South Genealogical Quarterly
    DEEP SOUTH GENEALOGICAL QUARTERLY VOLUME 53 - NUMBER 1 FEBRUARY 2016 Published by MOBILE GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. Mobile, Alabama CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE PAGE ARTICLE 2 ������� Submissions policy 22 ������ Death Notices 1890 A-J from ����������� The Mobile Daily Register 3 ������� Letter from the Editor- “Think” ����������� Transcribed by Kathy Richardson ����������� By Kathy Richardson 29 ������ Genealogical Abstracts from 5 ������� Membership application; ����������� Fairhope Courier, 1894 ����������� MGS research guidelines ����������� Abstracted by Kathy Richardson 6 ������� Genealogical Abstracts from 30 ������ The History of Monterey Street ����������� The Weekly Register, July 19, 1879 ����������� By Jay Higginbotham ����������� Abstracted by Kathy Richardson 41 ������ Genealogical Abstracts from 7 ������� Eleven Generations and 313 Years ����������� Mobile Advertiser and Register, 1864 ����������� in Mobile (Part 4 of 4) ����������� Transcribed by Michelle Woodham ����������� By Llewellyn M. Toulmin, Ph.D., F.R.G.S. 44 ������ Genealogical Abstracts from 16������� Genealogical Abstracts from ����������� Mobile Daily Register, 1916 ����������� The Mobile Register, 1916 ����������� Transcribed by Kathy Richardson ����������� Abstracted by Kathy Richardson 46 ������ MGS publications available for purchase 17 ������� Destruction by the Hurricane of 1916 51 ������� Index 19������� Genealogical Abstracts from ����������� The Mobile Register, 1916 56 ������ MGS publications order form ����������� Abstracted by Kathy Richardson Photo,
    [Show full text]
  • Battle of Mobile Bay
    CONFEDERATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OF BELGIUM NY NY HistoricalSociety - dson PaintingbyDavi J.O. INTRODUCTION Students of the Civil War find no shortage of material regarding the battle of Mobile Bay. There are numerous stirring accounts of Farragut’s dramatic damning of the “torpedoes” and the guns of Fort Morgan, and of the gallant but futile resistance offered by the CSS Tennessee to the entire Union Fleet. These accounts range from the reminiscences of participants to the capably analyzed reappraisals by Centennial historians. It is particularly frustrating then, to find hardly any adequate description of the land campaign for Mobile in the general accounts of the War between the States. A few lines are usually deemed sufficient by historians to relate this campaign to reduce the last major confederate stronghold in the West, described as the best fortified city in the Confederacy by General Joseph E. Johnston, and which indeed did not fall until after General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. It fell then to an attacking Federal force of some 45,000 troops, bolstered by a formidable siege train and by the support of the Federal Navy. Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, to give one example, devotes 33 well illustrated pages to the battle of Mobile Bay, but allows only one page for the land CONFEDERATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OF BELGIUM operations of 1865 ! The following account is written as a small contribution to the Civil War Centennial and is intended to provide a brief but reasonably comprehensive account of the campaign. Operations will from necessity be viewed frequently from the positions of the attacking Federal forces.
    [Show full text]
  • MASTER- Vol 5, Issue 4 Aug-Sept 2014 7-26-14 BG
    FFriendsriendsFriends Of the Fairhope Museum of History Newsletter Vol 5 Issue 4 Aug– Sept 2014 Bus Tours of Fairhope real estate development, landmarked by the strange turn in Fairhope Avenue as it curves eastward at In- add a new Turn gleside Street and by the original Fairhope golf course built in 1919. It also covered the Laraway’s The Annual historical bus tours of Fairhope took in-town farm, the Lone Pine horse monument, Em- place on Saturday, July 26, 2014. For the first time peror Clock, the sites of nudist cabins off Gayfer in the four years of the event, the tours also covered Road and past many homes of early business owners. the east side of town, as well as the customary cot- A glimpse into the Black history of Fairhope was tages, bay views and beach areas. Tours left the also covered as the trolley passed the homes and Bancroft Street entrance of the Museum at 9 and 11 streets named for descendents of the Lewises, a.m., and 1 and 3 p.m. in a novel trolley style bus, Youngs and Nichols. with Director Donnie Barrett telling facts, stories and legendary tales of places and personalities in The ride through the Fruit and Nut District offered our heritage. Two tours went west through the nostalgic views of summer cottages of Mobilians in streets named for fruits and nuts and 2 additional the early 1900’s and gave a first hand look at the tours went the new route on the east side of down- homes of the Gastons, Ballangees, Mershons, Lydia town, into areas where the Single Tax Colony ex- Cummings, Mayor Greeno, Walter Forster, Marie panded in later years.
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section U
    U-2 (Reconnaissance aircraft) (Not Subd Geog) U.S. 30 U.S. Bicycle Route System (May Subd Geog) [TL686.L (Manufacture)] USE United States Highway 30 UF USBRS (U.S. Bicycle Route System) [UG1242.R4 (Military aeronautics)] U.S. 31 BT Bicycle trails—United States UF Lockheed U-2 (Airplane) USE United States Highway 31 U.S.-Canada Border Region BT Lockheed aircraft U.S. 40 USE Canadian-American Border Region Reconnaissance aircraft USE United States Highway 40 U.S. Capitol (Washington, D.C.) U-2 (Training plane) U.S. 41 USE United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.) USE Polikarpov U-2 (Training plane) USE United States Highway 41 U.S. Capitol Complex (Washington, D.C.) U-2 Incident, 1960 U.S. 44 USE United States Capitol Complex (Washington, BT Military intelligence USE United States Highway 44 D.C.) Military reconnaissance U.S. 50 U.S. Cleveland Post Office Building (Punta Gorda, Fla.) U-Bahn-Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 50 UF Cleveland Post Office Building (Punta Gorda, USE U-Bahnhof Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 51 Fla.) U-Bahnhof Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 51 BT Post office buildings—Florida UF Kröpcke, U-Bahnhof (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 52 U.S. Coast Guard Light Station (Jupiter Inlet, Fla.) Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 52 USE Jupiter Inlet Light (Fla.) U-Bahn-Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 54 U.S. Consulate Terrorist Attack, Banghāzī, Libya, 2012 BT Subway stations—Germany USE United States Highway 54 USE Benghazi Consulate Attack, Banghāzī, Libya, U-Bahnhof Lohring (Bochum, Germany) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin University Publications
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Eastern Illinois University Bulletin University Publications 4-12-1961 Bulletin 234 - Coles County in the Civil War 1861-1865 Eastern Illinois University Follow this and additional works at: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/eiu_bulletin Recommended Citation Eastern Illinois University, "Bulletin 234 - Coles County in the Civil War 1861-1865" (1961). Eastern Illinois University Bulletin. 74. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/eiu_bulletin/74 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Eastern Illinois University Bulletin by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Coles County In The Civil War 1861-1865 DEDICATION "Coles County in the Civil War" IS DEDICATED TO DR. CHARLES HUBERT COLEMAN in recognition of his scholarship in the Civil War field and the great respect accorded him by fellow Lincoln scholars, former students and friends everywhere. Table Of Contents Coles County In The Civil War ------------------------------- 5 Coles County's Contribution To The War Effort --------------- 5 Brief Histories Of The Infantry And Cavalry Regiments In Which Coles County Men Served ____________ 24 Battle Of Atlanta (Letters Of James A. Connolly) ____________ 47 A Charleston Company Goes To War ------------------------- 63 Roster Of Company C, 8th Illinois Regiment ------------------- 74 The Charleston Riot ----------------------------------------- 78 = Cover Picture Description The cover picture is of the color bearers of the Seventh Regiment of Illinois Volunteers. Illinois raised six regiments in the Mexican War. Out of deference to these, the numbers of the Civil War regiments started with seven.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battles of Mansfield (Sabine Crossroads) and Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, 8 and 9 April 1864
    RICE UNIVERSITY DEAD-END AT THE CROSSROADS: THE BATTLES OF MANSFIELD (SABINE CROSSROADS) AND PLEASANT HILL, LOUISIANA, 8 AND 9 APRIL 1864 by Richard Leslie Riper, Jr. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Thesis Director's Signature Houston, Texas May, 1976 Abstract Dead-End at the Crossroads: The Battles of Mansfield (Sabine Cross¬ roads) and Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, 8 and 9 April 1864 Richard Leslie Riper, Jr. On 8 April 1864 a Union army commanded by Major General Nathaniel P. Banks was defeated by a Confederate army commanded by Major General Richard Taylor at the small town of Mansfield, Louisiana. In Union records the engagement was recorded as the battle of Sabine Crossroads, and the defeat signaled the "high-water mark" for the Union advance toward Shreveport. General Banks, after repeated urging by Major General Henry Hal- leck, General-in-Chief of the Union Army, had launched a drive up the Red River through Alexandria and Natchitoches to capture Shreveport, the industrial hub of the Trans-Mississippi Department. From New Or¬ leans and Berwick, Louisiana, and from Vicksburg, Mississippi, the Fédérais converged on Alexandria. From Little Rock, Arkansas, a Union column under Major General Frederick Steele was to join Banks at Shreve¬ port. Three major infantry forces and the Union Navy under Admiral David D. Porter were to participate in the campaign, yet no one was given supreme authority to coordinate the forces. Halleck's orders were for the separate commands only to co-operate with Banks--a clear viola¬ tion of the principle of unity of command.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2012 from the Adjutant
    January 2012 1 I Salute The Confederate Flag; With Affection, Reverence, And Undying Devotion To The Cause For Which It Stands. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is the direct heir of the United Confederate Veterans, and is the oldest hereditary organization for male descendants of Confederate soldiers. Organized at Richmond, Virginia in 1896; the SCV continues to serve as a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization Commander : dedicated to ensuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved. Membership David Allen is open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate 1st Lieutenant Cdr: John Harris From The Adjutant 2nd Lieutenant Cdr & Adjutant : Gen. Robert E. Rodes Camp 262, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Frank Delbridge will not meet Color Sergeant : on Thursday night, January 12, 2012. Clyde Biggs Chaplain : We will resume our monthly meeting in February. Dr. Wiley Hales Newsletter: Gen. Robert E. Rodes Camp 262, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and James Simms the Gen. Gorgas Chapter of the Military Order of the Stars and Bars will [email protected] hold the 23rd annual Lee-Jackson Banquet at 7 PM January 19th, Website: Brad Smith 2012, at the Circlewood Baptist Church on Loop Road in Tuscaloosa, [email protected] AL. Inside This Issue Our guest speaker will be our Brigade Commander Carl Jones, and 2 Lee-Jackson Dinner the Fifth Alabama Infantry Regiment Band will present a brief musical 3 General Rodes program. The meal will be catered with your choice of chicken or beef. 5 Historical Markers Tickets will be $20 per person.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2020~Issue 158 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
    FORT MORGAN NEWS April 2020~Issue 158 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Greetings to all FMCA members. As you know, the recent outbreak of the COVID-19 virus has greatly impacted the Fort Morgan area. What would usually be the beginning of our busy season came to an abrupt halt when, on March 19th, Governor Ivey declared all beaches closed on the Alabama Coast. Reopening is tentatively set for April 18th but that date is subject to change. The Baldwin County Emergency Management Agency has been activated and is providing updates to the public with the new text alert system. To receive text alerts from the Baldwin EMA to your mobile device, text: BALDWINCOVID to 888777 In an effort to share information on our local situation and the ongoing response to coronavirus, the EMA is implementing a weekly newsletter specifically for Baldwin County residents. The FMCA will be emailing this newsletter out to our members as we receive it from EMA. There is also a dedicated dashboard on the Baldwin County website where you can find the latest. You can find that link here: https://baldwincountyal.gov/departments/EMA In accordance with Alabama Dept of Public Health & Safety recommendations, all meetings of the Fort Morgan Civic Association are suspended until further notice. If you have a pressing subject that you would like information on or you would like to make an announcement to the membership, please reach out and let me know how I can help. The Fort Morgan community is made up of resilient people who care about our homes and our neighbors.
    [Show full text]
  • Besieged Eged
    Besieged Besieged Mobile 1865 Mobile 1865 Besieged In no other battle of the Civil War was the lack of rapid communica- 1865 Mobile Besieged tion more detrimental than in the campaign for the city of Mobile, Mobile 1865 Russell W. Blount, Jr. Alabama, in 1865. Hours after Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered, Union troops occupied a port city that had remained nearly unscathed “A particular strength of Blount’s confident through four brutal years of war. Tragically, during the occupation, narrative is its measured, thorough nearly half the city was destroyed. Author Russell W. Blount, Jr. explanation of the events. Blount’s constructs a vivid narrative of his hometown during these desperate research is strong and his style lively . a times as revealed through diaries, letters, and journals of those who genuinely enjoyable battle-book.” lived through the turbulent siege of nearby Spanish Fort and the —Blue & Gray Magazine, in praise of subsequent Battle of Mobile Bay. The Battles of New Hope Church Blount is a member of the Civil War Preservation Trust, Historic Russell W. Blount, Jr. is a Civil War Mobile Preservation Society, and Sons of Confederate Veterans. He Considered the last major battle of the Civil enthusiast whose interest in American is also the author of The Battles of New Hope Churchand Clash at War, the campaign for the city of Mobile, history led him to teach about his passion. Kennesaw: June and July 1864, both published by Pelican. Alabama, is defined by many historians as He received a BS in history from the a punitive action by Union commanders University of South Alabama, and his In praise of The Battles of New Hope Church who were loath to leave such a prize affinity for history is apparent in his unconquered.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2019~Issue 149 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
    FORT MORGAN NEWS July 2019~Issue 149 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Greetings to all FMCA members! Greeting to all FMCA members! Especially those of you that are new to our association, welcome! First, I would like to thank everyone for submitting your comments for presentation to the Special Baldwin County Planning and Zoning meeting that was held on June 19th, I was impressed by the number of responses that we received. I was afforded an opportunity to speak on behalf of the association and while I was not able to voice all your concerns, I feel that many of the “hot button” issues facing our District were brought up. We hope to see some new ordinances adopted by the County soon that will help to resolve some of the issues in our community. The Executive Board has been very busy in the past week and I expect we will have a few items to vote on at the coming meeting. As always, I encourage each member of our association to help spread the word about the Fort Morgan Civic Association. If your neighbors aren’t members yet, invite them to a meeting! I hope I will see you at our next meeting on July 8th. Joe Joe Emerson FMCA July Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Monday July 8th FMCA 2019 MEETINGS: FMCA Monthly Member Meetings ~ 2nd Monday, 6:30pm, Shell Banks Baptist Church Fellowship Hall July 8~ Aug 12~Sep 9~Oct 14~Nov 11~Dec 9~Jan 13 FMCA Membership Report~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jennifer Noojin We had over 26 new members join this past month for a total of 388 members.
    [Show full text]
  • Battlefield Update
    Summer 1996 Issue No. 62 BATTLEFIELD UPDATE newsletter of the AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Heritage Preservation Services ABPP AWARDS PARTNERSHIP KENTUCKY BATTLEFIELDS AND THE FUNDING Mill Springs Battlefield Interpretation / Mill WORLD WIDE WEB Springs Battlefield Association The American Battlefield Protection MARYLAND The World Wide Web is perhaps the most profound technological tool for Program is pleased to announce its 1996 Tour Brochure and Information Repository for Partnership Funding award-winners. South Mountain Battlefield / Central Maryland disseminating information since Eighty applicants requested a total of Heritage League, Inc. Gutenberg's movable type. Battlefield enthusiasts, historians, and preserva­ approximately $2 million, more than MISSISSIPPI double the amount available in tionists have jumped at the opportunity to partnership funds. A National Park Brices Cross Roads Battlefield Conceptual post information on the Web, a network of Interpretive Site Plan and Signage / Brices Service committee reviewed the Crossroads National Battlefield Commission computer servers that allows users to applications and awarded nearly quickly access Internet information. Web $700,000 in partnership funding for Presen'ation Action Plan for Raymond "browsers" such as Netscape and Mosaic Battlefield/ Mississippi Department of display that information in an aesthetically thirty-two projects (see below). While Archives and History most projects concern Priority I Civil
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War Defenses of Washington
    A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1 Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F.
    [Show full text]