City of Chickamauga Historic Resources Survey Final Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2017 Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves Beau Duke Carroll University of Tennessee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Recommended Citation Carroll, Beau Duke, "Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4985 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Beau Duke Carroll entitled "Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Jan Simek, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: David G. Anderson, Julie L. Reed Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Talking Stone: Cherokee Syllabary Inscriptions in Dark Zone Caves A Thesis Presented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Beau Duke Carroll December 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Beau Duke Carroll All rights reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not be possible without the following people who contributed their time and expertise. -
Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968
BALANCING CONSENSUS, CONSENT, AND COMPETENCE: RICHARD RUSSELL, THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT OF AMERICA’S DEFENSE, 1955-1968 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua E. Klimas, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor David Stebenne, Advisor Professor John Guilmartin Advisor Professor James Bartholomew History Graduate Program ABSTRACT This study examines Congress’s role in defense policy-making between 1955 and 1968, with particular focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), its most prominent and influential members, and the evolving defense authorization process. The consensus view holds that, between World War II and the drawdown of the Vietnam War, the defense oversight committees showed acute deference to Defense Department legislative and budget requests. At the same time, they enforced closed oversight procedures that effectively blocked less “pro-defense” members from influencing the policy-making process. Although true at an aggregate level, this understanding is incomplete. It ignores the significant evolution to Armed Services Committee oversight practices that began in the latter half of 1950s, and it fails to adequately explore the motivations of the few members who decisively shaped the process. SASC chairman Richard Russell (D-GA) dominated Senate deliberations on defense policy. Relying only on input from a few key colleagues – particularly his protégé and eventual successor, John Stennis (D-MS) – Russell for the better part of two decades decided almost in isolation how the Senate would act to oversee the nation’s defense. -
University Microfilms International 300 N
INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the Him inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin Hlming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. -
Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986
Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Steven T. Wills June 2012 © 2012 Steven T. Wills. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwtaer Nichols Act of 1986 by STEVEN T. WILLS has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Ingo Traushweizer Assistant Professor of History Howard Dewald Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT WILLS, STEVEN T., M.A., June 2012, History Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 Director of Thesis: Ingo Traushweizer The Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 was the most comprehensive defense reorganization legislation in a generation. It has governed the way the United States has organized, planned, and conducted military operations for the last twenty five years. It passed the Senate and House of Representatives with margins of victory reserved for birthday and holiday resolutions. It is praised throughout the U.S. defense establishment as a universal good. Despite this, it engendered a strong opposition movement organized primarily by Navy Secretary John F. Lehman but also included members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prominent Senators and Congressman, and President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger. This essay will examine the forty year background of defense reform movements leading to the Goldwater Nichols Act, the fight from 1982 to 1986 by supporters and opponents of the proposed legislation and its twenty-five year legacy that may not be as positive as the claims made by the Department of Defense suggest. -
South Chickamauga Creek Headwaters Management Plan
2012 SOUTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK HEADWATERS MANAGEMENT PLAN A local stakeholder and Georgia EPD approved Watershed Management Plan that outlines the framework for improving water quality in South Chickamauga Headwater Streams Acknowledgements The Limestone Valley Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc., would like to express its appreciation to the many organizations and individuals that assisted with the research and compilation of information presented in this plan. First and foremost, Limestone Valley wishes to thank the Environmental Protection Agency and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for funding the preparation of this document. Additionally, the council would like to thank the many individuals associated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority that contributed many hours by providing resource information and guidance. Other organizations that contributed to this plan include the Catoosa County Commission, Catoosa County Environmental Health Department, Catoosa County Stormwater Department, Catoosa Soil and Water Conservation District, City of Ringgold, City of Tunnel Hill, City of Varnell, Envision Ecology, Kennesaw State University, South Chickamauga Creek Greenway Alliance, Tennessee Valley Canoe and Kayak Club, and the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. It is the hope of Limestone Valley RC & D that the information presented here, as well as the cooperative partnerships formed during this process, will work to improve the water quality in South Chickamauga Creek headwaters. Prepared by: Limestone Valley RC & D Council Joshua Smith Daniel Huser 105 Laurel Creek Road Suite 6 Calhoun, GA 30701 Revised: 10/15/12 The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Provisions of Section 319(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. -
Chickamauga the Battle
Chickamauga the Battle, Text and Photographs By Dennis Steele Senior Staff Writer he Battle of Chickamauga flashed into a white-hot clash on September 19, 1863, following engagements in Teastern and central Tennessee and northern Mississippi that caused the withdrawal of the Confederate Army of Tennessee (renamed from the Army of Mississippi) under GEN Braxton Bragg to Chattanooga, Tenn. Bragg was forced to make a further withdrawal into northwest Georgia after the Union’s Army of the Cumberland, under MG William S. Rosecrans, crossed the Tennessee River below Chattanooga, flanking Bragg’s primary line of defense. Chattanooga was a strategic prize. Union forces needed it as a transportation hub and supply center for the planned campaign into Georgia. The South needed the North not to have it. At LaFayette, Ga., about 26 miles south of Chattanooga, Bragg received reinforcements. After preliminary fights to stop Rosecrans, he crossed Chickamauga Creek to check the Union advance. In two days of bloody fighting, Bragg gained a tactical victory over Rosecrans at Chickamauga, driving the Army of the Cumberland from the battlefield. The stage was set for Bragg to lose the strategic campaign for Chattanooga, however, as he failed to pursue the retreating Union force, allowing it to withdraw into Chattanooga behind a heroic rear-guard stand by a force assembled from the disarray by MG George H. Thomas. The Battle of Chickamauga is cited as the last major Southern victory of the Civil War in the Western Theater. It bled both armies. Although official records are sketchy in part, estimates put Northern casualties at around 16,200 and Southern casualties at around 18,000. -
Watershed Water Quality Management Plan
LOWER TENNESSEE RIVER WATERSHED-GROUP 4 (06020001) OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTION Presented to the people of the Lower Tennessee River Watershed by the Division of Water Pollution Control October 9, 2007. Prepared by the Chattanooga Environmental Field Office: Mark A. Barb Scott A. Howell Darryl Sparks Richard D. Urban And the Nashville Central Office, Watershed Management Section: Richard Cochran David Duhl Regan McGahen Josh Upham Jennifer Watson Sherry Wang, Manager LOWER TENNESSEE RIVER WATERSHED (GROUP 4) WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Summary Chapter 1. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Chapter 2. Description of the Lower Tennessee River Watershed Chapter 3. Water Quality Assessment of the Lower Tennessee River Watershed Chapter 4. Point and Nonpoint Source Characterization of the Lower Tennessee River Watershed Chapter 5. Water Quality Partnerships in the Lower Tennessee River Watershed Chapter 6. Restoration Strategies Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Glossary GLOSSARY 1Q20. The lowest average 1 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 20 years. 30Q2. The lowest average 3 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 2 years. 7Q10. The lowest average 7 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 10 years. 303(d). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires a listing by states, territories, and authorized tribes of impaired waters, which do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. -
Chapter One: the Campaign for Chattanooga, June to November 1863
CHAPTER ONE: THE CAMPAIGN FOR CHATTANOOGA, JUNE TO NOVEMBER 1863 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park commemorates and preserves the sites of important and bloody contests fought in the fall of 1863. A key prize in the fighting was Chattanooga, Tennessee, an important transportation hub and the gateway to Georgia and Alabama. In the Battle of Chickamauga (September 18-20, 1863), the Confederate Army of Tennessee soundly beat the Federal Army of the Cumberland and sent it in full retreat back to Chattanooga. After a brief siege, the reinforced Federals broke the Confeder- ate grip on the city in a series of engagements, known collectively as the Battles for Chatta- nooga. In action at Brown’s Ferry, Wauhatchie, and Lookout Mountain, Union forces eased the pressure on the city. Then, on November 25, 1863, Federal troops achieved an unex- pected breakthrough at Missionary Ridge just southeast of Chattanooga, forcing the Con- federates to fall back on Dalton, Georgia, and paving the way for General William T. Sherman’s advance into Georgia in the spring of 1864. These battles having been the sub- ject of exhaustive study, this context contains only the information needed to evaluate sur- viving historic structures in the park. Following the Battle of Stones River (December 31, 1862-January 2, 1863), the Federal Army of the Cumberland, commanded by Major General William S. Rosecrans, spent five and one-half months at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, reorganizing and resupplying in preparation for a further advance into Tennessee (Figure 2). General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee was concentrated in the Tullahoma, Tennessee, area. -
K:\Fm Andrew\61 to 70\70.Xml
SEVENTIETH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1927, TO MARCH 3, 1929 FIRST SESSION—December 5, 1927, to May 29, 1928 SECOND SESSION—December 3, 1928, to March 3, 1929 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—CHARLES G. DAWES, of Illinois PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—GEORGE H. MOSES, 1 of New Hampshire SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—EDWIN P. THAYER, 2 of Indiana SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—DAVID S. BARRY, of Rhode Island SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, 3 of Ohio CLERK OF THE HOUSE—WILLIAM TYLER PAGE, 4 of Maryland SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH G. ROGERS, of Pennsylvania DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—BERT W. KENNEDY, of Michigan POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—FRANK W. COLLIER ALABAMA Thaddeus H. Caraway, Jonesboro COLORADO REPRESENTATIVES SENATORS SENATORS J. Thomas Heflin, Lafayette William J. Driver, Osceola Lawrence C. Phipps, Denver 7 Hugo L. Black, Birmingham William A. Oldfield, Batesville Charles W. Waterman, Denver REPRESENTATIVES Pearl Peden Oldfield, 8 Batesville John McDuffie, Monroeville John N. Tillman, Fayetteville REPRESENTATIVES Lister Hill, Montgomery Otis Wingo, De Queen William N. Vaile, 9 Denver Henry B. Steagall, Ozark Heartsill Ragon, Clarksville S. Harrison White, 10 Denver Lamar Jeffers, Anniston James B. Reed, Lonoke Charles B. Timberlake, Sterling William B. Bowling, 5 Lafayette Tilman B. Parks, Camden Guy U. Hardy, Canon City LaFayette L. Patterson, 6 Alexander Edward T. Taylor, Glenwood Springs City CALIFORNIA William B. Oliver, Tuscaloosa SENATORS CONNECTICUT Miles C. Allgood, Allgood Edward B. Almon, Tuscumbia Hiram W. Johnson, San Francisco SENATORS George Huddleston, Birmingham Samuel M. Shortridge, Menlo Park George P. -
Paddler's Guide to Civil War Sites on the Water
Southeast Tennessee Paddler’s Guide to Civil War Sites on the Water If Rivers Could Speak... Chattanooga: Gateway to the Deep South nion and Confederate troops moved into Southeast Tennessee and North Georgia in the fall of 1863 after the Uinconclusive Battle of Stones River in Murfreesboro, Tenn. Both armies sought to capture Chattanooga, a city known as “The Gateway to the Deep South” due to its location along the he Tennessee River – one of North America’s great rivers – Tennessee River and its railroad access. President Abraham winds for miles through Southeast Tennessee, its volume Lincoln compared the importance of a Union victory in Tfortified by gushing creeks that tumble down the mountains Chattanooga to Richmond, Virginia - the capital of the into the Tennessee Valley. Throughout time, this river has Confederacy - because of its strategic location on the banks of witnessed humanity at its best and worst. the river. The name “Tennessee” comes from the Native American word There was a serious drought taking place in Southeast Tennessee “Tanasi,” and native people paddled the Tennessee River and in 1863, so water was a precious resource for soldiers. As troops its tributaries in dugout canoes for thousands of years. They strategized and moved through the region, the Tennessee River fished, bathed, drank and traveled these waters, which held and its tributaries served critical roles as both protective barriers dangers like whirlpools, rapids and eddies. Later, the river was and transportation routes for attacks. a thrilling danger for early settlers who launched out for a fresh The two most notorious battles that took place in the region start in flatboats. -
Marion County, Tennessee Many Coming Into Western North Carolina Through in the Beginning Watauga, Swannonoa, and Butt Mountain Gaps
Marion Co., Tennessee – Cherokee Territory Submitted by Nomie Webb Hundreds of settlers moved through mountain gaps, Marion County, Tennessee many coming into Western North Carolina through In the Beginning Watauga, Swannonoa, and Butt Mountain Gaps. ~ Once upon a time, the area of Tennessee was The Great Wagon Road covered by a great inland sea. During a series of to the Carolina frontier. cataclysmic upheavals, giant folds (like an accordion) Early settlers used rose and the sea drained. The draining sea left a wide these routes to reach fertile basin, and the folds became known as the Great western North Carolina. Smoky and Cumberland Mountains. As a lush forest sprang from the basin, soil and groups of Indians settled here. In the 1700s four or five Indian tribes inhabited this area and by then this region belonged to the British Colony of North Carolina. New immigrants to America looking for new lands to settle, began forming groups to penetrate these vast open lands, but the Blue Ridge Mountains were barriers to travel. For that reason it was easier for the new settlers to come into the area of (now) The early settlers crossed the mountains and moved Tennessee from the north than from the east. Many of into the Great Appalachian Valley. these early settlers, therefore came from Virginia, or “overland”, by way of the Kentucky route. Starting as early as 1768 several families came in To the north east corner of this area from the Uplands of North Carolina. They banded together as the Watauga Association in 1771 and spread over the eastern part Of the section. -
H. Doc. 108-222
SIXTY-NINTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1925, TO MARCH 3, 1927 FIRST SESSION—December 7, 1925, to July 3, 1926; November 10, 1926 1 SECOND SESSION—December 6, 1926, to March 3, 1927 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1925, to March 18, 1925 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—CHARLES G. DAWES, of Illinois PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa; GEORGE H. MOSES, 2 of New Hampshire SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—GEORGE A. SANDERSON, 3 of Illinois; EDWIN P. THAYER, 4 of Indiana SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—DAVID S. BARRY, of Rhode Island SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, 5 of Ohio CLERK OF THE HOUSE—WILLIAM TYLER PAGE, 6 of Maryland SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH G. ROGERS, of Pennsylvania DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—BERT W. KENNEDY, of Michigan POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—FRANK W. COLLIER ALABAMA ARKANSAS Albert E. Carter, Oakland SENATORS Henry E. Barbour, Fresno SENATORS Joseph T. Robinson, Little Rock Arthur M. Free, San Jose Oscar W. Underwood, Birmingham Thaddeus H. Caraway, Jonesboro Walter F. Lineberger, Long Beach J. Thomas Heflin, Lafayette John D. Fredericks, Los Angeles REPRESENTATIVES Philip D. Swing, El Centro REPRESENTATIVES William J. Driver, Osceola John McDuffie, Monroeville William A. Oldfield, Batesville COLORADO Lister Hill, Montgomery John N. Tillman, Fayetteville SENATORS Henry B. Steagall, Ozark Otis Wingo, De Queen Lamar Jeffers, Anniston Heartsill Ragon, Clarksville Lawrence C. Phipps, Denver William B. Bowling, Lafayette James B. Reed, Lonoke Rice W. Means, Denver William B. Oliver, Tuscaloosa Tilman B. Parks, Hope REPRESENTATIVES Miles C.