Chattahoochee River

National Recreation Area

Historic Resource Study

February 2007

written by Marti Gerdes and Scott Messer

additional material by Tommy Jones

edited by Jody Cook and Tommy Jones
Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

National Park Service

100 Alabama Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

404.562.3117

The historic resource study presented here exists in two 

formats. A traditional, printed version is available for study 

at the park, the Southeast Regional Office of the NPS 

(SERO), and at a variety of other repositories. For more 

widespread access, this historic resource study also exists in 

a web- based format through the web site of the National 

Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more 

information.

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area

1978 Island Ford Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30350-3400

http://www.nps.gov/chat

About the cover: The front cover shows a photograph of 

Jones Bridge taken in 2006 by Tommy H. Jones. The rear 

cover shows a collection of images including, top left, a 

view of Roswell Mill, courtesy of Roswell Historical Society; 

center right and left, three historic postcard views of the 

river from the collection of Jody Cook; and, bottom, a view 

of the James Power House, from the Vanishing Georgia 

Collection, Georgia Department of Archives and History.
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area

Historic Resource Study

Table of Contents

National Park Service v

Foreword - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ix

Introduction

Study Purpose and Scope - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

Physical Description - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

Historical Overview - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

Historic Contexts- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

Historic Properties - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

Chapter One: The River Before 1860

American Indians During the Historic Period - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

The Creek - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10

The Cherokee - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12

Early White Settlement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

Transportation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

Roads and Trails - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

Ferries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20

Bridges- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21

Railroads- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21

Agricultural Development - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23

Farmers and Planters - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23

Agricultural Production - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24

Industrial Development - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

Grist Mills - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27

Industrial Mills - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

Chapter Two: The River After 1860

The Atlanta Campaign- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37

The Damage Is Done- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42

Reconstruction and a New South - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44

Agriculture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44

Labor Relations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45

Agricultural Production - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45

Transportation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47

Industry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48

Roswell Manufacturing Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49

Laurel Mills Manufacturing Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50

Marietta Paper Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51
vi Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Akers or Banner Mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53

The City of Atlanta- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53

The 20th Century - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54

Transportation in the New Century - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54

Bridges and Ferries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54

Roads - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56

Interstate Highways - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56

Agriculture in the 20th Century - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57

Industry in the 20th Century - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58

Roswell Manufacturing Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59

Laurel Mills Manufacturing Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59

Hydroelectric Power - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59

Morgan Falls - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59

Buford Dam - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62

Suburban Development - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62

Recreation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63

Island Ford Lodge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64

Summer Camps and Retreats - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64

Modern-Day Outdoor Pursuits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64

The River Today - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65

Chapter Three: Associated Historic Properties

Fish Weirs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69

Roads - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71

Bridges- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 72

Settles Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 72

Jones Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 73

Rogers Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 74

Roswell Road Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75

U.S. 41 Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75

Little’s Ferry Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75

Farms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75

Hyde Farm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 76

George A. Power House - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 80

Rogers Historic District- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 82

Mills - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 82

Roswell Manufacturing Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 83

Laurel Mills - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 85

Marietta Paper Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86

Akers or Banner Mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89

Residences - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89

Allenbrook- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89

The Collins-Yardum House- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 91

Island Ford Lodge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 94

Other Historic Structures- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 96

Chimneys and Piers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 97

Gold Branch Terraces - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 97

Roswell Railroad - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 98

Scribner Cemetery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99

Civil War Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -100

Johnston’s River Line- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -100

Civil War Rifle Pits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -103
National Park Service vii

Chapter Four: Cultural Landscapes, Ethnographic Resources, Archeology, and 

Museum Collections

Cultural Landscapes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -105

Ethnographic Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -106

Archeology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -106

Museum Collections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -107

Archival and Library Collections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -108

Chapter Five: Management Recommendations

Cultural Resources Documentation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -111

Baseline Cultural Resources Reports - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -111

Mapping- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -112

List of Classified Structures (LCS)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -112

National Register of Historic Places - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -112

Determinations of Eligibility- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -113

Management of Historic Structures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -113

Interpretation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -114

Bibliography - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -115

Primary Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -115

Archaeological Reports - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -118

Secondary Internet Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -119
viii Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study
National Park Service ix

Foreword

We are pleased to make available this historic resource study for the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area. This study is part of our ongoing effort to provide required historical studies for each 

National Park Service unit in the Southeast Region. We wish to extend our thanks to Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area Superintendent Kevin Cheri and his staff for their assistance in preparing this 

study. Editors for this study were Jody Cook and Tommy Jones. Production editor was James Womack III, 

who also drew some of the maps. We hope that this historic resource study will prove valuable to park 

managers and others in understanding the historic contexts and cultural resources of Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area.

Dan Scheidt

Chief, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

September 2006
x Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 1

Introduction

On August 15, 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed 

legislation that authorized the establishment of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

(CRNRA) in northwest Georgia. This new unit of 

the National Park System was a result of a 1964 

National Park Service management policy memorandum calling for expansion of the System 

“through inclusion of additional areas of scenic, 

scientific, historical and recreational value to the 

Nation,” and a 1969 policy memorandum that noted 

the System’s “serious gaps and inadequacies which 

must be remedied while opportunities still exist.”1

 In 

the 1960s, recreation areas were the fastest growing 

category of new national parks, and in the 1970s 

CRNRA was part of a group of recreation areas 

established “within 250 miles of urban centers . . . 

affording a quality of recreation experience which 

transcends that normally

 associated with areas provided by State and local 

government.”2

 Citing “natural, scenic, recreation, 

historic and other values . . . of special national significance,” the 1978 enabling legislation set aside a 

48- mile segment of the Chattahoochee River to 

assure its “preservation and protection for public 

benefit and enjoyment.” The total acreage authorized for the new recreation area was not to exceed 

6,300 acres. The authorized boundary for CRNRA 

includes a series of parklands along the river from 

Buford Dam at Lake Sidney Lanier to Peachtree 

Creek in northwest Atlanta.3

In October 1984, the original legislation was 

amended by Public Law 98- 568 authorizing Federal 

support of “State and local efforts to protect the 

scenic, recreational, and natural values of a 2,000 

foot wide corridor adjacent to each bank of the 

Chattahoochee River and its impoundments.” It 

also increased the total acreage authorized for 

CRNRA from 6,300 to approximately 6,800. In 

1999, Public Law 106- 154 recognized the adverse 

effect of “land use changes occurring inside and 

outside the recreation area . . . leaving dwindling 

opportunities to protect the scenic, recreational, 

natural, and historical values of the 2,000- footwide corridor adjacent to each bank of the Chattahoochee River and its impoundments,” as well as 

Georgia’s Metropolitan River Protection Act to 

ensure protection of the corridor, which had been 

signed into law in 1973. The 1999 Congressional 

amendment enabled a cooperative effort with the 

State of Georgia and political subdivisions of the 

State along the Chattahoochee River “to link existing units of the recreation area through a series of 

linear corridors” to be established within the 

CRNRA and elsewhere on the river, and increased 

the total authorized acreage to 10,000 acres.4

1. Mackintosh, Barry. The National Parks: Shaping the 

System (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 

1991), 64-65.

-BLF4JEOFZ

-BOJFS

$IBUUBIPPDIFF 3JWFS







 







0DNVMHFF

/BUJPOBM

.POVNFOU

$IJDLBNBVHBBOE$IBUUBOPPHB

/BUJPOBM.JMJUBSZ1BSL

.BSUJO-VUIFS,JOH
+S

/BUJPOBM)JTUPSJD4JUF

BOE1SFTFSWBUJPO%JTUSJDU

,FOOFTBX.PVOUBJO

/BUJPOBM#BUUMFmFME1BSL

$)"55")00$)&&3*7&3

/"5*0/"-3&$3&"5*0/"3&"

$IBUUBOPPHB

"UMBOUB

$IJDLBNBVHB

.BSJFUUB

.BDPO

5 /

4 $

" -

/ $

(&03(*"

 ,JMPNFUFST

 .JMFT

/PSUI

2. Mackintosh, 71.

3. “An Act To authorize the establishment of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the 

State of Georgia, and for other purposes,” Public Law 

95-344, 95th Congress (August 15, 1978).
2 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Study Purpose and 

Scope

The Historic Resource Study (HRS) is the primary 

document used to identify and manage cultural 

resources (sometimes called historic resources) in 

units of the National Park System. The study area for 

this HRS was the region that includes the CRNRA 

and the surrounding area. This HRS has two goals. 

The first is to provide overviews of the study area’s 

history and the historic contexts that helped to 

shape the area’s cultural landscape. These overviews 

provide a framework for understanding the significance of the park’s historic resources. The second 

goal of the HRS is to identify the park’s historic 

resources, evaluate their significance within the 

applicable historic context(s), and evaluate their 

historic integrity. Evaluation of historic resources for 

this study primarily focused on extant historic 

structures owned and managed by the National Park 

Service, although certain historic resources outside 

Federal ownership were included at the request of 

park staff.5

 National Register of Historic Places criteria and guidelines were used to identify historic 

resources, and to evaluate their significance and 

integrity.

The HRS provides the basis for understanding the 

significance of the park’s historic resources and 

their interrelationships, and is a point of departure 

for the development of interpretive plans. In addition, it serves as a framework within which additional research should be initiated and new 

information incorporated. This HRS should assist 

park staff in managing, interpreting, and conducting 

future research on historic resources in CRNRA.

The report is divided into five main chapters. The 

first chapter looks at the prehistory of the study area 

and the historic period before the Civil War. It 

includes discussion of the prehistoric inhabitants, 

historic Indian tribes, and early white settlement in 

the study area, as well as the development of its 

transportation system, agricultural economy, and 

industry. Chapter Two looks at the historic period 

during and after the Civil War and follows developments in agriculture, transportation, and industry in 

the late 19th and 20th centuries. This chapter also 

discusses the growth of the City of Atlanta and the 

evolving role of the Chattahoochee River, especially 

the impact of the river’s use for hydroelectric power 

generation and modern recreational activities. The 

third chapter is an inventory of the park’s extant 

historic resources, from prehistoric Indian fish weirs 

to 20th century resort homes. It includes a brief history and physical description of each historic 

resource identified, as well as an evaluation of the 

resource’s historic significance and integrity.

Chapter Four is a brief overview of important cultural resources in the park that are not historic 

buildings and structures (cultural landscapes, 

archeological resources, museum collections, etc). It 

notes the types of studies that are needed to document these cultural resources. Finally, Chapter Five 

offers management recommendations for additional 

research on historic resources, their interpretation, 

and the management of museum and archival collections. This chapter also notes which cultural 

resources are most at- risk and merit special attention.

Physical 

Description 

The Chattahoochee River begins at Chattahoochee 

Gap in Union County, Georgia, high in the Blue 

Ridge Mountains. The upper river basin covers 

much of northeast Georgia and, in prehistoric times, 

included the watersheds of the Chattooga and Tallulah Rivers until geologic forces turned those river 

systems into the Savannah River basin. From its 

source, the Chattahoochee flows generally southeast until turning southwest at the Brevard Fault 

near Clarkesville, Georgia, about 90 miles northeast 

of Atlanta.

The Brevard Fault (also known as the Brevard Lineament) is a topographic feature that extends from 

northeast to southwest across the region from the 

vicinity of Mount Airy, North Carolina, to near 

4. “An Act To amend the Act of August 15, 1978, 

regarding the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area in the State of Georgia,” Public Law 

98-568, 98th Congress (October 30, 1984); “An Act to 

improve protection and management of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the 

State of Georgia,” Public Law 106-154, 106th Congress 

(December 9, 1999).

5. Further information on the historic resource study, a 

National Park Service basic research report, can be 

found in “Cultural Resources Management,” NPS-28, 

available at <http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/ 

online_books/nps28/28chap2.htm>.
National Park Service 3

Montgomery, Alabama. The Brevard Fault is partially expressed by a long ridge extending from near 

Gainesville, Georgia, to Atlanta. The ridge is part of 

the Eastern Continental Divide, with rainwater falling on the southeast side of the ridge draining into 

the watersheds of the Oconee and Ocmulgee River 

basins and thence to the Altamaha River and the 

Atlantic Ocean. Conversely, rainwater falling on the 

northwest side of the ridge drains into the Chattahoochee basin and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico

From Clarkesville to near West Point, Georgia, on 

the Georgia- Alabama border, the river’s flow parallels the fault, which bounds it on the southeast. 

Along that route, the river has carved a deep valley 

that averages 200 feet below the surrounding plateau. This segment of the river valley, the oldest 

remaining section of the ancient riverbed, encompasses the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, a series of parklands along a 48- mile 

stretch of the river. From the park’s northern 

boundary just below Buford Dam at Lake Sidney 

Lanier to the southern boundary at the confluence 

with Peachtree Creek in northwest Atlanta, the 

Chattahoochee is impounded once at the Morgan 

Falls Dam, which forms Bull Sluice Lake below 

Roswell, about 15 miles north of Atlanta. Wide 

shoals and deep pools characterize the river within 

the park boundaries until the Chattahoochee 

approaches Atlanta, where it spreads to a width of 

approximately 300 feet in a narrow flat floodplain at 

the base of steep upland slopes. It continues southwest to the vicinity of West Point, Georgia, about 75 

miles below Atlanta, breaches the Brevard Fault, and 

then flows southward until joining the Flint River to 

form the Apalachicola River near the intersection of 

Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. From there the river 

continues south into the Gulf of Mexico.

In some sections, the Chattahoochee serves as the 

county line for the four counties along the river 

banks in CRNRA; Forsyth, Gwinnett, Cobb, and 

Fulton. Suburban development is rampant along the 

river corridor east and west of Georgia 400, a multilane highway that has promoted the sprawl of metropolitan Atlanta northward. The series of parklands in CRNRA includes 15 separate NPS units 

within the authorized boundary; Park Headquarters 

is located in the Island Ford unit near Roswell in 

north Fulton County.6 These units encompass 

approximately 5,000 acres in Federal ownership, 

about half of the 10,000 acre total authorized for the 

park. Utility companies and local governments 

retain easements of various types in many parcels of 

the Federally owned and managed lands, and there 

are also in- holdings for properties where individuals have life estates.7

 Most of the land along the river 

corridor within the authorized boundary remains in 

private ownership.

Historical 

Overview

The Piedmont in north Georgia may have been 

inhabited by humans as early as 8,000 BCE. Artifacts found within the study area indicate the presence of native populations during the Archaic and 

Woodland periods. The Archaic period (8000 

BCE- 1000 BCE) was characterized by nomadic 

hunter- gatherer societies with little interest in agriculture. Hunting and gathering continued during 

the Woodland period (1000 BCE- 1000 CE), but 

seasonal and some semi- permanent villages developed, as well as subsistence cultivation of native 

plants.

Hernando de Soto’s expedition through the American South from 1539 to 1543 could be seen as the 

beginning of the region’s historic period, but meaningful colonization of present- day Georgia did not 

occur for nearly 200 years after that time. Eventually, Spain’s interest in and ability to settle and 

administer its colonial frontiers waned, and the 

British aggressively expanded their settlements. 

Finally, the English chartered a new colony, in part 

to protect the seaport at Charles Town, South Carolina, from the Spanish in Florida. Georgia was 

established in 1733 between the Altamaha and 

Savannah Rivers, and “from the headwaters of these 

rivers [westward] to the south seas.” Much of the 

upper Chattahoochee River valley, including 

CRNRA, lay within the territory of the new colony.

After the American Revolution, white settlers 

flooded the Piedmont, and the former colony’s 

6. The units include Bowmans Island; Orrs Ferry; Settles 

Bridge; McGinnis Ferry; Suwanee Creek; Abbotts 

Bridge; Medlock Bridge; Jones Bridge; Holcomb 

Bridge; Island Ford; Vickery Creek; Gold Branch; 

Johnson Ferry; Cochran Shoals; and Palisades.

7. The park’s authorized boundary is defined in the 1978 

enabling legislation and subsequent amendments.
4 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

attention began to shift away from the original 

counties along the Savannah River and the Atlantic 

coast. Still, by 1810 almost two- thirds of modern 

Georgia remained Indian territory, and white settlement was generally limited to the lands east of the 

Altamaha and Oconee Rivers. The State’s modern 

boundaries were established in 1802 when Georgia 

ceded to the Federal government any claim to territory that later became Alabama and Mississippi in 

exchange for $1.25 million and the Federal government’s promise to remove Indians living within 

those boundaries.

Following the War of 1812, Georgia’s interior developed rapidly, and several key Indian land cessions 

between 1817 and 1826 extended the State’s formal 

boundaries to the banks of the Chattahoochee 

River, including parts of CRNRA. In 1835, some 

Cherokee signed the Treaty of New Echota, giving 

up all Cherokee land in the southeast in exchange 

for land in present- day northeastern Oklahoma. In 

1838, Federal troops began to round up Cherokee 

who had not moved and put them in stockades. 

During the winter of 1838- 1839, the Cherokee 

Nation moved west, a tragic journey that has 

become known as the Trail of Tears. With that, all of 

modern Georgia was thrown open to white settlers.

The invention of the cotton gin in 1797 spurred an 

agricultural revolution in the South, and cotton production exploded with the advent of short- staple 

upland cotton in the 1820s. The Georgia Piedmont 

became a major cotton- producing region, and yeoman farmers and planters alike grew it as a cash 

crop, along with corn and other staple crops. The 

State government encouraged improvements to 

river navigation, development of roads and railroads, and establishment of banks to provide credit 

to fuel development. Light industry, including grist 

mills and textile mills, developed where rivers and 

streams provided sufficient hydropower to turn 

wheels or turbines, and there were a number of mills 

within the study area. By 1860, Georgia was second 

in the South only to Virginia in railroad development and led the region in textile production. With 

some confidence, Georgia began calling itself the 

“Empire State of the South.”

In 1861 the issue of slavery finally broke the Union’s 

fragile bonds, plunging the nation into civil war. 

Atlanta, an important transportation center and 

source of food and other supplies for the Confederate army, became a major target of the Union war 

effort. After the Atlanta Campaign in 1864, Gen. 

William T. Sherman’s infamous “march to the sea” 

from Atlanta to Savannah laid waste to a significant 

portion of Georgia’s railroad, industrial, and agricultural infrastructure.

In the post- war years, the State’s economic recovery 

was hampered by a shortage of capital and the turmoil of Reconstruction, which did not end until 

1877. By then, Georgia and the nation were only 

beginning to rebound from a major economic 

depression that had begun in 1873. Not until the 

1880s could agriculture and manufacturing be said 

to have recovered from the disaster of war. Still, 

Henry Grady’s much- vaunted “New South” was 

often more dream than reality, and in spite of 

advances in industrial development, the State’s 

economy continued to revolve around agriculture, 

especially cotton.

New labor systems replaced slavery, but in the first 

quarter of the 20th century the boll weevil devastated cotton culture across the South. The value of 

cotton lands throughout the region plummeted, and 

the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s 

brought the collapse of many farms throughout the 

state. Much of the agricultural land in the Chattahoochee River corridor was left fallow or in lowyield agricultural production. 

In 1868, the State capital was relocated from Milledgeville to Atlanta. Booming before the Civil War, 

Atlanta’s growth exploded afterwards, and the city 

soon outpaced Richmond, New Orleans, and 

Memphis as the South’s center of business and 

finance. With prosperity came growth, development, and new demands upon the surrounding 

countryside and the Chattahoochee River, which 

became a source of water and power for the 

expanding city in the 1890s. After World War II, land 

along the Chattahoochee was increasingly valued 

for recreational activities, and suburban development of metropolitan Atlanta began to engulf the 

river corridor.

Historic Contexts 

This Historic Resource Study is organized around a 

series of historic contexts, basic historic themes that 

aid understanding of the forces that have shaped the 
National Park Service 5

cultural landscape of the study area. The historic 

contexts represent broad areas of human interaction with this landscape that are part of wider patterns of regional and national development 

throughout history. Chapters One and Two provide 

overviews of the study area’s history, and historic 

contexts associated with the study area are incorporated into these overviews. Each context discusses related events that establish the historic 

relationships between people and places and provide a foundation for evaluating and interpreting the 

park’s historic resources. This study includes five 

broad thematic contexts: 

■ American Indians, prehistory- 1838 

■ Settlement, Transportation, and Agricultural 

Development, 1733- present

■ The River as a Source of Energy for Industrial 

Development, 1830- present

■ Landscape of Conflict, prehistory- present

■ The River and Recreation, 1900- present

Chapter One provides an overview of American 

Indian habitation in the upper Chattahoochee River 

valley from prehistory until 1838, when remaining 

Indians were forced to move west. It looks at the 

relationship between Indians and the river as well as 

changes that occurred with white settlement and the 

expanding frontier. This overview reflects several 

themes for history and prehistory from the National 

Park Service’s Revised Thematic Framework (1994), 

a conceptual tool for evaluating the significance of 

cultural resources within or outside the NPS: Peopling Places, Expressing Cultural Values, Shaping 

the Political Landscape, and Transforming the 

Environment.

In addition, Chapter One provides an overview of 

early white settlement, including the development 

of the region’s transportation infrastructure and 

agricultural economy, which was the primary engine 

of settlement in the antebellum period. Chapter 

Two continues discussion of these contexts as they 

evolved in the late 19th and 20th centuries, especially the transformation and decline of the agricultural economy into the 20th century. Applicable 

themes from the NPS framework include: Peopling 

Places, Transforming the Environment, and Developing the American Economy.

The evolution of the Chattahoochee and its tributaries as sources of energy for settlement and 

industrialization begins in Chapter One. This context is carried forward in Chapter Two which covers 

the role of the river as a source of hydroelectric 

power for the region. National Park Service themes 

represented here include Transforming the Environment and Developing the American Economy.

The Chattahoochee River as a “Landscape of Conflict” is a historic context that runs through Chapters One and Two. These chapters examine the role 

of the river as a political boundary, a military objective, and an environmental resource subject to 

competing demands, as well as its ongoing importance to Indians, early white settlers, Civil War soldiers, industrialists, and environmentalists. This 

context relates to the NPS themes of Peopling 

Places, Shaping the Political Landscape, Developing 

the American Economy, and Transforming the 

Environment.

Recreational use of the Chattahoochee in the 20th 

century is discussed in Chapter Two, including the 

construction of rural retreats on the river by affluent 

Atlantans, and the 1978 establishment of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area to provide 

public access and recreational opportunities in the 

wake of urban sprawl. Applicable NPS themes are 

Creating Social Institutions and Movements, and 

Transforming the Environment.

Historic Properties

Relatively few historic structures remain within the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. 

The limited number of structures is mostly the 

result of sweeping changes in land use that left 

numerous potentially historic resources obsolete 

and abandoned. Agricultural or industrial activity 

has destroyed surface remnants of some sites in the 

study area, while recreational use, looting, and vandalism destroyed or adversely affected others. Also, 

because the park’s land acquisition program favored 

recreational opportunities and natural resource 

protection, many areas selected for park units were 

favored for their outstanding natural qualities; 

acquisition of cultural resources was often only 
6 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

incidental. However, as stated in CRNRA’s enabling 

legislation, preservation of cultural resources is a 

primary purpose of the park.

Extant historic resources in the study area fall into 

the following categories: industrial (mills, dams, 

bridge abutments); military (Civil War picket posts, 

earthworks, rifle pits); domestic (houses or farmsteads, chimneys, wells, foundations); and burial 

(cemeteries).8 The ruins of the Marietta Paper 

Company Mills, Ivy and Laurel Mills, and Akers 

Mill demonstrate the effect of industrial development within the corridor, while the remains of Jones 

and Settles bridges illustrate the human efforts to 

overcome the transportation obstacle the river represented. The remains of Civil War fortifications 

show the impact of military use on the environment, 

and the Hyde Farm, George Power House, and 

Scribner Cemetery help illustrate farming and settlement activities within the river corridor. Finally, 

Island Ford Lodge (current park headquarters) is a 

reminder of the 2oth century recreational use of the 

river corridor.

8. Cultural Resource Inventory: Chattahoochee Final 

Report draft (National Park Service, Southeast 

Regional Office: 1981), 216.
National Park Service 7

Chapter One: The River Before 

1860

Prior to the arrival of European adventurers in 1492, 

people had occupied the Americas for thousands of 

years. Linguistic and genetic studies have led most 

experts to conclude that the Americas were populated by early people who crossed a land bridge that 

was periodically open between Siberia and Alaska 

over what is now the Bering Strait. When and how 

these early ancestors of American Indians made 

their way into the Americas are hotly debated 

among anthropologists, linguists, and others, but 

the traditional view is that Asian groups crossed a 

land bridge between Siberia and Alaska as sea levels 

fell during the last Ice Age some 25,000 to 14,000 

years ago. When melting glaciers submerged the 

land bridge again, the human populations of the 

Americas were essentially isolated and thereafter 

developed independently.

The timing of subsequent migration southward 

through the Americas is not settled, but the conventional view has been that the presence of glaciers 

from the last Ice Age prevented migration south of 

the Alaska/Yukon region until about 11,500 years 

ago. Some scholars have countered with suggestions 

that the glacial barrier was not insurmountable or 

that boats were used to travel down the Pacific 

Coast. What is not disputed is that there is considerable evidence of human occupation of many areas 

of North America, including the American Southeast, as early as 11,000 years ago. Claims have been 

advanced for sites of much greater antiquity, but 

these are isolated sites where interpretation of the 

geological layers and the accuracy of the dating 

remain controversial. Although the details of migration remain uncertain, diverse indigenous cultures 

developed in the Americas and adapted to various 

environmental conditions for many thousands of 

years before the arrival of Europeans and their African slaves.9

Knowledge of the prehistoric inhabitants of the 

study area is based largely upon the archeological 

record and the ethnological reconstruction of 

regional American Indian history developed by 

archeologists and anthropologists. Thus, rather 

than dealing with specific tribes or events, prehistory tends to establish larger patterns drawn from 

the material culture left behind by these early peoples. These tangible remains (tools, ceramics, etc.) 

help determine the technology, settlement patterns, 

and other characteristics of early peoples and are 

used to make general assumptions about their cultures.10

Human habitation of the Georgia Piedmont began 

10,000- 8000 BCE, and the archeological record 

suggests a long span of human inhabitation of the 

Chattahoochee River Valley. The prehistory of the 

area is broken into several periods that are defined 

largely by changes in tool making, ceramics production, and subsistence strategies. Man- made 

artifacts found within the study area help define the 

Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian periods, which ranged from approximately 

9500 BCE to about 1550 CE when the Spanish invasions or entradas of southeastern North America, 

notably Hernando de Soto’s of 1539 to 1542, brought 

a rapid end to the Mississippian period.

Archeologists believe that the Paleoindian tradition 

began about 12,000 years ago, and as stated above, 

the consensus is that the retreat of glaciers allowed 

the inhabitants of the Alaska/Yukon area to migrate 

9. John A. K. Willis, “Origins: Anthropological 

Perspectives,” Encyclopedia of North American 

Indians, ed. Frederick E. Hoxie (Boston: Houghton 

Mifflin Company, 1996), 445-47; Alice Beck Kehoe, 

America Before the European Invasions (London: 

Pearson Education, Ltd., 2002), 9-21. 

10. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center 

Web site, http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/ (accessed 

November 19, 1999).
8 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

into lower portions of the Americas as nomadic 

hunters and gatherers. The earliest example of 

extensive occupation is that of the Clovis culture, 

which was present in the Great Plains at least 11,200 

years ago. The Clovis people (so named from the 

initial discovery of artifacts near Clovis, New Mexico) are distinguished from later Paleoindian people 

by their distinctive large, fluted projectile points. 

Clovis points have been discovered as far south as 

the Andes, and some of those found in the Southeast 

are made of stone from non- regional sources. 

Crafted during the Early Paleoindian period 

(through 9000 BCE), these points exhibit a high 

degree of continuity in design and material, suggesting a nomadic population hunting Pleistocene 

megafauna but not yet fully adapted to regional subsistence patterns and material sources. By the Late 

Paleoindian period, specialized point design and 

material indicates that early peoples were adapting 

to smaller primary prey such as deer and utilizing 

regional stone resources. They remained nomadic 

hunters and gatherers and are believed to have built 

no permanent settlements, instead migrating 

throughout the region as seasons and food sources 

shifted.11

The Archaic period (8000 BCE – 1000 BCE) was 

also characterized by societies of nomadic hunters 

and gatherers with little evidence of agricultural 

development. Point technology remained the defining characteristic, and smaller, more refined points 

composed increasingly of local materials began to 

appear. Territorial specialization continued, with 

evidence of seasonal base camps and adaptation to 

materials and food sources specific to individual 

stream drainages. By the Middle Archaic period 

(6000 BCE – 3000 BCE), semi- permanent base 

camps along watercourses became common. The 

development of more sophisticated trade networks 

is associated with a more sedentary lifestyle, and the 

utilization of shellfish as a food source reinforced 

the increased emphasis on river valley settlement in 

Middle Archaic culture. In the Late Archaic (3000 

BCE – 1000 BCE), trade networks grew more 

sophisticated and pottery began to appear along the 

southeastern coast. Further, the presence of nonnative plant species suggests experiments with agriculture, although sustained subsistence- level agriculture was yet to develop.

The introduction of ceramics is generally considered the defining characteristic of the Woodland 

period (1000 BCE - 1000 CE), although other technological and cultural innovations such as the introduction of the bow and arrow and the emergence of 

burial mounds with exotic grave goods are also considered characteristic of the period. Throughout 

much of the upland Southeast, however, Paleoindians continued traditional settlement and subsistence patterns until around 2,000 years ago when 

the appearance of permanent settlements and the 

development of elaborate trade networks around 

cultural hearths marked the beginning of the Middle 

Woodland period (300 CE - 500 CE). During this 

period, western Georgia appears to have been 

within the diffusional sphere of the Hopewell culture of the Ohio River Valley, although the extent to 

which this culture actually affected peoples within 

the Chattahoochee study area is not yet clear. For 

unknown reasons, the Late Woodland period (500 

CE – 1000 CE) is marked by a substantial degree of 

cultural diffusion and population dispersal, perhaps 

brought about by the over- exploitation of prey as a 

result of the introduction of the bow and arrow. 

Smaller, dispersed settlements and less elaborate 

graves are further indications of the disruption of 

cultural continuity and trade networks.

Throughout the Woodland period there was a 

growing reliance on domesticated plants, especially 

maize, beans, and squash, a food complex adopted 

from southwestern Indian groups, but hunting, fishing, and gathering continued as supplements to 

agriculture. Evidence from the Mississippian period 

(900 CE to about 1550 CE) suggests that the presumed subsistence problems of the Late Woodland 

were overcome by an intensification of agriculture. 

This increased reliance on domesticated food plants 

provided the economic base for the formation of 

centralized regional political systems characterized 

by large ceremonial mound centers around which 

sizable towns formed, including the great mound 

complexes at Etowah and at Ocmulgee in Georgia. A 

system of towns existed as satellites to a ceremonial 

center, with these towns in turn centers for smaller 

villages. While the adaptation of agricultural practices allowed for the land to support greater populations, greater populations in turn created greater 

demand for arable land.

The archeological record indicates that warfare 

increased during this time as rival factions struggled 

11. John A. K. Willis, “Paleo-Indians,” in Encyclopedia of 

North American Indians, ed. Frederick E. Hoxie 

(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996), 462-64.
National Park Service 9

to control lands suited to cultivation. Conflict reinforced the need for central political structures (or 

alliances) and contributed to the value of the 

mound complexes as central fortifications. Religious influence increased during this period all 

across the larger Mississippian cultural area 

extending west to present- day Oklahoma, as far 

north as the Ohio River Valley, and south to the 

Florida peninsula. Elaborate trading networks 

developed in this period, with items such as silver 

from Ontario, bear teeth from the Rocky Mountains, and whole shells, sharks’ teeth, and turtle 

shells from the Gulf of Mexico circulating throughout the Mississippian cultural area. The precise 

relationship of the study area to existing ceremonial 

mound centers is unknown, although ceramics 

consistent with the Mississippian period have been 

located within the Chattahoochee River CRNRA.12

American Indians 

During the 

Historic Period

By the time the first Spanish entradas in the 1500s 

marked the beginning of the historic period, the 

Mississippian centers had experienced a measure of 

decline, with some larger mound centers, including 

Ocmulgee in middle Georgia, abandoned in the 

thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. Still, Hernando 

de Soto’s expedition of 1539 to 1542 encountered 

densely populated urban areas throughout the 

Southeast, many associated with mound centers, as 

well as polities organized around extended chiefdoms. However, European diseases spread by de 

Soto’s expedition are thought to have decimated 

American Indian populations and led to the collapse of Late Mississippian culture.

Following de Soto’s expedition, the Spanish made 

little effort to explore or to settle outside the Florida 

peninsula, and Spanish trade with Indian tribes of 

the interior Southeast was carried on through intermediaries. As the French and British presence in the 

Southeast increased in the late 1600s, the political, 

social, and economic organization of the southeastern Indians had already been transformed as a result 

of the earlier Spanish contact. As a result, early 

French and British traders encountered a situation 

that differed considerably from what had prevailed 

even a century before.13

As early as the 16th century, the ancestors of the 

Creek Indians of the historic period came under 

increasing pressure from the Cherokee, who were 

gradually expanding from the north into the southern Appalachians. Conflict culminated in a major 

battle between the Creek and the Cherokee at 

Slaughter Gap in present- day Union County, Georgia. Though very little is known of the dynamics of 

the battle, which is thought to have been fought in 

the late 1600s, the result was a Creek defeat and cession of the sacred Blood Mountain nearby.

After Blood Mountain, the Creek retreated to the 

Piedmont, but conflict continued, and in the 18th 

century, a second major confrontation occurred at 

Ball Ground14 in present- day Cherokee County, 

Georgia. This, too, resulted in Creek cessions of 

lands between the Chattahoochee and Coosa Rivers15 as they abandoned the highlands and left most 

of the territory on the northwest bank of the Chattahoochee firmly in the possession of the Cherokee. 

With that, the Chattahoochee River as it flowed 

through the Piedmont (including the study area) 

effectively became a buffer zone between the two 

tribes, a more or less neutral territory where both 

retained hunting rights.16

Archaeologists have identified temporary or seasonal American Indian camp sites at a number of 

locations in the study area, but the historical record 

documents only two larger permanent settlements, 

Suwanee and Standing Peachtree, both on the 

southeast side of the river. Suwannee Old Town, as 

it was known by the time white settlers were 

encroaching on the area, is thought to have been 

settled by Shawnee Indians in the 18th century, but it 

was apparently abandoned at an early date and little 

is known about the town other than its general 

location at the mouth of Suwanee Creek in what is 

now Gwinnett County.

12. Lynda Shaffer, “Mississippians,” in Encyclopedia of 

North American Indians, 384-87.

13. Henry F. Dobyns, “Diseases,” in Encyclopedia of North 

American Indians, 163.

14. Ball Ground takes its name from the games played at 

the site by the Cherokee.

15. The Coosa begins with the junction of the Oostanuala 

and Etowah River in Rome in northwest Georgia, and 

flows westward from there into Alabama.

16. Cultural Resource Inventory: Chattahoochee Final 

Report draft (Atlanta: National Park Service, 

Southeast Regional Office, 1981), 74.
10 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

The other village, Standing Peachtree, may have 

been larger and was certainly better known. There 

were two earthen mounds, one on each side of the 

river, indicating prehistoric occupation of some 

duration.17 Standing Peachtree is mentioned as a 

landmark and popular meeting place as early as 

1782,18 although it was apparently abandoned well 

before the War of 1812.

The location of Standing Peachtree at the mouth of 

Peachtree Creek figured prominently in the area’s 

history, as did the place name, which formed the 

basis of dozens of modern place names in the area. 

The origin of the name “Standing Peachtree” is not 

certain, but one tradition attributes it to the presence of a solitary peach tree on top of one of the 

mounds.19 Another tradition suggests that the name 

derives from a large pine or “pitch” tree that was 

scored by Indians in order to collect resin, with 

“Peachtree” being a corruption of “pitch tree.” No 

credible documentation has been found to support 

either tradition.20

The Creek

There is strong anthropological and archeological 

evidence to suggest that the Muskogee or Creek of 

the historic period were successors to the earlier 

Mississippian culture. It is thought that the name 

“Creek” was derived by shortening “Ocheese 

Creek” Indians, a name given by the English to the 

American Indians they found along the Ocmulgee 

River in the late 17th century. In time, the name was 

applied to a loose confederation of towns, all speaking dialects of the Muskogean language group. 

Throughout the 17th century, the confederation 

absorbed Muskogee and non- Muskogee Indians 

(such as Apalachicola, Oconee, Ocmulgee, Guale, 

and Yamasee) who were under pressure from European settlement and slave raiding in coastal areas.21

17. Ibid., 75.

18. Cultural Resource Inventory, 74.

19. Peach trees were an import of the British and Spanish 

and, although the presence of a large peach tree on 

the frontier might seem questionable, William 

Bartram reported peach orchards on his travels 

through Creek and Cherokee territory in the 1780s

FIGURE 1. Artist’s conception of the prehistoric village at Ocmulgee during the 

Mississippian period, as depicted in the museum diorama at Ocmulgee National 

Monument near Macon, GA. (Photograph by T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2004)

20. Garrett, Vol. 1, 8-10.
National Park Service 11

The Creek continued several aspects of Mississippian culture, but on a reduced scale. Instead of the 

chiefdom, the primary political entity was the permanent town (italwa) along a river, around which 

smaller villages (talofa) were clustered. Each town 

or village might be considered an individual tribe. 

The central settlement acted as a ceremonial and 

political center where, advised by elders and councilors, the chief (mico) lived and directed the business of the extended town. Periodically, when there 

were great issues to consider, leaders from many 

towns would gather to hold councils. The Creek 

were successful farmers, raising maize, sweet potatoes, and several varieties each of squash and 

legumes. Their vegetable diet was supplemented by 

hunting deer, bear, and turkey, but by the 18th century, European introductions such as domesticated 

fowl, swine, and goats also contributed considerably 

to the Creek diet.22

Creek society was organized into matrilineal clans, 

but marriage was always outside the clan. All clans, 

which were named for animals or natural forces 

(e.g., Wind Clan, Eagle Clan), were represented in 

every Creek town, with clans occupying separate 

precincts within the town and each household 

comprising an extended family, again based on 

matrilineal kinship. Each clan had its own code of 

etiquette and social behavior. In most towns, the 

chiefdom was hereditary within a single clan, 

although the chief’s clan would not be the same clan 

in every town.

Though there would be some variation throughout 

the towns of the confederation, the nature of the 

residential structures described by the famed naturalist William Bartram in the towns of the Upper 

Creek in the mid- 1770s might have been typical.23

The Creek arranged their towns around a central 

ceremonial ground and public buildings, with neatly 

arranged streets forming rectangular blocks not 

unlike those found in European towns. Each family 

had a lot upon which, depending on the affluence 

and circumstances of the associated family, one to 

four rectangular structures might be arranged 

around an open courtyard. Often occupying only a 

portion of the lot, the structures were designed for 

specific uses including winter and summer dwellings, food preparation, and the storage of provisions 

and wares (for those engaged in trade). The buildings themselves were generally post- in- ground and 

wattle- and- daub constructions with gable roofs 

covered with thatch or tree bark. The floors were 

typically earth or tamped clay.

Following the founding of Charleston, South Carolina, by the British in 1670 and Louisiana by the 

French in 1699, the trade in deerskins and other 

pelts with the Creek increased substantially, and a 

geographical division between Upper Creek and 

Lower Creek was reinforced by the patterns of 

trade. Towns along the Tallapoosa- Coosa- Alabama 

river system, where trade was typically with the 

French and the Spanish, came to be called the 

Upper Towns and their inhabitants, Upper Creek. 

The inhabitants of the Chattahoochee, Flint, and 

21. Information in this section is derived from Kathryn E. 

Holland Brand, Deerskins & Duffels: The Creek Indian 

Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815 (Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1993); Joel E. Martin, 

Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New 

World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991); and Kenneth W. 

McIntosh, “Creek (Muskogee),” in Encyclopedia of 

North American Indians, 42-45.

22. John R. Swanton, The Indians of the Southeastern 

United States. Smithsonian Bureau of American 

Ethnology, Bulletin 137 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1946), 285.

23. William Bartram, Travels Through North and South 

Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida (Savannah: 

Beehive Press, 1973).

FIGURE 2. Chief William McIntosh (1785-1825), one 

of the Creek signatories to the first and the second 

Treaty of Indian Springs. (National Anthropological 

Archives, Smithsonian Institution)
12 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Ocmulgee basins, who traded almost exclusively 

with the British in South Carolina and Georgia, were 

known as Lower Creek.

The Lower Creek especially profited from trade, but 

all Creek towns began to incorporate European 

goods into their traditional living patterns. Until the 

French were expelled from North America in 1763, 

the Creek were able to exploit the rivalry between 

them and the British, gaining some leverage in 

diplomacy and allowing them to resist pressure to 

cede land to white settlers.

At the close of the American Revolution in 1783, the 

Creek came under increasing pressure from white 

settlers pouring down the Piedmont into Georgia 

from the Carolinas. Hemmed in by expanding white 

settlement from the east and by the territories traditionally claimed by neighboring tribes to the west 

and north, the Creek saw their old hunting grounds 

vanishing. Recurring conflict between the Creek 

and white settlers led the new Federal government 

to attempt to induce the Creek to become settled 

agriculturists, setting up a system of trading posts 

(known as factories) and distributing livestock, 

seed, and farming implements. No longer able to 

negotiate terms among competing European interests, the Creek were increasingly manipulated in 

trade relationships. As they fell deeper in debt, they 

had nothing of value but their land, which was gradually lost in repeated cessions to the Federal government.

Although many Creek, especially in the more acculturated Lower Towns, established farmsteads and 

began to adopt aspects of white culture, pressure 

from white settlers to remove all American Indians 

from Georgia and Alabama increased, culminating 

in the Creek War of 1813- 1814, which had a devastating effect on the Creek Confederation. Under 

relentless pressure from white settlers and inspired 

by the pan- Indianism24 espoused by the Shawnee 

leader Tecumseh, a substantial number of Creek led 

by Peter McQueen, Menewa, and William Weatherford revolted against white settlers and the acculturated Creek in an effort to re- establish traditional 

Creek ways of life. As conflict escalated, Federal 

authorities responded by raising a force of white 

militia, Cherokees, and about 100 “loyal” Creek, and 

on March 27, 1814, under the leadership of Andrew 

Jackson, they eliminated a large force of “Red 

Sticks,” as the warring faction of the Creek was 

known, at Tohopeka on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama, a battle commemorated by today’s Horseshoe 

Bend National Military Park. After the battle, the 

Treaty of Fort Jackson forced the Creek to give up 30 

million acres in southern Alabama and southwestern Georgia and essentially ended their power in the 

Southeast.

In 1821 the first Treaty of Indian Springs forced the 

Creek to cede all of their land west of the Flint River, 

and in February 1825 a second treaty at Indian 

Springs forced them to cede all remaining Creek 

land in Georgia to the United States government. 

Chief William McIntosh, who like McQueen, 

Menewa, and Weatherford had a Scottish father and 

Creek mother, was the principal American Indian 

signatory of the treaty; but he underestimated the 

reaction from his people and was assassinated at 

Whitesburg, Georgia, in April 1825.

With his election in 1823, Georgia Governor George 

Troup took a hard line with the Creek in Georgia, 

refusing to honor treaty obligations that granted 

peaceful possession to those Creek who chose to 

remain on the land and acknowledge the laws and 

sovereignty of the United States and the State of 

Georgia. The governor quickly began a campaign to 

remove all American Indians from Georgia, provoking President John Quincy Adams to threaten 

Federal intervention to preserve the honor of the 

treaty with the Creek, but Troup persisted. In the 

end, the Federal government was forced to negotiate 

final removal of the Creek to a newly- established 

Indian Territory (present- day Oklahoma), and by 

the time Governor Troup left office in 1827, the State 

had successfully extinguished all Creek claims in the 

state.

The Cherokee

When British traders from Virginia began to penetrate the southern Appalachian region, they found 

about 40,000 square miles of territory claimed by 

the Cherokee.25 The Cherokee occupied the highland areas of present- day Tennessee, North and 

South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, as well as 

24. Pan-Indianism argued that American Indians had to 

put aside tribal differences in order to present a 

united front against white encroachment on their 

territory.

25. The de Soto expedition spent a brief time with the 

ancestors of the Cherokee in spring 1540 before 

moving on.
National Park Service 13

small portions of Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The Cherokee language is part of the Iroquoian group, and although there is considerable 

debate over when the tribe first occupied the 

southern Appalachians, throughout the 17th and 

18th centuries, the Cherokee expanded their territorial range to include much of northern Georgia. 

However, as noted earlier, the river remained a neutral boundary where hunting and trading could be 

mutually pursued, and there is no direct evidence of 

extensive Cherokee settlement in or even near the 

study area.26

At the time of European contact, the Cherokee were 

a settled agricultural people subsisting largely upon 

the typical staples of maize, beans, and squash, supplemented by hunting and fishing. The tribe had 

three major divisions based on geography and dialect. In the Lower Towns in northeastern Georgia 

and northwestern South Carolina along the Keowee 

River, the Tugaloo River, and the headwaters of the 

Savannah River, the Elati dialect was spoken. In the 

Middle Towns of western North Carolina on the 

Oconaluftee, Tuckaseegee, Nantahala, and Little 

Tennessee Rivers, the Kituhwa dialect was spoken. 

In the Western or Overhill Towns in eastern Tennessee and along the Hiwassee and Cheowa Rivers 

of northern Georgia and extreme western North 

Carolina, the residents spoke the Otali dialect.

Typical Cherokee villages consisted of 30 to 60, 

wattle- and- daub, round houses. The Cherokee 

apparently did not build ceremonial mounds but 

were not averse to using existing mounds found 

within their territory. Cherokee villages were centered around a council house where the village’s 

political and ceremonial business was conducted 

and where perpetual sacred fires were tended. As 

with the Creek, family identity was matrilineal, and 

the tribe was divided into seven clans. At contact, 

each Cherokee town was ruled by a council of 

elders, but in the 1720s, under the influence of British colonists, thirty- seven Cherokee chiefs for the 

first time selected an overall tribal chief.

After the founding of the Virginia colony in 1607, 

English traders began trading with the Cherokee, 

commencing a long- running alliance between the 

Cherokee and British. Trade increased substantially 

with the founding of the Carolina Colony in 1670. 

By 1684, the Cherokee had entered into a treaty with 

the Carolinians and were heavily engaged in trade, 

primarily exchanging deerskins and American 

Indian slaves for firearms and textiles. The Cherokee became important and valuable allies of the 

British, a fact that was not lost on the French who 

were also trading with the Cherokees in the transAppalachian region. In 1743 the Cherokee signed a 

treaty with the British granting them sole trading 

privileges with the tribe. The conflict between the 

Cherokee and the Creek Confederation (described 

above) resulted in Creek cession of much of northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama in the 

vicinity of the Tennessee and Coosawattee Rivers to 

the Cherokee.

Although the Cherokee were allied with the British 

at the beginning of the Seven Years or French and 

Indian War between 1756 and 1763, English treachery led the Cherokee to turn on their former allies. 

White settlements along the Cherokee frontier were 

attacked, and forces raised in their defense and for 

retaliation were soundly defeated. In June 1760 the 

26. This section is based on Duane H. King, ed., The 

Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled History

(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1979) and 

Duane H. King, “Cherokee,” in Encyclopedia of North 

American Indians, 105-8.

FIGURE 3. Sequoyah, also known as George Gist or 

Guess (c. 1767-1843), inventor of the Cherokee 

alphabet shown on the wall behind him in this 

image. (From the original oil painting by Robert 

Lindneaux, Woolaroc Museum, Bartlesville, OK)
14 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Cherokee defeated a force of more than 1,200 men 

under the command of Colonel Archibald Montgomery near Franklin, North Carolina, and in 

August of that year, Fort Loudon, a British outpost 

near the Cherokee capital in southeastern Tennessee, was destroyed and its garrison of men massacred. In retaliation, a year later, a British force 

numbering 2,600 destroyed all the Lower Towns 

and the Middle or Valley Towns of the Cherokee, 

the loss of which forced the Cherokee to capitulate 

and sign treaties ceding much of their land in Virginia and the Carolinas. At the onset of the American Revolution, the Cherokee sided with the British 

and attacked colonial settlements and homesteads 

along the frontier, prompting damaging punitive 

raids on Cherokee villages by American militia.

In 1783, as a result of their unfortunate alliance with 

the British, the Cherokee were forced to cede 

roughly 1,600 square miles in eastern Georgia along 

with additional lands in Virginia and the Carolinas. 

Some Cherokee under the leadership of Dragging 

Canoe withdrew to the vicinity of present- day 

Chattanooga and continued warfare with white settlers for a decade, but the pressure from white settlement proved too great. In 1794 the Chickamauga 

band of the Cherokee signed a treaty with the Federal government and became the first of the Cherokee to be forced west of the Mississippi River.

Those Cherokee who remained on lands that had 

not been ceded began to acculturate rapidly with the 

whites. Sequoyah invented his famous alphabet, 

making a written language possible, and tribal leaders organized a constitutional government modeled 

on that of the United States. Many Cherokee 

embraced white culture, establishing diffused agricultural homesteads, embracing Christianity, and 

adopting other aspects of the dominant culture. 

Intermarriage with whites and growing economic 

distinctions among the Cherokee themselves 

marked this period. In 1814, the Cherokee allied with 

the Federal government to defeat the Creek, but 

none of this could stop the growing demand of 

white settlers for American Indian lands beyond the 

Chattahoochee, nor could it weaken the State’s will 

to assume control over all lands within its chartered 

boundaries.

In December 1827, newly- elected Governor John 

Forsyth and the Georgia legislature claimed jurisdiction over all lands of the Cherokee Nation in 

Georgia and invalidated Cherokee law in favor of 

State law. This action initiated a three- way struggle 

for control over Cherokee lands between the State, 

the Cherokee Nation, and the Federal government. 

Under great pressure from white prospectors following the discovery of gold near Dahlonega, Georgia, late in 1828, the State redoubled its efforts to 

remove American Indians from Georgia.

In 1830, the State organized the Cherokee lands in 

northwestern Georgia into Cherokee County even 

before questions of sovereignty finally reached the 

courts. In 1832, the United States Supreme Court 

ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the laws of the 

State of Georgia did not apply in the Cherokee 

Nation, and the court reaffirmed the principle that 

the Constitution vested sole authority to treat with 

Indian nations in the Federal government. In defiance, the State proceeded with its plans for distributing Cherokee lands to white settlers, and fearful of 

alienating powerful political interests, President 

Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme 

Court decision. As a result, Georgia’s so- called 

“gold lottery” to distribute Cherokee land, including 

FIGURE 4. The Ridge, Kah-nung-da-tla-geh, or 

“Major Ridge” (1771-1839), one of the Cherokee 

signatories of the Treaty of New Echota 

assassinated for that action. (Jody Cook Postcard 

Collection)
National Park Service 15

all of the study area on the northwestern side of the 

river, went on as scheduled in the fall of 1832.27

Realizing that the days of the Cherokee Nation were 

numbered, a faction led by Major Ridge, his son 

John Ridge, and his nephew Elias Boudinot negotiated the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, exchanging 

all remaining Cherokee claims in the East for five 

million dollars and lands west of the Mississippi in 

present- day Oklahoma. It was the best terms possible for the Indians, the Ridge faction believed, but a 

majority of the Cherokee, refusing to believe that 

the Federal government would abandon them, 

made no plans to emigrate west.

When only 2,000 Cherokee had begun migrating 

west by the deadline of May 1838, the Federal government began a forcible roundup and expulsion of 

the tribe. At least 13,000 Cherokee were rounded up 

in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina, and hundreds died even before they started 

west in the fall of 1838. The infamous Trail of Tears 

left as many as 5,000 Cherokee dead from cold, disease, and starvation. Perhaps 1,000 Cherokee 

evaded the roundup and remained in the East, most 

of them in the higher elevations of western North 

Carolina.28 In June 1839, with the last of the 

exhausted tribe straggling into Indian Territory, 

Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot, like 

Chief McIntosh before them, were all assassinated 

for their role in the debacle.

Early White 

Settlement

The story of white settlement in Georgia is a story of 

the steady attrition of its American Indian population. Between the founding of the Georgia colony in 

1733 and 1838, when the last of the Cherokee were 

forced from the state, the constant pressure of white 

settlement on the American Indian frontier resulted 

in persistent tensions and frequent hostilities. The 

inevitable pattern of white encroachment on American Indian lands, followed by Indian cession by 

treaty, repeated itself twenty times between 1733 and 

1835. By 1838 all but a handful of the native peoples, 

including the Creek and the Cherokee, had been 

expelled from Georgia.

In 1800 most of the area that is now metropolitan 

Atlanta technically remained American Indian territory. Only a small portion of modern- day Gwinnett County lay within lands already ceded to the 

State by the Creek, with the western extent of ceded 27. Thurman Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy: The Story of the 

Ridge Family and the Decimation of a People (New 

York: Macmillan, 1970), 196-238. 28. Wilkins, 254-315.

FIGURE 5. Georgia lottery survey for the home of John Ridge, son of Major Ridge, 

both of whom were assassinated for signing the Treaty of New Echota. (Georgia 

Department of Archives and History)
16 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

territory marked by the headwaters of the 

Apalachee River. Thus, the majority of the land in 

the study area was still in native hands, and white 

contact was limited mainly to a very few land squatters and to traders seeking to peddle goods to the 

American Indians. In 1798, Georgia’s Constitutional 

Convention sought to limit frontier disputes 

between American Indians and whites by prohibiting the settlement of lands until native claims had 

been legally extinguished and counties organized 

and surveyed. The prohibition was widely ignored.

The War of 1812 only hastened white encroachment 

in the upper Piedmont. Recognizing the need to 

protect settlers from increased harassment by Creek 

Indians allied with the British, the State built a number of garrisoned forts beyond the state’s western 

frontier. In 1813 Fort Daniel was constructed at Hog 

Mountain in present- day Gwinnett County to protect settlers living along the upper Apalachee River. 

Because of its strategic location, the U.S. Army built 

a fort at the abandoned Indian village of Standing 

Peachtree in March 1814.29 Construction was under 

the supervision of James McC. Montgomery and 

included building a boat yard, two large block 

houses, six dwellings, and a storehouse. Called Fort 

Gilmer, the fort served as a distribution point for 

provisions for Andrew Jackson’s troops in Alabama 

during the War of 1812. The necessity of supplying 

the new fort, which was sometimes called Fort 

Peachtree, required construction of a road between 

the two forts, which followed an established Indian 

path that ran from Toccoa in northeast Georgia to 

Standing Peachtree. That road, known as the 

Peachtree Road, became a major conduit for settlement in the area, and much of its route remains in 

use today.30

The fort at Standing Peachtree was never really 

tested in the War of 1812, since most conflict on the 

Georgia frontier was along the lower Chattahoochee Valley. Nevertheless, the fort figured into 

the larger conflict as a point of departure for provisions sent down river to supply Andrew Jackson’s 

troops, who mortally wounded the Creek Confederacy at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. Even 

those Creeks who fought with the U.S. in the Creek 

War did not benefit since, by 1827, the Creek ceded 

all their remaining holdings in the State of Georgia, 

leaving the Cherokee as the only tribe in the state. In 

1817, the Creek ceded their lands east of the Ocmulgee and its headwaters, out of which Gwinnett 

County was formed. In 1821 in the first Treaty of 

Indian Springs they ceded all of their lands between 

the Ocmulgee and Flint Rivers, which resulted in the 

formation of five new counties that same year, 

including Henry County from which DeKalb 

County and later Fulton County were created. With 

that treaty, the entire southeastern bank of the 

Chattahoochee River, including much of what is 

now the Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area passed out of Indian possession.

The Federal government found itself in the tenuous 

position of trying to balance agreements made to 

both the State of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation. 

In 1802 the State surrendered claim to all lands west 

of the present state boundary to the United States. 

In exchange the United States accepted the financial 

responsibility of negotiating American Indian 

affairs, understood to mean the termination of 

native land claims within the state’s boundaries. The 

Treaty of 1817 made the Federal government the 

enforcing party with regard to the issue of keeping 

white intruders off of unceded lands occupied by 

the Cherokee Nation. Thus, the Federal government 

was dually charged with extinguishing Indian rights 

while averting white encroachment on lands disputed between the Cherokee Nation and the State.

After the War of 1812, squatting by whites on Cherokee lands northwest of the Chattahoochee River was 

becoming all too common, violating terms of the 

Treaty of 1817 which defined the river as the border 

between the United States and the Cherokee 

Nation. In 1820 Andrew Jackson, as an agent for the 

U. S. government trying to maintain peace with the 

Cherokee, again crossed the Georgia frontier along 

the Chattahoochee River, this time to enforce 

American Indian land rights. Jackson arrived at the 

Shallow Ford on the Chattahoochee near presentday Roswell in the spring of 1820 and marked the 

crossing with a warning that land beyond the ford 

was off limits and that trespassers were subject to 

expulsion and prosecution.

Intruders on Cherokee lands, beware, I am 

required to remove all white men trespassing on 

Cherokee lands and not having a written permit 

29. Ibid., 75.

30. The original Peachtree Road did not include the 

modern road by that name south of Buckhead, but 

followed the routes of today’s W. Pace’s Ferry Road 

and Moore’s Mill Road to Peachtree Creek. Peachtree 

Road south of Buckhead developed after white 

settlement of the area began in 1821.
National Park Service 17

from agent, Col. R. J. Meigs, this duty I am about 

to perform. The Regulars and Indian Light horse 

will be employed in performing this service, and 

any opposition will be promptly punished. All 

white men with their livestock found trespassing 

on Indian lands will be arrested and handed over 

to the civil authorities of the United States to be 

dealt with as the law directs, there [sic] families 

removed to U.S. lands, there [sic] crops, houses, 

and fences destroyed.31

On June 15, 1820, Jackson wrote John C. Calhoun, 

Secretary of War, that “[o]n excursion through the 

Cherokee Nation...I found a great many intruders 

and those on the north shore of the Chatahoochey 

[sic] not only numerous but insolent in their threatened resistance.”32

Jackson understood fully that the pressure of white 

settlement was irresistible and saw the end of the 

Cherokee Nation as inevitable. Elected president of 

the United States in 1828, Jackson presided over the 

culmination of white efforts to remove the American Indians from Georgia and much of the southeast. The discovery of gold in north Georgia in 1828 

only increased the pressure on the Cherokee, and 

encouraged by the passage of the Federal Indian 

Removal Act in 1830, the State of Georgia acted to 

end Cherokee sovereignty in Georgia once and for 

all. The State effectively seized the Cherokee land in 

Georgia in 1830 when it created Cherokee County, 

encompassing all of the lands northwest of the 

Chattahoochee, and ordered the land surveyed and 

distributed by lottery. Accepting the inevitable and 

fearing civil war or secession by Georgia, Jackson 

did nothing. In 1832, Cherokee County was subdivided into ten smaller counties, which included 

Cobb and Forsyth, and in 1835, with Georgia proceeding openly with the settlement of Cherokee 

territory, the Federal government negotiated the 

31. Sarah Blackwell Gober Temple, in The First Hundred 

Years: A Short History of Cobb County, in Georgia

(Atlanta: Walter W. Brown, 1935),1.

32. John Spencer Bassett, ed., Correspondence of Andrew 

Jackson (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1926-

1935), vol. III, 26.

FIGURE 6. Detail from map of Georgia,1842, taken from Sidney E. Morse and Samuel Breen’s 

Atlas of North America, published in three parts between 1838 and 1845. The dashed lines 

mark county boundaries that followed the Chattahoochee and Apalachee Rivers. (Private 

Collection of Tommy H. Jones)
18 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Treaty of New Echota with a minority faction of the 

Cherokee Nation, thus clearing the way for final 

removal of American Indians from Georgia.

James McC. Montgomery, who built much of Fort 

Gilmer for the government, was one of the earliest 

white settlers in the area when the Creek ceded their 

lands east of the Chattahoochee River in 1821. He 

built a house near the present intersection of 

Moore’s Mill and Bolton Roads and, in 1825, secured 

appointment as postmaster of the area’s first post 

office, which was called Standing Peachtree. In 1837, 

Montgomery also established a ferry to help accommodate the settlers flooding into the lands of the old 

Cherokee Nation.33 Construction of the bridge for 

the Western & Atlantic Railroad and a later vehicular bridge obliterated the largest of the Indian 

mounds at the old Indian village of Standing 

Peachtree, and extensive agricultural development 

of the river’s flood plain destroyed much of the rest, 

although in the mid- 2oth century Garrett noted 

“the remnant of an Indian mound” on the Cobb 

County side of the river just north of the railroad.34

In the mid- 1820s, settlement of the study area was 

just beginning, but development was rapid. Between 

1820 and 1830, the population of Gwinnett County 

almost tripled, from 4,589 to 13,289, and significantly, the population of slaves (included in those 

numbers) increased nearly fivefold from 538 to 

2,332. By 1830, slaves constituted 17.5 percent of the 

population.35 The presence of so many slaves is in 

part indicative of the rising importance of cotton 

cultivation in the study area as the introduction of 

upland cotton made it possible for farmers in the 

upper Piedmont to cash in on the revolution in cotton- growing that began with the invention of the 

cotton gin in 1797.

Still, the percentage of slaves among the entire population was relatively low compared to lower Piedmont and “black belt” counties where slave 

populations commonly exceeded white populations.36 As a comparative example, in two lower 

Piedmont cotton counties, Oglethorpe and Putnam, 

which had similar total populations around 13,000, 

58 percent of the population were slaves. On the eve 

of the Civil War, with statewide slave- based plantation agriculture running full tilt, these percentages, 

as well as overall population, had not increased dramatically. In 1860, slaves represented only 19.7 percent of a population of 12,940 in Gwinnett37 and 20.7 

percent of a population of 14,427 in Fulton. The area 

never possessed the geographic qualities of soil, climate, and easy water transportation38 that made 

lands in the lower Piedmont and in the coastal plain 

so valuable.

Transportation

Use of the Chattahoochee River itself for long- distance transportation was hampered by the Falls of 

the Chattahoochee and some twenty miles of shoals 

north of Columbus. While river transportation 

above Columbus was limited to shallow- draft vessels going short distances, a few barges and flatboats 

were running between West Point and Standing 

Peachtree as early as 1838. Since the region’s rivers 

are generally not navigable above the Fall Line, 

water transport in the study area was mostly limited 

to ferry crossings. In the early days, personal travel 

was mostly on foot or, if one were lucky, horseback. 

Roads that could sustain wagon and stagecoach 

traffic evolved slowly and not until the 1840s did rail 

travel become widespread.

Roads and Trails. The earliest roads in the study 

area were often simply improvements on the system 

of prehistoric trails worn by the native peoples and 

by the herds of woodland buffalo that ranged across 

the region until they were driven to extinction in the 

33. “James McC. Montgomery of Standing Peachtree, The 

Atlanta Historical Bulletin, No.12 (December 1937), 

17-18.

34. Garrett, Atlanta and Environs, Vol. 1, 8.

35. The raw census data presented here was obtained 

online from the University of Virginia’s GEOSPAT 

Geospatial and Statistical Data Center’s United States 

Historical Census Data Browser, http://

fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus. The 

figures and percentages derived from the raw data 

were calculated and extrapolated by the authors. 

Future notations in this text relative to other such 

calculations should be assumed to be the work of the 

authors unless otherwise noted.

36. Ronald M. Harper, Development of Agriculture in 

Georgia from 1850 to 1920 (University P.O., Ala.: 

Ronald M. Harper, 1923), 9.

37. It is worth noting that the population of Gwinnett 

County actually dropped between 1850 and 1860. 

While some County land area had been removed for 

the formation of new counties, the overall population 

had not increased.

38. James C. Bonner, A History of Georgia Agriculture: 

1732-1860 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1964), 

54-55. Bonner notes that perhaps as much as twothirds of the cotton production in Georgia (in 1820) 

occurred within five miles of navigable rivers.
National Park Service 19

18th century. The early trails and the roads that followed them often followed ridges, where traveling 

conditions were generally easier, and many were 

oriented toward fords or shoals on the larger rivers 

and streams. Of particular interest among the early 

Indian trails in the study area is the Hightower Trail, 

commonly attributed to but probably predating the 

Creek Confederacy. During the historic period, the 

trail was a major trading route between Augusta, 

Georgia, on the Savannah River and the towns of 

the Upper Creeks and the Cherokee. Beyond the 

Chattahoochee, the trail crossed the Etowah River 

in the vicinity of the great mound complex at 

Etowah, and while the ultimate origin of the name 

“Hightower” is uncertain, it is commonly believed 

that it is a corruption of the same American Indian 

word from which Etowah is derived.39

The Hightower Trail was an important trade and 

settlement route in the history of early Georgia and 

beyond into Alabama. The trail crossed the Chattahoochee River at the Shallow Ford, near presentday Roswell, a major river crossing and the same 

one where Andrew Jackson posted his warning to 

white squatters in 1820. In 1824, the following ad ran 

in the Milledgeville Southern Recorder:

Chattahoochee: The subscriber has established a 

ferry across this river at the place commonly 

known as the Shallow Ford in the upper part of 

DeKalb County. Travelers from the Carolinas to 

the Alabama, coming by way of Augusta, 

Madison, Rockbridge, etc., will find this the 

nearest and best route. Bridges will be placed on 

watercourses beyond the ferry. Jacob R. 

Brooks.40

Ironically, Brooks came to Georgia as the Federal 

agent responsible for protecting American Indian 

property and rights against white encroachment. 

Today the backwater of Bull Sluice Lake near Chattahoochee River Park, a Fulton County park, covers 

the Shallow Ford.

Another important prehistoric trail intersected the 

Hightower Trail south of the Shallow Ford. This trail 

roughly followed the topography of the ridge system 

associated with the Brevard Fault bounding the river 

corridor to the southeast, and became the foundation for George Gilmer’s road between Fort Daniel 

in Gwinnett County and Fort Gilmer at Standing 

Peachtree. Shallowford Road and Peachtree Road 

north of Buckhead41 are two modern roads that 

trace some of the routes of these ancient trails.

At the time Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties were 

organized, there were few if any real roads in the 

area, although Peachtree “Road,” parts of the Hightower Trail and some of the other major Indian trails 

might have approached the status of proper roads. 

These early roads were primitive affairs, often 

impassable for long periods in inclement weather 

when mud and flooded streams made travel impossible. Road development in the early years often 

meant little more than clearing trees to widen an 

ancient hunting path, leaving stumps over or 

around which horse- drawn carts, wagons, and 

coaches negotiated passage. Yet out of these came 

many modern thoroughfares.

The county Inferior Court was generally responsible for the development of infrastructure, and 

immediately after the counties were organized, the 

court began the task of marking and opening roads. 

In Gwinnett alone, no fewer than 35 road projects 

were authorized by the Inferior Court in the five 

years between 1821 and 1826. Early road authorizations often established roads radiating from the 

county seat to adjacent county seats, to important 

transportation points such as existing roads, and to 

ferries and bridges over the river and nearby 

streams. Thus, some of the earliest roads in the 

study area ran from the Gwinnett County seat at 

Lawrenceville and from the DeKalb County seat at 

Decatur to ferries on the Chattahoochee, with the 

roads to Johnson’s Ferry and Power’s Ferry being 

two of the most well known of those roads through 

the study area.

Early roads were financed by bond issue or by toll 

charges, and although toll roads or turnpikes were 

often private enterprises needing little more than 

permission from the county, they were not much 

used in the study area. The maintenance of early 

roads, once established, was more problematic, and 

seasonal rains and winter ice often turned early 

roads into quagmires. In September 1828,42 for 

39. Flanigan, vol. II, 14.

40. As quoted in Michael D. Hitt, Cherokee Lands: Within 

What is Now Roswell, Georgia in the 1820’s and 1830’s 

(Roswell, Ga.: M.D. Hitt, 1993).

41. West of Buckhead, the original route of Peachtree 

Road followed what is now West Pace’s Ferry Road to 

Moores Mill Road, which it followed from there on to 

Standing Peachtree.

42. Flanigan, Vol. I, 77.
20 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

example, the Gwinnett Inferior Court ordered the 

comprehensive improvement of public roads, which 

were to be

opened 20 feet wide and ditched where 

necessary...stumps cut near to the earth as 

possible; the roots taken and washes turned into 

ditches; the swamps, branches and mud- holes to 

be cause- wayed and signboard of direction put 

up at the ford of each road.

Ferries. Natural fords are fairly common in the 

study area, but many, including the Shallow Ford, 

were soon replaced by ferries that, for a nominal fee, 

provided a dry and relatively secure means of transportation for people and their possessions, livestock, and trading goods across the river. By the 

time the State formally annexed the Cherokee territory beyond the river, no fewer than a dozen ferries 

were operating within the study area. Orr’s Ferry, 

Gilbert’s Ferry, Collins Ferry, and McGinnis Ferry 

all provided access between modern Gwinnett and 

Forsyth Counties. Roger’s Ferry, Waters Ferry, Gates 

Ferry, Island Ford, and Martin’s Ferry all connected 

Gwinnett County with Milton County, now north 

Fulton County. Brooks Ferry at Shallow Ford, 

Power’s Ferry, Pace’s Ferry, and Montgomery Ferry 

just below Peachtree Creek all crossed between 

modern Fulton and Cobb Counties. Generally the 

ferries were known by the name of the ferry operator, so that a succession of names might be associated with any one ferry location.

Among the earliest recorded ferries were those 

operated by William Burke beginning in 1823 at an 

unspecified point west of what is now the city of 

Atlanta and, as noted above, by Jacob Brooks beginning the following year at the Shallow Ford itself.43

In 1835, a ferry at Standing Peachtree commenced 

operation44 and Power’s Ferry was begun around 

the same time by Joseph Power, who established his 

enterprise near today’s Morgan Falls Dam. His 

brother James also operated a ferry located approximately where Power’s Ferry Road now crosses the 

river near I- 285. Pace’s Ferry was established a few 

miles south of James Power’s Ferry by Hardy Pace 

sometime after he purchased the land in 1843.

Between Shallow Ford and Standing Peachtree, the 

number of ferries increased during the 1840s and 

1850s as the populations of nearby Decatur, Atlanta, 

and Marietta grew. Much of Sherman’s army 

entered Fulton County in 1864 on Pace’s Ferry 

Road, which ran from the ferry to Peachtree Road at 

the crossroads community of Buckhead. Other ferry 

crossings were used by troops during the Civil War, 

notably Isham’s Ferry, also known as Isom’s and 

later Heard’s Ferry, at the mouth of Sope Creek, and 

Johnson’s Ferry a short distance upriver from 

there.45

In the early period, the authority to establish and 

operate ferries appears ambiguous. Certainly, the 

Cherokee themselves recognized the value of providing passage and were known to have held interests in Orr’s, Gilbert’s, Rogers’, and Waters’ ferries. 

On the State’s part, early ferries were created by legislative decree but the ferries came under the purview of the county once counties were formally 

organized. The right to establish and operate Martin’s Ferry just east of Vickery Creek, for example, 

was granted by the Inferior Court of DeKalb County 

in 1829:

On application order that Rubin Martin be 

authorized to establish a ferry on the 

Chattahoochee River above the Shallow Ford at 

a place now know as Martin’s Ferry and be 

allowed to charge the following rates as toll: For 

every road wagon loaded crossing .62; empty .50; 

cart or two horse wagon .37; for a gig or one 

horse carriage of any description .25; for a man 

and single horse .12; footman or lead horse .06 1⁄4; 

cattle .04 a head; hogs and sheep .02 a head. 

Provided he goes bond on a good security in the 

sum of $1,000.00 for the keeping of a good flat 

and faithful performance of the duties of 

ferryman.46

The record suggests that Martin may have previously operated a ferry at that location, and the 

authority for the route may have been more of a regulatory tool on the part of the county to encourage 

fair rates and a degree of quality control. It also suggests a recognition of and interest in commerce and 43. Tom Chaffin, “There’s Nothing New About Toll Roads, 

Bridges,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 24, 

1998, United Toll Systems LLC website, http://

www.unitedtoll.com/GaArticles/gaarticle11.htm 

(accessed October 1, 2004).

44. Cultural Resource Inventory: Chattahoochee Final 

Report draft (National Park Service Southeast Region 

Office, 1981), 75.

45. Chaffin. On some Civil War maps, Isham’s Ferry is 

designated Phillips Ferry.

46. Franklin M. Garrett, Atlanta and Its Environs; A 

Chronicle of Its People and Events, vol. 1 (Athens, Ga.: 

University of Georgia Press, 1954), 76. 
National Park Service 21

settlement opportunities beyond the river. It is likely 

that numerous other ferries operated, albeit perhaps for only a limited period of time, within the 

study area and provided local competition. Still, 

most ferries ultimately tied back into the two primary trails beyond the river, the Hightower Trail 

and the Old Alabama Road, a part of which today 

runs from Medlock Bridge Road to Riverside Road 

north of Island Ford.47

Bridges. The earliest bridges in the study area were 

wooden, with the best of these covered with a roof 

to protect the extensive joinery that held the bridge 

together. A covered bridge was built over Sope 

Creek within the study area near the site of the 

Marietta Paper Company’s mill, and it stood until 

the early 1960s. Damaged by a large truck that was 

too heavy for the span, the bridge was reinforced 

with steel beams in 1963, only to be destroyed by 

arson in 1964. Only one covered bridge survives 

near the study area, and that is Concord Bridge at 

Nickajack Creek, southwest of Smyrna.

Though early bridges were built over smaller 

streams in the area, the width of the Chattahoochee 

provided a serious challenge to early bridge building. Nevertheless, in 1834, Robert McAfee was 

authorized to construct and operate a toll bridge 

near the present Holcomb Bridge. Little is known of 

the structure, but it was apparently used by Union 

troops as a crossing point in July 1864.

Better known was the long covered bridge constructed over the river at Roswell Road before the 

Civil War. Burned by the Confederates in 1864 but 

quickly rebuilt, it was among the first of a number of 

bridges that provided access across the river in the 

study area. A covered bridge built to carry the 

Atlanta Road at Bolton was the only other bridge in 

the sixteen miles between the two bridges until the 

early 1900s. Still, the relatively low cost and ease of 

operation of ferries compared to the cost of bridge 

building meant that ferries remained an important 

component of inter- county travel well into the 20th 

century.

Railroads. The earliest railroad in the region, and 

one of the first in the nation, was the South Carolina 

Canal and Rail Road Company’s line that began 

operation in December 1830 from Charleston to 

47. New Georgia Encyclopedia, s.v. “Chattahoochee 

River,” http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/

Article.jsp?id=h-950 (accessed November 9, 2005).

FIGURE 7. Montgomery Ferry, ca. 1900. (Vanishing Georgia Collection, Georgia Division of 

Archives and History)
22 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Hamburg, across the Savannah River from Augusta, 

Georgia. In 1833, the Georgia Legislature chartered 

the Georgia Railroad, which was originally intended 

to connect Augusta and Athens, with a branch to 

Greensboro, Georgia. The opening of Cherokee 

lands to white settlement prompted the Legislature 

in 1836 to charter its first State- owned railroad, the 

Western and Atlantic (W & A), to connect the interior of Georgia with the Tennessee River valley at 

Chattanooga.48

The W&A was originally authorized to extend to an 

unspecified river crossing somewhere between 

Campbellton in what is now south Fulton County 

and Wynn’s Ferry near Gainesville in Hall County. 

Stephen Harriman Long, an engineer who conducted some of the initial surveys west of the Mississippi after the War of 1812 and was the first white 

man to reach the summit of Pike’s Peak in Colorado, 

surveyed the initial route of the railroad and was 

responsible for choosing the railroad’s river crossing 

at Montgomery Ferry near old Fort Gilmer at 

Standing Peachtree. That choice and the resulting 

rail route ultimately determined the location of 

Atlanta and several other Georgia towns and cities.

By October 1838, the southern end of the W & A 

railroad line had been surveyed and some 50 miles 

of track were under construction. A railroad bridge 

over the Chattahoochee at Montgomery Ferry was 

also constructed before a severe economic depression slowed construction on the line. Not until 

Christmas Eve 1842 did the first locomotive leave 

Terminus, the little settlement that had grown up at 

the southern end of the line. That first train made 

the round trip between Terminus and Marietta, but 

passengers insisted on walking across the trestle 

bridge over the Chattahoochee because they were 

not sure the bridge would carry the locomotive’s 

weight. Work on the W&A was slow, and it was not 

completed to Chattanooga until 1851.

In the meantime, the charter of the Georgia Railroad was adjusted to allow for extension of the main 

line beyond Greensboro to a connection with the 

W&A at Terminus, which was renamed Marthasville 

in 1843, in honor of former Gov. Wilson Lumpkin’s 

daughter. The first train on the Georgia Railroad 48. Kenneth Coleman, ed., A History of Georgia (Athens: 

University of Georgia Press, 1977), 156-62.

FIGURE 8. Sope Creek Bridge before its destruction by fire in 1964. (Vanishing 

Georgia Collection, Georgia Division of Archives and History)
National Park Service 23

arrived in Marthasville in September 1845, a 

momentous event for the town’s leaders who 

quickly recognized that the name “Marthasville” 

did not do justice to their aspirations for the town, 

and in December 1845, Marthasville became 

Atlanta. The following year the Macon and Western 

Railroad was completed, connecting Atlanta via the 

Central of Georgia Railroad at Macon with Savannah.

In 1856, the Georgia Air Line Railroad was organized to open a line from Atlanta through Gainesville and the upper Piedmont of South Carolina to 

Charlotte, North Carolina, where it would connect 

with similar ventures initiated in the Carolinas and 

Virginia. The development of this railroad was 

delayed by the Civil War, but after the war it was 

revived as the Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line and 

completed in 1873.49 At the time, Lawrenceville was 

the only town in Gwinnett County, so the Atlanta 

and Charlotte Railroad essentially created the 

towns of Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee, and Buford 

along the river corridor in the northern part of the 

county.50

Agricultural Development

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

was shaped in part by the long history of agriculture 

in the area, especially along the rich bottom lands 

that the river periodically inundated until the completion of Buford Dam in 1956 began to tame the 

river’s flow. Agricultural development in the study 

area in the early years appears to have been driven 

largely by a mixture of subsistence farming and cash 

crop production rather than the land- wasting, 

slave- based plantation system found across much 

of the Deep South.

Farmers and Planters. Based on census data for 

militia districts along the river, a profile emerges of 

large nuclear families on small farms that they 

owned, rather than planters with large slave holdings dedicated to cotton production. The three 

militia districts adjacent to the river contained some 

of the most valuable agricultural lands in the county, 

and by 1840, half of the slave owners owning 30 or 

more slaves lived in the Pinckneyville, Goodwin, 

and Sugar Hill militia districts along the Chattahoochee.51 While this might imply that plantation 

cotton was the economic engine for the area, further analysis of the census records indicates otherwise.

The 1850 census documents that the vast majority of 

people in these militia districts were considered 

“farmers” rather than “planters.” 52 In the Pinckneyville and Goodwin districts, persons counted as 

“farmers” accounted for almost 80 percent of the 

population, while “planters” accounted for less than 

2 percent. In the Sugar Hill district the number of 

farmers swelled to more than 90 percent, with less 

than 1 percent described as planters. The remaining 

persons in each of the districts (accounting for 

between 10 percent and 20 percent of the population) had other occupations such as laborer, 

mechanic, carpenter, and blacksmith.

While slave ownership among the farmers in Gwinnett was not uncommon, most farmers did not hold 

slaves. The primary labor force was the nuclear 

family, sometimes supplemented with one or more 

slaves or boarders. Large families ranging from six 

to 12 members were typical. Often the parents were 

born in Virginia or the Carolinas, while most or all 

of their children might be born in Georgia. The 1850 

census records for Harbin’s Militia District along 

the river in south Cobb County reveal patterns similar to those in Gwinnett. 53 Of 112 “head of households” surveyed in this Cobb district, 83 percent 

were categorized as farmers. Mechanics represented almost 10 percent of the total. Scattered millers, State employees, railroad workers, merchants, 

carpenters, and others rounded out the total. As in 

Gwinnett County, residents were overwhelmingly 

from the Carolinas and, to a lesser extent, Virginia. 

Farming families tended to be large, again suggesting that family- oriented agriculture remained the 

norm rather than the slave- based plantation model.

49. Cooper, 595-96.

50. Flanigan, Vol. I, 248

51. James C. Flanigan, History of Gwinnett County, 

Georgia, Vol. II (Buford, Ga.: Tyler & Co., 1943; reprint, 

1975), 185-86. 

52. This information extrapolated by the author based on 

the 1850 Gwinnett County census data transcribed by 

Kate Duncan Nesbit and indexed by May Ann 

Fitzgerald McClung. Indexing is particularly useful for 

identifying residents of the three specific militia 

districts cited here, but scattered throughout the 

transcribed census data (hence no page references).

53. Rhea Cumming Otto, compiler, 1850 Census of 

Georgia, Cobb County (Savannah, GA: R.C. Otto, 

1984). The calculations relate to specific districts, 

origins, and occupations based upon transcribed and 

indexed census records. No page reference offered 

here because information was drawn from 

throughout entire text.
24 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Federal agents spent much of 1835 through 1837 

making valuations on improved properties within 

the former Cherokee Nation. The property of all 

inhabitants, Cherokee and white squatters alike, was 

seized and property owners were reimbursed to the 

value appraised by the agents. American Indians 

were then expelled to reservations in the Indian 

Territory (present- day Oklahoma). Among the list 

of valuations made in 1836 by Indian agents Joseph 

Shaw and N. L. Hutchins was the list for “Martin 

Brannon a white man and Nancy or Ann his wife, 

late widow of Parker Collins deceased of Forsyth 

County, Ga. On the Chattahoochee River at 

McGinnis’ Ferry:”54The property illustrated in the 

Brannon dispossession indicates the Brannons were 

wealthy by frontier standards. Though the dispossessed holdings were not extensive in total acreage, 

they contained a wealth of bottomland, which was 

valued at $12 per acre as opposed to the $8 per acre 

assessed for upland acreage. Additionally, the presence of McGinnis Ferry brought significant income 

both directly and indirectly through tolls and whatever sales of goods might be likely to result at such a 

prominent commercial location. The presence of 

four corncribs and extensive bottomland holdings is 

an indicator of the importance of corn as a subsistence crop and hints at the value of the grain as a 

commercial crop. The extensive peach orchard 

might suggest that peaches were for commercial 

consumption, although it is more likely that these 

orchards were planted for hog fodder – a common 

practice at the time.

Agricultural Production. The census record also 

documents agricultural activity in the study area. 

The 1840 census was the first year that specific and 

substantive agricultural records were collected and 

was also the first census cycle to include all the 

northern counties, including Cobb and Forsyth, 

from the former Cherokee territory in the 1830s. The 

census data is somewhat limited because it collected 

data only on specific produce and livestock, but it 

provides a window into the relative importance of 

certain agricultural products in the study area.

These records do not provide information specific 

to the river corridor study area because the records 

were compiled at the county level. However, there is 

no reason to believe that agriculture in the study 

area was radically different from agriculture in the 

counties as a whole, except on the bottomland river 

terraces which were more suited to the culture of 

corn rather than cotton. It is reasonable to assume 

that cultivation in the study area resembled that 

typical of adjacent counties, except in places where 

steep slopes along the river made agriculture altogether unfeasible, 

One plantation at set ferry consisting 

of 1 dwelling house 11⁄2 stories of logs 

and weatherboarded and piazza & 

shed & two brick chimneys

300.00

1 hewn log kitchen 75.00

1 dairy 15.00 1 smoke house 12.00 27.00

1 poultry house 5.00 1 barn and gin 

house 60

65.00

3 corn cribs @10.00 2 small stables 

@5.00

40.00

1 Blacksmith shop 10.00 2 good log 

cabins @30

70.00

1 well 30.00 1 garden 5.00 1 large gate 

5.00

40.00

1 cabin 25.00 1 smoke house 5.00 1 

stable 5.00

35.00

1 corn crib 5.00 48 apple trees in 

orchard @ 2.00

101.00

5 small apple trees in the yards @5.00 25.00

101 peach trees in orchard @ 1.00 101.00

46 ditto scattered in farm @.50 23.00

11 plum trees @.50 5.50

85 acres of improved river low ground 

@ 12.00

1020.00

62 do do upland @ 8.00 496.00

1 home lot 10.00 1 lot 15.00 all under 

fence and in good repair

25.00

half McGinnis’ Ferry estimated at 

$10.00 per year; net income (jan. 1835 

to 23 May 1838--3 years 5-2/3 months

180.00

_______

2807.00

Damages for the dispossession from 

1835 and 1837 Inclusive 85 acres river 

land @600 per acre per ann. 3 years

530.00

62 acres upland @300 per acres ditto 558.00

dispossession ferry 3 years @ 18 per 

year

54.00

estimated in full for spoilation 2142.00

_______

__

 whole amount 4970.00 54. Garland C. Bagley, History of Forsyth County, Georgia: 

1832-1932 (Easley, S.C.: Southern Historical Press, Inc., 

1985), 145-46.
National Park Service 25

The 1840 census counted livestock such as cattle, 

swine, sheep, and poultry as well as cereal crops 

including wheat, oats, rye, and corn.55 Farm products and produce such as wool, potatoes, tobacco, 

cotton, and dairy were also counted and appeared 

in significant numbers. The number of cattle, swine, 

sheep, and poultry are not notably different from 

other counties in the state. Since livestock were 

raised free range, the state’s frontier status and vast 

open land made this a valuable industry. The production of corn and cotton was not particularly 

impressive in the counties around the study area. 

DeKalb County alone accounted for more than half 

of the area’s cotton production. Wheat and oats 

were raised in significant amounts in each of the 

counties, but rye was in limited production. 

Tobacco production was slight and limited mostly to 

Forsyth County. Cobb County was a significant 

producer of wool for the area, with 36,057 of the 

52,201 total pounds produced in Cobb, Gwinnett, 

DeKalb, and Forsyth Counties. 

The 1850 census56 shows a marginal increase in all 

livestock except cattle and sheep. Cattle decreased 

because dairy animals were culled into a separate 

category; cumulatively they represent the same 

marginal increases. Sheep, on the other hand, 

showed a dramatic 70 percent increase over the 

previous decade. The increase in sheep, however, 

did not correlate to an increase in wool production, 

which fell from 52,201 pounds in 1840 to 43,667 

pound in 1850. Corn production increased considerably, yet remained average for the state as a whole. 

The same pattern existed with oat production. 

Wheat production in the area, particularly in Cobb 

and Gwinnett Counties, was high relative to the rest 

of the state, but had dropped off almost 26 percent 

since 1840. Sweet potatoes, separated for the first 

time from Irish potatoes, accounted for 284,560 

bushels, suggesting the importance of this crop 

along with corn as a subsistence product. Other 

agricultural products counted for the first time in 

1850 were beans and peas (24,524 bushels) and butter (313,139 pounds). Rice enjoyed a very short- lived 

success with 36,049 bushels produced in Cobb, 

Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Forsyth Counties, although 

81 percent of that total was grown in just one county, 

Cobb.

55. Secretary of State, Statistics of the United States of 

America as Collected and Returned to the Marshals of 

the Several Judicial Districts under the Thirteenth 

Section of the Act for Taking the Sixth Census 

(Washington, D.C.: Blair and Rives, 1841), 252-53.

56. Superintendent of the United States Census, The 

Seventh Census of the United States: 1850 

(Washington, D.C.: Robert Armstrong, Public Printer, 

1853), 376-81.

FIGURE 10. View south of James C. Power house at what is now known as Hyde Farm, late 

1800s. (Vanishing Georgia Collection, Georgia Department of Archives and History)
26 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

The cotton economy, especially in the early 1840s, 

was unstable and depressed, but cotton production 

rose dramatically in the 1840s, rising from 820,249 

pounds in 1840 to 3,120,400 (7801 bales at 400 

pounds per bale) in 1850, a 380 percent increase that 

is indicative of the upper Piedmont’s transformation 

from frontier to settled farm land. Tobacco production rose as well from 7,376 pounds in 1840 to 69,558 

in 1850. Forsyth County alone accounted for 59,548 

pounds of that total, ranking it among the top 

tobacco- producing counties in the state.

In 1853, the political landscape was altered when 

Fulton County was created from the western part of 

DeKalb County, a change precipitated by the rapid 

growth of Atlanta and its railroads, industry, and 

commerce. In 1857, Milton County was created from 

portions of Forsyth, Cobb, and Gwinnett Counties 

in the area north of the river, including Roswell. 

Thus, by the time the 1860 census was taken, the 

original four counties in the study area (DeKalb, 

Cobb, Forsyth, and Gwinnett) became six (DeKalb, 

Fulton, Cobb, Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Milton).

 The 1860 census suggests significant changes in land 

use throughout the study area as production of dairy 

cattle, sheep, and swine fell by 30 percent to 40 percent and cattle by one- fifth. These steep declines 

are indicative of increased investment in cotton 

production at the expense of livestock as prices rose 

dramatically in the 1850s.57 The reduction in other 

crops also was dramatic as tobacco production fell 

more than 63 percent and sheep production fell by 

almost 42 percent. Likewise, production of sweet 

and Irish potatoes fell almost 40 percent, oats plummeted to one- quarter of the 1850 level, and rice culture all but disappeared, with fewer than 203 bushels 

produced (down from 36,049 in 1850). Only the 

production of rye and wheat increased during this 

period. The total bushels of rye increased 175 percent, but it remained a relatively insignificant crop. 

Wheat production, the only crop to expand significantly, increased by slightly more than 78 percent. In 

1860, production reached 195,571 bushels, with the 

majority of that produced in Cobb and Gwinnett 

Counties.

Throughout this period, cotton production in 

Georgia and the Deep South soared, and the dedication of prime agricultural land to cotton agriculture fostered a greater dependence on farm 

products and manufactured goods imported from 

outside the region. Hogs, for example, a staple in the 

southern diet, were commonly imported from Tennessee and the lower Ohio River Valley so that land 

could be dedicated to cotton.58 Few were willing to 

recognize the implications of this dilemma the 

South created for itself, and the entrenched paradigm of “King Cotton” provided the framework for 

the complicated series of events leading to southern 

secession and the Civil War.

Industrial Development

Most of the settlers who poured into the Georgia 

Piedmont after the Revolutionary War were part of 

an ongoing quest for cheap arable land on which to 

establish a small farm, and the Georgia land lotteries 

did much to facilitate that quest. While land and the 

promise of agricultural development drew early settlers into the study area, a few entrepreneurs saw the 

long- term potential for industrial development in a 

region where numerous waterfalls and shoals on 

rapidly- flowing streams promised a nearly endless 

supply of energy. Georgia historian Kenneth Coleman explains the origins of the state’s industrial 

development:

Manufacturing in Georgia between 1783 and 1820 

was in the handicraft stage or else consisted of 

simple first stage processing. Artisans . . . 

produced many items for local sale . . . . [The] 

roots of industrialization ran back to the small 

workshops and mills on farms and plantations 

and in nascent urban areas where a nucleus of 

white managers and black and white skilled 

workers evolved. By the 1820s infant industries 

that supplemented the agricultural surge were 

developing.59

The Industrial Revolution was slow to take hold in 

Georgia, even at Columbus, Macon, and other cities 

on the Fall Line. Except in Augusta, real industrialization did not begin until the 1840s. As railroads 

expanded in Georgia, industries followed, resulting 

in important contributions to the economy, especially in textiles, lumber, naval stores, meatpacking, 

canning, fertilizer, and bauxite production, among 

others.60 Georgia’s many rivers and creeks played 

57. Department of the Interior, Census Office, Agriculture 

of the United States in 1860: Compiled from the 

Original Returns of the Eighth Census (Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1864), 22-29.

58. Bonner, 145.

59. Kenneth Coleman, A History of Georgia (Athens: 

University of Georgia Press, 1977), 112, 168.
National Park Service 27

an important role in the growth of most of these and 

other industries key to the region’s economic development, but the precursor to industrial development in the area were the gristmills and sawmills 

scattered all across the Piedmont. Many of the 

area’s streams, even relatively small ones, could be 

dammed to support operation of these small mills.

Grist Mills. As early as the first century BCE, 

humans in the Black Sea basin and China had harnessed the power of falling water for practical ends, 

making possible more efficient, large- scale production that was simply not possible before. In Europe 

the use of waterpower grew slowly with the expansion of the Roman Empire but was soon indispensable. Caligula threatened Rome’s bread supply by 

confiscating mill animals in the first century AD; by 

the sixth century AD the Goths caused a similar 

strategic shortage by cutting the water supply to 

grist mills at Janiculum. After the Norman Conquest, The Domesday Book recorded almost 6,000 

water- powered mills in England, and by the time 

the New World was being settled in the 16th century, there were an estimated 60,000 water mills in 

France alone.61 With the waves of European immigrations, milling technology was transplanted to the 

New World, and gristmills were an integral part of 

early settlement.

As America was settled, suitable agricultural soils 

and water for livestock and agriculture were the primary demands of many early settlers. Especially 

attractive, however, were locations with the potential for water- powered mills, since grist mills for 

grinding corn and other grains were a necessity 

wherever there was agriculture. Sawmills, too, were 

water- powered prior to the introduction of steam 

engines, and numerous sawmills and gristmills were 

built across the Piedmont in the years before the 

Civil War.

Corn bread was a staple in the southern diet. Corn 

meal and, to a lesser extent, wheat flour were the 

main products at grist mills. More efficiently stored 

than whole kernels, corn meal was one of the few 

products many local farmers could not produce 

themselves. So important was corn meal, settlers 

would often carry grain for many miles in order to 

get relatively small amounts of grain milled into 

meal and flour. One contemporary observer commented:

They are great walkers and carriers of burdens... 

in our settlement one of my neighbors used to 

go, every other week, thirteen miles to mill, 

carrying a two- bushel sack of corn (112 pounds) 

and returning with his meal the following day. 

This was done without any pack- strap but 

simply by shifting the load from one shoulder to 

the other, betimes.62

It was the hierarchy of needs, primarily food, that 

drove mill development. “A millpond and its corn 

mill were usually the first evidence that a section 

had been settled, and it was rare that the settlers 

were not thus provided within five years.”63 Also 

prominent in that hierarchy was the desire for lumber for houses and other buildings. Axes and adzes 

were the only tools necessary for building a log 

building, and pit- saws could crudely accomplish 

the task of producing sawn lumber, but both were 

labor intensive. Most of the earliest buildings were 

log or, in finer buildings, a traditional timber frame. 

For the consumer, sawmills brought expedience 

and a lower cost to the process, facilitating more 

rapid settlement and allocation of more resources to 

agriculture or other productive enterprises. As 

important, perhaps, sawmill lumber brought a level 

of refinement in building that was not possible 

before without great expense. As one commentator 

noted, “[t]he axe produces the log hut but not till 

the sawmill is introduced, do frame dwellings and 

villages arise; it is civilization’s pioneer machine: the 

precursor of the carpenter, wheelwright and turner, 

the painter, joiner, and the legions of other professions.”64

Naturally, among the first locations scouted by 

potential settlers were mill sites. Recognizing the 

importance of mills to settlement and development, 

Georgia, like many other states, offered incentives 

to would- be millers and millwrights. Such “mill 

60. Ibid., 270.

61. Ibid., 131-39.

62. Louis C. Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in The 

United States 1780-1930 – Volume I: Waterpower in 

the Century of the Steam Engine (Charlottesville: 

University Press of Virginia, 1979), 12. Hunter is 

quoting Horace M. Kephart in Our Southern 

Highlanders, recalling life in Appalachia North 

Carolina in 1913.

63. Ibid., 7-8. Hunter is quoting Carl Bridenbaugh’s The 

Colonial Craftsman (New York: New York University 

Press, 1950; Reprint, New York: Dover Publications. 

1990), 18-24, with regard to the establishment of grist 

mills in the South Carolina interior.

64. Ibid, 17-18.
28 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

acts” included a 1777 colonial Georgia law granting 

100 acres of land for any “person [who would] build 

or cause to be built a grist mill on any vacant land,” 

65 with an additional 500 acres for construction of a 

sawmill. By the 19th century, little incentive was 

necessary for entrepreneurs to quickly erect mills as 

territory was opened for settlement. So important 

was the miller that during the Civil War, millers and 

others “engaged (as) operatives in the manufacture, 

by machinery, of woolen or cotton goods and other 

articles used for military purposes . . . or in rolling 

mills” were exempted from conscription into the 

Confederate Army.66

The main components of a typical small- scale 

water- powered mill in the Piedmont were a dam on 

a secondary or tertiary watercourse, a millpond, 

raceway or flume, waterwheel, and a building to 

house the machinery. The dam was often located in 

the “knick” of a small stream valley where shoals 

with an appreciable grade lay below. The main mill 

building would often lie a considerable distance 

downstream, ranging from a hundred feet to a quarter of a mile or more.

Water was directed to the mill via a sluice gate at the 

dam via a headrace or flume, which was essentially a 

small canal that carried water to the mill. The distance that the water fell between the dam and the 

mill provided the “head” or energy that turned the 

wheel and needed to be as great as possible. At the 

mill, the water flowed through a flume and was 

directed either over or under the wheel, depending 

on whether the mill used an undershot or an overshot wheel design. The force of the water caused the 

waterwheel to rotate.67 Depending on the placement of the mill, the water would then return to the 

source stream directly or a short distance downstream via a tailrace, perhaps providing power to 

additional wheels along the way.

The water power captured by the revolving wheel 

was conveyed into the mill by the wheel’s central 

axle and there, utilizing some combination of gears 

and/or belts, transferred to rotate a millstone or to 

operate lathes and other small machinery. At larger 

mills with more water power, the wheel or turbines 

could harness power for sawing lumber, spinning 

yarn, blowing furnaces, and creating pounding 

forces for industrial purposes. At larger mills, it was 

not uncommon for several mill functions to be laid 

out at one site, sometimes within the same structure. 

This was accomplished by tapping into the main 

wheel with a shaft or belt leading to a dependency 

structure or addition. Sometimes another wheel 

with its own sluice gate (or penstock) would be 

located along the water’s path either before or after 

the main wheel, thus double dipping into the same 

power source.

The earliest mill documented in the study area was 

apparently built by John Woodall in 1813 on the west 

side of the river near Standing Peachtree.68 The 

Cherokee built mills as well, although only two of 

those have been documented in the study area. They 

were recorded in 1836 as part of the State’s evaluation of property to determine financial restitution 

for properties of both whites and Indians living on 

Cherokee lands condemned by the State of Georgia. 

William Rogers, ancestor of the famed comedian 

Will Rogers, was owner of Rogers Ferry in the 

northern part of the study area, and he owned a grist 

mill valued at $2,000 and a sawmill worth approximately $500. A second mill in the study area listed in 

the Cherokee records was located on Waters Plantation, but it was valued at only $10, indicating that it 

may not have been operational. All evidence of its 

existence has apparently vanished.

Wofford’s Mill (ca. 1819) was a gristmill and sawmill 

upstream from Roswell that was operated by a 

mixed- blood American Indian named Charles 

Wofford. The site is known to have included a small 

cabin and a three- story, wood- framed mill built on 

a stone foundation. Wofford lived on the land with 

his wife, Agnes, and four children on approximately 

eight acres of cleared land. When the Wofford’s 

departed in 1829, the property was valued at 

$1,782.50.69 No physical evidence of this mill site has 

been documented.

65. Allen D. Candler, The Confederate Records of the 

State of Georgia/Compiled and Published Under 

Authority of the Legislature. Vol. II (Atlanta: C. P. Byrd, 

State Printer, 1909), 56. 

66. Ibid., 602. 

67. The most popular waterwheel used in the Georgia 

Piedmont was called an “overshot” wheel because the 

water flowed over the top, allowing the water to fall 

on and with the wheel. Other wheels such as the 

“undershot,” “breast,” and “tub” were 10 percent to 

60 percent less efficient. Where head and mill space 

allowed, the construction of overshot wheels was 

preferred because it offered more power for less 

water.

68. “James McC. Montgomery of Standing Peachtree,” 

Atlanta Historical Bulletin, No.12 (December 1937), 

17-18.
National Park Service 29

Early water mills were widespread and remained a 

regular feature in the study area into the 20th century.70 For a variety of reasons, some mills were 

short- lived and left only remnants, such as the 

Level Creek ruins near Settles Bridge in Gwinnett 

County. Within the study area, scant archeological 

evidence has been found of mills predating the 

1840s, and the exact number of historic mills in the 

study area is not known.

Industrial Mills. While gristmills and sawmills 

were numerous in the region, there were relatively 

few locations with enough water power to support 

real industrial production. The falls and shoals of 

major rivers along the Fall Line that runs from 

Augusta to Macon and Columbus were the most 

significant of those locations in the state. In the 

study area, the Chattahoochee River descends 

roughly 150 feet between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek, and in that distance the river’s character 

changes markedly. From Buford Dam to the vicinity 

of Holcomb Bridge, which is approximately half the 

length of the study area, the river flows gently over a 

few shoals and drops only about forty feet. From 

Holcomb Bridge to Peachtree Creek, however, 

shoals are more numerous and the river drops 

another 110 feet. Through the study area, the Chattahoochee has good energy potential because of its 

great volume, but harnessing the river’s power was 

difficult.

In 1845, as industrial development was beginning to 

take hold in Columbus at the Falls of the Chattahoochee, the Georgia Legislature granted Hezekial 

Foote permission to build a dam on the river near 

the Western and Atlantic Railroad bridge just below 

Peachtree Creek. Similar permission was extended 

to Daniel Aderhold in 1847 and to Johnson Garwood, Hardy Pace, and Pickney Randall in 1850 for 

a proposed dam near Island Ford in Land Lot 1025, 

17th District, 2nd Section.71 Most likely these were 

speculative ventures, and none of these dams are 

known to have been constructed. No evidence for 

other 19th century dams on the river within the 

study area has been located.

Although it may have been impractical to use the 

river for mill development, the power of several 

rapidly flowing, year- round, tributary streams was 

more easily harnessed. A report published in 1896 

detailed the flow rates of several tributaries to the 

Chattahoochee, including Suwanee Creek at 700 

cubic feet per minute (cfm), Rottenwood Creek at 

720 cfm, Peachtree Creek at 1,400 cfm, Nancy Creek 

at 2,700 cfm, and Sope Creek at 3,720 cfm.72 The 

vast majority of early water- powered industry 

developed along these streams and a few others like 

Big Creek near Roswell.

Roswell Manufacturing Company: Big Creek, historically known as Vickery Creek or Cedar Creek,73

descends steeply to the Chattahoochee near the city 

of Roswell. From the plateau at Oxbow Drive 

northeast of the Roswell town square, the creek 

makes a sharp turn to the southeast and begins a 

rapid descent, falling approximately 110 feet over a 

little more than a mile- and- a- half to its confluence 

with the Chattahoochee River just upstream from 

the Roswell Road bridge. This section of the stream 

carries a considerable volume and cuts a fairly steep 

and rocky ravine along its route. Although no evidence exists to suggest any early water powered 

activity on this section of the creek, there are indications of both early settlement and milling activities in the area, including Wofford’s Mill (discussed 

above) on the river a short distance upstream in the 

vicinity of what became the Lebanon community. 

Roswell King, Sr. (1765- 1844) is the dominant character in the industrial development of Big Creek and 

establishment of the adjacent city that bears his 

name. Born in Connecticut, King settled in Darien, 

Georgia, in the 1780s and made a fortune trading in 

lumber, rice, and Sea Island cotton. Familiar with 

the water- powered industries pioneered in New 

69. James F. Smith, The Cherokee Land Lottery (New York: 

Harper & Brothers, 1938).

70. Douglas C. Wilms, “Cherokee Land Use in Georgia, 

1800-1838” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, 

1973), 135-53.

71. Sarah Blackwell Gober Temple, The First Hundred 

Years: A Short History of Cobb County in Georgia, 

149.

72. R.T. Nesbit, Georgia: Her Resources and Possibilities

(Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing Co., 1896), 

138-50.

73. Legend has it that Vickery Creek came by its name 

because it originated on the property of a mixedblood Cherokee woman named Charlotte Vickery. She 

was forced to move west on the infamous “Trail of 

Tears” (http:// georgiatrails.com/trails/ vickery1.html). 

Kenneth Krakow, in Georgia Place-Names, states that 

the creek and a town by the same name were named 

for Charlotte or her husband, Cherokee chief Henry 

Vickery, who died in 1834. The town boasted more 

than a hundred residents at its apex. Kenneth K. 

Krakow, Georgia Place-Names (Macon, Ga.: Winship 

Press, 1975), also at http://www.kenkrakow.com/gpn/

georgia_place-names.htm.
30 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

England, he recognized the tremendous advantages 

of developing southern textile manufacturing “close 

to the field,” or point of production. Around 1830, 

King passed through the study area en route to 

Auraria, a frontier gold mining town in present day 

Lumpkin County where the Bank of Darien was 

interested in opening a branch bank to capitalize on 

the gold rush. It was during this trip that King first 

recognized the potential of the steep banks of the 

Chattahoochee at Big Creek.

The State’s “gold lottery” opened the area northwest 

of the river to settlement in 1832, and King and others from Darien began using the area as a summer 

resort. All indications are that King continued to 

reside in Darien until after his wife’s death there in 

1839, but it is not known when King made Roswell 

his year- round residence. On May 16, 1838, he purchased land along Big Creek to build a factory74 and 

began development of the site on the western bank 

of the creek soon after. King had already built a 

brick kiln and sawmill that furnished materials for 

construction of Roswell’s several noteworthy Greek 

Revival houses. The mill and kiln also provided 

construction materials for the factory.

Construction of Roswell King’s textile mill was 

completed in November 1839 and it was soon in 

operation with Henry Merrell, an engineer and 

mechanic from Utica, New York, managing the 

operation.75 At the same time, the Roswell Manufacturing Company was incorporated with Roswell 

King, his sons Barrington and Ralph, John Dunwoody, James S. Bulloch, Henry Atwood, and others 

as directors. Roswell King, Sr., was the company’s 

first president, a position he retained until his death 

FIGURE 11. Roswell Manufacturing Company, view looking north of the mill as rebuilt 

after the Civil War. (Courtesy of Roswell Historical Society and City of Roswell)

74. Karen G. Wood, “An Archeological Survey of the 

Presumed Location of the First Roswell Factory” 

(Southeast Archeological Services, unpublished report 

commissioned by the Roswell Historical Society, 1989). 

This cites an 1852 Cobb County Deed Book (No. 2) 

reference to the original date and intent of the 

purchase of the property by Roswell King, Sr., in 1838.

75. Henry Merrell, The Autobiography of Henry Merrell: 

Industrial Missionary to the South, James L. Skinner III, 

ed. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991).
National Park Service 31

in 1844, but his son Barrington was largely responsible for the company’s development.

In a letter dated February 1840 addressed to John 

Camp, Esq., an insurance underwriter, Merrell provided a narrative description of the factory for the 

purpose of insurance underwriting:

[The Roswell Factory is] . . . 48 feet long by 88 

feet wide in the clear – is three and one- half 

Stories high: - the basement room to the room 

next above extends to only about one- half the 

length of the Factory, caused by being built on a 

side- hill. The building of this factory was 

completed in November last.

Walls are of brick and solid: – on the inside they 

are not plastered, but whitewashed on the brick.

Roof is covered with shingles nailed onto 

wooden sheeting, is not at present plastered or 

whitewashed inside.

Gutters are of tin – no wooden cornice.

Floors are of plank tongued and grooved; but 

not laid in mortar.

Blind holes through the floor, and the door- sills 

are furnished with combing at least an inch in 

height: – the stairways have none. There is no 

porch to the building. All the doors are wood; 

none covered with iron or tin.

The basement is closed and contains no 

machinery except the driving drum. The first 

story is designed for the weaving- room and also 

contains no machinery but the regulator: – 

Second story is the Spinning Room – Third Story 

is the Cardroom and Picking – and the attic 

intended for mules is yet empty of machinery.

There is no regular Machine Shop; but a 

turning- lathe and work- bench in the Cardingroom at the end nearest the front door. There is 

no furnace or forge inside the Factory walls.

The Factory is warmed by stoves. There is no 

fire- heat used in the building for any other 

purpose than to warm it. There are no sheetiron stoves in the building. Wood is used for fuel. 

Nobody is allowed to handle fire or lights in the 

building accept [sic] managers and watchmen.76

In 1840, the Manufacturing and Agricultural Census 

described the mill as having 480 spindles and 28 

“hands” producing cotton yarn and rope. The value 

of the manufactured goods was $6,000 but no 

quantity was stated.77 The census also shows that 

the company’s stockholders had numerous slaves: 

Barrington King, 48 slaves; Roswell King, 19; John 

Dunwoody, 27; James Bulloch, 43; and Archibald 

Smith, 33. Although southern textile mills are generally thought to have employed white workers, the 

use of slaves in textile mills in the antebellum period 

was not uncommon. It is likely that slave labor was 

used extensively to build and, to a lesser degree, to 

operate the mill after it was constructed.

The Roswell Manufacturing Company also built the 

“Roswell Stores” as a commissary for the mill. 

Located on the east side of the Roswell town square, 

the Roswell Stores were a significant component of 

the commercial character of Roswell’s square. In 

addition, in 1840, the company constructed two 

brick apartment buildings to house mill workers. 

Each building contained 10 apartments, complete 

with a kitchen, living room, and upstairs sleeping 

quarters. “The Old Bricks,” as these two apartment 

buildings came to be known, still stand today on 

Sloan Street east of the Roswell Stores and are said 

to be among the oldest apartment buildings in the 

South. They were converted by Union troops into a 

temporary hospital in 1864, but have otherwise been 

in continuous use as apartments since 1840.78

In addition, the company built a number of single 

family and duplex residences in a mill village that 

came to be known as Factory Hill, some of the first 

mill housing in the South. These are simple doublepen buildings with central chimneys and full- width 

shed- roofed additions at the rear in the manner of 

New England “saltbox” houses. Many of these residences and Roswell’s original street plan are still 

extant today.

In the 1840s, the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

developed new industrial operations, including a 

large sawmill along Big Creek in 1843. The company 

also expanded Wofford’s Mill, about a mile northeast of the main factory at the small community of 

76. Henry Merrell, “Copy of Description of Roswell 

Factory drawn up Feb. 1840 with a view to get 

Insurance.” Prof. James Skinner files, Presbyterian 

College; Bulloch Hall Library, Roswell, Georgia.

77. 1840 Census of Georgia, Schedule of Mines, 

Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufacturing (Georgia 

Archives #331/30-31), Cobb County.

78. Clarece Martin, “Roswell Historic Homes and 

Landmarks” (Roswell, GA: Roswell Historical Society, 

Inc., n.d.), unpaginated.
32 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Lebanon. Purchased by Roswell King in 1832, the 

Lebanon mill was capable of producing over 300 

barrels of flour per day.79 Around the same time, 

John Dunwoody, one of the original stockholders in 

the Roswell Manufacturing Company, opened a 

small tannery in the vicinity of the Lebanon Mill.80

There, waterpower was probably used to pound oak 

bark to produce the tannin necessary for the tannery.

By 1849 the Roswell Manufacturing Company had 

grown considerably. White’s 1849 Statistics of the 

State of Georgia states that the factory had 3,500 

spindles, 50 looms, and 150 operatives, a substantial 

increase over the 480 spindles and 28 operatives 

cited in the insurance letter ten years prior. A workforce composed primarily of whites working 

eleven- hour shifts “used five bales of cotton a day, 

and made 1,100 yards of shirting, 1,500 yards of 

osnaburg81 and 1,200 bundles of yarn a week.”82

The company’s minutes from April 1852 note that its 

holdings included “slaves, operative houses, a cotton factory, wool factory, corn mill, shoe shop, two 

blacksmith shops, retail store, dye house, cotton 

wash house, seed cotton house, gin and gin house, 

stables, corn house, and machinery.”83 In its first ten 

years the venture’s success was indisputable, in spite 

of the death of the company’s founder, Roswell 

King, Sr., in 1844 and the departure of the mill’s 

manager, Henry Merrell, in 1845. The company 

continued to develop at a remarkable rate with the 

promise of further expansion on the near horizon.

The woolen mill mentioned in the 1852 minutes is 

poorly documented, but it appears that the sawmill 

for which a deed and water rights were granted in 

1843 was converted into a woolen mill by 1852.84

Henry Merrell noted the presence of a woolen mill 

in Land Lot 416, which is the same land lot where 

the main factory complex is located.85 Merrell left 

the Roswell Manufacturing Company in 1845 to take 

a job with the Athens Manufacturing Company in 

Athens, Georgia, which suggests that the woolen 

factory was open in 1844. Oddly, however, the 

woolen factory is not mentioned in George White’s 

description of the complex in his 1849 Statistics of 

the State of Georgia. In fact, the company’s minutes 

do not make any reference to the woolen production figures from the mill between 1843 and 1855 

although cotton textile production figures are regularly listed.86 The “wool factory” listed among the 

company’s holdings was listed only in passing in the 

1852 minutes. 87 Thus, this first woolen factory 

appears to have been a relatively minor part, an 

experiment perhaps, of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company, with marginal impact on the finances and 

operation of the mill.

By 1854 the complex on Big Creek had grown considerably, with the addition of a second cotton mill 

(believed to have been built in 1853) upstream from 

the 1830s mill as well as a new dam. This new dam, 

which remains in existence today, is thought to have 

submerged a mill dam that was constructed a short 

distance upstream from the original dam in 1848.88

George White described this second mill:

The new factory is built of brick, with a rock 

foundation; 143 feet by 53; four stories; overshot 

iron wheel, 16 feet face 20 feet diameter; contains 

5,184 Danforth cap spindles; 32 thirty- six inch 

cards; and 120 looms, making 2,575 pounds per 

day No. 20 yarn; number of hands, 250; after the 

present year 300 will be required.89

This second cotton mill roughly tripled the company’s 1849 capacity. To further increase production, 

79. George White, Statistics of the State of Georgia: 

including an account of its natural, civil, and 

ecclesiastical history; together with a particular 

description of each county, notices of the manners 

and customs of its aboriginal tribes, and a correct map 

of the State (Savannah: W. T. Williams, 1849; 

Spartanburg, SC, Reprint Co., 1972), 190.

80. Ibid.

81. A coarsely woven fabric named for the German city 

where it originated.

82. Temple, 115.

83. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” citing 1852 

minutes, 32.

84. Hartrampf, Allenbrook, p. 20. Chad Braely, Karen G. 

Wood, and Jeffrey T. Price, “An Archeological and 

Historical Survey of a Fifteen Acre Tract in Roswell, 

Fulton County, Georgia,” unpublished report (Athens, 

Ga.: Southeastern Archeological Services, 1992), 11. 

Citing a 1853 Cobb County Deed Book (C:395) 

reference regarding an earlier water rights 

transaction.

85. Merrell, The Autobiography of Henry Merrell.

86. Braely, Wood, and Price, 11.

87. Karen G. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 8, citing 

April 1852 minutes of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company, 32. This description includes all of the 

company’s holdings in the town of Roswell, at the 

main complex on Big Creek, and the holdings at the 

Lebanon site upstream.

88. Ibid., p. 12; M. D. Hitt, [Map of] Historic Vickery’s 

Creek, Roswell, Georgia. Compiled by Michael D. Hitt, 

December 13, 1994. On file at the Roswell Historical 

Society Archives, Roswell, GA.
National Park Service 33

the original factory was expanded with a two- story 

wing, thereby increasing its capacity alone by onethird.90 A machine shop, completed in 1853, was 

added on the headrace to the original mill, and a 

picker building was constructed north of the second 

cotton mill. A warehouse near the top of the hill 

stored bales of cotton that could be fed down a 

chute to the picker building, where the bales were 

picked apart and processed for the cotton factories.

91

Ivy Mill: White’s 1854 description of the Roswell 

Manufacturing Company mentions the woolen factory with no mention of capacity or products. The 

company minutes in 1855 indicate that a committee 

was formed to evaluate the value of the machinery, 

which was later sold to James R. King, son of Barrington King, for $711.54 on April 20, 1857. Earlier, in 

1854, James King purchased property in Land Lots 

456 and 457 on the west bank of Big Creek where it 

joins the Chattahoochee River. The deed stated 

that, if King built a dam, the water should not pool 

above the boundary of Land Lot 416 upstream 

where the Roswell Manufacturing Company’s mill 

was located. James King, in partnership with his 

brother Thomas, is thought to have built the new 

mill, known as Ivy Mill, in 185692 and utilized the 

equipment purchased from the Roswell Manufacturing Company.

The new woolen factory produced kerseys (a light 

woolen cloth) and cassimeres (heavy woolen cloth 

for suits and coats). The 1860 Census indicates only 

one woolen mill in Cobb County, presumed to be 

Ivy Mill. At that time the operation had an invested 

89. George White, Historical collections of Georgia: 

containing the most interesting facts, traditions, 

biographical sketches, anecdotes, etc. relating to its 

history and antiquities, from its first settlement to the 

present time (New York: Pudney & Russell, 1854; 

reprint, Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1969), 

402.

90. Ibid. “The building is in the process of enlargement, 

and is expected that in an early period there will be 

an added eight-frames, 1,152 spindles, which will 

make 650 pound No. 16 yarn; also, machinery for 

cotton rope; 400 lbs. per day.”

91. Ibid.

FIGURE 12. View of Ivy Mill, ca. 1900. (Courtesy of the Roswell Historical Society and 

the City of Roswell)

92. Braely, Wood, and Price, 12.
34 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

capital of $20,000 and products valued at $81,600. 

The mill employed 14 females and 13 males.93

Though tied to the King family, Ivy Mill was not part 

of the Roswell Manufacturing Company.

A two- story brick house, now known as Allenbrook, was built high on the west bank of Big Creek 

a mile south of the Roswell factory site and just up 

the hill from Ivy Mill. The house was long thought 

to have been built as a residence and office for the 

Roswell mill manager, Henry Merrell. More recent 

analysis of historical documentation suggests that 

the house was built between 1851 and 1856 when 

Barrington King’s son James Roswell King established Ivy Mill, and was probably James King’s residence while he was superintendent of the mills.94

Sope Creek Distillery: Approximately six miles 

downstream from Roswell, a large stream called 

Sope Creek falls quickly through a small gorge perpendicular to the river’s western bank. The stream 

name has long been a source of debate, and while it 

was sometimes called Soap Creek, the creek has 

been generally known as Sope Creek.95 As noted 

above, the creek’s flow is substantial (3,720 cubic 

feet per minute in 190096), and the steep terrain creates a long continuous cascade of rapids and shoals 

for most of the stream’s last two miles approaching 

the river. However, the creek banks are steep, with 

few locations that are suitable for building; and 

although it had great potential for water power, 

Sope Creek was not developed for industry until the 

1850s. Jefferson Howard Land, born in 1843 near 

Sope Creek, and whose recollections were 

recounted by his wife, remembered an early distillery at Sope Creek known for its peach brandy. A 

legitimate establishment, the distillery is thought to 

have been on the western bank of the creek 

upstream from the current location of Paper Mill 

Road bridge.97 Land’s wife recalled:

They used to make some of the best peach 

brandy out of Sope Creek that anyone ever 

wanted to taste. When Mr. Land was a young 

boy his father lived a mile from the mills on the 

hill toward Marietta. He used to tell about 

putting the sack of peaches across the saddle 

bow to carry them to the still to be made into 

brandy. That was when people had plenty of 

good peaches and everybody had brandy at 

home.98

Denmead’s Mill: In the late 1840s, the first substantial 

water- powered mill was developed along Sope 

Creek when Edward Denmead, a Maryland- born 

farmer and contractor, built a large flour mill near 

the site of the old distillery. Called Denmead’s Mill, 

it was described by White in 1849: 

Denmead’s Mill, situated on Soap Creek, is 6 1/2 

miles from Marietta. The main building is three 

stories high – 40 by 50 feet. It has four runs of 

[mill] stones, capable of turning out 125 barrels of 

flour per day. Capitol, $15,000. The flour is of 

excellent quality.99

The mill was destroyed in 1864 and not rebuilt, but 

Denmead appears in the 1870 Federal census in 

Marietta, with his occupation listed as “railroad 

contractor.” The site of the flour mill is upstream 

from the Paper Mill Road bridge on the east bank, 

but all that remains are scattered foundation ruins 

and the notable trace of the mill road along the 

bank. The mill dam site is not known although it 

may have been located where a small hydroelectric 

facility was constructed in the early 20th century.

Marietta Paper Company: In the mid- 1850s, a group 

of local investors began the development of a paper 

mill at Sope Creek, about a mile upstream of the 

confluence with the Chattahoochee River. By the 

time the Marietta Paper Company was formally 

incorporated on December 19, 1859, the mill had 

probably been in operation for several years. The 

original stockholders in the company were Isaac 

Sewell, Napoleon Greene, John R. Winters, William 

93. Ibid., 13.

94. Hartrampf, Inc., and OJP/Architect, Inc. Historic 

Structure Report: Allenbrook, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Roswell, Fulton County, 

Georgia. (NPS, 2004). p. 20.

95. The creek has carried two traditional names with 

similar pronunciation but different spellings. The 

current and accepted spelling is associated with a 

Cherokee man known as “Old Sope” who lived in the 

watershed. Another lesser and unsubstantiated 

tradition implies that a natural pumice source in the 

watershed led to the name “Soap Creek.” Research 

indicates that the most common and oldest spelling is 

Sope Creek, shifting briefly to Soap in many records, 

and then mostly readapted to Sope. Both spellings, 

however, are found throughout the written record. 

The NPS formally recognizes the site as Sope Creek.

96. Nesbit, 138-50. 

97. Everett E. Bronski, Jr., “Archeological Survey of CobbFulton Counties: Sope Creek Manufacturing Complex” 

(Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1978), 7.

98. Ibid., 8, citing Ashton Chapman, “Making Paper on 

Soap Creek,” The Atlanta Journal (May 28, 1933), 10.

99. White, Historical Collections of Georgia, 401.
National Park Service 35

Phillips, Andrew Edmonson, Moses B. Whitmore, 

Thomas Waterman, and James Bird.100 Bird, an 

Englishmen who had lived in the north before settling in frontier Cobb County, is thought to have 

brought the experience and skills necessary to build 

and operate the mill. Much of what is known about 

the mill is derived from interviews with the widow 

of Jefferson Land, whom Bird tutored and gave the 

opportunity to learn the mechanics of the paper 

industry. Land’s wife recalled:

My husband served his apprenticeship of seven 

years under Bird at the paper mills at Sope 

Creek...he went in at 12 years (c. 1854) of age 

under Jim Bird, an Englishman. Mr. Bird taught 

Jeff arithmetic and writing in addition to the 

paper business, and after the first year began 

paying him a salary of $4 a week.101

Born about 1842, Land would have begun his 

apprenticeship about 1854, which was probably 

around the time that construction of the mill began. 

Land must have learned his trade well, for at the 

outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, at the age of 19, he 

was entrusted to operate a paper mill near Columbus, Georgia.102 The mill on Sope Creek likely 

began as a venture among Bird, Scholfield, 

Edmundson, and Bostick Session (operator of the 

above- mentioned distillery), before they were 

joined by John Winter. The Marietta Paper Company was incorporated in 1859.103

The paper mill at Sope Creek was built on the east 

bank on one of the few locations along the creek 

that were relatively level. The main mill building was 

divided into five rooms of unequal size. This mill 

was known as a “rag mill” because, typical of the 

period, the paper was made from old cotton and 

linen rags. The five rooms in the building contained 

the majority of the paper- making process, from 

sorting rags to production of the final product. A 

small, detached storage building was also present on 

the site. A dam stood upstream from the mill site 

and water was conveyed to the mill via an elevated 

flume. Hot water and steam used in the process 

were provided by a boiler in a nearby structure east 

of the south end of the mill. 

Although the exact process used at the mill at Sope 

Creek is not known, Cobb County historian Sarah 

Temple notes that the five rooms were arranged 

north to south as consecutive steps in the process: a 

sorting room, two rag- cutting rooms, a washing 

room, and finally, the paper- making room. The 

building was long and narrow, measuring approximately 210 feet by 45 feet, with heavy load- bearing 

walls separating each section, probably to retard 

fire.

Because Sope Creek was a rag mill, it received shipments of old cotton and linen cloth of many 

types.104 These were dusted and sorted by kind, 

color, amount, and type of soiling, etc. The rags then 

went to the cutting rooms where buttons, clasps, 

and buckles were removed and the rags cut into 

small pieces. The small cloth sections were then 

“cooked” in a caustic solution of lye or soda ash and 

water to remove dirt and break down any dyes. The 

heat and caustic solution began the process of rendering the cloth back to its original fibers, the primary component of the final paper product. The 

cooked rags were then placed into a washing 

machine, rinsed generously, and periodically subjected to thrashing or agitation to mechanically 

break down the cloth. The fiber bath was also 

bleached at this time to provide uniform color to the 

fiber. Finally, the fiber pulp was taken to the papermaking room and finished into paper. There the 

water and pulp mixture were passed through a wire 

mesh screen that caught some of the passing fibers. 

In repeated cycles, the layers of fibers built up on 

the screen until they reached the desired thickness. 

A felt roller lifted the mat of fibers from the screen 

and fed it through at least one set of rollers to 

mechanically compress the fiber mat into paper. 

The damp unfinished paper was placed into a dryer 

for finishing, then moved into the storage facility.

The above process is typical of the paper- making 

process in the 19th century but not necessarily the 

specific process used at Sope Creek. It is clear, 

however, that Sope Creek provided an excellent site 100. Temple, 153.

101. Ashton Chapman, “Making Paper on Soap Creek,” 

The Atlanta Journal (May 28, 1933), 10. Chapman is 

quoting Mrs. Carrie Land, widow of James Land.

102. Ibid. The Columbus factory was significant to the war 

effort for the production of ledgers for the Army of 

Virginia and cartridge paper for the “western” Army.

103. Bronski, 8.

104. The mill’s operation was probably similar to the 

process described in R. H. Clapperton’s The Papermaking Machine: Its Invention, Evolution and 

Development and Edwin Sutermeister’s The Story of 

Papermaking.
36 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

for such an operation, because abundant water was 

available to power the washing, screening, and rolling processes.
National Park Service 37

Chapter Two: The River After 1860

Tremendous changes have transformed the river 

corridor in the last century and a half. From an 

environment that was essentially rural and agricultural, the study area has been entirely surrounded 

by suburban development. Unimproved dirt roads, 

ferries, and wooden covered bridges have been 

replaced by paved roads, twelve- lane interstate 

highways, and reinforced- concrete bridges. The 

free- flowing river has been dammed and controlled 

from the mountains to the Gulf and become a 

source of water and hydroelectric power for a metropolitan population that now numbers more than 

five million. Today, the chain of park units that 

comprise the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area has preserved some of the natural beauty 

and historic resources of the study area and provides outstanding recreational opportunities for the 

region’s burgeoning population.

The Atlanta 

Campaign

The Civil War bought direct and violent conflict to 

the river corridor, especially in the southern portions of the study area. As a major transportation 

center and an important source of munitions and 

other supplies for the Confederacy, Atlanta was a 

prime target in the Union campaign to bring the 

Confederacy to its knees. During the course of 

Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s campaign 

to take Atlanta, which he commenced in May 1864, 

what is now the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area served as camp site, hospital, battlefield, and burial ground for soldiers of both sides.

Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 

1863 had given a tremendous boost to morale in the 

North.1

 These victories, followed by battles at 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga in the fall of 1863, 

left Federal forces in control of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Confederate forces badly weakened and 

demoralized. With roads turned to mud by winter 

rains, both sides spent the winter supplying their 

armies and preparing for renewed fighting in the 

spring.

In May 1864, General Sherman’s army moved out of 

Chattanooga, bound for Atlanta, 125 miles to the 

southeast. Sherman’s objectives were to defeat 

FIGURE 1. “Sherman’s Advance—Howard’s (Fourteenth) Corps Crossing the Chattahoochee, 

July 12th, 1864.—Sketched by Theodore R. Davis.” Howard’s Corps crossed the river on a 

pontoon bridge at Pace’s Ferry on July 12, 1864. (From Harper’s Weekly © Applewood 

Books, Inc., Reproduced by permission of Applewood Books and harpersweekly.com)

1. Robert W. Blythe, Maureen A. Carroll, Steven H., 

Moffson, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

Park Historic Resource Study (Atlanta: National Park 

Service, 1995), 19.
38 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston’s Army of 

Tennessee and destroy Confederate war resources 

in and around Atlanta.2

 Battles at Tunnel Hill, Rocky 

Face, and Dug Gap near Dalton, Georgia, drove the 

Confederate army back to Resaca where a two- day 

battle forced the Confederates to fall back again, 

leaving Rome, Georgia, occupied by Federal troops. 

With both armies attempting to outflank the other, 

fighting was sporadic, but major battles at New 

Hope Church, Pickett’s Mill, and Dallas between 

May 25 and 28 resulted in terrible casualties. The 

intensity and frequency of battles and skirmishes 

soon filled hospitals in and around Atlanta to overflowing with Confederate casualties. In addition, 

foul weather slowed the movement of men and 

machinery, with rain falling almost daily for nearly a 

month in late May and the first three weeks of June. 

The roads were quagmires, and soldiers on both 

sides were wet and muddy for days on end.

Three of the eight main battles around Atlanta were 

fought in Cobb County within or near the study 

area, and three prominent mountains in the county 

(Pine,3

 Lost, and Kennesaw) provided natural 

defensive positions for Confederate troops as the 

Union advance continued between June 4 and July 

9, 1864.4 After clashes at Pine and Lost Mountains in 

western Cobb County in mid- June, Confederate 

forces withdrew to positions on Kennesaw Mountain, 23 miles northwest of Atlanta, under cover of 

darkness on June 19. Soaked to the skin, exhausted, 

and hungry, the Confederate soldiers still managed 

to quickly improve and expand previously prepared 

entrenchments and dig a line of rifle pits at the base 

of the mountain. Other defenses were run in a sixmile arc to the northeast and to the south to cover 

the railroad and the approach roads to Marietta.5

Distinctly visible from 20 miles away, the heights of 

Kennesaw gave Confederate gunners positions from 

which they could control traffic on the Western & 

Atlantic Railroad, which ran near the base of the 

mountain and was one of the major railroads into 

Atlanta. As Sherman noted in a telegram to Gen. 

Ulysses S. Grant, “Kennesaw is the key to the whole 

country.”6 He recognized that the Confederates had 

the upper hand, literally, being positioned on high 

ground, but both sides were suffering the effects of 

inclement weather, and any other action was 

delayed for nearly a week.

On June 26, Sherman attempted to outflank the 

Confederates again but was driven back at Kolb 

Farm, and on June 27, the Battle of Kennesaw 

Mountain commenced under clear skies and a hot 

sun. The Union and Confederate armies suffered 

over 4,000 casualties, most of them on the Union 

side, and Kennesaw Mountain was one of the few 

clear- cut Confederate victories in the entire Atlanta 

Campaign. Most military historians have characterized the Federal assault on entrenched Confederate 

positions “a needless waste of lives.” On July 1, with 

roads beginning to dry, Sherman started another 

flanking maneuver, which forced Johnston off the 

mountain and back to Smyrna and the Chattahoochee River. There he established another defensive line at what is now known as Johnston’s River 

Line, a series of defensive earthworks that his engineers had already constructed on the western side 

of the river on a line from the Western & Atlantic 

Railroad bridge just below Peachtree Creek to 

Nickajack Creek, over two miles to the south.

Both sides were skilled in constructing sophisticated 

field fortifications. These commonly included a log 

revetment roughly 4 feet high behind an earthwork 

that might be 10 to 12 feet thick at the base tapering 

to 2 to 3 feet wide at the top. In front of the earthworks, there might be an abatis consisting of sharpened stakes driven into the ground at an angle to 

slow attacking forces, or tangles of saplings (often 

bent over from the ground but still rooted), brush, 

tree branches, and barbed wire.7

 The Confederate 

commander hoped that, as at Kennesaw, the 

entrenched Confederate lines could not be 

breached by assault, and that the attacking army 

could not afford the kind of casualties suffered at 

Kennesaw when Union casualties were four times 

those of the Confederates.8

2. Ibid., 20.

3. Not to be confused with the larger and better known 

Pine Mountain near Warm Springs in Meriwether 

County, Georgia.

4. Darlene Roth, Architecture, Archaeology and 

Landscapes (Marietta, GA; Cobb County Historic 

Preservation Commission, 1988) 28-31.

5. Ibid., 23-24.

6. Dennis Kelly, Kennesaw Mountain and the Atlanta 

Campaign, a Tour Guide (Marietta, GA: Kennesaw 

Mountain Historical Association, Inc., 1989), 21.

7. Lenard E. Brown, draft Historic Resource Study: 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and 

the Chattahoochee River Corridor (Atlanta: Southeast 

Regional Office, 1980), 58.

8. Sarah Blackwell Gober Temple, The First Hundred 

Years: A Short History of Cobb County, in Georgia

(Atlanta: Walter W. Brown Publishing Co., 1935), 319.
National Park Service 39

FIGURE 2. Plate LX, one of several maps of the Atlanta Campaign from Atlas to 

Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Some of 

these are quite detailed and document the several points at which Union forces 

crossed the Chattahoochee River in July 1864. (Washington: Government Printing 

Office, 1891-1895)
40 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

By July 5, Johnston’s Army of Tennessee had its back 

to the river and there was “heavy skirmishing along 

our whole front,” General Sherman recalled. The 

fighting, he thought, “demonstrated the strength of 

the enemy's position, which could alone be turned 

by crossing the main Chattahoochee River, a rapid 

and deep stream, only passable at that stage by 

means of bridges, except at one or two very difficult 

fords.”9 In later reports, Union generals and engineers offered grudging admiration for the 

entrenchments built by the Confederates. General 

Sherman himself noted in his memoirs:

The enemy and ourselves used the same form of 

rifle- trench, varied according to the nature of 

the ground, viz.: the trees and bushes were cut 

away for a hundred yards or more in front, 

serving as an abatis or entanglement; the 

parapets varied from four to six feet high, the dirt 

taken from a ditch outside and from a covered 

way inside, and this parapet was surmounted by 

a "head- log," composed of the trunk of a tree 

from twelve to twenty inches at the butt, lying 

along the interior crest of the parapet and resting 

in notches cut in other trunks which extended 

back, forming an inclined plane, in case the 

head- log should be knocked inward by a 

cannon- shot. The men of both armies became 

extremely skillful in the construction of these 

works, because each man realized their value 

and importance to himself, so that it required no 

orders for their construction.10

Once again, Sherman set about outflanking 

Johnston’s Army, ordering General Schofield’s Army 

of the Ohio to Sope Creek “to effect a lodgement on 

the east bank” of the river there. Upon arrival, 

Schofield found the bridge over Sope Creek burned 

and only with some difficulty established positions 

on the ridge above the river, taking “every precaution. . . to make a crossing of the river by surprise,” 

according to Brigadier- General J. D. Cox.11 An “ old 

9. War Department, “The War of the Rebellion: A 

Compilation of Official Records of the Union and 

Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. XXXVIII, Part I--

Reports (Washington, DC: 1891), p. 69.

FIGURE 3. “South bank of the Chattahoochie [sic],” July 1864, view north from 

Confederate earthworks on southern bank of the river, showing the Western 

and Atlantic bridge just southwest of Peachtree Creek. (From Barnard's 

Photographic Views of the Sherman Campaign, Hargrett Rare Book and 

Manuscript Library, as presented in the Digital Library of Georgia) 

10. William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General William T. 

Sherman, Vol. II (N.Y.: Penguin Classics, 2000; first 

published by D. Appleton and Company, New York, 

1875), 429-30.

11. “War of the Rebellion,” Vol. XXXVIII, Part II--Reports, 

p. 684.
National Park Service 41

fish dam”12 located about a half mile above Sope 

Creek was found to offer a foot path across the river, 

and on July 8, an advance guard crossed the fish 

dam and established a position on the crest of a hill 

overlooking Isham’s Ford at the mouth of Sope 

Creek. 13Troops began crossing by boat while a 

pontoon bridge was being thrown across the river, 

which allowed the entire army to cross under cover 

of darkness that night, “effecting a strong lodgment 

on high and commanding ground with good roads 

leading to the east,” according to General Sherman’s 

report.14

Caught by surprise and realizing the Union armies 

might outflank him, General Johnston had no 

choice but to abandon his defensive line on the 

northwest side of the river. On July 9, he withdrew 

to the southeast side of the river, burning the bridge 

as he went. It was this retreat that prompted Jefferson Davis to put General John Bell Hood in command of the Confederate forces opposing Sherman.

In the meantime, General Sherman had ordered 

General Garrard to Roswell to destroy the factories 

and secure the Shallow Ford. The retreating Confederates had burned the covered bridge on Roswell 

Road, too, but it was quickly rebuilt, allowing General McPherson’s Army of the Tennessee to cross on 

July 9. That same day, pontoon bridges were built at 

Joseph Power’s Ferry, about two miles below the 

Shallow Ford.15 Sherman was pleased, noting that:

Thus during the 9th we had secured three good 

and safe points of passage over the 

Chattahoochee above the enemy, with good 

roads leading to Atlanta, and Johnston 

abandoned his tête- de- pont, burned his bridge, 

and left us undisputed masters north and west of 

the Chattahoochee at daylight of the 10th of July. 

This was one, if not the chief, object of the 

campaign, viz, the advancement of our lines 

from the Tennessee to the Chattahoochee; but 

Atlanta lay before us, only eight miles distant, 

and was too important a place in the hands of 

the enemy to be left undisturbed, with its 

magazines, stores, arsenals, workshops, 

foundries, &c., and more especially its railroads, 

which converged there from the four great 

cardinal points, but the men had worked hard 

and needed rest and we accordingly took a short 

spell.16

Over the next few days, most of the Federal forces 

crossed the river, using the crossings established on 

July 9 as well as several others. On July 11, a pontoon 

bridge was built at James Power’s Ferry some two 

miles south of Sope Creek, and the next day, a 

bridge was constructed at Pace’s Ferry. Official 

reports document other important river crossings 

by Federal forces, including at McAfee’s Bridge near 

the site of today’s Holcombe Bridge. The most colorful of these reports is surely that of BrigadierGeneral E. M. McCook, who ordered a detachment 

across the river at Cochran’s Ford, which was probably in what is now the park’s Cochran Shoals unit. 

The river was deep at that point, and the soldiers 

crossed naked, “nothing but guns, cartridge boxes 

and hats.” McCook reported:

They drove the enemy out of their rifle- pits, 

captured a non- commissioned officer and 3 

men, and the 2 boats on the other side. They 

would have got more, but the rebels had the 

advantage in running through the bushes with 

clothes on. It was certainly one of the funniest 

sights of the war, and a very successful raid for 

naked men to make.17

It took over a week for Sherman to get his entire 

army across the river and resupplied, but on July 20, 

the armies engaged at Peachtree Creek, north of 

Atlanta. After fierce fighting there, Federal forces 

swept around the east side of the city, engaging the 

Confederates at the Battle of Atlanta on July 22. Victory at the Battle of Ezra Church west of the city on 

July 28 allowed Sherman’s army to lay siege to 

Atlanta, and throughout the month of August, 

Union gunners rained artillery shells on the city. On 

August 31, a climactic battle at Jonesboro south of 

the city forced the Confederates to withdraw, and 

12. Ibid.

13. This river crossing was noted as both Isham’s Ford and 

as Phillips Ferry in the official records. Later Heard’s 

Ferry was operated at this location.

14. Plate LXV.4 “Schofield Crossing the Chattahooc hee” 

in Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the 

Union and Confederate Armies (Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1891-1895), shows the 

location of the bridge at Sope Creek.

15. There were two historic ferries operated by members 

of the Power family. The best known was operated by 

James Power and gave its name to modern Power’s 

Ferry Road. It crossed the river near present-day 

Interstate 285. The Power’s Ferry used in the initial 

crossing of Federal forces, was operated by James 

Power’s brother Joseph Power at a location just below 

what is now Morgan Falls Dam.

16. The War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XXXVIII, Part I, 

Reports, p. 69.

17. Ibid., Vol. XXXVIII, Part II, Reports, p. 761.
42 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

on September 2 Mayor James M. Calhoun surrendered Atlanta to Union Brig. Gen. William T. Ward. 

The city’s residents were forced to evacuate a week 

later, and for the next two months Atlanta was a 

Union military camp. Then on November 14, Sherman gave orders to burn all but “mere dwelling 

houses and churches” and set out on his infamous 

“March to the Sea.” Abandoning his supply line to 

Chattanooga, Sherman determined to live off the 

land and, vowing to “make Georgia howl,” left a 60-

mile- wide path of ruin all the way to Savannah, 250 

miles away. Entering that city on December 22, 1864, 

Sherman telegraphed Lincoln and offered it to him 

as a Christmas present.

The Damage Is Done

Much was destroyed as the Union army swept 

through the state, taking what they needed from the 

surrounding countryside. Throughout the campaign, both armies confiscated livestock and granaries and dismantled fences and buildings to build 

roads, fortifications, and to kindle thousands of 

camp fires. The Federals destroyed anything they 

could not use if it in any way supported the ability of 

the Confederacy to sustain itself.

The Marietta Paper Company produced writing 

paper, printing paper, tissue paper, and wrapping 

paper prior to the Civil War, and it was believed that 

the mill also provided stock upon which Confederate currency and bonds were printed. Certainly the 

mills at Roswell supported the Confederate war 

effort and were legitimate targets for destruction, 

especially Ivy Mill, which manufactured a woolen 

cloth called cassimere and known as “Roswell 

Grey” for making Confederate uniforms.18 A letter 

on file with the Roswell Historical Society dated 

1863 confirms the mill’s continued role in Confederate wartime production, stating that Ivy Mill was 

“wholly occupied and on Government work and the 

mill is run by hands detailed for said purpose.”19 In 

the spring of 1864, approximately two weeks before 

the arrival of Union forces at Roswell, Barrington 

King left for Savannah with the books for both the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company and Ivy Mill. He 

left his son James in charge of both operations with 

instructions “to run the machinery until driven out 

by the soldiers.”20

As he prepared to cross the Chattahoochee, Sherman dispatched Brig. Gen. Kenner Garrard’s cavalry 

to destroy the production capacity of the mills along 

the river, including Roswell Manufacturing Company, Ivy Mill, the mills on Sope Creek, and the New 

Manchester Manufacturing Company on Sweetwater Creek in Douglas County. On July 5, Garrard’s 

men burned the Marietta Paper Mill and Denmead’s Mill on Sope Creek and then went on to 

Roswell where they found the “factories running at 

full capacity.”21

By the time Garrard’s cavalry arrived in Roswell, 

James King had fled to Savannah, leaving an 

employee, Theophile Roche, in charge of Ivy Mill. 

Roche, a French national, hoisted a French flag over 

the mill,22 hoping to forestall the mill’s destruction. 

When General Garrard himself arrived on July 6, 

however, it took little investigation to see the letters 

C.S.A. being woven into the cloth. The mill was 

immediately evacuated and the machinery thrown 

into the river. The building itself was fired, but it did 

not burn completely, leaving enough flooring and 

other material for Union soldiers to rebuild the river 

bridge that had been burned by the retreating Confederates. That evening Garrard wrote Sherman to 

inform him of the destruction of the woolen mill 

and noted that the factory had a “capacity [of] 

30,000 yards a month, and has furnished up to 

within a few weeks 15,000 yards per month to the 

rebel Government.”23

After destroying Ivy Mill, the Union troops continued their methodical destruction by burning the 

factories of Roswell Manufacturing Company, a task 

18. Braely, Wood, and Price, 15. An Athens, Georgia, 

publication, the Southern Watchmen, noted that the 

“Oglethorpe Rifles” (Company K, 8th Georgia 

Infantry) were uniformed in grey cassimere from the 

Roswell factory.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid., citing Fulton County Superior Court documents.

21. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 11.

22. At this time, Roswell Manufacturing Company and Ivy 

Mill appear to have been separate business entities. 

Research indicates that the claim of neutrality was 

made under the a claim that Ivy Mill was managed by 

Theophile Roche, a French national, and should not 

be burned. It is not known whether the same claim 

was made for the cotton mills at Roswell 

Manufacturing Company, but it is clear that the 

cotton factories were not burned until July 7.

23. Braely, Wood, and Price, 16, citing the United States 

War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A 

Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and 

Confederate Armies (Washington, D.C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1880-1901), Vol. 38, Part V, 68.
National Park Service 43

completed on the evening of July 7. The destruction 

of the Roswell cotton mills was well documented by 

Private Silas P. Stevens, who helped set fire to the 

mills, although his account better describes the 

meticulous attention paid to setting the fires than it 

does in summarizing the overall operation:24

I caused to be placed on each floor, beginning at 

the top, saturated cotton with oil, in great 

quantities, and carefully arranged everything 

ready to fire my building, and waited with my 

men till the aid [sic] had started his fire, as a 

matter of courtesy. I did not wait long. I lighted 

the combustibles which went off in a flash, at the 

FIGURE 4. Charles Holyland’s sketch of the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

ruins, view from the southwest, July 1864. (Courtesy of Roswell Historical 

Society and the City of Roswell)
44 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

upper story first, then each successive floor, from 

the top to the basement. So that I had an 

interesting blaze at once, while McCloud 

[Stevens’ commanding officer] fired his 

machinery hall, from the basement, or engine 

room: by this act the factory burned more slowly, 

yet surely.25

Stevens explained that he used different methods of 

setting the fires in order to lessen the danger “to the 

residents of the place who’s [sic] houses were in the 

immediate vicinity.” He also noted that at least one 

other building, the “store house,” was put to the 

torch. Charles Holyland, another of Garrard’s 

troopers, also left a valuable document of the 

destruction of the cotton mills in a sketch captioned 

“Ruins of the Roswell Manufacturing Co’s Mill on 

The Chattahoochee River, destroyed under order of 

the War Department on the night of July 7th 1864.”26

Holyland’s sketch is a bird’s eye view of the main 

factory complex looking southwest from an elevated 

wooden flume along Big Creek. Included in the 

image are the burned- out shells of the 1838 and 1854 

factories. The 1838 factory and its ell wing addition 

and lift tower read clearly in the foreground, with 

the ruins of the 1854 factory in the background. The 

wooden flume forms the spine of the sketch as both 

factories and two other buildings are adjacent to it, 

and the ruins of the old sawmill, later a woolen mill, 

are visible on the south side of the flume immediately above the 1838 factory. Just above the sawmill 

stands a two- story machine shop adjacent to the 

north side of the flume (as are the 1838 and 1854 factories). The proximity of the structure to the flume 

suggests that one flume provided water, and thus 

power, to all of the facilities shown in the sketch. 

Useless with the factory destroyed, the flume and 

the machine shop appear not to have been 

destroyed.

The Union troops rounded up the mills’ employees, 

including Theophile Roche, and shipped them by 

train to Chattanooga and from there to Ohio where 

they spent the duration of the war. Although their 

removal has been blamed on Sherman’s wrath at the 

bogus claim of neutrality, it appears that a more 

general policy of removal was in order because 

other mills’ employees were also transported to the 

Midwest. The Confederate press made much of the 

vanished “Roswell women,” but Barrington King 

wrote his son in 1865 that most of the mill workers 

had returned.27

Reconstruction 

and a New South

At war’s end, exhausted Southerners slowly set 

about reconstructing their lives and rebuilding 

homes, stores, and factories. Although there was not 

the wanton destruction of property in the study area 

that became legend in the countryside between 

Atlanta and Savannah, farms and plantations were in 

shambles and the industries along the river and its 

tributaries were disabled or destroyed. Reconstruction was slow, but at the same time, the rapid growth 

of Atlanta after the Civil War was a boon to the surrounding area, supporting property values and providing a ready outlet for farm products throughout 

much of the study area.

Agriculture

After the war, the value of the state’s agricultural 

economy was reduced by 80 percent, although half 

of the loss was in the value of freed slaves. Across 

the state, the value of agricultural land plummeted 

between 50 percent and 90 percent. Only in Fulton 

and DeKalb counties did property maintain a semblance of its pre- war value as Atlanta’s explosive 

growth did much to sustain the region’s economy.28

24. Karen G. Wood, “The Textile Mills of Roswell, 

Georgia,” Early Georgia, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Society for 

Georgia Archeology), 1993. Wood refers to John A. 

Nourse’s The History of the Chicago Board of Trade 

Battery in reference to Stevens’s narrative.

25. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 11.

26. Michael Hitt, Charged With Treason (Monroe, N.Y.: 

Liberty Research Associates, Inc., 1992); and Darlene 

M.Walsh, Ed. Roswell Pictorial History (Roswell, GA: 

Roswell Historical Society, Inc., 1985; reprint 1994). 

The title caption continues, “During the rebellion it 

was under the control and worked by the 

Confederate government being one of the most 

extensive in the South. Situated in the village of 

Roswell, Cobb Co., Geo. – 9 miles South East of 

Marietta and 20 miles North West of Atlanta on the 

Chattahoochee River and is known under the firm 

Roswell King & Co. It was destroyed when the cavalry 

on the Extreme left of the Army attempted the 

crossing of the river. It employed nearly 700 

operatives.”

27. Braely, Wood, and Price, 16

28. Range, 69.
National Park Service 45

The 1870 census29 illustrates an agricultural economy clearly in depression as, across the state, production showed significant decline from 1860. 

Cattle and swine production fell over 40 percent, 

corn and rye production dropped by more than a 

third, and rice production disappeared altogether. 

Cash crops suffered as well. Tobacco production 

virtually collapsed and cotton production in the 

study area fell as much as 40 percent between 1860 

and 1870. While the cotton economy of the upper 

Piedmont was not as devastated as other regions 

that were more dependent on slave labor, the loss of 

infrastructure, men, mules, and other livestock, as 

well as the vagaries of Reconstruction, severely 

affected the area’s economy. At the same time, the 

1870 census was the first to show a greater population density per square mile in the upper Piedmont 

than in the lower Piedmont, much of that attributable to the growth of Atlanta.

Labor Relations. The war severely disrupted the 

Southern labor force in two ways. First, farmers and 

overseers joined the Confederate army, leaving 

dangerously few people in many places to work the 

land or manage the large slave population. At war’s 

end, one- third of Georgia’s 40,000 soldiers were 

dead or missing and many of those fortunate 

enough to return home were maimed or crippled, 

all of which had a profound effect on agricultural 

production.30

In addition, the demise of slavery precipitated a 

labor crisis in the South’s agricultural economy. 

Within five years of the war’s end, however, new 

methods of organizing—some would say exploiting—labor were taking shape. Immediately after the 

war, planters hired work gangs at a fixed amount per 

head, but this proved an unreliable and unproductive model. Different rental and crop- sharing 

agreements with various levels of landowner control evolved into two predominant labor management systems—sharecropping and tenant farming.

Sharecropping allowed a farmer to cultivate an area 

of land (generally around 35 acres). In exchange, the 

landowner provided a dwelling, draft animals, and 

seed, and gave the sharecropper a specified portion 

or “share” of the crop. Tenant farming differed in 

that the farmer provided his own seed, draft animals, and fertilizer (often bought on credit at exorbitant interest rates) and paid the landowner rent 

and/or a percentage of the crop for use of the land 

and a dwelling. Though both systems could degenerate into peonage, laborers generally preferred 

tenancy because it at least provided a degree of 

independence. Planters, on the other hand, often 

preferred sharecropping because it provided a 

much greater degree of control and gave unscrupulous planters more opportunity to exploit workers.

The 1880 census31 was the first to separately enumerate farmers who owned their own land, sharecroppers, and tenant farmers. It provides a useful 

comparison of the study area and the rest of the 

upper Piedmont with the rest of the state. The census figures show that nearly 60 percent of farmers in 

the study area owned their own farms versus about 

55 percent of farmers statewide. Slightly more than 

37 percent of farmers in the study area were sharecroppers, most of them white, versus just over 31 

percent of farmers statewide. Most significantly, less 

than 4 percent of the study area’s farmers were tenants, which was less than a third of the statewide 

average.

Agricultural Production. By 1880 the counties in 

the study area appeared well on the road to economic recovery, and Henry Grady was beginning to 

espouse his vision of a New South of industry and 

progressive agriculture. The 1880 census showed 

that most categories of agricultural production met 

or exceeded those of 1860, although at least some of 

that was the result of the explosive growth of 

Atlanta, the population of which doubled in the 

1870s, rising from 49,358 in 1870 to 99,975 in 1880.32

As Atlanta boomed, Fulton County’s population 

rose nearly 350 percent during the decade, while the 

other counties in the study area saw a more moderate population increase of about 50 percent. Unlike 

many parts of the state where farmers struggled 

through the 1870s and 1880s, the growth of the city 

29. Department of the Interior, Census Office, The 

Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United 

States from the Original Returns of Ninth Census 

(June 1, 1870), 121-27.

30. Willard Range, A Century of Georgia Agriculture 

1850-1950 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1954; 

reprint, 1969), 69.

31. Department of the Interior, Census Office, Report of 

the Productions of Agriculture as Returned at the 

Tenth Census (June 1, 1880), Vol. 3 (hereinafter cited 

as 1880 Census, Agriculture, Vol. 3) (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1883), 40-43.

32. GEOSPAT: United States Historic Census Data Browser, 

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/

histcensus/
46 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

and its increasing demand for produce, livestock, 

poultry, and other farm products that the countryside could provide proved to be a boon to many area 

farmers.

In the 1880 census, corn and wheat remained 

important agricultural staples, and Gwinnett and 

Cobb were among the three top counties in the state 

in corn production, with production of 74,795 and 

80,617 bushels respectively.33 In wheat production, 

Gwinnett and Cobb were among the top five counties in the state, producing 877,139 of the study area’s 

1,347,379 bushels. In a continuation of a trend noted 

as early as 1860, it appears that the production of 

these crops was necessary to meet local demands, 

and that Cobb and Gwinnett Counties were 

becoming the breadbasket for Atlanta. Cotton 

remained king of cash crops, however, and estimated cotton production more than doubled in the 

study area between 1860 and 1880.34

In addition, commercial fertilizers came into widespread use following the war, “extending the cotton 

line fifty- miles to the north.”35 Overall, commercial 

fertilizers are credited with increasing the amount of 

improved land in Georgia and promoting an intensification of cotton agriculture in the upper Piedmont. The increase in cotton production meant very 

little, however, as prices remained stagnant. 

Between 1860 and 1900, the state’s population doubled to approximately two million people, but in the 

same period, the aggregate value of the state’s farm 

land plus farm buildings, machinery, and equipment 

remained virtually unchanged, with the 1900 figure 

of $228 million36 barely exceeding the 1860 value. 

The state and much of the rest of the agricultural 

South remained in a serious depression through the 

turn of the century, what some have termed “the 

Long Depression.” Although cotton production 

soared, prices plummeted due to overproduction, 

and the crop lien system, railroads, futures brokerage, and property taxes all became serious drains on 

agricultural revenues.

In the last quarter of the 19th century, The Grange 

and its successor the Farmers’ Alliance were dedicated to organizing farmers and promoting collective action in an ill- fated attempt to forge a cohesive 

political force. Members were encouraged to restrict 

their political support to candidates who supported 

their goals, regardless of party affiliation, but too 

often politicians campaigned for election on agrarian sentiment only to oppose the Alliance in its push 

for reform legislation. In the end, the Alliance was 

no match for commodities brokers, bankers, and 

railroads that boycotted the Alliance farmers and 

ultimately broke the back of the movement.

Farmers still managed to win some minor battles. 

Price fixing by the jute manufacturers for the bagging used almost universally for baling cotton 

prompted the Alliance to launch a successful boycott by promoting the use of newly developed cotton bagging instead of jute. Alliance co- ops 

developed to provide fair loans, supplies, ginning, 

storage, and brokerage, but in the final assessment, 

they could only limit, not prevent, the dominance of 

industry, banking, and the railroads over agriculture. Land values fell, debts grew insurmountable, 

and more and more farmers slipped into tenancy 

and sharecropping as cotton prices remained low. In 

spite of Henry Grady’s vision of a New South, an 

industrial South built on the North’s model, Georgia 

remained largely an agricultural state, economically 

depressed, and arguably little more than a colony of 

business and banking interests in the North.

The 1890 census records37 illustrate most clearly the 

effect of the ongoing depression in the study area. In 

spite of the gains made by 1880, the 1890 census 

documents a reduction in production in almost 

every agricultural category. Corn production fell 10 

percent, hog production more than 36 percent, 

tobacco 50 percent, and wheat production nearly 60 

percent. Even cotton production dropped, falling 

from 36,721 bales in 1880 to 33,831 in 1890. Although 

the depression of agricultural production was widespread, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties remained 

among the top producers in the state for corn,

33. 1880 Census, Agriculture, Vol. 3, 182-83.

34. In the 1880 census, the average weight of bales was 

presented relative to the amount of seed cotton 

versus lint cotton in each bale (the average ratio of 

seed cotton versus lint cotton for each county was 

also provided). In previous censuses, only the total 

number of bales was reported. Since lint cotton is the 

more reliable valuation standard, for comparison the 

author applied the ratios for each county to the total 

bales reported in 1860 to estimate the amount of lint 

cotton produced.

35. Range, 101.

36. Range, 154.

37. Department of the Interior, Census Office, Report of 

the Statistics of Agriculture of the United States at the 

Eleventh Census: 1890 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1895), 241-43, 281, 322-

23, 360, 394, 426-27
National Park Service 47

wheat, oats, as well as chickens, eggs, and honey. 

Additionally, Fulton, Cobb, and Gwinnett Counties 

were among the top 15 percent of the state’s counties 

in dairy products. 38 Again, all of those farm products were of immediate value in Atlanta, but Cobb 

and Gwinnett also returned significant cotton 

crops, producing 10,631 and 11,301 bales respectively.

Ten years later, the 1900 census39 shows production 

to have picked up again although it likely got worse 

before it got better, with market crashes occurring 

twice in the 1890s. Corn and cotton recovered and 

slightly exceeded their 1880 levels. Wheat recovered 

to a little less than half of its 1880 level. Most livestock statistics are unreliable because of new counting methods, which for the first time often excluded 

young animals. Only swine continued to be counted 

the same and their numbers fell significantly from 

34,278 to 24,249 head. Poultry production appears 

to have fallen off sharply, too, but birds younger 

than three months were excluded from the count. 

Gwinnett and Cobb remained among the top producers in the state for oats, wheat, and poultry. The 

important lesson of the 1900 census is that it shows 

significant increases over 1860 only in the production of cotton and, to a much lesser extent, corn and 

sweet potatoes. In short, the agricultural economy 

stood virtually still for 40 years.

The average farm in the area was white owned and 

operated as it had been before the war, and many 

had one or more sharecroppers or tenants. Many 

sharecroppers and tenants in the upper Piedmont 

were landless blacks but even more were poor 

whites. The area’s farmers diversified well ahead of 

the rest of the state, with counties in the study area 

frequently among the state’s top producers of corn, 

wheat, oats, chicken, eggs, and dairy, while still producing a respectable cotton crop. In 1900, the population of the Atlanta metropolitan area reached 

419,375,40 providing an excellent local market and 

explaining the high production of food staples in 

the study area. Although proximity to Atlanta would 

later prove to be a double- edged sword for the 

study area, prior to World War I, it facilitated agricultural diversification and provided the local 

economy a degree of insulation from the vagaries of 

the cotton market.

Transportation

After the Civil War, transportation still depended on 

the old network of roads, bridges, and ferries. Traditional, covered, wood- truss bridges continued to 

be built, including the one that was rebuilt at 

Roswell Road in 1864. But wooden bridges rotted, 

burned, required frequent repairs, and generally 

had a relatively short useful life. As the price of steel 

dropped in the 1870s, many wooden bridges were 

soon supplanted by durable steel- truss bridges. By 

the 1890s, steel- truss designs had almost entirely 

replaced wood in the bridge- building industry. It is 

not clear when the first steel- truss bridge was constructed across the Chattahoochee River, but it may 

have been Settles Bridge, the oldest river bridge in 

the study area today. Built around 1880, it has long 

been closed to traffic.

The study area benefited from the presence of the 

Western and Atlantic Railroad, which was one of the 

first lines brought back into full operation after the 

Civil War. The W&A crossed the river near PeachChanges in Agricultural Production in Study Area, 1860-1900

Census 

Year

Wheat 

(bushels)

Oats

 (bushels)

Corn

 (bushels)

Cotton 

(bales)

Swine Tobacco 

(pounds)

Sweet 

Potatoes 

(bushels)

Irish 

Potatoes 

(bushels)

1860 195,571 80,868 1,158,888 7,836 57,725 25,237 164,179 9,736

1900 131,140 53,720 1,542,550 40,941 27,222 3,520 220,527 9,925

Percent 

change

- 32.9 - 33.6 + 33.1 + 422.5 -52.8 - 86.1 + 34.3 + 1.9

38. Based on examination of raw 1890 census data.

39. United States Census Office, Twelfth Census of the 

United States Taken in the Year 1900, Vol. 6, 

Agriculture, Part II (Washington, D.C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1902), 158, 271, 365, 426-27, 431, 546, 

595, 637.

40. DEMOGRAPHIA, US Metropolitan Areas: Population 

from 1900, 2. For purposes of this study, comparisons 

in the historic period are frequently made based on 

the currently defined, 20-county Atlanta Standard 

Metropolitan Statistical Area. Until the 1960s, the 

metropolitan area was defined by five counties: 

Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Clayton. 
48 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

tree Creek just south of the study area, and “whistle 

stops” in Cobb County gradually gave rise to communities at Vinings and Smyrna in the late 19th century.

No other major railroad came near the study area. 

The promise of a spur line to Roswell was never 

fully realized, although the Roswell Railroad Company was incorporated in 1879 under the control of 

the Atlanta and Charlotte Air- Line Railroad. Construction began on a spur line that left the main line 

on Peachtree Road near Oglethorpe University and 

ran for about ten miles in a northerly direction. Following what are now Roberts Drive and Northridge 

Road to Dunwoody Place where there was a depot, 

the railroad terminated at the Roswell Depot at 

what is now the North River Shopping Center on 

Roswell Road, less than a half mile from the river. 

The expense of a river bridge and the steep grade up 

to Roswell kept the railroad from being completed 

into the town itself, even after it was acquired by 

Southern Railroad Company in 1900.

In 1902 the 2.7- mile- long Bull Sluice or Morgan 

Falls Railroad was completed from the Roswell 

Railroad’s Dunwoody Station to the power plant 

then under construction at the falls. President Theodore Roosevelt used the Roswell Railroad to reach 

Roswell when he visited his mother’s birthplace, 

Bulloch Hall, in 1905, but the line was never profitable. Service was discontinued in 1921, and some of 

the only evidence of its existence today is a stone 

retaining wall and unfinished railroad grade behind 

Allenbrook.41

Industry

By the last quarter of the 19th century, technological 

advances, especially in steam- driven turbines, were 

making possible larger, more efficient, and far more 

powerful mills. At the same time, the nation’s rapidly expanding network of railroads made it possible to ship products cheaply and quickly all over the 

country. As a result, cheap flour from giant mills in 

the Midwest flooded the market, driving down 

prices such that smaller mills, including Edward 

Denmead’s flour mill on Sope Creek, could not 

compete. A few small water- powered grist mills 

continued to produce corn meal and grits, but most 

mills were either retrofitted with steam or, later, 

electricity.

Atlanta’s International Cotton Exhibition in 1881 is 

credited by some with having spurred a boom in the 

construction of textile mills in the South, and within 

three years, Georgia led the nation in textile production. So many mills were put into operation in 

the Piedmont of Georgia, South Carolina, and 

North Carolina in the 1890s and early 1900s that the 

three states soon formed the center of the nation’s 

FIGURE 5. View of W&A Railroad bridge at Bolton, c. 1906. (Jody Cook Postcard Collection)

41. “Railroad History: Roswell Railroad,” at http://

www.railga.com/roswell.html, accessed 15 June 2006.
National Park Service 49

textile industry. Proximity to a railroad and abundant water were prerequisites for the large mills 

typical of the period.

No new mill sites were developed in the study area 

in the last quarter of the 19th century, primarily 

because the study area had plenty of water but it 

lacked rail service. Construction of the Roswell 

Railroad did not extend north of the river, and the 

only other railroad near the study area was the 

Western & Atlantic Railroad, which crossed the 

river just beyond the southern end of the study area. 

There, in 1895, northern capitalists built Whittier 

Mill, one of the area’s largest textile mills, land adjacent to the Chattahoochee Brick Company.

Roswell Manufacturing Company. In the spring of 

1865, Barrington King returned to Roswell, and 

“astonished” that there had been so little damage to 

his and other homes in Roswell, he immediately 

turned his attention to his ruined mills. In June 1865, 

he was able to report to the board of directors that 

the foundation of the 1854 mill was in sound condition for reconstruction and that there was enough 

cotton “on hand to fill one mill with machinery and 

put in motion without calling the stockholders for 

one dollar.”42 By 1866 a new factory was complete 

and operating on the site of the 1854 factory.

Unfortunately in January 1866 King died from injuries suffered when he was kicked by a horse, and the 

board of directors named a new president, Gen. 

Granger Hansell. Following King’s death, the estate 

was divided among his heirs and his widow, who in 

turn sold most of her interest to General Hansell. 

Barrington King’s son James King acted as superintendent of the company for a number of years, but 

the family’s control of the company was clearly on 

the wane.43

The overshot waterwheel was damaged and weakened when the Union troops burned the mill, but it 

was soon repaired and put back into operation. It 

continued to provide power for the mill until 1872, 

when it was replaced by a turbine. The old wooden 

flume was replaced with an iron flume at the same 

time. 

As the economic depression that began in 1873 

lifted, the directors of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company began to upgrade and expand the mills. 

In 1883, they built a new cotton factory, millrace, 

offices, and two warehouses. The new mill was two 

stories high, built of wood, and measured 152 feet by 

77 feet with a one- story office measuring 47 feet by 

31 feet at one side. A three- room central office and 

two warehouses were also built above the mill site 

along what is today called Mill Street. The flume 

was extended past the existing factory and another 

150 feet past the machine shop to a point believed to 

be near the foundation of the original 1838 factory. A 

new overshot waterwheel approximately 15 feet 

wide and 20 feet in diameter was installed at the end 

of the flume, and power was conveyed up the hill to 

the new factory via a cable loop.44

Droughts, spring freshets, and freezes continued to 

affect the flow of water in the creek, however, causing a constant slowdown in mill operations. A low 

dam was constructed upstream from the mill near 

the mouth of Oxbow Creek in 1895, and the addition 

of supplemental steam power two years later, fueled 

by 2 1/2 cords of wood a day, allowed the mill to be 

independent of fluctuating water levels.45

In 1885, the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 

mapped the buildings of the Roswell Manufacturing 

Company and Laurel Mills Manufacturing Company. These highly accurate maps document building footprints, construction materials, and other 

information useful in writing fire insurance policies 

and provide one of the most detailed views of the 

two mill complexes on Big Creek in the 19th century. 

The map of the Roswell Manufacturing Company 

labels the rebuilt 1854 Mill as Mill No. 1 and the 1883 

factory as Mill No. 2. Mill No. 1 was described as 

containing weaving, finishing, carding, and spinning 

functions on floors one through four respectively. 

On the hill above Mill No. 1 was a building marked 

“Cotton Bale Storage,” and between the two was a 

small building labeled “ladder room.” A few feet 

west (downstream) of the main mill building was 

the dye house with a nearby boiler, small pump 

house, and water tower, all presumably used for 

dying, heat, and fire protection. A wooden flume 

42. Richard G. Coleman, “A Short History of The Roswell conveyed water to the waterwheel assembly at the 

Manufacturing Company of Roswell, Georgia, Home 

Of ‘Roswell Grey,’” booklet on file at Bulloch Hall 

Library (Roswell, Ga.: Roswell Historical Society, 1982),

7.

43. Ibid., 10.

44. Coleman, “A Short History of The Roswell 

Manufacturing Company,” 11. 

45. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 20-22.
50 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

east end of the main factory. Following the south 

wall of the factory, the flume continued almost due 

west past the dye house and then approximately 700 

feet downstream past the machine shop and on to 

the wheel house for Mill No. 2. Mill No. 1 was 

described as being waterpowered, with steam heat 

(wood- fueled boilers) and lard- oil lights.

The Sanborn map shows Mill No. 2 as a yarn- spinning mill with a small boiler to the west and drying 

shed to the east. As described above, the wheel 

house was on the creek at the base of the hill and 

conveyed power to the uphill factory via a “wire 

belt.” Here the wooden flume terminated at the 

wheel house and discharged water through a tailrace. The wheel house also served as the fire pump 

for Mill No. 2, providing water through a 3- inch 

pipe. Mill No. 2 used steam heat and water power 

like Mill No. 1, but lighting was provided by kerosene rather than lard oil. In between Mill No. 1 (400 

feet to the east) and Mill No. 2 (300 feet to the west), 

the machine shop was also next to the iron flume 

and utilized an exposed wheel for power. Two storage sheds flanked the machine shop to the east and 

west, and the superintendent’s office stood on the 

hill just above the machine shop.

Laurel Mills Manufacturing Company. After being 

destroyed in 1864, Ivy Mill at the mouth of Big Creek 

was reborn as Laurel Mills around 1871, when the 

old mill dam was rebuilt and another mill building 

was constructed adjacent to the ruined foundations 

of Ivy Mill.46 Laurel Mills Manufacturing Company, 

which operated a mill at Lebanon upstream from 

Big Creek, applied for incorporation in 1873, and a 

charter was granted in 1877. Barrington King’s son 

James, part owner of the original Ivy Mill with his 

brother Thomas, acquired his deceased brother 

Thomas’s remaining interest in the mill in 1874 and 

appears to have been one of the principal shareholders in the venture. Like its predecessor Ivy Mill, 

Laurel Mills was also loosely tied to but a separate 

entity from the Roswell Manufacturing Company.47

The 1880 Census supplement on water power provides the best known description of the Laurel Mills 

complex at the close of the 1870s:

The lowest mill belongs to the Laurel Mills 

Manufacturing Company. . . running 2 set of 

cards of woolen goods, jeans, tweeds, and 

linseys. Water is brought several hundred feet in 

a canal and wooden flume to the factory, 

furnishing power on the way to a small flouring 

mill. At the woolen factory a 60 horse- power 

wheel is used, with a fall of 19 feet. No trouble is 

experienced from low or back water. This 

privilege was formerly improved by a framed 

dam, but in 1871 this was in a manner replaced, at 

an expense of $5,000, by one of dry stone, 

cemented, however, on the face. The stone is laid 

in and upon the old dam without removing that 

structure. The new dam is 200 feet long and 18 

feet high, with a width of 26 feet at the base. 

During the heavy March [1881] freshet already 

mentioned, water worked around one abutment 

and carried it and the bulkhead away though the 

main portion of the dam was not injured.48

The 1881 flood that damaged the Laurel Mills dam 

also damaged the upstream dam (or dams) of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company, but did not stop 

production.49

The 1885 Sanborn maps showed the Laurel Mills 

woolen mill south of, and adjacent to, the foundation of the Ivy Mill building destroyed in 1864. A 

millrace and wooden flume conveyed water around 

the west end of the new mill to a wheel house, after 

which the water was discharged via a tailrace 

directly into the Chattahoochee River, fewer than 

100 feet to the southwest. The three- story woolen 

mill utilized the first floor for picking and carding 

and the second floor for shearing, while the third 

floor housed the spinning “mules” or looms. A small 

store and warehouse stood along the wagon road 

northwest of the main mill fewer than 200 feet away. 

North of the main mill was a dye house with a drying shed, boiler, and cistern. Laurel Mills was powered exclusively with water but heated with steam 

and illuminated with kerosene lamps. 

In 1886, the company upgraded machinery and to 

gain the power that the new machinery required, a 

new waterwheel was installed. A new dam was also 

46. Dwight Porter, “Report on the Water-Power of the 

Eastern Gulf Slope,” in Department of the Interior, 

Census Office, Reports of the Water-Power of the 

United States, Tenth Census, Vol. 16 (Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1885), 27 (865).

47. State of Georgia 1877: 207-8 (Laurel Mill Articles of 

Incorporation).

48. Porter, “Report on the Water-Power,” 27. 

49. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 15.
National Park Service 51

constructed a considerable distance upstream from 

the original dam, which increased the flow or 

“head” in the millrace during peak production periods.

Marietta Paper Company. After the Civil War, the 

board of directors of the Marietta Paper Company 

set about reconstructing their paper mill on Sope 

Creek. Jefferson Land returned to the Marietta 

vicinity after service in the Confederate army, and 

although he originally found employment at 

another paper mill,50 he is believed to have participated in the reconstruction of the mill at Sope 

Creek. The mill is known to have been back in 

operation in September 1868 when The Marietta 

Journal printed the following announcement 

regarding the Marietta Paper Company:

Not only will they pay off indebtedness and 

rescue the Mill from the pressure caused by the 

disasters of the war, but make this enterprise one 

of the most important interests in which our 

whole section is interested – as a branch of 

productive industry. The paper now being made 

on a large scale and shown to us by Mr. Faw is 

unquestionably equal to the best news paper 

manufactured and is sold at comparably low 

prices.

Then, just as the paper mill was getting back to full 

capacity, a fire destroyed part of the mill on the 

morning of November 7, 1870. The Marietta Journal

reported on November 11, 1870:

The Marietta Paper Mill was partially destroyed 

by fire on last Monday morning. One of the 

employees went into the front building, where 

was stored raw material, and in an endeavor to 

draw some oil, the lighted candle he had with 

him by some means came in contact with the oil 

and instantly caught fire, the flames spreading 

with such rapidity throughout the building that 

he barely made his escape from the burning 

interior. Only the front building was burned – 

the lower building with most of the machinery, 

was but slightly damaged.

The report is not clear about which structure was 

burned, although it appears to have been the freestanding storehouse on the small road that bisected 

the complex opposite the north end of the mill. If 

so, the damage caused by the fire might not have 

been catastrophic, but it is not known whether the 

fire was serious enough to slow or stop production. 

In any case, the mill was producing paper and 

advertising for clients just four months later in 

March 1871.

Still, the mill struggled financially, and when a 

financial panic in 1873 precipitated a major depression, the debt of rebuilding following the war and 

the fire sent the company into bankruptcy. On 

November 4, 1873, the mill complex was sold at 

public auction to James R. Brown of Cherokee 

County and, the following year, was reorganized as 

the Marietta Paper Manufacturing Company. 

Stockholders included Georgia’s war- time governor Joseph E. Brown, H.M. Hammett, A.S. 

Edmondston, Saxon A. Anderson, Enoch Faw, C.D. 

Phillips, and James R. Brown. In 1880 the mill was 

capitalized at $25,000 and annual production was 

valued at $25,500.51

The Marietta Paper Manufacturing Company prospered thanks to two innovations by Jefferson Land. 

The first was to develop a more reliable and inexpensive source of pulp. Paper mills at the time generally used rags or hardwood trees and not pine for 

pulp. Although pine trees were more abundant than 

hardwoods, the high levels of resin in pine wood 

lowered paper quality, often causing odor and discoloration. Recognizing the rich potential in the 

abundant slash pines in the area, Land began investigating ways to remove resinous residues from pine 

pulp.52

Little is known of the particulars of the process 

Land developed, but by 1886, the company was 

moving forward with construction of a second mill 

on the west bank of Sope Creek just downstream 

from the bridge. This second mill, called both the 

“wood pulp mill” and “Mill No. 2,” was a two- story 

structure built using stone from the site. Set above a 

50. Chapman, 2.

51. Department of the Interior, Census Office, Report on 

the Manufactures of the United States at the Tenth 

Census (June 1, 1880), Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1883, 208. The Sope 

Creek mill was the only known mill in the county and 

the census record lists but one site in Cobb – this is 

presumed to be the Marietta Paper Company.

52. Whatever the particulars of Land’s process for 

removing resin from pulp, it was overshadowed by 

the process developed by Charles Herty some fifty 

years later. See article on Herty in J. McKeen and J. 

Cattell, American Men of Science: A Bibliographical 

Directory (New York, Science Press, 1938), 640.
52 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

half- basement, the building occupied a footprint 119 

feet by 63 feet. The mill used waterpower made 

possible by a small dam just upstream above the falls 

and the bridge, probably the same dam being utilized by the machine shop. 

By 1888 the Marietta Paper Manufacturing Company was producing the South’s first twine made of 

paper manufactured from pine pulp, which was the 

second of Land’s great contributions to the company. As the local paper reported:

One of the new industries in Cobb County is the 

manufacture of paper twine. Mr. S.A. Anderson 

has put in machinery at his paper mill for this 

purpose and is now turning out a good article of 

twine. The twine is put in balls and will no doubt 

find a ready sale.53

In developing this product, Land apparently visited 

a twine- making operation in Holyoke, Massachusetts, but was denied access to the factory. Land’s 

widow recalled in 1933:

On one occasion he went to Holyoke, 

Massachusetts, to learn how paper twine was 

made, but the manufacturers guarded their 

secret so closely that he was denied admittance 

to the factory. He wasn’t discouraged, though. 

He came home, started experimenting, and it 

wasn’t long before he had built a machine that 

would turn out as good paper twine twisted just 

as well as any on the market.54

She later elaborated on Land’s invention, providing 

insight into the process:

I wish you could have seen the contraption 

Jefferson got together. Literally out of nothing. 

You see, the pine paper had to be cut into narrow 

strips which were twisted uniformly while they 

were still wet. And if you think it’s easy to make a 

machine that will do that, why just try it! 

Jefferson couldn’t find any tubing small enough 

for his purpose until he went to the drug store in 

Marietta, and bought the smallest glass tubing 

they had in the place. He got together some big 

tin cans in which the paper could be coiled. The 

strips passed up through the drug store glass 

tubing to a thing that finished twisting the 

paper.55

There is little doubt that Land contributed to the 

company’s prosperity, but as the 19th century drew 

to a close, more efficient competitors and the mill’s 

remote location far from a railroad were reducing 

profits. Moreover, waterpower was by then being 

supplanted by steam engines and electricity, making 

it easier to place manufacturing near existing transportation and population centers. In 1894, Saxon 

Anderson, who still owned an interest in the Marietta Paper Manufacturing Company, purchased the 

Kennesaw Flouring Mills in Marietta, converted it 

to a paper mill, and began operations there on 

March 1, 1885. The original plan was to keep both 

mills in operation, but a fire at the main mill at Sope 

Creek led to its final closure in 1902. Following the 

mill’s closure, the site sat abandoned and deteriorating. The road remained open and the nearby 

covered bridge was maintained. The natural beauty, 

53. The Marietta Journal, June 28, 1888.

FIGURE 6. Ruins of the Marietta Paper 

Manufacturing Company’s mill at Sope Creek, 

1907. (Vanishing Georgia Collection, Georgia 

Department of Archives and History)

54. Chapman, 3.

55. Marguerite Steedman, “Sope Creek Mill Made 

History,” The Atlanta Journal (March 12, 1939), 11.
National Park Service 53

the scenic mill ruins, and the covered bridge now 

made it a popular picnic site. Industrial operation 

ceased on Sope Creek, although a small hydroelectric facility was placed upstream from the old paper 

mill in the 1920s, well beyond the boundary of the 

future recreation area.

Akers Mill/Banner Mills. The southernmost industrial site in the study area is on Rottenwood Creek in 

the Palisades Unit, just southeast of the interchange 

of Interstate 75 and Interstate 285. In recent years, 

construction of an interchange between I- 75 and 

Akers Mill Road included an access road along the 

south bank of Rottenwood Creek very near the mill 

ruins, which sit at the base of a low bluff amid rugged terrain. Today, the creek’s value as an industrial 

site is difficult to appreciate, given its sluggish flow 

between the site and the river. Above the site, however, and evident on a topographic map, the creek 

falls through a characteristic kink in the stream valley which made this site more typical of a Piedmont 

mill site than the uncharacteristically steep grade for 

most of the lower runs of Big and Sope Creeks.

The Akers brothers may have had a grist mill on 

Rottenwood Creek even before the Civil War; if not, 

their mill was in operation by the 1870s. In the late 

1870s, they built a second mill for flour production 

just downstream from the grist mill, which only 

produced corn meal, and renamed the complex 

Banner Mills. Both mills were wood- framed buildings set on rock piers. In March 1880, when The

Marietta Journal ran an article titled “A Worthy 

Enterprise,” the flour mill had recently been redesigned and was considered progressive for the 

South. The improved design allowed the mill to 

produce a barrel of flour out of 39 pounds of wheat 

whereas the older system required 43 pounds. In 

addition to this sizable increase in efficiency, the 

new mill also used a series of graduated stones to 

produce different- sized millings. In addition to 

producing different grades of flour, multiple stones 

allowed the stones to stay cool. The older system 

used uniform stones that ground the grain continually until it was reduced to flour, but the stones 

would often heat up in the process, “killing” the 

flour and ruining its taste. The Marietta Journal

described the new process:

Our attention was first directed to the operation 

of cleaning the wheat, a thing which all of our 

mills of the plan do very imperfectly. The wheat 

first passes through a rolling screen or sieve, 

then through a rolling machine, is thence carried 

by the elevators to the top of the building, and let 

fall a distance of forty feet through a “drop,” in 

which are arranged, in a spiral zigzag, perforated 

sheet iron plates, and finally through a 

decorticating or brush machine. The wheat, now 

being entirely free from dust and other 

impurities, is carried to the “French burrs” forty 

two inch mill- stones, four in number. It is first 

cracked, or ground into “chop,” which then 

passes to a set of bolting reels, the work of which 

is to separate the bran from the middlings. These 

middlings next pass into a machine called 

“purifiers” in which the impurities lighter than 

the farina are removed by means of an air blast. 

The “purified” middlings pass to a millstone 

below and are reground, pass through another 

set of bolting reels and come out as two different 

grades of flour. Six reels, three purifiers, and two 

bran dusters do the work of cleaning the flour. 

“You see,” remarked Mr. Welch, “that by the 

gradual reduction of the wheat to flour, the 

effects of [too] great heating are avoided, the 

flour is not killed in the process of grinding, but 

is left in the miller’s term the live state.”56

Banner Mills, powered by a 36- inch turbine driving 

an 80- horsepower engine for use when water flow 

was inadequate, was reportedly able to produce 200 

barrels of wheat and 1,500 bushels of cornmeal per 

day.57 The article also mentions that the surrounding “hills, which were only a few years ago the hiding place of wild game of the woods, are now 

adorned with rich harvests.”58 Presumably at least 

some of that harvest would be ground at the mill.

The City of 

Atlanta

The growth of the City of Atlanta after the Civil War 

was phenomenal. From a population of less than 

22,000 in 1870, the city grew to over 37,000 in 1880, 

which put it among the nation’s 50 largest cities and 

made it the largest city between Richmond and New 

Orleans. By 1890, Atlanta’s population was over 

65,000, and by 1900 there were nearly 90,000 people within the city limits, with another 27,000 in 

surrounding Fulton County. While the river corridor would not be significantly affected by suburban 

56. “A Worthy Enterprise,” Marietta Journal, March 

25,1880.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.
54 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

growth until after World War II, the city began 

depending on the river for water long before that.

When Atlanta built its first municipal water system 

in 1875, it drew water from the South River, a tributary of the Ocmulgee River, and stored it in a large 

reservoir at what became known as Lakewood Park 

in southeast Atlanta. By the 1890s, it was clear that 

the city’s rapid growth was outstripping this supply 

of water, and the city turned to the Chattahoochee 

River. In 1892- 1893, the city built a new pumping 

station and a 55- acre reservoir on the crest of a hill 

on Howell Mill Road northwest of the city. Intake 

for the system was in the Chattahoochee River near 

the mouth of Peachtree Creek.

Until after World War I, Atlanta as well as Gainesville and the other cities around the study area that 

had sewer systems piped untreated sewage directly 

into the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries. 

Large septic tanks, first developed in the 1860s, 

allowed solids to settle, but the effluvia was left 

untreated on the widely held belief that running 

water purified itself. Repeated outbreaks of typhoid 

and cholera soon disabused people of that notion, 

but not until 1917 did Atlanta start chlorinating the 

water it drew from the Chattahoochee River.

The 20th Century

At the dawn of the 20th century, except in the small 

industrial areas along the lower reaches of Big 

Creek, Sope Creek, and Rottenwood Creek, the 

study area remained a mostly rural, agricultural 

environment characterized by dirt roads, covered 

bridges, and ferries. On the bluffs and uplands 

above the river, wood- framed and log farm houses 

sat amid outbuildings, surrounded by agricultural 

fields and pastures. Periodic flooding still replenished the fertility of the river bottom, which 

remained some of the area’s most desirable agricultural land. The river’s capacity to generate hydroelectric power was tapped in the early 20th century 

by a dam at Morgan Falls, but not until the completion of Buford Dam in 1956 did the risk of flooding 

in the corridor wane. Occasional use of the river 

corridor for summer retreats began in the early 20th 

century, and in the years after World War II, 

Atlanta’s suburbs began spilling into the study area. 

By 1960, the river corridor was already beginning to 

be threatened by residential construction in and 

along the river’s flood plain in Cobb, Fulton, and 

Gwinnett Counties.

Transportation in the New Century

Prior to World War I, local travel in the study area 

was by non- motorized vehicles, horseback, or on 

foot over the network of unpaved roads that crisscrossed the region. Depending on location, the railroads provided connections to Atlanta and elsewhere, but these were little used in the study area as 

a whole. After World War I, the nation’s transportation system was transformed by the automobile.

Bridges and Ferries. Wooden bridges continued to 

be built, but by the early 1900s, steel- truss bridges 

were replacing fords and ferries at various historic 

river crossings, and several of these survive in the 

study area. Among the earliest is the bridge that the 

Cotton States Bridge Company built at Pace’s Ferry 

in 1903. A modern concrete bridge was built adjacent to the old bridge in the 1970s, but the Pace’s 

Ferry bridge remains intact as a pedestrian thoroughfare. Also around 1903, the Austin Brothers of 

Atlanta built a bridge at Power’s Ferry, and in 1906, 

the Roanoake (Va.) Bridge Company built an steeltruss bridge at Johnson’s Ferry. Neither of these 

bridges is extant. Further upstream and crossing 

between Gwinnett and Fulton Counties, Jones 

Bridge and Rogers Bridge, like the earlier Settles 

Bridge, are both steel- framed bridges constructed 

in the early 1900s, and although no longer in use, 

remnants of these bridges survive.

Jones Bridge, using a camel- back adaptation of the 

Pratt truss, was constructed in 1904 to replace the 

old Jones or Martins Ferry. It was operated by both 

Gwinnett and Milton (now north Fulton) Counties 

as a toll bridge until the free bridge constructed by 

the state upstream in 1922 rendered Jones Bridge 

obsolete. The bridge continued to be used by local 

residents, but with neither county willing to accept 

the maintenance costs, the floor boards soon rotted 

away. During World War II, the spans on the Gwinnett County side were disassembled and stolen, 

presumably to obtain the steel made valuable by 

wartime shortages. Today, only the trusses on the 

Fulton County side remain. The last documented 

steel- truss bridge from the early 1900s was built at 

Rogers Ferry, the site of one of the area’s oldest ferries. Operated by two mixed- blood Cherokee, 

Rogers Ferry was a focus of the Indians’ losing effort 
National Park Service 55

to sustain their rights within the country’s legal system in the late 1830s.

The rapid increase of automobiles in the early 20th 

century brought a renewed interest in good roads 

and bridges. Federal aid to states for improved 

highways, authorized in 1916, prompted Georgia to 

create the State Highway Commission, which soon 

became a rich source of patronage and a focus of 

political power. The nation’s entry into World War I 

in the spring of 1917, post- war economic turmoil, 

and a corrupt highway department slowed road 

building in the area, but road construction went into 

high gear in the 1920s.

In 1922, the state built its first bridge across the 

Chattahoochee River in the study area on what is 

now called State Bridge Road, and two years later 

replaced the old wooden covered bridge on Roswell 

Road with a modern concrete- arch bridge. Toll 

free, these and other state- built bridges soon led to 

the abandonment of toll bridges like Jones Bridge. 

By 1940, there were at least thirteen toll- free bridges 

spanning the river from Fulton County.

Although steel- truss bridges continued to be built 

after World War I, reinforced concrete and steel 

girders soon supplanted steel trusses as the preferred building method. The oldest surviving concrete river bridges in the study area are the Roswell 

Road Bridge (1924) and the U. S. 41 bridge (1935), the 

latter constructed as part of the State’s first fourlane highway. The Cumming- Buford Highway 

(Hwy. 20) bridge was built in 1946, and is a good 

example of early post- WWII bridge- building technology. Abbott’s Bridge (1960) and the McGinnis 

Ferry bridge (1965) are also reinforced- concrete, 

but later bridges including the one at Johnson’s 

Ferry (1969) used pre- stressed reinforced concrete, 

precast off- site. By World War II, bridges across the 

Chattahoochee had supplanted most of the ferries, 

although one or two continued to operate for local 

traffic into the 1960s. Many of the old ferry names 

survive in modern- day thoroughfares throughout 

the study area.

Roads. Private and corporate efforts to promote a 

national system of improved highways suitable for 

automobile traffic included establishment of the 

Dixie Highway, which was begun in 1915. By the time 

a national system of numbered highways was established in 1926, the Dixie Highway was complete 

from Indianapolis to Miami. Designated U. S. 41, the 

Dixie Highway originally passed through the towns 

FIGURE 7. A postcard view of the state’s first four-lane highway, now U. S. 41, around 

1950. (Jody Cook Postcard Collection)
56 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

of Marietta and Smyrna before crossing the Chattahoochee River at Bolton just south of the study area. 

It was the first paved road into Atlanta from outside 

the state and spurred development of an industry of 

tourist camps, motels, restaurants, and service stations that were the predecessors of the modern 

hotel chains lining its modern- day counterpart, 

Interstate 75.

In the late 1930s, the state constructed its first “dualized” (i.e., four- lane) highway, which crossed the 

river in what is now the park’s Paces Mill Unit and 

connected Atlanta and Marietta. When the highway 

was completed in 1939, it was designated as the new 

route for U.S. 41, and its existence was a major factor 

in the Bell Aircraft Corporation’s decision to locate 

its bomber production plant at Marietta.59 Although 

the roadway has been greatly altered, the bridge 

itself has been little altered and remains an historically significant feature.

With the exception of the Dixie Highway, the new 

U.S. 41, and Roswell Road, nearly all of the local 

roads in the study area remained unpaved until after 

World War II. In addition, as the region’s agricultural economy contracted in the first half of the 20th 

century, bridges were washed out and not replaced 

and many local farm roads throughout the study 

area, like the one that ran from Hyde Farm past the 

George Power House and on to Johnson’s Ferry, 

were simply abandoned for much of their length.

Interstate Highways. The final component of the 

study area’s transportation infrastructure that had a 

major impact on the river corridor was the system of 

four- lane, limited- access, divided highways that the 

State began constructing around Atlanta in 1949. 

This original system of “expressways,” as these 

highways were first called, was incorporated into the 

Federal Interstate and Defense Highway system that 

Congress authorized in 1956. Two of these Interstate 

highways, 75 and 285, have had a major impact on 

the study area.

The first of these highways to be completed through 

the study area was Interstate 285, which was 

designed as a perimeter highway to allow travelers 

to bypass the congestion of downtown Atlanta, 

where three Interstate highways (20, 75, and 85) 

converged. Generally twelve to fifteen miles from 

59. “Bell Bomber,” New Georgia Encyclopedia, accessed 

at http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/

Article.jsp?id=h-1014, September 12, 2006.

FIGURE 8. One of the several “tourist courts” that were built along U. S. 41 near the study 

area in the late 1930s and 1940s. (Jody Cook Postcard Collection)
National Park Service 57

the city’s center at Five Points, Interstate 285, or 

simply “the Perimeter” as it is called today, bounds 

the south end of the CRNRA’s Cochran Shoals Unit 

and crosses the river near the site of James Power’s 

Ferry. Construction began in 1957 at Interstate 85 

northeast of downtown and was completed to 

Interstate 75 northwest of downtown in 1964. The 

entire perimeter highway was not completed until 

the fall of 1969.

Like Interstate 285, Interstate 75, which parallels the 

route of the old Dixie Highway, was built in stages, 

beginning in the late 1950s. Construction included a 

new bridge across the Chattahoochee just north of 

where U. S. 41 bridged the river in the 1930s. Widened in the 1980s, the bridge is a major intrusion in 

the Palisades Unit of the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area. The last segment of 

Interstate 75, north of Marietta, was completed in 

1977.

As had the railroads, the Interstates brought considerable growth and development. Metropolitan 

Atlanta grew from a five- county area (Fulton, 

DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett) with a population of nearly 560,000 in 1940 to a 20- county 

area with a population of 3,748,050 in 1998.60 After 

the 2000 census, the metropolitan area was 

expanded to encompass 28 counties, which by 2005 

had a combined population of over 5,000,000. In 

addition, after declining for most of three decades, 

the population of the city proper began to increase 

in the 1990s and was estimated at just over 470,000 

in 2005. Coming with this tremendous growth has 

been rampant suburban sprawl that has left little of 

the study area untouched and obliterated much evidence of the area’s rich history.

Agriculture in the 20th Century

The new century seemed to promise a new day for 

farmers. Shortly before 1900, market prices for most 

agricultural staples began to climb. Though economists disagree on the exact reason for the turnaround, several factors including depressed 

production, the Spanish- American War, and a population boom in North America appear to have 

contributed to the nation’s relative prosperity and 

explosive growth. Between 1899 and 1919, Georgia’s 

economy was bolstered by an increase in the value 

of farm production from $107 million to nearly $638 

million,61 with the vast majority of that income the 

result of a marked increase in the value of cotton.

Cotton production in the study area increased over 

30 percent in the first decade of the 20th century, 

and increased 50 percent beyond that between 1910 

and 1920.62 With more cotton came more sharecropping, and by 1910 over half of the farmers 

involved with cotton production in the study area 

were sharecroppers, a marked contrast with 1880 

when only a little more than a third were sharecroppers. In addition, 80 percent of them were white. 

The number of sharecroppers continued to rise 

during World War I, while there were only half as 

many tenant farmers in 1920 as there had been in 

1910. Few farmers in the study area owned their own 

farms.

Typically, cotton was cultivated to the neglect of 

other crops, especially when prices were high. By 

1910, wheat and hog production in the study area 

had fallen by a third while tobacco production fell 

by half. Still, the production of corn, sweet potatoes, 

and milk all increased, and poultry and egg production remained high, reflecting the major impact the 

Atlanta market had on agricultural production in 

the study area. Statewide, however, the 1913 USDA 

Yearbook claimed that in 1910 the “average Georgia 

farm produced 2/3 pints of milk, 2 eggs and 2/3 of an 

ounce of butter a week, and 1/3 a hog, 1/12 a beef, 

and 1/100 sheep per year.”63 Clearly, the call for 

diversification of agriculture was not heeded, and 

Georgia farms still were not producing anywhere 

near enough food to feed Georgia farmers.

Georgia posted record cotton crops in 1914 and 1916, 

just as the boll weevil began to appear in fields in 

southwest Georgia. First appearing in Texas in 1894, 

the boll weevil infested cotton fields in a steady 

march eastward across the South, devastating crops 

in spite of frantic attempts to stop its spread. The 

effects were relatively small until 1919 when statewide cotton production fell as much as 45 percent. 

From a normal crop of perhaps 2,000,000 pounds, 

60. DEMOGRAPHIA, US Metropolitan Areas: Population 

from 1900, http://www.demographia.com/dbxusmet.htm.

61. Range, 171.

62. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the 

Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken 

in the year 1910, Vol. 6, Agriculture (Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1913), 332-35, 346-

49, 360-63.

63. Range, 183.
58 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

the state’s production fell to less than 600,000 in 

1923. 64

Progress was made in controlling the boll weevil, 

but at the same time, cotton production was shifting 

west. New machinery made cotton production in 

the large, flat fields of the Mississippi Valley and 

beyond far more efficient than was ever possible 

using traditional methods in the smaller fields of the 

upland South. Prices were soon so low that it was no 

longer profitable to cultivate cotton in those areas at 

all. The collapse of the agricultural economy precipitated foreclosures and abandoned farms all 

across the region. At the same time, the deteriorating farm economy gave added impetus to the 

“Detroit exodus” as thousands of black laborers fled 

Jim Crow and abysmal wages for the new assembly 

plants and opportunities for a better life in the factories in the North. As a result, homesteads were 

abandoned, tenant houses fell into ruin, fields grew 

up in broom sedge and pine, uncontrolled erosion 

ruined fields, and there was a steady depopulation 

of the countryside. Some continued to eke out a living off the land, but even with improved technology 

and large crops, nobody prospered. With the 

South’s farm economy already in depression, the 

stock market crash in 1929 and the onset of the 

Great Depression marked the end for King Cotton 

and the beginning of profound and sweeping 

changes.

Early government efforts to control cotton production and encourage diversification in other crops 

began in 1917 but were largely fruitless until the New 

Deal. Cotton production declined precipitously in 

the decades between the world wars. In Gwinnett 

County, where the majority of the area’s cotton was 

cultivated, production fell from 30,771 bales in 1920, 

to 25,984 in 1930, to 12,596 in 1940.65 Still, the 1930 

census66 shows that, in spite of severe market 

depression, production was greater than it had been 

in 1910 before it peaked in 1915- 1916 but still 15 percent lower than the total reported in 1920. Wheat 

production fell, too, as did sweet potato and corn, 

the latter reaching production levels not seen since 

before the Civil War.

Cotton production in the study area continued to 

fall after World War II with only 850 bales reported 

in 1965 before it disappeared altogether from the 

modern landscape. Though farm populations continued to slowly grow in the decades following the 

Great Depression, the total value of farms in Gwinnett in 1920, which was $20,114,725, was not matched 

again until the early 1960s.67

In 1944 Gwinnett produced 323,643 bushels of corn, 

only 9,930 bales of cotton, and no wheat. Between 

1944 and 1954, the value of the county’s agricultural 

production increased twofold while the percentage 

of the total accounted for by field crops fell from 

69.8 percent in 1944 to 17.7 percent in 1954 and less 

than 4.1 percent in 1964. During the same period, the 

value of livestock and livestock products increased 

from $587,161 in 1944 to $3,713,870 in 1954 and then 

almost doubled again a decade later to $6,571,733, 

which accounted for 94.9 percent of the county’s 

agricultural value. Chickens and cattle cotton and 

corn, with poultry and poultry products alone 

accounting for 85.7 percent of the county’s agricultural value in 1964. With the rise in cattle and poultry production, much old farm land was left 

untended or replanted in trees so that the amount of 

open farm land fell from 83,244 acres (slightly 

greater than the 80,799 in 1920) to only 9,542 in 

1964.68 By then farming and ranching in the study 

area were on the wane as land was taken out of cultivation as Atlanta’s suburban development began to 

move into the county.

Industry in the 20th Century

The development of large- scale industrial mills like 

those along the Chattahoochee River between West 

Point and Columbus and those in the Carolina 

Piedmont made it difficult for many smaller mills, 

like those in the study area, to compete.

Roswell Manufacturing Company. The Roswell 

Manufacturing Company did better than most in 

meeting the challenges of a new century, but it did 

so only by adapting and making constant improvements. Richard Coleman, in his short history of the 

Roswell mills, reports that in 1898 Mill No. 1 added 

steam power and Mill No. 2 added electric lights. 69

64. Range, 172-173. The 1900, 1905, and 1924 Sanborn maps corroborate 

65. Georgia Crop Reporting Service, Gwinnett County 

Farm Statistics: 1900 –1966, 2.

66. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 

1930, Agriculture, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1932), 566, 568, 580-81.

67. Ibid., 1.

68. Ibid., 3.

69. Coleman, “A Short History of The Roswell 

Manufacturing Company,” 13.
National Park Service 59

this, noting that the mills were powered by both 

water and steam and that both mills were outfitted 

with engine rooms by 1900. Around the same time, 

two 400- horsepower vertical Holyoke turbines 

replaced the earlier turbine at Mill No. 1. Coleman 

also notes that water- powered electrical generators 

were installed in 1911 in both mills.

In 1926, Mill No. 1 was struck by lightning and the 

resulting blaze destroyed the main factory building, 

the picker house, and a warehouse. In response to 

the loss, the company decided to expand Mill No. 2 

using materials salvaged from the defunct woolen 

factory.70 Several other small additions and a new 

dye house were constructed at Mill No. 2 before 

1930. Georgia Power Company ran a line to the 

plant in 1928, and the old water- powered generators and the races were abandoned. The mill operated infrequently during the Great Depression, and 

the blacksmith shop, no longer needed as trucks and 

tractors replaced mules and horses, was torn down 

by workers who wanted the bricks for their homes.

In 1947, Southern Mills purchased the mill, replaced 

the machinery, and continued operations.71 During 

its final thirty years of operation, the capacity of the 

mills steadily declined, but it continued to produce 

yarn, cloth, laundry netting, and carpet backing 

until the mill was closed in 1975. Most of the old 

machinery was sold for scrap at that time, with the 

exception of the heavy shop machinery, which was 

moved to the compressor room.72 In the 1980s the 

City of Roswell acquired and renovated the mill for 

use as retail space and as a component of a pedestrian mall. The structure was listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1974 as a contributing 

element of the Roswell Historic District

Laurel Mills Manufacturing Company. In 1900, 

Laurel Mills operated 67 looms and was capitalized 

at $55,000.73 By 1905 a small cotton house was 

added between the existing factory and dye house, 

and the wagon road to the west of the complex was 

improved and widened. Before World War I, an 

additional warehouse and storage facilities were 

constructed along with a new water- powered 

picker house and freestanding restroom facilities. 

The main factory was enlarged by the addition of a 

new carding room on the east side of the mill and a 

new engine room on the north side. 

Because of the mill’s location close to the river, the 

completion of Morgan Falls Dam in 1905 (see 

below) may have affected the operation of the 

mill.74 Backwater from Bull Sluice Lake behind the 

dam appears to have affected water levels in the 

tailrace, which acted to reduce the head and effectiveness of the turbine. In high water conditions, the 

lake could back up into the turbine housing and foul 

it with sediment and debris.

By 1917 Laurel Mills was no longer a viable operation. Reduced water power and the wartime economy were likely the two primary causes. The March 

1, 1917, Cobb County Times reported that the Atlanta 

Woolen Mills Manufacturing Company had purchased and moved the machinery from the Laurel 

Mills woolen factory. In 1924, the Sanborn Fire 

Insurance Company’s map showed Laurel Mills’ 

buildings as vacant. The entire site has since fallen 

into ruins.

Hydroelectric Power

Although electric arc lights were being used on a 

limited basis as early as the 1820s, the age of electricity did not really begin until the last quarter of 

the 19th century when Thomas Edison’s light bulb 

and other inventions demonstrated the practicality 

of its use for a variety of purposes. Commercial 

power generation began in the fall of 1882 when 

Edison’s Pearl Street power plant began operation 

in lower Manhattan. That same year the first hydroelectric plant went into operation at Appleton, Wisconsin. The huge coal- fired dynamos that were 

necessary to generate enough electricity to operate 

street cars and heavy industry led to continued 

improvements in turbines for hydropower, and in 

1895 the first large- scale hydroelectric plant was 

placed in service at Niagara Falls, New York.

Electrical service came to the Atlanta area in 1884 

when the Georgia Electric Light Company began 

generating electricity. In 1889 Joel Hurt’s Atlanta and 

Edgewood Street Railway Company began operating the first electric streetcars in the city, which were 

also among the first in the country. Competing lines 

quickly sprang up, including a streetcar line that ran 

to the Chattahoochee River at Bolton and eventu- 70. Ibid., 13-14.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. Braely, Wood, and Price, 17. 74. Ibid., 18
60 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

ally on to Marietta. In the late 1890s, a fierce battle 

erupted between Hurt and Henry Y. Atkinson, 

president of the Georgia Electric Light Company, 

for control of the city’s streetcar lines and electrical 

generators. Atkinson won that battle, establishing a 

company that was the predecessor of the modern 

Georgia Power Company.

Morgan Falls. As Hurt and Atkinson’s battle for 

control of the city’s nascent electrical industry was 

heating up in 1898, a former Moravian minister 

named S. Morgan Smith returned to his native South 

to find a location to build a hydroelectric plant. 

Smith was born in Davie County, North Carolina, 

but moved to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in 1859 to 

attend seminary. After service as a chaplain in the 

Union army early in the Civil War, he became pastor 

of the Moravian Church in York, Pennsylvania. He 

later was pastor at the Moravian Church in Dover, 

Ohio, but a throat ailment forced him to abandon 

preaching in 1871. Mechanically inclined, he 

returned to York and acquired a small foundry and 

machine shop that made farm machinery and, more 

importantly, waterwheels. In 1874, he founded the 

York Manufacturing Company and began production of washing machines and later ice makers and 

air- conditioners.75

The York Manufacturing Company ran into financial trouble as a result of the Panic of 1873, and Smith 

lost a large sum of money. In 1877, he formed the S. 

Morgan Smith Company and began making turbines, delivering his first in 1877. Because his design 

worked well even at low flow, Smith’s turbines 

quickly gained popularity among grist millers in 

eastern Pennsylvania.76 His company became one of 

the primary manufacturers of turbines for grist and 

textile mills in the country.

The development of hydroelectric power in the 

1880s gave Smith a natural avenue for expansion, 

and in 1895, Smith’s turbines were first used in a 

FIGURE 9. View east of construction of Morgan Falls dam and power plant, c. 1903. (Vanishing 

Georgia Collection, Georgia Department of Archives and History)

75. Wade H. Wright, History of the Georgia Power 

Company, 1855-1956 (Atlanta: Georgia Power, 1956), 

107-08.

76. James F. Crist, They Electrified the South: The Story of 

the Southern Electric System (N.p.: James F. Crist, 

1981), 25-26.
National Park Service 61

small hydroelectric facility in Wisconsin. That same 

year, technological advances made it possible to 

transmit high- voltage electricity over long distances, and the giant power plant at Niagara Falls 

went into operation.77

In 1898, Smith and a colleague George C. Smith (no 

relation) began investigating the possibility of a 

power plant at Bull Sluice Falls on the Chattahoochee just downstream from the famous Shallow 

Ford that had figured so prominently in early settlement. Morgan Smith was introduced to Joel Hurt, 

president of the Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway Company, who in turn introduced him to Jack 

Spalding, partner in one of Atlanta’s best- known 

law firms. It is thought that over dinner one evening, 

Smith, Hurt, Spalding, and Atlanta real- estate 

developer Forrest Adair drew up plans to develop 

the Bull Sluice site and organize the Atlanta Water 

and Electric Power Company. Smith provided the 

know- how and the turbines, Adair provided the 

land and water rights, Spalding provided legal services, and Hurt’s streetcar company provided the 

end consumer for all the power that could be generated.78

Construction on the dam at Bull Sluice Falls began 

in 1902 utilizing a special rail spur that was built 

from the Chamblee- Roswell railroad to transport 

materials to the construction site. When it was completed in 1904, the dam was 1031 feet long and 56 feet 

high, making it the largest dam in the southeastern 

United States. As Bull Sluice Lake filled, both the 

old falls and the Shallow Ford disappeared under its 

waters. The power plant itself was designed and 

built by Westinghouse, Church, Kerr, & Company 

and used seven turbines with an output of 10,500 

kilowatts.

Morgan Smith died in 1903 before the project was 

completed, but the board of directors of the Atlanta 

Water and Electric Power Company named the 

facility Morgan Falls Dam in his honor (Smith’s 

middle name, Morgan, was his mother’s maiden 

name and also the name by which he was known). 

When the plant began operation in 1904, its first and 

only customer was Henry Y. Atkinson’s newly 

formed Georgia Railway and Electric Company, 

which was incorporated after Atkinson acquired 

Hurt’s rival company in 1903. In 1911, Atkinson’s 

successor, Preston Arkwright, acquired Smith’s old 

company and combined it with the Georgia Railway 

and Electric Company which was reorganized again 

in the 1920s into the Georgia Power Company.79

In 1906 the original Ellicot water- wheel governors 

in the Morgan Falls plant were replaced by Lombard governors, and in 1922 the dam was upgraded 

with Francis horizontal turbines and larger penstocks. In 1924, the facility was upgraded with new 

turbines and the generators were rewired to 

increase production from 10,500 kilowatts to 15,000 

kilowatts.80 Two motorized trash rakes were 

installed in 1926.

The construction of Buford Dam (see below) 

resulted in additional modifications to Morgan Falls 

Dam. Like most hydroelectric facilities, Buford Dam 

generates electricity and discharges high volumes of 

water during the day to meet high daytime power 

demands. The discharge is much lower during 

evening and night hours. The resulting fluctuations 

in water level might have left an inadequate volume 

in the river to properly operate the Clayton Street 

Sewage Treatment Plant 48 miles downstream in 

Atlanta. But in 1959- 60, 16 spillway gates – called 

taintor gates – were added to the Morgan Falls Dam 

to raise the level of the reservoir another six feet and 

increase the reservoir’s capacity to 1,045 million gallons of water. The increased capacity at Bull Sluice 

Lake allowed the reservoir to absorb the crest from 

Buford Dam, and by regulating the discharge 

through Morgan Falls Dam, optimal water levels for 

operating the Clayton Street Sewage Treatment 

Plant could be maintained. Other work at that time 

included installation of a vertical lift trash gate, 

spillway piers, a spillway bridge, and hoisting 

equipment. Reinforced concrete walls were also 

added to the east and west abutments, and all turbines were either overhauled or replaced. The 

project was a public- private partnership between 

the City of Atlanta and Georgia Power, costing 

approximately $910,000.81

77. Wright, 107-08; Crist, 26-7.

78. Wright, 109.

79. New Georgia Encyclopedia, s.v. “Georgia Power 

Company/Southern Company,” <http://

www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h1879>, accessed November 9, 2005.

80. Wright, 183.

81. “Morgan Falls Dam Enlargement: A Joint Project to 

Regulate Flow of the Chattahoochee River” (City of 

Atlanta/Georgia Power, pamphlet, publication date 

unknown), unpaginated. 
62 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

In 1964- 65, the switch gear was modernized and the 

powerhouse upgraded. The downstream windows 

of the powerhouse were also bricked in at this time. 

The Morgan Falls facility is the oldest major hydroelectric plant in Georgia still operating substantially 

in its original form.82 The dam's current license 

from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) was issued in March of 1959, and expires in 

February 2009. Georgia Power has begun the 

required impact studies for re- licensing the dam for 

30 or 50 years.

Buford Dam. The development of Morgan Falls 

Dam signaled a new era for the Chattahoochee 

River. As metropolitan Atlanta grew, so did its 

demand for electricity, and by the 1930s it was clear 

that new sources of power were needed. In addition, the Morgan Falls Dam did nothing to control 

the floods that continued to periodically rampage 

down the Chattahoochee Valley. Finally, the city was 

increasingly dependent on the river for its drinking 

water. The response to these issues would have farreaching consequences for the Chattahoochee River 

and the entire region.

The Federal government had begun some dam 

building in the early 20th century, chiefly as an aid 

to navigation and for flood control. Beginning in the 

1920s, Columbus businessman James W. Woodruff, 

Sr., began an intense lobbying campaign for 

“improvements” to the river, chiefly to make his 

native Columbus competitive as a port city. Tireless 

in his efforts, Woodruff gained the moniker “Mr. 

Chattahoochee.” He was joined by long- time 

Atlanta mayor William B. Hartsfield, who recognized the river’s importance to Atlanta and was 

instrumental in incorporating a dam at Buford, 

Georgia, into Woodruff’s plan, which focused on 

the lower part of the Chattahoochee Valley.

Federal involvement with flood control really began 

after the disastrous Mississippi River flood of 1927, 

but it was the 1936 Flood Control Act that recognized flood control as a “proper activity of the Federal government in cooperation with the States.” 

The act, which coincided with disastrous flooding 

of the Ohio in 1936 and 1937, set the stage for a massive transformation of the Chattahoochee, from 

near its headwaters in the mountains of northeast 

Georgia all the way to the Florida border where it 

joins with the Flint River to form the Apalachicola 

River. Partly as a result of Woodruff’s work, a series 

of locks and dams were proposed that would aid 

shipping, improve flood control, generate hydroelectric power, and insure Atlanta’s supply of water.

In 1946, as part of a much larger plan for the nation’s 

rivers and harbors, Congress authorized construction of a dam on the upper Chattahoochee north of 

Atlanta. In 1949, Congress appropriated $750,000 to 

begin planning the new dam, and ground was broken on the Gwinnett County side of the site on 

March 1, 1950. Completed at a cost of $45,000,000, 

the dam impounded a 38,000- acre reservoir after 

the sluice gates were closed in February 1956. Buford 

Dam was dedicated in October 1957, but not until 

May 1959 did the lake reach full pool at 1070 feet 

above sea level. The lake, which quickly became a 

popular recreation area, was named in honor of 

native- son Sidney Lanier, who had paid tribute to 

the river with his poem “Song of the Chattahoochee.”

Although outside the authorized boundaries of the 

National Recreation Area, Buford Dam and Lake 

Lanier have had a profound impact on the entire 

region. Flooding has been virtually eliminated, of 

course, but there have been unintended consequences that continue to shape the river corridor. In 

particular, the rapid fluctuations in the river’s level 

as waters are periodically discharged for power 

generation have led to erosion in some areas and 

can have a negative impact on flora and fauna in the 

riparian zone. The fluctuations also negatively affect 

recreational use of the river, although the cold water 

issuing from the bottom of the lake through the 

spillways has also created an environment that supports recreational trout fishing, something not otherwise possible in Piedmont rivers.

Suburban Development

With expanding use of the automobile after World 

War I, a few people began building year- round residences near the river while commuting to jobs in 

downtown Atlanta. One of these is the Collins- Yardum house in the park’s Palisades (East) Unit. Built 

about 1936, it is a single- family stone bungalow, with 

elements of the Craftsman style. A nearby servant’s 

82. Georgia Power Company, “Morgan Falls Hydro 

Electric Plant,” on-line brochure, 

<www.southernco.com/gapower/about/pdf/

morgan%20falls%20brochure.pdf>; telephone 

conversation with Wayne Hardy, plant manager, 

August 5, 2005; email correspondence with Lynn 

Speno, Georgia Power archivist, August 9, 2005.
National Park Service 63

house has disappeared. There is no additional documentation for the building.

Roswell, too, began to attract a few Atlantans, 

drawn in part by the town’s historic architecture. 

The noted architect Neel Reid moved to Roswell in 

1918 and renovated Mimosa Hall, one of the town’s 

most significant landmarks. He continued to work 

in the town until his untimely death in 1926.

In 1932, Barnett Allen Bell, an attorney with the 

Georgia Power Company, bought the old brick 

house on S. Atlanta Street that had been built by 

James King in the 1850s. Rented for many years, it 

was in poor condition, and rechristening it “Allenbrook,” Bell and his wife Agnes rehabilitated and 

remodeled the house by adding a two- story porch 

to the front, replacing the main staircase, and making other alterations to the interior. By 1936, the 

Bells moved from their home in Peachtree Heights 

in north Atlanta and made Allenbrook their yearround residence. After her husband’s death, Mrs. 

Bell sold the property to the National Park Service 

in 1978.

The same year that the Bells acquired Allenbrook, 

modern- day Fulton County was taking shape. The 

ruinous economic conditions in the early 1930s 

drove neighboring Campbell and Milton Counties 

to bankruptcy. As a result, on January 1, 1932, both 

counties were merged with Fulton County. In May 

1932, Roswell precinct was ceded by Cobb County 

to Fulton County, creating the modern boundaries 

of Fulton County, which stretch some 70 miles with 

the Chattahoochee River forming the county’s 

western boundary south of Roswell as well as its 

boundary with Gwinnett County.

After World War II, suburban development around 

Atlanta increased dramatically and began to directly 

affect the study area. In 1952, Atlanta annexed 

Buckhead, Adams Park, Cascade, and Lakewood, 

tripling the city’s land area and adding 100,000 to its 

population. As a result, the Chattahoochee River 

between Sandy Springs and just north of I- 20 

became the city’s corporate limits on the west.

Although the city’s population continued to grow, 

reaching a peak of 497,000 in 1970, the 1952 annexation was the last significant expansion of the city’s 

boundaries. By the 1960s, racial tensions were adding fuel to the general exodus of white Atlantans 

from city to suburbs, a trend seen in almost every 

major city after World War II. Because of these tensions and other reasons, Atlanta was increasingly 

seen as a threat in Cobb and Gwinnett Counties. So 

fearful were some residents of Cobb County of the 

possibility that Atlanta might seek to expand into 

that county, in 1961, the city of Chattahoochee Plantation was incorporated. With boundaries that 

formed a long narrow rectangle bordering the 

Chattahoochee River opposite Atlanta’s corporate 

limits, the new “city” was meant to take advantage 

of State law that required annexed territory be contiguous with the city annexing the territory. No city 

government was ever organized, and in 1995 the city 

charter was revoked.

By the 1970s, subdivisions were sprawling across 

much of eastern Cobb County as well as the southern parts of Gwinnett County. Although idiosyncrasies of land owners kept some areas, such as 

Hyde Farm, from development, residential construction adjacent to the river was a primary impetus for creation of the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area in 1978.

Recreation

Recreational use of the river did not begin until the 

late 19th and early 20th centuries. Even then, except 

for local hunters and fishermen, it was mostly limited to parts of the study area that were accessible by 

railroad, particularly near Vinings and Roswell. 

After World War I, improved roads made automobile travel easier, and the steep, picturesque terrain 

that characterizes much of the river corridor began 

to attract Atlanta residents who built summer 

homes and year- round residences away from the 

heat and congestion of the city. Most of these were 

around Vinings, but there were isolated examples 

elsewhere.

A relatively late example of a hunting lodge or vacation cabin in the study area was the Barnwell Cabin, 

probably built shortly after World War II and 

located at what is now the Chattahoochee River 

Environmental Education Center. The small log 

house was on a parcel of land acquired by the 

National Park Service in 1985 and was used as a park 

ranger residence until 1994. All that remains today is 

a large, rustic- style stone chimney that originally 

dominated the cabin’s rear elevation and a few 

foundation blocks. Conversations with NPS 

employees suggest that the cabin was either a hunt-
64 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

ing lodge or a vacation home of an Atlanta dentist. 

Because the building was not eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places, it was 

demolished after 1999.83

Island Ford Lodge. Island Ford Lodge, the Chattahoochee River CRNRA headquarters, was originally 

built as a summer home.84 Samuel Dunbar Hewlett 

(1879- 1965) bought the land where the Lodge was 

constructed in 1925, but it was ten years before he 

began its construction. Hewlett, a prominent 

Atlanta attorney, served as chief of staff for Georgia 

Governor Eugene Talmadge during his first two 

terms as governor (1933- 1937), which may have 

delayed completion of the Lodge. In 1942, Talmadge 

appointed Hewlett to the State Supreme Court, but 

Hewlett served only a few months before resigning 

and returning to private practice. 

The Lodge was built by stone mason John Epps, 

who is thought to have lived on the property 

throughout the construction period. This may indicate the existence of an earlier house somewhere on 

the property. The stone for the foundation and 

chimneys was apparently quarried in a field near the 

river upstream from the Lodge, and its cypress logs 

were brought from property Hewlett owned in the 

Okeefenokee Swamp in south Georgia. Hewlett 

constructed a temporary railroad spur from the 

Roswell Railroad to transport the logs and other 

materials to the site. 

In 1950, Hewlett sold the Island Ford property to the 

Buckhead Century Club, a private club of which the 

Hewletts were members, but the Hewletts retained 

rights to an apartment in the southwest corner of 

the Lodge. In 1955, the club disbanded and the 

Lodge was sold to the Atlanta Baptist Assembly, and 

for the next twenty years, the property was used as a 

retreat and camp facility. The National Park Service 

took possession of the property in 1979, and in the 

early 1980s, rehabilitated the site for park headquarters.

Summer Camps and Retreats. The gradual abandonment of agriculture left large rural areas along 

the river corridor that were ideal for the development of other group camps and retreats. None were 

actually within the boundaries of the Chattahoochee River CRNRA, but visitors to these facilities commonly used the river and its resources for 

recreation. One of the best- known was Camp Burt 

Adams, established by the Boy Scouts just northeast 

of Vinings in the 1930s. Patronized by troops from 

all around the Atlanta area, it was demolished to 

make way for construction of Cumberland Mall in 

the early 1970s.

The Simpsonwood Conference and Retreat Center, 

adjacent to but not within the park’s boundaries, is 

situated on the east bank of the Chattahoochee 

between Holcomb Bridge Road and Jones Bridge 

Park. The 227- acre tract was deeded to the North 

Georgia Conference of the United Methodist 

Church in 1973 by Ludie Simpson, whose family 

farmed the area for years. Two large lodges and a 

conference center were constructed on the property 

in the 1970s. 

Modern-Day Outdoor Pursuits . The corridor 

today still appeals to a wide variety of outdoor 

enthusiasms: bird watching, boating, hiking, fishing, 

running, rock climbing, and picnicking, among others. As early as the mid- 1960s, research was undertaken to help determine whether, and how, the river 

corridor could benefit from development of tourism- based activities.85 A preliminary study in 1967 

noted that the Chattahoochee River Basin “has the 

resources available for development of a significant 

tourism business” and that there was a “generally 

promising future market for outdoor recreation 

enterprise as an employment source.”86

The study noted that tourists were drawn by three 

activity categories: aesthetic, physical enjoyment, 

and historical/cultural. Facilities for the last two categories were “generally underdeveloped” in 1967, 

the study noted, with attention needed to mitigate 

water pollution problems and “tumble- down 

buildings” that detracted from roadside views.87

The study also specifically cited the appeal of Civil 

War sites for tourism. 

83. Kirk Cordell letter to Raymond Luce, May 11, 1999, on 

file in the CHAT Determinations of Eligibility folder, 

National Register files, Cultural Resources branch.

84. Cultural Resources Division, SERO, Island Ford Lodge, 

Historic Structure Assessment Report (July 2000)

85. Georgia Institute of Technology, Economic 

Development Possibilities in the Chattahoochee River 

Basin (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Commerce: Economic Development Administration, 

1967), 86.

86. Ibid., 86-87.

87. Ibid., 98.
National Park Service 65

In the 1940s, the concept of whitewater as sport 

took hold in the Southeast, where river conditions 

are prime for such activity, when a few daring individuals began canoeing rapids. Not until the 1950s, 

however, did river- running gain popularity as a leisure activity.88 In the 1970s, clubs dedicated to 

whitewater rafting sprang up, especially after the 

1972 movie “Deliverance,” filmed on Georgia’s 

Chattooga and Tallulah Rivers.

Although the river through most of the study area 

might not have rapids to compete with the rivers in 

northeast Georgia, it was perfectly suited to a more 

leisurely style of rafting. In the 1970s, WQXI, a local 

radio station, began promoting an annual “Ramblin’ 

Raft Race” on Memorial Day weekend. By the mid1970s, the “race” was attracting as many as 60,000 

people. Beginning at Cochran Shoals just north of 

I- 285, the race continued to U. S. 41 at Paces Mill. 

Among the more popular stops along the way was 

“Diving Rock,” where the river breaks through the 

Brevard Fault in the park’s Palisades Unit. Although 

the annual event was soon notorious for widespread 

drunkenness, drug use, and debauchery, it continued into the 1980s when the National Park Service 

forced its cancellation amid concerns about the 

river’s water quality and damage to natural 

resources.

There is currently no officially designated concessionaire for raft rentals in the Chattahoochee River 

CRNRA, possibly contributing to the decrease in 

rafters from 150,000 a year in the mid- 1980s to 

75,000 in summer 2001. There are, however, raft 

rentals available near the river, in spite of continued 

concerns over water quality. The Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper notes that the river is safe “for 

body- contact recreation” only 85 percent of the 

time.89 River users are cautioned to avoid contact 

with the river in the days immediately after large 

storms that can cause sewage overflows from the 

several treatment plants along the river. The 

National Park Service posts signs at access points to 

alert the public about water quality in park units,90

but the river remains popular among rafters, kayakers, canoeists, and motorboat owners.

The park also has an extensive system of trails for 

bicyclists, hikers, and runners. Outside the CRNRA, 

additional bike paths run along Columns Drive 

from Sope Creek to Johnson Ferry Road, Riverside 

Road near Island Ford, Georgia Highway 141 to the 

south of Medlock Bridge Road, Peachtree Industrial 

Boulevard between Suwanee Creek and McGinnis 

Ferry Road, and Buford Dam Road east of Bowmans Island, although none provides direct access 

into the park. As part of its overall planning process, 

the National Park Service is developing an integrated trail system plan with the intent of linking 

NPS trails to those outside park units.

Rock climbing is a relatively new activity along the 

corridor, with a variety of sites popular among local 

climbers. Within the study area, these include destinations along Big Creek near Allenbrook as well as 

near Island Ford, Morgan Falls, and Palisades.91

Rock climbing is recognized by the National Park 

Service as a legitimate recreational opportunity in 

National Parks, and where appropriate it is allowed 

in the Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area.

The River Today

Since World War II, the river corridor has undergone tremendous change. Old agricultural land has 

returned to forest or, more likely, been replaced by 

the rampant suburban development that began to 

transform east Cobb County and the southern 

reaches of Gwinnett County in the 1960s and that 

now surrounds the study area on all sides. Although 

the river is a significant source of electrical power, 

most area residents think of it in terms of recreation, 

in spite of its reputation among some as a polluted 

waterway.

As metropolitan Atlanta’s population has grown, so 

too have industrial and residential impacts on the 

study area. South of the city itself, the Chattahoochee has been reputed to be one of the most 

88. The New Georgia Encyclopedia, s.v. “Whitewater 

Paddling,” http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/

Article.jsp?id=h-693 (accessed October 1, 2004).

89. Sally Bethea, president of the Upper Chattahoochee 

Riverkeeper, email to Marti Gerdes, February 2, 2005, 

quoting analysis done by the USGS under the 

BacteriALERT project.

90. Don Fernandez, “Race Revives Recreation on 

Chattahoochee River,” The Atlanta JournalConstitution, June 8, 2003.

91. Climb Tennessee website, containing material 

provided with permission from Chris Watford's Dixie 

Cragger's Atlas, a Climbers Guide to Tennessee, 

Alabama and Georgia http://

www.climbtennessee.com/local/georgia.html 

(accessed November 2, 2004)
66 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

polluted stretches of river nationwide, although 

court orders have finally forced the city to begin a 

major rehabilitation of its antiquated water and 

sewer system.92 Use of the CRNRA for waterrelated activities has actually declined in the last 

decade due to concerns over water quality, but there 

has been a concomitant increase in land- based 

activities. Overall visitation to the Chattahoochee 

River CRNRA in 1998 was 2,898,155, dipping to 

2,659,709 in 2000.93 This trend is expected to 

reverse as water quality issues are addressed.

Currently, development along the Chattahoochee is 

restricted by Georgia’s Metropolitan River Protection Act, originally passed in 1973. This law restricts 

development within 2,000 feet of the river over the 

entire length of the study area, prohibits any impervious structures within 150 feet of the river, and 

requires a 50- foot “no disturb” buffer zone along 

the river’s shore. In 1998, the law’s application was 

extended 36 miles downstream of Peachtree Creek 

to cover additional areas in Fulton, Cobb, and Douglas Counties outside the CRNRA boundary.94

Nevertheless, long stretches of the river corridor 

remain in private ownership and subject to at least 

limited development.

The Chattahoochee is unique in that it is the smallest river basin in the nation to serve as the main 

water source for a major metropolitan area. Metro 

Atlanta’s rapid growth in recent years has resulted in 

exceedingly heavy demands on the river. Millions of 

people in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia drink, irrigate with, recreate on, and otherwise depend on 

Chattahoochee River water. Concerns over equitable allocation of water from the river erupted in a 

tri- state “water war” in the 1990s when Georgia 

proposed construction of a new reservoir near Alabama to better serve Atlanta. Meanwhile, Florida 

wanted to guarantee its future needs, and environmental groups weighed in with concerns that inadequate flows below the Florida state line would 

endanger the delicate Apalachicola Bay estuary, 

which provides some 13 percent of oysters consumed in the U.S.95 By late 2004, the fight was 

headed to the U.S. Supreme Court after talks broke 

down in 2003.96

There are also concerns that the Chattahoochee’s 

main source of pollution has shifted in the past 20 

years from untreated sewage to storm- water runoff 

associated with increased development.97 This runoff flows unfiltered into the river because paved 

surfaces do not allow it to percolate through soil 

and vegetation, but instead channel it directly into 

the river.98 Other evidence links the loss of vegetative cover and increased paved areas to rising summer temperatures, which increase use of air 

conditioning which in turn diminishes air quality. 

The resulting atmospheric pollution falls onto the 

paved surfaces that drain into the Chattahoochee, 

further harming the river’s water quality and perpetuating the cycle of pollution.99

A study by the Georgia Public Policy Foundation in 

October 2004 recommended “a market- based 

approach integrating economic and ecosystem 

needs” to address long- term water- quality issues in 

the Chattahoochee River and noted that “development practices must be modified to reduce harm to 

watersheds or the city’s economic growth will 

stall.”100 This speaks directly to the adverse effect 

that uncontrolled development has had on the river 

and the Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area.

92. Mark Van Putten, “Water for People and Wildlife,” 

National Wildlife, June/July 2001.

93. “Chattahoochee National Recreation Area, Georgia,” 

National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/chat/

index.htm.

94. Metropolitan River Protection Act, adopted May 28, 

2003. The Act restricts development in order to 

protect the river and river habitat. The 150-foot 

restriction is for impervious surfaces while the 50-foot 

restriction is a “no disturb” buffer. The Act also 

establishes a buffer for tributaries.

95. Chattahoochee Nature Center, http://

www.chattnaturecenter.com/tour/

chattachoochee.html (accessed October 18-20, 2004).

96. Georgia Public Policy Foundation, “Agenda 2005: A 

Guide to the Issues,” http://www.gppf.org/

article.asp?RT=20&p=pub/Water/

water_frontpage.htm (accessed November 3, 2004).

97. Storm-water runoff is also known as “nonpoint” 

pollution, or runoff consisting of litter, pesticides, 

fertilizers, petroleum by-products, detergents, mud, 

poultry farm residue, and other foreign substances.

98. A study in 1998 noted that three-quarters of the 

pollution in the Chattahoochee stemmed from stormwater drainage and “alterations in stream hydrology” 

that typically accompany development. Georgia 

Public Policy Foundation, http://www.gppf.org/

article.asp?RT=20&p=pub/Water/water 

_frontpage.htm

99. Ibid.

100. Georgia Public Policy Foundation, “Agenda 2005.” 

This policy study offers more specific 

recommendations on its webpage, http://

www.gppf.org/article.asp?RT=20&p=pub/Water/

water_ frontpage.htm.
National Park Service 67

A partnership between the Trust for Public Land 

and the Nature Conservancy of Georgia continues 

to work toward establishing a 180- mile greenway on 

the Chattahoochee from Helen to Columbus. Their 

proposed Chattahoochee Riverway would protect 

500 feet on either side of the river – an initiative that, 

if successful, would be one of the longest river parks 

in the United States.101 As of June 2004, more than 

$160 million had been raised for the project, the 

intent of which is to reduce pollution, cut water 

treatment costs, create a regional park system, and 

curb urban sprawl.

101. Chattahoochee Nature Center website, http://

www.chattnaturecenter.com/tour/

chattachoochee.html.
68 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 69

Chapter Three: Associated Historic 

Properties

One of the purposes of the present study is to identify the extant historic buildings and structures in 

the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

(CRNRA) and to evaluate the significance and 

integrity of those resources according to National 

Register criteria. The previous chapters have identified a number of resources, such as Roswell Mills 

and Johnston’s River Line, that are adjacent to the 

CRNRA but outside its authorized boundaries. 

These are not evaluated in this chapter.

All of the resources included here are within the 

authorized boundary of the CRNRA, but not all are 

owned by the NPS. The latter includes historic 

roads that have not been abandoned, some bridges 

over the river, and the several fish weirs located in 

the bed of the river. Except for the abandoned Rogers Bridge, the bridges are owned and maintained 

by the state, but because they are prominent features in the recreation area, the park should have an 

interest in their preservation. The state also owns 

the bed of the river itself, so that formal ownership 

of the fish weirs is not clear. Nevertheless, the park 

has an interest in their preservation, too.

The park has relatively few historic buildings and 

structures, mostly because of broad changes in land 

use that left historic resources obsolete and abandoned. Agricultural and industrial activity as well as 

modern suburban development has destroyed surface remnants of many sites in the study area, while 

recreational use, looting, and vandalism have 

adversely affected others. In addition, the park’s 

land acquisition program favored recreational 

opportunities and natural resource protection, so 

that in most cases cultural resources were acquired 

coincidentally.

Nevertheless, cultural resource management is a 

primary component of the park’s enabling legislation, which states that “Congress finds the natural, 

scenic, recreation, historic and other values [of the 

recreation area] are of special national significance, 

and that such values should be preserved and protected.” Cultural resources survive that represent 

virtually every phase of human’s interaction with 

the river, including prehistoric rock shelters and fish 

weirs, historic farmsteads and cemeteries, Civil War 

earthworks, ruins of early industrial buildings, 

bridges, and dams.1

Fish Weirs

The only American Indian structures that have been 

identified in the CRNRA are fish weirs or traps at 

several locations in the Chattahoochee River. 

Although only visible when water levels are low or 

from the air, eleven fish weirs have been located on 

the Chattahoochee River in the study area.2

 Most of 

these were probably built by American Indians, 

some perhaps in prehistoric times, but one or two 

may have been constructed by early white settlers.

While today’s anglers use rod and reel to catch fish 

on the river, and usually do so for recreation rather 

than subsistence, American Indians utilized fish 

weirs or traps to capture fish, a critical element of 

their diet. The Cherokee are known to have used 

such traps, as did early settlers who learned the 

technique from the Indians or brought the practice 

with them from Europe. The Indians tended to 

drive the fish into the traps, while settlers usually let 

the traps do the work for them. 3

 This efficient 

method allowed a large number of fish to be caught 

in a short time, with little effort, once the trap was 

1. Cultural Resource Inventory: Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area Final Report (National Parks 

Service Southeast Region Office: 1981), 216.

2. Bill Frazier letter to Chris Scalley, March 23, 2000.

3. Bill Frazier, “Fish Traps Georgia River System,” Indian 

Artifact Magazine (May 2000), 5.
70 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

constructed.4 Other Indian weirs remain visible on 

the Etowah River near the Etowah Mounds, as well 

as on rivers in Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.5

 After 1820, fish weirs were made illegal 

because they restricted boat passage, but many were 

not removed.6

Typically, fish weirs were made of stone, wood, or 

both, but sometimes they were of brush or woven 

basketry. Most common were the “V” or funnelshaped stone structures like most of those that survive today in the study area7

, but W- shaped weirs 

like the Settles Bridge and the “Isman” The weirs lie 

just beneath the water surface, starting at one bank 

and angling downstream, meeting another row of 

stones that angles upstream to the opposite bank. In 

the middle, at the bottom of the V or W where fish 

were trapped, log or timber remnants may sometimes be observed, but most of these log structures 

have long since vanished in floods or become covered by silt. Bill Frazier, an amateur archeologist 

who has studied the weirs independently and as a 

member of Archaeological Survey Team Atlanta, has 

provided a wealth of documentation for the weirs 

on the Chattahoochee River. Thomas H. Gresham 

of Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., has 

also located a number of weirs. As of March 2000, 

Frazier had documented eleven fish traps on the 

Chattahoochee River from below Buford Dam to 

Peachtree Creek.8

The known historic fish weirs within the study area 

are listed below. Some, but not all, have been given 

official state archeological site numbers.

■ Bowman’s Island Fish Weir (9GW344, also 

known as Site 140) is located below Bowman’s 

Island and consists of a W- shaped line of rocks 

(18- 36” in diameter) and logs.9 Not readily 

apparent in aerial photographs, it is reported to 

zigzag about 200 feet across a broad, shallow 

part of the river at the southern end of a long set 

of shoals. It is most likely of historic Indian or 

Euro- American origin predating 1820.10 It was 

in poor condition in 1996 but its construction, 

consisting of logs incorporated within the rock 

walls and at the apex of the Vs, was clearly 

visible.11 This weir is the first to catch the full 

force of the water each time it is released from 

Buford Dam.

■ Settle’s Bridge Fish Weir (9GW197, also known 

as Site 108) lies just below Settles Bridge and 

consists of a W- shaped line of rocks (18- 36” in 

diameter) most likely of historic Indian or 

Euro- American origin.12 It was probably built 

circa 1810 by Cherokee Indians, but could have 

been constructed as late as 1820, when Gwinnett 

County passed a law forbidding the obstruction 

of more than one- third of the river by dams, 

fish traps, or other constructions, in order to 

allow free passage of boats and fish.13 Although 

this weir is not apparent in aerial photographs, 

it was described as “a wooden fish dam” that 

was observed during a dredging operation in 

1993. It ran bank to bank and was made of 

stones and six or eight timbers, 30’ long with a 

gap in the center of the weir.14

■ Berkeley Lake Fish Weir (also known as the 

Atlanta Athletic Club/Hermitage Plantation 

weir) (9GW318), above Medlock Bridge Unit, is 

located behind a residence in Duluth in 1994. It 

has not been described, but is clearly visible in 

aerial photographs.

■ Jones Bridge Fish Weir, Jones Bridge Unit, has 

been located in Gwinnett County on the east 

side of Jones Bridge Road off Medlock Bridge 

Road. No other information is available.

■ Holcomb Bridge Fish Weir #1 (9GW141; also 

known as 9GW62), in the Holcomb Bridge Unit, 

is a V- shaped trap located a bit upstream from 

the Holcomb Bridge Road crossing, in Fulton 

County. It is approximately 65’ on one side, 

slanting to the V- notch, which is 8’ wide, 

4. Anne Frazier Rogers, “Fish Weirs as Part of the Cultural Landscape” in Appalachian Cultural Resources 

Workshop Papers, ed. Ruthanne L. Mitchell (Atlanta: 

NPS Southeast Regional Office, 1993), 46.

5. Rogers, 48.

6. Thomas H. Gresham, “Cultural Resources Survey of 

the Proposed Lake Sidney Lanier Re-regulation Dam 

and lake Area, Forsyth and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia” (Athens, Ga.: Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1987), 87.

7. The structure is built with the lower part of the “V” 

facing downstream to form an outlet. By creating a 

commotion upstream from the weir, escaping fish 

could be easily captured at the outlet. Having deteriorated over time, most weirs are barely visible today 

except by aerial inspection.

8. Bill Frazier letter to Chris Scalley, March 23, 2000. 

9. Gresham, 87.

10. Ibid., 101-2.

11. Bill Frazier letter to Southeastern Archeological Services, September 12, 1996.

12. Gresham, 87.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.
National Park Service 71

running another 100’ to the opposite river bank. 

This site was first reported in 1976 by 

professional archeologists15, and Frazier located 

the site in 1995.16

■ Holcomb Bridge Fish Weir #2 or Simpson 

Woods Retreat Fish Dam (9GW 172, also known 

as 9GW63), Holcomb Bridge Unit, is located 

just downstream of Holcomb Bridge Fish Weir 

#1. No condition assessment is available.

■ The so- called Isham’s Fish Dam lies about a 

half mile above the mouth of Sope Creek, just 

northeast of the Atlanta Country Club.. It is also 

known as Heard’s Fish Trap/Heard’s Ferry Fish 

Dam and as Isom’s Fish Dam, although the 

pioneer whose name was given to the nearby 

ford in the river was Isham. It and the Settles 

Bridge weir are the only of the study area’s fish 

weirs that are W- shaped rather than V- shaped. 

This “fish dam” is the one noted in the Official 

Records17 as the route of Cameron’s Brigade 

(23rd Corps, 8th McCook’s Cavalry) when they 

crossed the river on July 9, 1864, as an advance 

guard to cover Schofield’s Army of the Ohio, 

which crossed the river on a pontoon bridge 

built that same day just below the mouth of 

Sope Creek. This may be the same fish dam that 

was illustrated in Harper’s Weekly in August 

1864.18 This weir was not located in 1997, the 

most recently documented attempt to find it, 

but it is apparent in aerial photographs.

■ Mulberry Creek Fish Weir (9C0142), Johnson’s 

Ferry Unit. This structure is located at the 

mouth of Mulberry Creek, about threequarters of a mile south- southwest of the 

George Power House. The late J.C. Hyde, 

whose farm lies nearby, said George Power’s 

brother Pinkney Power19 had a fish dam in the 

Chattahoochee River below what is now 

Morgan Falls Dam between 1880- 1890, and this 

may be that trap.20

■ Cochran’s Fish Dam (or Cochran’s Fish Trap) 

(9C078), is located in the Cochran Shoals unit a 

little less than a mile above the Powers Ferry 

bridge, near the south end of the unit’s jogging 

trail. Not located during surveys in 1994 and 

1997 but described as of timber construction in 

a 1972 assessment, it is clearly visible in aerial 

photographs.

Fish weirs not located for this study but noted in 

previous documentation include Stricklins (sic) Fish 

Trap on Suwanee Creek. Frazier was not able to 

locate this weir but noted that it was mentioned in 

Gwinnett County Inferior Court Records, 1832, page 

339.21 Pace’s Ferry Fish Weir has also been documented as having existed between river miles 302 

and 303.

Significance and Integrity: The fish weirs are the only 

structures in the study area that may pre- date white 

settlement, but the integrity of the weirs varies. All 

have suffered some degree of deterioration from 

erosion, flooding, boating, and vandalism. Nevertheless, their original form can be discerned, at least 

when viewed from the air, and they are important 

evidence of the Indians’ use of the river. These fish 

weirs should be formally evaluated by qualified 

archeologists to determine their eligibility as significant archeological sites. Eligible sites should be 

nominated to the National Register under Criterion 

D for their ability to provide important information 

about the subsistence practices of the historic and 

prehistoric peoples of the area.

Roads

As early as the 1920s, the use of automobiles for 

transportation began to transform the historic system of narrow dirt roads that developed in the study 

area in the 19th century. Roads have been straightened, widened, and paved, and some have been 

abandoned entirely. All of the ferries in the study 

area have disappeared, as have all of the wooden 

covered bridges, replaced by steel or concrete 

bridges in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 

spite of the dramatic changes in and around the 

study area in the late century, several significant elements of the historic system of roads and bridges 

remain intact. 

15. Bill Frazier letter to Chris Scalley, March 4, 2001.

16. Frazier notes, September 8, 1995.

17. Official Records, Series I, Volume 38, Part II, 760-61.

18. Harper’s Weekly, August 13, 1864, 524-25.

19. Pinkney Power was the youngest son of Isabella and 

Joseph Power and a younger brother of James C. and 

George A. Power. “Pink” Power also owned land near 

his brothers in the Hyde Road/Mt. Bethel area.

20. Notes by Bill Frazier of reports to him of fish dam 

locations, Sept. 10, 1997. 21. Ibid.
72 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Although alignments have sometimes shifted with 

construction of new bridges and elimination of 

sharp curves, especially after World War II, a number of historic roads remain in active use in or 

through the study area, some dating to the earliest 

days of white settlement. These include Pace’s Ferry 

Road, Paper Mill Road, Johnson Ferry Road, Lower 

Roswell Road, Roswell Road, Holcomb Bridge 

Road, Medlock Bridge Road, State Bridge Road, 

Abbot’s Bridge Road, McGinnis Ferry Road, and 

the Cumming Highway. Other historic public roads 

have been partially or completely abandoned in the 

study area, including Hyde Road, Jones Bridge 

Road, Rogers Bridge Road, Settles Bridge Road, and 

Island Ford Road22 just below Buford Dam, but the 

trace of these roads remain evident on the landscape. Traces of several other abandoned roads are 

also evident in the study area, mostly local farm 

roads associated with the area’s agricultural past and 

roadways associated with the industrial development along Sope Creek. Traces of roads around 

Hyde Farm and the George Power House are especially significant examples of the local farm roads 

that once ran through the study area.

These roads played a significant role in development of the study area, but repaving, road widening, and other improvements have left most of them 

with little other than integrity of location. An 

exception is Paper Mill Road around Sope Creek, 

which retains its historic location and alignment and 

may be one of the few historic roads in the study 

area that is still in use but that has not been significantly widened or regraded. It retains integrity of 

feeling, association, and setting.

Although partially overgrown with vegetation, the 

road traces in the vicinity of Hyde Farm and the 

George Power House as well as those along the river 

nearby are still readily apparent and retain integrity 

of location, design, setting, and feeling. Without 

their presence, visitors have little sense of the area 

around Hyde Farm and the George Power House 

being other than trackless woodland.

Significance and Integrity: None of the roads 

through the study area possess the significance and 

integrity for individual listing on the National Register. However, Paper Mill Road may be eligible to 

the National Register as a contributing resource to 

an expanded Sope Creek Historic District. Likewise, Hyde Road and the other roads around Hyde 

Farm and the George Power House may be eligible 

to the National Register as contributing resources to 

an expanded George Power House Historic District 

and/or a yet- to- be- nominated Hyde Farm or other 

Historic District in the area.

Bridges

All of the wooden bridges in the study area are gone, 

but four historic steel- truss bridges cross the river 

in the study area, although they no longer carry 

vehicular traffic. Two of these bridges, Settles Bridge 

and Jones Bridge, are owned in whole or in part by 

the NPS, and efforts are underway to acquire Rogers Bridge, the most intact of the three. A fourth 

steel- truss bridge at Pace’s Ferry Road is owned by 

Cobb and Fulton Counties. There are also several 

20th century concrete bridges that cross the river in 

the study area and at least three of these - - Roswell 

Road (U.S. 19), U.S. 41, and the Cumming Highway 

(GA 20)- - are old enough to be eligible for the 

National Register.

Settles Bridge

Located in the Settles Bridge unit near Suwanee, 

Settles Bridge was constructed about 1880 and is the 

oldest river bridge remaining in the study area. 

Newer bridges in the area rendered it obsolete, and 

the bridge has long been abandoned. The bridge is 

within the park’s authorized boundary, but neither 

22. There were apparently two “Island Fords,” one near 

present-day Buford Dam and the other further south 

near the park’s headquarters.

FIGURE 1. View of historic road leading to 

George Power House. (Marti Gerdes, NPSSERO-CRD, 2005)
National Park Service 73

the land nor the bridge are wholly owned by the 

National Park Service. Gwinnett County abandoned the road leading to the east side of the structure and donated that land to the National Park 

Service along with the eastern half of the bridge. 

Ownership of the western half of the bridge and its 

approach remains with Forsyth County. Accessed 

by a half- mile gravel road that ends in a dirt parking 

area, Settles Bridge is a single- span, Pratt, throughtruss design, the most common type of bridge built 

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.23 Although 

the bridge is still standing, it has deteriorated, and 

the original wooden decking is missing completely, 

rendering the bridge impassable even on foot. More 

significant, the concrete piers that support the eastern end of the bridge have been undermined by 

erosion of the river bank, which has even exposed 

the original wooden forms for pouring the piers’ 

concrete footings. The western end of the bridge 

rests on a stone abutment high above the water.

Significance and Integrity: Settles Bridge is potentially eligible to the National Register at the local 

level under Criteria A and C. The bridge is an example of once- common steel truss engineering and is 

the oldest remaining bridge in the study area. 

Although the bridge has lost its decking and no 

longer carries traffic of any kind, the main span over 

the river as well as much of the steel framing for the 

approach road on the eastern side of the river survive intact. Surviving elements of the bridge allow 

visitors to clearly understand its function, although 

integrity of materials and workmanship have been 

compromised by the loss of the decking. Integrity of 

setting, feeling, and association remain strong. As 

the oldest surviving span across the Chattahoochee 

River in the study area, Settles Bridge is an important reminder of the transition from fords and ferries to bridges as the primary means of crossing the 

river.

Jones Bridge

Located in the Jones Bridge Unit, Jones Bridge was 

completed in 1904 to replace a ferry at the site. John 

F. Martin, a Virginia native, acquired 2,500 acres of 

land in 1819 at the current site of Jones Bridge and, 

taking advantage of the surge in traffic following the 

1832 “gold lottery” of former Cherokee lands, established a ferry. After his death, the property passed to 

his daughters and son- in- law, George H. Jones, and 

the ferry became known as Jones Ferry. It was operated by the Jones family until 1904, when Fulton and 

Gwinnett Counties built a toll bridge at the site, 

contracting with Roanoke Steel and Bridge Company to complete the project. The two counties 

shared bridge maintenance expenses until the Great 

Depression, when lack of funds, population 

changes, and the free state bridge upstream rendered Jones Bridge obsolete.

Originally composed of two separate spans, the 

span and approach on the Gwinnett County side of 

the river bank were stolen during World War II; the

23. The Pratt truss is identified by its diagonal members 

which, except for at the very end, slant down and in 

toward the center of the span. The horizontal members are called chords. A truss bridge is called 

"through" if the deck is on the bottom chord, which 

allows traffic to pass through the structure of the 

bridge. Carl W. Condit, American Building Art: The 

19th Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 

1960), 109-12.

FIGURE 2. View at east end of Settles Bridge. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 3. View north of Jones Bridge. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
74 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

wood decking has also disappeared from the 

remaining span on the Fulton County side of the 

river. Today, the National Park Service owns and 

manages only the roadway leading up to the bridge 

on the Fulton County side. The NPS also owns the 

land where the Fulton County footing rests. The 

county, however, has retained ownership of the 

bridge structure itself.24

Construction of Jones Bridge utilized the “camelback,” through- truss design, characterized by its 

distinctive polygonal top chord with five slopes 

which was popular from the late 19th century 

through the mid- 20th century.25 Large cylindrical 

steel piers supported the junction of the two spans 

of the bridge riverbank, while the bridge’s west end 

rises in the midst of riverfront homes bordering the 

park boundary to the south. Part of the original 

sunken road leading to the ferry is visible on the 

west side of the bridge, although a large residence 

now occupies part of the old road bed.

Significance and Integrity: Although not as old as 

Settles Bridge, Jones Bridge is also potentially eligible to the National Register at the local level under 

Criterion C for its design and construction. 

Although one span is missing, because the bridge 

was built in repeating units the remaining span 

clearly conveys the bridge's significance in the areas 

of engineering and transportation. The remaining 

portion of the bridge conveys integrity of materials, 

and the original design and workmanship are distinct. Also, while the integrity of setting has been 

compromised by recent riverside residential development at the base of the bridge on the west bank, 

the overall environs still convey integrity of location, 

setting, and feeling. Jones Bridge is also important as 

a representative of early bridges over the Chattahoochee, in particular of bridges at sites of the original ferry crossings.

Rogers Bridge

As noted in Chapter 1 of this study, the Rogers family 

figured prominently in the early history of the study 

area. Part Cherokee, brothers George and William 

Rogers had their land seized as part of the tribe’s 

removal from the state, although George Rogers 

successfully sued the state, resulting in invalidation 

of the state’s Indian removal laws in 1839. In the 

1820s, the family established a ferry near the location 

of the present bridge, which was replaced by the 

present bridge in the last quarter of the 19th century. 

Spanning the Chattahoochee between Gwinnett 

and Fulton Counties, Rogers Bridge is located on a 

stretch of the river where most of the adjacent land 

remains privately owned. The construction date of 

this single- span bridge has not been documented, 

but the design suggests a construction date in the 

19th century. Like Jones Bridge, Rogers Bridge uses a 

modification of the Parker “Camelback” truss.

24. David Ek E-mail correspondence to Marti Gerdes, 

August 3, 2005.

FIGURE 4. View south of Roswell Road bridge. (T. 

Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2006)

FIGURE 5. View of typical buttress in Roswell 

Road bridge. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2006)

25. Maryland Department of Transportation, http://

www.sha.state.md.us/keepingcurrent/ maintainRoads 

Bridges/bridges/OPPE/historicBridges/V-Pratt.pdf 

(accessed Jan. 29, 2005).
National Park Service 75

Significance and Integrity: Rogers Bridge is potentially eligible to the National Register at the local 

level under Criteria A for its association with the 

Rogers family, who were among the area’s earliest 

settlers. One of their descendants was the noted 

American humorist Will Rogers. The bridge, and the 

ferry that preceded it, had a significant impact on 

the development of the study area as well. The 

bridge is also the best- preserved of the steel- truss 

bridges spanning the Chattahoochee River in the 

study area.

Roswell Road Bridge

The oldest concrete bridge spanning the river in the 

study area is part of the present Roswell Road (U.S. 

19) bridge. The downstream half of the bridge was a 

two- lane, concrete, closed- spandrel, arch bridge 

built in 1924, the second of several toll- free bridges 

that the state constructed across the river in the 

1920s and 1930s. In 1953, a two- lane, steel- stringer 

bridge was built adjacent to the first, and in 1985 the 

deck of the entire bridge was rebuilt.

Significance and Integrity: The Roswell Road Bridge 

is potentially eligible to the National Register under 

Criterion C. Located at one of the most historically 

significant river crossings in the study area, the 

bridge is just upstream from the now- flooded site of 

Shallow Ford, a crossing that gave rise to one of the 

major prehistoric Indian trails in the region and that 

was a primary route into the lands of the Cherokee 

Nation. A covered bridge was built near the location 

of the present bridge before the Civil War. Burned 

by the retreating Confederate army, it was immediately rebuilt by Union engineers and continued to 

serve until the original portion of the present bridge 

was constructed in 1924.

Design and materials set this bridge apart from the 

strictly utilitarian design of the steel- truss bridges 

built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Improvements in the technology of concrete construction in the early 20th century sparked a renaissance in arch bridge construction, and at the same 

time, the nature of the material made possible 

architectural embellishments that were largely 

absent in steel- truss bridges. The present bridge 

was surveyed for the Historic American Engineering 

Record in 1976, and although the original concrete 

railing on the 1924 portion of the bridge was 

replaced in 1953, the bridge’s original concrete 

arches remain intact and in good condition.

U.S. 41 Bridge

The bridge that spans the Chattahoochee near the 

south end of the CRNRA’s Paces Mill unit was constructed in 1935 as part of the state’s first “dualized” 

(i.e., four- lane) highway. The bridge was apparently 

built prior to construction of the highway itself, 

which was opened in May 1937. The existence of this 

road was a major factor in the Bell Aircraft Corporation’s decision to locate its production plant at 

Marietta in 1942. The bridge is an early steel- girder 

bridge with reinforced- concrete road way and railings. Set on reinforced- concrete piers that may 

encase steel I- beams, the bridge is 515’ long and 

composed of ten spans, each 51’- 6” long.

Significance and Integrity: Although the bridge is a 

type common in the 1930s, it is historically significant as one of the only elements of the original 

four- lane highway that remain intact. The bridge 

remains in relatively good condition, although certain elements are deteriorating. According to the 

DOT survey, “it is finished with particularly nicely 

proportioned concrete balustrades that flare slightly 

at the approaches. . . [and] is a fine example of 

bridge aesthetics.”26 The bridge is not owned by 

NPS, but the DOT survey concluded that it was eligible for National Register listing.

Little’s Ferry Bridge

Not much remains of this bridge, which was identified in the State’s survey of historic bridges as 

9FU345 and thought to be the remains of the early 

20th century bridge known as Little’s Ferry Bridge. 

The ruins consist of eight wooden pilings in fair 

condition, but the site has lost its integrity and was 

deemed ineligible for the National Register.

Farms

While there was a large agricultural community 

through the study area, little remains of the built 

environment that community created in the 19th 

and early 20th century. The most significant surviving cultural resources associated with historic farmsteads and agricultural development in the study 

area are Hyde Farm, the George Power House, the 

John Rogers House, and his son William Rogers’ 

Oakland, none of which are owned by the NPS but

26. Georgia Department of Transportation, Historic 

Bridge Survey, #121-0015-0.
76 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

all are within the authorized boundary of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Negotiations to transfer ownership of Hyde Farm to the 

NPS are underway as of this writing. The George 

Power House is owned by Cobb Landmarks and 

Historical Society, but most of the historic farmstead, including all of the land surrounding the 

home site itself, is part of the CRNRA. The two 

Rogers houses remain privately owned but would 

be some of the CRNRA’s most significant cultural 

resources if they ever come into NPS ownership.

Hyde Farm

Hyde Farm, which was originally developed by 

James Cooper Power (1814- 1901), lies on the northwest bank of the Chattahoochee River north of and 

adjacent to the Johnson Ferry Unit in Cobb County. 

The farm and the adjacent George Power House 

farm had their origins in the 1830s, when Joseph and 

Isabella Power built a log house on a hill top on the 

northwest side of the river near what is now Morgan 

Falls. Power operated a ferry at a location just above 

Morgan Falls and acquired some 1300 acres of land 

between Willeo Creek and Johnson Ferry Road, 

including the land on which Hyde Farm, the George 

Power House, and the Gold Branch Terraces (see 

below) are located.

In 1832, Joseph Power’s brother James established 

the better- known Power’s Ferry near where present 

Interstate 285 crosses the river about six miles 

downstream from Morgan Falls. Joseph and Isabella 

Powers’ eldest daughter, Mary Elizabeth, married 

Joseph Martin and they established a farm near her 

parents’ farm. Likewise, Joseph and Isabella’s sons 

James Cooper, George Abner, and Pinkney Joseph 

married and established farms near their parents 

along what is now Hyde Road and Lower Roswell 

Road. Many of the descendants of pioneers Joseph 

and Isabella Power are buried in the Martin Cemetery,27 just northwest of Hyde Farm but outside the 

study area.

Around 1840, Joseph Power’s son James married 

Rosa Dodd Austin (1812- 1894) and must have built 

the log house in Land Lot 221 that is at the core of 

Hyde Farm around that time. The Powers and their 

several children worked the farm for decades until 

1874, when Civil War veteran James Hyde and his 

FIGURE 6. View south-southwest of Hyde House. 

(Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 7. View east of early 20th century 

additions to Hyde House. (Marti Gerdes, NPSSERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 8. View of south side of original log pen 

of Hyde House. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 

2005)

27. The Powers’ eldest daughter married a Martin, thus 

the name of the cemetery.
National Park Service 77

family moved into the community and started 

sharecropping on the Power farm, the beginning of 

the Hyde family’s long tenure on the site.28 After the 

death of his wife, James Power spent his last years 

living nearby with his daughter Emily and her husband Richard Belton.

James Hyde and his family continued to work the 

old Power farm long after James Power died. The 

Hydes’ son Jesse worked on the farm, too, and he 

also worked on construction of nearby Morgan Falls 

Dam. In 1920, Jesse Hyde gained title to the old 

James Power homestead, which then encompassed 

135 acres, and continued to farm the land until his 

death. His bachelor sons, J. C. and Buck, carried on 

the farming tradition using traditional methods, 

including mule- drawn plows. Even as east Cobb 

County was engulfed in suburban development in 

the 1960s, the Hyde brothers were famous for their 

fresh vegetables and other produce offered for sale 

off the back of their truck, which they would park at 

Bethel Methodist Church at the intersection of 

Power’s Ferry and Lower Roswell Roads.

When Buck Hyde died in 1991, inheritance taxes 

forced J.C. Hyde to sell off 40 acres of the farm’s 

bottom lands the following year, but he negotiated 

with the Trust for Public Land to insure that the 

remainder of the property would eventually become 

part of Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area. The 95 acres of Hyde Farm were to remain in 

possession of the Hyde family until J.C.’s death, with 

the Trust for Public Land having right of first refusal 

to purchase the remaining acreage at that time.

Hyde continued farming with his mules until shortly 

before his death in March 2004. In June 2004, Cobb 

County tentatively earmarked $720,000 of its 

“green- space” grant funds to the Trust for Public 

Land for help in acquiring the 95- acre parcel and 

transferring ownership to the National Park Service.29 NPS has long identified Hyde Farm as an 

important acquisition, and it is within the park’s 

authorized boundary. As of the date of this report 

(2006), Hyde Farm continues to be owned by the 

Hyde family, some of whom are contesting the terms 

of J. C. Hyde’s agreement with the Trust for Public 

Land.

28. Friends of Hyde Farm website, http://www.friendsofhydefarm.org (accessed October 26, 2004).

29. Friends of Hyde Farm website, http://www.friendsof 

hydefarm.org.

FIGURE 9. View south of Hyde barn. (Marti Gerdes, 

NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 10. View of corncrib. (Marti Gerdes, NPSSERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 11. View northwest of garage/machine 

shop. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
78 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Although parts of Hyde Farm are no longer under 

cultivation, much of the historic road system, fields, 

and fence lines are still visible, including in the bottom land along the river. The farm features eight 

historic outbuildings surrounding the main house. 

The main house at Hyde Farm is a small, endgabled, log building with historic wood- framed 

additions on the west end. Facing in a northerly 

direction, the house is set on fieldstone piers and 

has a standing- seam metal roofs. The house is Lshaped, measuring 46’- 3” from east to west and 28’-

5” from north to south. Gables on the original log 

building and the first addition rise to 18’- 5” while 

the gable at the north end of the second addition is 

slightly lower.

The core of the house is the single- pen, end- gabled, 

log house built by James Power around 1840. Hewn 

oak sills are set on stacked stone piers; walls are 

roughly squared pine logs with half- dovetail joinery 

at the corners. The log portion of the house is 

sheathed with vertical board- and- batten siding. An 

early, probably original, fieldstone chimney with a 

clay- based mortar is located at the east end of the 

log pen. The house was originally accessed from 

both the north and south sides, with a porch 

extending across the north façade. The porch has 

been completely enclosed in recent years, restricting access to and obscuring the house’s original 

entrance.

Jesse Hyde expanded the Powers’ original log house 

around 1925 when he built a one- room, woodframed addition at its west end. The addition is 

sided with beveled siding, and at the western end, 

there is a fieldstone chimney with a clay- based 

mortar. This chimney is flanked by two 6/6 windows. Two vinyl windows have replaced the original 

windows on the north and east elevations; one is 

fixed, the other is a 1/1 single- hung design. A small 

door is located on the north side of the addition. A 

one- room, wood- framed ell was added to the rear 

of the 1925 addition shortly after its construction. 

This addition served as a kitchen and was also finished with clapboard siding. It has a ridge line 

slightly lower than that of the main structure. The 

sides of the ell (east and west elevations) feature 6/6 

windows and a door is located at the south end of 

the ell.

The surrounding landscape is characterized by gently sloping terrain with cultivated fields along the 

plateau southwest and north of the house. At least 

nine outbuildings are associated with the house. 

Most are clustered irregularly southwest of the 

house, but three, including the well house, are 

located to the north in front of the house.

■ Barn: The largest remaining agricultural 

building on the site is a transverse crib barn (i.e. 

with two pairs of corncribs across from each 

other), circa 1910, that stands southwest of the 

main house. Oriented to the northeast, the barn 

is two- story, wood- framed, and set on a stone 

piers. Open sheds flank the barn on the east and 

west sides. The structure is 51’- 5” by 31’ and 24’- 

4” high at the gables. The barn is sheathed with 

vertical boards and roofed with standing- seam 

metal. A corral measuring approximately 48’ by 

60’ is located on the south side of the barn.

■ Corncrib: Just northeast of the barn is a 

corncrib, circa 1850, which may be the only 

outbuilding remaining from James Power’s 

original farm. Oriented in a northwesterly 

direction, it is a single- crib, front- gabled 

structure set on stone piers. The structure 

measures 18’- 5” on each side and is 14’- 8” high. 

FIGURE 12. Site map for Hyde Farm, 2006. 

(T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD)
National Park Service 79

Two doors on the western elevation provide 

access to the structure, one at ground level and 

a second providing access to the loft. Woodframed, the structure is sheathed with vertical 

board siding and is covered with a sheet- metal 

roof. 

■ Machine Shop/Garage. A circa 1945 machine 

shop/garage is located a few feet north of the 

barn. Oriented toward the southeast, the 

structure is roughly square in plan, measuring 

24’ by 23’, and is 15’- 3” high. The structure is 

only partially enclosed, with the enclosed part 

being the machine shop and also used for 

storage and the open part used as a garage. The 

structure is sheathed in clapboard and roofed 

with sheet- metal roofing.

■ Gear House. Located four or five feet north of 

the garage, the gear house is a circa 1900 

structure measuring about 14’- 5” by 11’. Front 

gabled and facing in an easterly direction, the 

gear house stands about 12’ high. It is sheathed 

with wide boards and has a sheet- metal roof.

■ Shuck Shed. The shuck shed, which also dates to 

the early 20th century, is located a few feet 

north of the gear house and is of nearly identical 

proportions to the gear house. It also measures 

14’- 5” by 11’ but is only 11’- 2” high. The structure 

is sheathed with vertical board siding and has a 

corrugated metal roof.

■ Chicken Houses. Two nearly identical circa 1950 

chicken houses are located some distance away 

from the house to the west. Both measure 15’ by 

30’ with rectangular plans and are front- gabled. 

Probably built for early commercial production, 

the houses are sheathed in clapboard and have 

long gable- front projections on the front and 

smaller shed additions on the rear.

■ Well House. An open well house is situated 

beside the driveway a few yards northeast of the 

house. It appears to date to the early 20th 

century.

Significance and Integrity: Hyde Farm is potentially 

eligible to the National Register as an historic district under Criteria A and C. It is an exceptionally 

well- preserved example of farmsteads in the upper 

Georgia Piedmont with both antebellum and postbellum features. The property is representative of 

settlement patterns prior to the Civil War and illustrates the evolution of small farms in the late 19th 

and early 20th centuries. For Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, the Hyde Farm represents a very rare surviving example of an intact vernacular agricultural landscape, with a main 

farmhouse, barn, numerous outbuildings, roadways 

and traces, distinct fields, and fence lines.

Hyde Farm retains a high degree of integrity of 

location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, 

and association. The original circa 1840 log portion 

of the house displays original materials and workmanship, and the wood- framed additions to the 

house and the eight surviving outbuildings demonstrate the evolution of the property over time. The 

setting clearly conveys a sense of farm life in the 19th 

and 20th centuries, with intact landscape elements 

and a feeling of quiet solitude despite being surrounded by suburban development. 

FIGURE 13. View west-northwest of gear house. 

(Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 14. View northwest of shuck house. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
80 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

George A. Power House

The George Abner Power House (also known as the 

Power Cabin) occupies a 2.5- acre tract adjacent to 

and southwest of Hyde Farm. Although owned and 

operated by Cobb Landmarks and Historical Society, the house is surrounded by land owned by the 

NPS. The house sits at the end of a long ridge about 

a quarter mile from the west bank of the Chattahoochee River just downstream from Morgan Falls 

Dam.30

The house was built by George Abner Power (1821-

1914), brother to James Cooper Power, who built the 

main house at Hyde Farm around 1840. As noted 

above, George and James Power were the sons of 

some of the earliest settlers in the area, Joseph and 

Isabella Power, who first arrived in Cobb County 

around 1832, when George was still a boy. The character of the house’s construction suggests that it was 

built not long after George’s marriage in 1843 to 

Winifred Copeland (1821- 1898). They established a 

320- acre farm and raised twelve children in the log 

and wood- framed house above the river.31 Winifred 

Power died in 1898. Five years later, eighty- twoyear- old George Power married Elizabeth “Betty” 

A. Barrett, a 58- year- old widow. The new Power 

household included Betty’s daughter and granddaughter, all of whom lived with George Power until 

his death in 1914. They continued to rent the house 

from George Power’s heirs until George and Winifred Power’s son Charles Geiger Power bought out 

his relatives’ interest in the property in 1919. After 

Charles Power’s death in 1925, ownership of the 

house and surrounding acreage passed to his wife 

Eva and their several children. After Eva Power’s 

death in 1947, the property passed to their children, 

who continued to rent the house.

The house was used as a part- time hunting lodge 

throughout the 1950s and most of the 1960s, during 

which time it underwent significant alterations, 

including the creation of a new window opening in 

the log pen and partial removal of the loft floor. 

Around 1960, the Power heirs sold the western half 

of George Power’s farm for residential development, 

reducing the Power Farm to about 82 acres. In 1971, 

the Power heirs rented the house to a tenant who 

remains in residence at the house in 2006.

When Winnie Power Groover, one of the heirs of 

Charles Power, died in 1979, her children inherited 

her forty acres of the old George Power farm. They 

sold it to the National Park Service in 1985. When 

the other living heir of Charles Power, his son 

George, died in 1995, his 80- acre tract, including the 

house, was conveyed to his widow, Virginia Wing 

Power, who in turn conveyed it to the Trust for Public Land in 1996. The following year the Trust for 

Public Land conveyed 80 acres surrounding the 

homestead to the National Park Service. At the same 

time, the house and 2- 1/2 acres were conveyed to 

Cobb Landmarks and Historical Society, which now 

manages the site. Cobb Landmarks commissioned a 

30. “Cabin” was a term generally used for a small, crudely 

constructed, and often temporary structure, which 

this building was not.

FIGURE 15. View southwest of George Power 

House. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 16. View northeast of rear of Power 

House. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

31. Cobb Landmarks and Historical Society web site, http: 

//www.cobblandmarks.com (accessed January 29, 

2005).
National Park Service 81

study of the house in 1999 and rehabilitated it for 

continued residential use in 2001. The house is listed 

in the National Register. The NPS maintains a conservation easement on the 2.5- acre parcel on which 

the cabin is situated, but has no ownership interest 

in the cabin.

The house is a one- and- one- half- story house that 

evolved from a single- pen log building. A woodframed room was added to the east end of the log 

pen in the 1850s and a wood- framed kitchen was 

added to the rear (south) of the log pen in the 1860s. 

The log pen and the kitchen both have large stone 

fireplaces and chimneys located on the northwest 

side of the house. Despite modifications, including 

significant alterations to the building’s fenestration 

in the 1960s and to the roof in the 1970s, the house 

still retains much of its historic character.

Facing in an easterly direction, the original log pen 

is about 18’- 5” by 22’ in plan with gables rising to 

about 12’ and features a full- width front porch. The 

house is set on fieldstone piers with hewn oak sills 

that measure around 10” by 11” in the log pen and 9” 

by 10” in the antebellum addition. The kitchen is set 

on circular- sawn oak sills measuring about 4” by 8”, 

suggesting that it is a post- bellum addition. The log 

pen has nine courses of hewn logs, mostly pine and 

poplar, with half- dovetail joints. Floor, ceiling, and 

roof framing for the log pen and framing for the 

antebellum addition utilized sash- sawn lumber, 

while framing for most of the kitchen addition utilized circular- sawn material. The log pen and the 

kitchen addition are finished with board- and- batten siding. The antebellum addition is finished with 

clapboards. The only historic window opening that 

remains unaltered is at the east end of the antebellum addition, but even its sash may have been 

replaced. The original wood- shingled roofing was 

replaced with sheet- metal roofing in the early 20th 

century; the existing metal roofing dates to 2001.

The well was dug shortly after the Civil War and 

continues to provide water for the house. Two 

modern wood- framed sheds, constructed in 2001, 

are located near the end of the terrace on the south 

side of the house. Most of the old farm roads can 

still be identified around the site, although only the 

road leading from Hyde Road remains in use. The 

remains of George Power’s original terracing of the 

land are still evident as are the remains of a split rail 

fence line.32 George Power never built a barn, and 

all of the other historic outbuildings associated with 

the farm were reportedly burned by a tenant in the 

late 1930s.

Significance and Integrity: Like Hyde Farm, the 

George Power House is potentially eligible to the 

32. Cobb Landmarks and Historical Society, http://

www.cobblandmarks.com (accessed January 29, 

2005).

FIGURE 17. View of east end of George Power 

House. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 18. Site map for George Power House, 2006. 

(T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD)
82 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

National Register under Criteria A and C as representative of the small farmsteads in the river corridor before and after the Civil War. The house retains 

its integrity of location, design, setting, feeling and 

association, but materials and workmanship were 

compromised by incompatible additions and alterations in the third quarter of the 20th century.33 The 

integrity of location and setting are especially 

strong, with some of the original roads still in use, 

fence lines recognizable, and some agricultural land 

still under cultivation, all of which conveys the 

property’s historic character.

The building’s original design (with subsequent historic additions) also reflects original functions and 

aesthetic choices. Some of the original siding 

remains intact, including that on the south wall, the 

northeast corner, and on the east elevation of the 

original house. Beneath the house’s new siding, the 

original log pen remains intact, although compromised by alterations to window and door openings 

in the 1960s. The fieldstone fireplaces and the 

majority of stone foundation piers are original or 

were restored with in- kind materials and workmanship. The landscape and overall setting retain an 

exceptionally high degree of integrity.

Rogers Historic District

John Rogers (1774- 1851) settled on the eastern (now 

Gwinnett County) side of the Chattahoochee in the 

early 1800s. He married Sarah Cordery, who was 

half Cherokee and whose sisters were also the 

matriarchs of several prominent families in the area. 

During the War of 1812, Rogers served on the staff of 

Gen. Andrew Jackson, who is thought to have stayed 

at the house when he was in the area in 1820. Some 

sources say that he dismantled his original house 

and moved it to the western (now Fulton County) 

side of the river around 1819, while others claim he 

built a new house, the so- called Rogers Mansion 

House, on the western side of the river in 1831. The 

house is located on Rogers Circle in the Shakerag 

community in north Fulton County, near where the 

family operated a ferry at the present site of Rogers 

Bridge. John and Sarah Rogers’ son William Rogers 

(1805- 1870) also built a house, called Oakland, near 

his parents’ house and is buried with them in the 

nearby family cemetery.

Significance and Integrity: Because of associations 

with a family that played a major role in early settlement in the northern part of the study area, there is 

the potential for a National Register district in that 

area, as recommended in the 1980 survey of park 

resources.34 Nomination would depend on the 

integrity of the resources, particularly the Rogers 

houses, which could not be ascertained during the 

course of this study. Because most of these 

resources, including the homes of John and William 

Rogers, remain privately owned, creation of a 

National Register district would have to be done in 

partnership with private land owners and the State.

These properties are potentially eligible to the 

National Register with local significance under Criteria A. Depending on their integrity, which cannot 

be evaluated without further study, the houses may 

also be significant architecturally Criterion C. Will 

Rogers (1879- 1935), the noted American humorist, 

was related to the family of John Rogers, although 

he may not have been a direct descendant, as has 

often been claimed.35

Mills

All of the known cultural resources associated with 

the industrial development of the river corridor 

within or adjacent to the study area lie in three distinct concentrations of structures and ruins on Big 

Creek (Roswell Manufacturing Company and Ivy/

Laurel Mills), Sope Creek (Marietta Paper Company), and Rottenwood Creek (Akers or Banner 

Mill). These resources demonstrate both the development and the decline of water- powered industry 33. In the 1960s, the cabin was modified for use as a hunting lodge. Among other changes, most original window openings were enlarged and new windows were 

created. Because it is a log structure, reversing 

changes to the windows was not possible without 

replacing entire walls of logs, which was not warranted given the ongoing residential use of the building. Also, because deed restrictions called for lifetime 

residency of the caretaker, the 2001 rehabilitation 

required making the structure viable as a residence 

long term and year-round, which resulted in necessary 

compromises. (Conversation with NPS historian 

Tommy Jones, June 23, 2005.)

34. Lenard E. Brown, Historic Resource Study: Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and The 

Chattahoochee River Corridor (NPS, SERO, 1980)

35. Clarence Martin, “Will Rogers’ Family Had Georgia 

Roots,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 19, 2001, 

JH18. Also see Rosemary Taylor, “JC’s mysterious legacy unraveled,” The Johns Creek Herald, August 16, 

2006, which contradicts the assumption that Will Rogers was a direct descendant of John Rogers.
National Park Service 83

in the study area. Likewise, they illustrate the intensification of use at individual sites as well as the 

inevitable shift in focus from direct water power to 

steam power and, in the 20th century, electrical 

power sources such as the Morgan Falls hydroelectric facility. Morgan Falls Dam has been described 

but not evaluated because it is owned by Georgia 

Power Company and there is little likelihood that 

the National Park Service will acquire the structure. 

In addition the extant and ruined buildings of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company’s mills on Big 

Creek, while outside the authorized boundaries of 

the CRNRA, are an important part of the context 

for understanding the other mills and so are 

included here.

Roswell Manufacturing Company

The Roswell Manufacturing Company complex 

along Big Creek is the most intact of the mills in the 

study area. The site includes the 1883 factory, now 

adapted for offices, the 1854 machine shop, the 

remains of two dams, and various ruins and archeological remnants associated with the factory, some 

dating to the mill’s original construction in 1838. 

Most of these resources are located on the western 

bank of Big Creek, outside the boundaries of the 

CRNRA, but at least part of the mill’s dams are 

located on NPS lands.

The best- preserved building in the complex is the 

1883 warehouse, which was rehabilitated for shops 

and offices around 1980. With modern additions, it 

is a sprawling wood- framed structure finished with 

board- and- batten siding and features factory window walls that flood the interior with natural light. 

The oldest extant structure on the site is the 1854 

machine shop built into the hillside below the 1883 

building. It is a three- story brick building set on a 

stone foundation, with a brick dentil course at the 

top of the walls on all four sides. The gabled roof is 

finished with modern, green, standing- seam metal 

roofing. No sash remain in any of the window 

openings, all of which have been recently closed 

with wooden louvers. In December 2004, a new 

gravel road was completed to the building from the 

west, and on the east end of the machine shop, a 

covered wooden pedestrian bridge across the creek 

was completed in fall 2004.

The machine shop derived power from the flume/ 

race that connected the 1838 and 1854 factories. Presumably the first floor contained the waterwheel 

mechanism that conveyed power to the machinery 

on the second floor. A wing- wall that once formed 

one side of the tailrace downstream from the building extends approximately 30 feet to a point where 

the water entered an elevated wooden flume en 

route to the 1838 factory and later the turbine for the 

1883 factory. 

In the 1990s several small- scale archeological 

explorations were conducted by Southeastern 

Archeological Services of Athens, Georgia, at both 

the site of the Roswell Manufacturing Company as 

well as the Laurel/Ivy Mill site downstream. The 

purpose of the investigations at the Roswell Manufacturing Company site was to determine the exact 

site of the original 1838 factory. The survey located 

elements of the millrace, the remnants of stone piers 

used to carry the elevated flume, a turbine and 

FIGURE 19. View of the machine shop at Roswell 

Manufacturing Company. (Marti Gerdes, NPSSERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 20. VIew of the main dam for the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company’s mills.
84 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

associated machinery associated with the 1883 factory, and rough stone and hewn granite foundation 

wall remnants believed to be the south wall of the 

1838 factory and later used as the tailrace to the turbine assembly. 36

The turbine discharged southwest from the turbine 

housing into a tailrace extending approximately 59 

feet toward the creek. The excavated earthen tailrace is approximately 28 feet wide. A portion of the 

northeast wall of the tailrace is presumed to be the 

south foundation wall of the 1838 factory. The wall is 

composed of both rough stone and hewn granite 

and measures approximately 41 feet in length. The 

remainder of the presumed site of the 1838 factory is 

buried under sediment and obscured by foliage. 

However, the topography of the site suggests an 

irregular area of level elevated ground uphill from 

the exposed foundation wall/tailrace wall, thus 

indicating the area where the body of the factory 

most likely stood.37

Upstream from the machine shop stand the ruins of 

the 1854 factory and the main dam and mill pond for 

the mill. The ruins of the 1854 factory are more visible than those of the 1838 factory and lie scattered 

on the wooded hillside east of the machine shop. 

The ruins are composed of fieldstone and coursed 

ashlar foundations, partial brick walls, and old 

machinery. Like the 1838 factory, some portions have 

been covered by sediment although the footprint of 

the main factory and the picking shed38 on the hillside above remain discernible The ashlar wall sections butt up against the fieldstone wall segments; all 

are dry- laid. The original overshot waterwheel, 16 

by 20 feet in diameter and weighing about 4,500 

pounds, was mounted on a solid steel shaft. The 

wheel is gone but the turbine and flywheel remain in 

position today.

Near the top of the hill above the 1838 picking shed 

(and just below the pedestrian access to the mill site 

from Sloan Street at Founders Cemetery), numerous smaller- scale resources can still be found. Further down the embankment is the most intact 

element at the site – the large metal turbine and 

penstock and the corrugated metal shed used to 

shelter them from the weather. One wall of the metal 

shed is parged brick. The turbine was located at the 

base of the hill just above the natural floodplain. The 

turbine was fed by a large cast- iron flume approximately 36” in diameter that still runs east and parallel to the creek. Today, only the bottom half of the 

flume remains as the top portion was cut off and 

sold for salvage in the 1960s. While it is known that 

water discharged from the turbine returned to the 

mill race en route to the lower machine shop and on 

to the 1838 factory (and later the turbine for the 1883 

factory), the tailrace is not immediately evident at 

the 1854 site. Further, archeological excavations have 

not been conducted to determine its dimensions or 

construction. Given the proximity of the turbine to 

ground level and the emergence of the race downstream near the machine shop, it can be presumed 

that the race was excavated and lined with stone.

Approximately 100 yards upstream from the 1854 

factory site stands the main dam that was constructed along with the other improvements in 1854. 

The dam is a gravity dam cosnstructed with roughcut stone and rises approximately 40 feet in height 

above the stream bed. The gate housing – used to 

feed water at the head into the metal flume – was 

built into the north bank of the creek. Gates at the 

dam controlled the flow of water through the raceway or flume, and a head gate with steel rakes kept 

most debris from entering the flume and damaging 

the waterwheel. Water from this raceway furnished 

power for the original mill and for a second mill 

building constructed downstream in 1883. An Lshaped mortared fieldstone wall approximately five 

feet in height stands approximately 10 feet upstream 

from the dam, apparently to divert water toward the 

gate. Today, water spills freely over the dam and the 

gate, creating a waterfall to the stream below. A 

contemporary pipeline runs from the base of the 

dam down the creek then crosses the waterway 

about 200’ further down the hill. 

Significance and Integrity: Most of the ruins of the 

Roswell Manufacturing Company are included in 

the Roswell Historic District, listed on the National 

Register in 1974. According to Wood’s archaeological survey of the site in 1989, the Roswell mill complex “may easily be one of the most significant 

textile industry sites in Georgia.”39 Wood notes:

36. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 18-20.

37. Ibid., 20-22.

38. The Picker-Lapper House, as it was known, was where 

cotton bales were opened, seeds and debris removed, 

and the cotton blended (“laps” are large balls of cotton). D. A. Tompkins, Cotton Mill Commercial Features

(Charlotte: D. A. Tompkins, 1899), 162-67. 39. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,”29.
National Park Service 85

Undoubtedly, it is one of the most intact textile 

sites in existence in the state. The original 

Roswell factory represents one of the earliest 

cotton mills built in Georgia. Over 125 years of 

evolution in the textile industry is represented at 

the site. Fortunately, each time a new factory 

building was constructed it was placed in a new 

location. Two intact turbines, generators, much 

of the mill’s foundations, walls, and raceways are 

still intact or partially evident today. The 1854 

machinery shop is still standing and has received 

some renovation work. The unique opportunity 

for the public to observe the evolution of 

waterpower use in the textile industry is readily 

apparent at the Roswell Mills. Fortunately, most 

of the site is already included in the Roswell 

Historic District and is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places.40

Laurel Mills

Abandoned in the 1920s, the ruins of Laurel Mills lie 

on the west bank of Big Creek near its mouth at the 

Chattahoochee River, with the site bisected by Riverside Drive. All of the resources associated with the 

mills are owned and managed by the National Park 

Service, but a sewer easement topped by the City of 

Roswell’s board walk crosses the site parallel to the 

river a few yards from its northern bank. In 1992 a 

selective archeological survey was conducted by 

Southeast Archeological Services to determine the 

distribution of cultural resources at this site, most of 

which is now part of the City of Roswell’s Riverside 

Park. Ruins of several structures related to the mill 

are located on the site, but the area south of Riverside Drive is fenced, overgrown and inaccessible. 

Located on NPS land north of Riverside Drive are 

remnants of the mill dam and traces of the head and 

tail races. Significant archeological samples were 

taken in the area to determine the distribution of 

artifacts in an effort to confirm the boundaries of 

the complex and the locations of specific structures 

known to exist from the Sanborn Insurance maps. 

The site is obscured by heavy vegetation and silt.

The main mill and picker house site lie south of Riverside Drive near the west bank of Big Creek. The 

most prominent part of the ruins is a portion of the 

stone walls of the picker house (circa 1900). Two 

stone walls that once formed the southwest corner 

of the picker house run approximately 35’ to 45’ in 

length and rise 5’. A second lower wall that was once 

part of the north wall of the picker house was also 

located.41

40. Ibid. 41. Wood, “An Archeological Survey,” 31.

FIGURE 21. A view of part of the ruins of 

Laurel Mills. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 

2005)

FIGURE 22. Another view of part of the ruins 

of Laurel Mills. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 

2005)
86 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Located north of Riverside Drive on Big Creek, the 

mill dam ruins are very close to the existing parking 

lot at the southern trail head. Evidence of the dam is 

present on both banks, but the most significant portion lies on the eastern bank, as the western bank 

has suffered greater erosion. The dam segment on 

the eastern bank is a dry- laid, rough- stone structure, possibly of partial earthen construction.42 The 

segment on the western bank would have housed 

the gate and the beginning of the headrace, but neither is evident today. The trace of the millrace 

emerges from the landscape just south of the dam. 

Although no formal excavation has been conducted, 

the race appears to be constructed of earthen berms 

except in one small area south of the dam where 

reinforced walls were located. The walls are thought 

to relate to an unidentified structure that once stood 

adjacent to the race at that location.43

Near where the race would have intersected 

present- day Riverside Drive, the water was conducted into a raised wooden flume and distributed 

to the picker house and main mill building. An 

earthen tailrace begins at the southwest corner of 

the picker house and appears to have run on course 

with the raised flume to the main mill, where the 

wooden flume terminated at the waterwheel/turbine housing. This point is marked by a low brick 

arch that crosses the race and was probably part of 

the foundation for the waterwheel and/or turbine 

housing. At this point the discharge water from both 

the picker house and main mill merged and the tailrace continued due south to the Chattahoochee 

River.

Significance and Integrity: The site of Laurel Mill has 

very little structural integrity, with the ruins of the 

mills in poor condition. Only a partial dam, scattered wall remnants, and parts of the millrace 

remain intact. The proximity of the mills to the 

river’s floodplain, heavy vegetation, and the paucity 

of above- ground resources also make the site difficult to interpret. However, the ruins of Laurel/Ivy 

Woolen Mills are potentially eligible to the National 

Register as an archeological site under Criterion D. 

Like the Roswell Manufacturing Company, the site 

is associated with the industrial revolution in the 

South and was significant for its contributions to the 

Confederate war effort.

Marietta Paper Company

In 1902, a fire did major damage to the Marietta 

Paper Company’s mill on Sope Creek, and its owners decided to close the mill. Abandoned, the buildings were allowed to deteriorate. The rugged terrain 

along Sope Creek prevented development in the 

immediate area as suburban residential development swept across east Cobb County in the 1960s, 

but the site was mined for its materials, particularly 

stone for building and landscaping. On Halloween 

night 1970, vandals torched the covered bridge over 

Sope Creek, leaving only the stone abutments and 

iron beams with which the bridge had been reinforced.

The Marietta Paper Mill ruins, which are owned 

and managed by the National Park Service, include 

structures on both the east and west banks of Sope 

Creek, including structural and retaining walls, 

chimneys, and piers. Ruined buildings include the 

main paper mill (Mill No. 1), the pulp mill (Mill 

No.2), a series of stone piers that once carried an 

elevated flume, and the remains of a dam. The ruins 

at Sope Creek are easier to access and read than 42. Ibid., 32.

43. Ibid., 35.

FIGURE 23. Site map for Ivy or Laurel Mills, 2006. 

(T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD)
National Park Service 87

those at the Roswell Manufacturing Company since 

extensive ruins remain at the Sope Creek site. The 

ruins were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973.

The main paper mill ruins lie on the east side of 

Sope Creek downstream from the bridge. The ruins 

of the main paper mill (Mill #1) measure approximately 210’ by 45’, with the long axis parallel to the 

stream. The plan is clearly visible with all four exterior walls at least partially intact, sometimes reaching heights of 25’. The interior masonry walls that 

divided the structure into five rooms also remain 

evident. Ruins of the boiler house lie across the 

trace of a road east of the main mill building and 

have been identified as the remnants of the boiler 

room. On the south side of a small stream that 

enters Sope Creek south of the main mill structure, 

there is a small stone structure, roughly 25’ by 15’ 

and believed to have been the oil house. Between 

that structure and the stream is a large stone retaining wall. The wall is in good condition, but the oil 

house is so badly deteriorated that only the plan of 

the building can still be discerned.

About 150 yards north of the main factory building 

are the ruins of the storage warehouse. Its construction is typical of all structures on the site – roughcut stone and rubble laid in a red clay mortar. The 

collapsed walls are substantial enough to read the 

building’s footprint. Evidence of the dam is visible 

on both sides of the stream south of the storage 

warehouse. Below the dam ruins, a series of 27 stone 

piers appears between the road trace and Sope 

Creek. These piers, which carried a flume from the 

dam to the main factory, are spaced about 10’ on 

center and, like the other structures at the site, are 

badly deteriorated.44

On the west bank of Sope Creek, just south of Paper 

Mill Road, stands the ruins of the pulp- grinding 

mill (Mill No. 2). The ruins are composed of partial 

exterior walls and a half basement with interior 

foundation piers. The load- bearing walls and interior piers are constructed of irregular cut stone and 

rubble laid with red clay mortar. The footprint mea44. The first ten piers from the north are in good condition; the next two have disintegrated, the next three 

are in good condition, the next is disintegrated, the 

next is partially disintegrated, the following four are 

in good condition, the next is disintegrated, the next 

two are in good condition, the next four are partly 

deteriorated, the last is collapsed.

FIGURE 24. View of Marietta Paper Company Mill 

#1 (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 25. View of Marietta Paper Company Mill 

#1. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 20050

FIGURE 26. View of Mill #2. (Marti Gerdes, 

NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
88 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

sures 119’ by 63’ in width with an ell at the northwest. 

The long axis of the structure runs north- south 

parallel to the creek. The exterior walls vary in levels 

of deterioration, rising as high as 20 feet in places. 

The walls on the south side are reinforced with 

stone buttresses. The building’s original fenestration 

is still evident, having nine bays across the long side 

and six bays across the ends, illustrating a building 

with a regular and apparently symmetrical appearance. Just west of these ruins are the ruins of 

another structure of similar stone construction. The 

two buildings are only about 10’ apart. The second 

building measures approximately 60’ by 30’ with the 

long side parallel to the road. The ragged partially 

collapsed walls reach as high as 15’.

Hugging the hillside on the east bank of Sope Creek, 

where the bridge crosses at Paper Mill Road, is the 

trace of the mill road with its downslope stone 

retaining wall. Sections of the wall are in excellent 

condition – with extant evidence of the skilled 

craftsmanship used to shape this wall – while much 

of it has eroded. The wall continues, although broken and eroded in many places, down to the site of 

Mill #1. There is also evidence that originally two 

sets of retaining walls formed the roadbed (or 

formed two roadways, one more elevated). The one 

closest to the creek bank is mostly washed away, 

although short sections of this wall are extant about 

halfway between the road and Mill #1.

A chimney stack stands alone on the ridge above the 

mill site. The fieldstone chimney is approximately 20 

feet tall with a firebox opening on one side. The 

chimney is shouldered at 10’ or 12’ feet above grade. 

Another rubble pile in the vicinity appears to have 

been a second chimney. Subtle foundation traces 

and the relative location of the standing stack to the 

rubble pile suggest a small double- pen house with 

an ell. While the structure has been associated with 

the mill because of proximity, nothing in the historical record ties this structure to the paper mill. It 

would appear to be equally likely to have been associated with either early agricultural settlement or 

one of the earlier water- powered enterprises such 

as Denmead’s Mill. North of Paper Mill Road and 

upstream from the pulp mill on the west bank of 

Sope Creek are the ruins of the machine shop that 

served the complex, and the remnants of the dam 

used to power the pulp mill. These resources, however, are beyond the boundary of the CRNRA.

Significance and Integrity: Of the existing industrial 

resources in the study area, the Marietta Paper Mills 

site retains the highest degree of integrity. The 

remote location and steep terrain have discouraged 

development, and its inclusion in the CRNRA has 

led to structural stabilization and efforts to prevent 

resource mining (namely the removal of wall stone 

for landscaping). Integrity of location, feeling, setFIGURE 27. View of piers of millrace to Mill 

#1. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 28. Site map for Marietta Paper Mill, 2006. 

(T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD)
National Park Service 89

ting, and association are strong. The integrity of 

materials, design, and workmanship varies in different portions of the site, but is quite powerful in 

many places.

The ruins of the mills are listed in the National Register45(see Appendix) with historical significance in 

the areas of prehistory and industry as well as for its 

associations with the Civil War. The National Register nomination, which was completed in 1973, 

should be amended to define the ruins as a “site” 

rather than a “district.”46 The nomination’s statement of significance should also be re- evaluated to 

more accurately reflect current knowledge about 

the site. 

Akers or Banner Mill

The ruins of Akers Mill, sometimes referred to as 

Banner Mill, are sandwiched between Rottenwood 

Creek and the steep slope descending from the 

Kennedy Interchange at Cumberland Boulevard 

and Interstate 75. Located just inside the CRNRA 

boundaries, the badly deteriorated ruins are difficult to access but include the remains of a dam and 

foundation of a bridge built of dry- laid stone. The 

mill was probably wood framed, but the abundant 

loose rubble throughout the site suggests that significant portions of the complex were built with 

stone. A long, low stone wall approximately 150 feet 

in length and a series of stone piers run parallel to 

the creek above the mill site, suggesting the same 

excavated race and raised flume method used at the 

others sites. Overall, the site has suffered a fair 

amount of disturbance from utility development 

and, more indirectly, from construction of the 

nearby interstate exchange.

Significance and Integrity: Although in ruins, Akers 

Mill is the best- preserved grist mill site in the study 

area. Like Laurel Mills, it has lost integrity because 

of structural deterioration and the fact that it is 

obscured by vegetation. Nevertheless, it should be 

considered potentially eligible to the National Register under Criterion A for its capacity to illustrate 

the development of water- powered industry in 

Georgia. Together with the other mill sites it contributes to a tangible pattern of early industry in the 

study area and provides ample opportunity for 

future industrial archeological studies. Future 

National Register documentation for this and the 

other mill sites should approach them collectively, 

either as a discontiguous district of as parts of a 

Multiple Property Submission.

Residences

In addition to rural farmsteads, there are three 

NPS- owned residences in the study area that are 

unrelated to the area’s agricultural past. The most 

significant of these is Allenbrook, built in the 1850s 

for the superintendent of Ivy Mills. Extant cultural 

resources related to early suburban development of 

the study area are limited, but two properties are 

significant. Both are located in the lower half of the 

park’s discontinuous units, with their proximity to 

Atlanta a key factor in their origins. 

The Collins- Yardum property in the Palisades Unit 

includes four structures ranging from a well to a 

residence used as recently as 2000. The Island Ford 

Lodge complex, a circa 1935 retreat for a wealthy 

Atlanta family, is now park headquarters and a visitor contact station. The complex includes the lodge 

building and associated landscape features.

Allenbrook 

Although it is a residential building, Allenbrook47 is 

associated with the mills along Vickery Creek, 

45. Listed under the name “Sope Creek Ruins.” 

46. National Register Bulletin #16, 15. The National Register of Historic Places defines a “site” in part as “ruins 

of historic buildings.”

47. Sometimes referred to as “Allenbrook House,” the 

house was not part of a large estate or plantation and 

should be referred to simply as Allenbrook.

FIGURE 29. View southwest of ruins of Akers Mill. 

(Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
90 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

having been built as a residence for the superintendent of Ivy Mills. It is the most intact of the cultural 

resources in the Vickery Creek unit and is architecturally significant as a rare example in Georgia of an 

I- house built in brick rather than wood. Thought at 

one time to be associated with Roswell Mills, Allenbrook was actually constructed as a residence for 

Barrington King’s son James when he was constructing Ivy Mill in the mid- 1850s.48 The building, 

situated on a 3.34- acre parcel of land on the west 

side of Big Creek, is oriented to the south facing 

Atlanta Street. To the north, the land slopes away for 

about 150’ of grassy yard before dropping steeply to 

Big Creek.

The name Allenbrook is not contemporary with 

either the building’s construction but was given to 

the house when it was purchased and renovated by 

Barnett Allen Bell in the early 1930s.49 In 1978, Bell’s 

widow sold the house to the National Park Service, 

which intended to use the house as the entrance to 

the park’s Vickery Creek Unit. Instead, the house 

stood vacant for several years, however, until the 

Roswell Historical Society, working with the City of 

Roswell and the National Park Service, rehabilitated 

Allenbrook for their headquarters. The historical 

society moved into the house in June 1984 and 

remained there through 1991.50 After the historical 

society vacated the building, Allenbrook was used 

as a park employee’s residence through 1997. It has 

been vacant since that time.51

Occupying a footprint about 41’ by 34’, Allenbrook 

is a two- story, hipped- roof, masonry building with 

a one- story, shed- roofed range of rooms across the 

the rear of the main block.52 Walls are 18” thick at 

the first floor and constructed of hand- made brick 

laid in a four- course common bond. The foundation is coursed fieldstone, and two chimneys rise at 

the rear of the main block of the house. A series of 

triangular brick dentils, five courses high, finish the 

tops of the walls. Window and door openings are 

created by jack arches, and windows have boardand- batten shutters and double- hung, six- over- six 

sash. The roof lines of three different porches are 

evident in ghost lines on the front of the house. A 

brick terrace, constructed by the Bells using brick 

salvaged from one of the nearby mills, is present, but 

the two- story porch they built in the 1930s is no 

48. Hartrampf and OJP/Architect, Inc., “Historic Structure 

Report: Allenbrook, Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area, Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia,”

(July 2004), 35. This report includes the most up-todate information on the house.

FIGURE 30. View southwest of Allenbrook. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2006) 

FIGURE 31. View of main facade of Allenbrook. 

(Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2006)

49. Ernest E. DeVane and Clarece Martin, Roswell Historic 

Homes and Landmarks: A Collection of Drawings

(Roswell, Ga.: Roswell Historical Society, undated), 

unpaginated.

50. The Mill Wheel; and Elaine DeNiro, Roswell Historic 

Society, E-mail to Marti Gerdes, February 17, 2005.

51. See Hartrampf, Inc., and OJP/Architect, Inc., “Historic 

Structure Report: Allenbrook, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Roswell, Fulton County, 

Georgia,” July 2004.

52. The shed-roofed rooms at the rear of the house are 

sometimes erroneously referred to as an “addition.” 

A one-story range of rooms at the rear of the main, 

two-story block is typical of I Houses or the plantation-plain style, as the I-house type was referred to in 

this region. Note that the construction of the exterior 

walls of the buildings read as one piece between the 

main block of the house and the rear rooms with no 

change in appearance or materials.
National Park Service 91

longer present. A small shed- roofed porch with 

boxed columns, reconstructed by the NPS, covers 

the stoop at the rear entrance.

The main block of the house originally had two 

rooms and a central hall on each floor with a steep, 

narrow stairway between floors. The original stairway, which rose from the rear of the house, was 

replaced in the 1930s and the center hall on the second floor was subdivided for closets. Flooring is 

heart pine, 11- 12” wide, that was stained and varnished by the Bells.

Significance and Integrity: Allenbrook is not part of 

the Roswell Historic District but is potentially eligible for individual listing on the National Register. It 

has potential local significance under Criterion A 

for its association with the Ivy Woolen Mills and 

may even be considered to have state- wide significance under Criterion C as a rare example of a brick 

I house in Georgia. The original front porch was 

replaced prior to the 1930s. Rehabilitation of the 

house by the Bells included alterations to the floor 

plan and replacement of some significant features, 

including the stairway to the second floor and the 

front porch. Nevertheless, the house retains much 

of its original character and, in spite of much of the 

surrounding area having reverted to forest, the 

integrity of location, setting, and feeling remains 

strong. Integrity of materials and craftsmanship 

have been diminished by modern efforts at rehabilitation but have not destroyed the building’s historic 

character.

The Collins-Yardum House

A good example of an early suburban residence in 

the study area, the Collins- Yardum property is 

located in the Palisades Unit on the east side of the 

river in Fulton County. Owned and managed by 

NPS, this property includes the main house, a 

stone- and- concrete outbuilding, the foundation of 

a tenant/caretaker’s house, and a well. The site is on 

a bluff above and well back from the river in a mixed 

pine and hardwood forest. Irregular flower beds 

extend from several sides of the house and there are 

walkways with fieldstone borders. The front yard 

features three large circular beds also bordered with 

fieldstone surrounding large trees. The lower half of 

the driveway is edged by similar stonework.53

The property was originally purchased in 1823 by 

Jackson Fitzpatrick, and after five sales between 1836 

and 1897, the parcel was sold in 1901 to A.H. Cox and 

Alice E. Collins. By 1904, they had sold a 100’- wide 

tract along the Chattahoochee River to the Atlanta 

Electric Company, and by 1915 the owners of the 

remainder of the property were Maude Collins Inglis and Charles H. Collins (presumably Alice Collins’s children), who “had a country home on the

53. Ibid.

FIGURE 32. Site map for Allenbrook, 2006. 

(T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRD)

FIGURE 33. View north of front of CollinsYardum House. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 

2005)
92 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

lot.”54 The available deed information does not 

indicate when this house was built, but maintenance 

records and interior fixtures indicate it was constructed circa 1936 and renovated after World War 

II. The house was deeded to Effie Austin Collins 

sometime after 1945, then deeded to Ruth Yardum as 

trustee for Effie J. Collins in 1970.

The tenant house was occupied until the mid- 1980s 

by Americus and Inez Gaither. Mr. Gaither worked 

as gardener/handyman for the Collins family and 

was granted a life estate in the tenant house after the 

National Park Service acquired the property in 1979. 

The caretaker’s house was demolished in 1995 after 

the Gaithers relocated, but the NPS used the main 

house as a ranger residence from 1979 until 2000. 

The building has stood vacant since that time. Funds 

for maintaining the house have been inadequate, 

and deterioration has been evident for years.

The house is a one- story building measuring 51’- 3” 

by 37’- 5” in plan and with walls 12’- 2” high. The 

asphalt- shingled roof is gabled at the front and 

hipped at the rear with a cross gable on the east side 

of the house. The full- width front porch has an 

unusual side- gabled roof that engages the front 

gable of the main roof. The stone veneer with 

broadly beaded mortar joints is the most outstanding architectural feature of the house, since stone 

construction appears in fewer than 2 percent of the 

surveyed Craftsman bungalows in Georgia. The 

stonework on the Collins- Yardum House is 

unusual, with large vertically oriented granite slabs 

interspersed among flat, horizontally coursed fieldstone. The front porch is supported by three tapered 

stone columns and a waist- high stone balustrade 

with concrete coping. A stone chimney rises at the 

ridge line. 

Behind the house is a late- 20th century carport 

connected by a contemporaneous breezeway carried on metal posts. The other structures associated 

with the Collins- Yardum House are a stone- andconcrete outbuilding, a well, and the foundation of a 

servant’s house. 

■ The origins and purpose of the stone- andconcrete outbuilding built into the side of the 

hill east of the main house are uncertain. A 

property appraiser identified it as a 

FIGURE 34. View of east side of Collins-Yardum 

House. (NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 35. View of stone-and-concrete 

outbuilding at Collins-Yardum House. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 36. View of well at Collins-Yardum 

House. (NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

54. Cordell letter to Luce.
National Park Service 93

smokehouse. Although wood charcoal was 

noted in the building, the presence of the two 

concrete vent stacks and the lack of soot on the 

interior walls and ceiling makes this conclusion 

improbable. It has also been speculated that the 

building’s construction partially below grade 

and its ventilation system indicate that it may 

have been used for the treatment and storage of 

wild game, or as a storehouse, but that too 

seems improbable. The structure appears to 

post- date construction of the main house, and 

it is quite possible that it was built as a storm 

shelter or perhaps even as a fallout shelter 

during the early years of the Cold War. The 

structure measures 14’- 6” by 16’- 3” in plan with 

foot- thick walls 7’- 5” high. A reinforcedconcrete slab forms the roof; walls are fieldstone 

and granite. The interior features a dirt floor 

with a 4’- high concrete wainscot along the rear 

wall. The side walls have embedded stones that 

act as shelves. On the southeast side is the only 

opening, a single doorway framed by pegged 

wood timbers with a metal reinforcement bar. 

The door itself is missing. The building features 

two roof- top ventilators of cast- concrete. The 

pipe sections are approximately 2’- 4” long and 

10” in diameter.55

■ The well, located about 75 feet northeast of the 

house, measures approximately 6’ in diameter 

and is about 55’ deep. The wellhead is a circular 

stone wall rising about 2’ above grade. Masonry 

is similar to that on the main house, but some of 

the stone was parged with cement during what 

was intended as repointing. The well has been 

capped with concrete inset with slate. Some of 

the stonework has eroded beneath the outflow 

pipe on the east elevation.

■ The ruins of the caretaker’s house lie 

approximately 30’ east- northeast of the main 

house and consist of mortared fieldstone 

foundation walls. The structure appears to have 

been approximately 20’ by 24’ in plan. It 

reportedly had a kitchen, living room with 

fireplace, bathroom, bedroom, and a 22’ by 6’-

3” screened porch.56

Significance and Integrity: Most of the windows are 

boarded up, and some or all of the original sash have 

been replaced with aluminum- framed, two- overtwo sash. With the exception of the windows, the 

house is intact and retains virtually all of its character- defining architectural features reflective of the 

Craftsman style and bungalow house type. The 

Collins- Yardum House has been determined to be 

eligible to the National Register by the Georgia 

SHPO, but documentation of the property remains 

to be completed. It is significant at the local level 

under National Register Criterion C as a representative example of a Craftsman bungalow in Georgia. 

The stone masonry of the house is distinctive. The 

associated outbuilding and well are also significant 

under National Register Criterion C for their 

unusual masonry and are important components of 

the complex. 57

The Collins- Yardum House retains a high degree of 

integrity of location and setting, design, materials, 

and workmanship, and association with the late 

1800s- early 1900s trend of establishing familyowned vacation retreats near large cities. Its original 

circa 1936 construction is significant because it falls 55. List of Classified Structures. Kirk A. Cordell letter to 

Raymond Luce, April 16, 2001, Georgia SHPO office, 

Collins-Yardum House file.

56. Cordell letter to Luce. 57. Cloues letter to Cordell.

FIGURE 37. Site map of Collins-Yardum House. 
94 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

within an era not represented by other small- residential resources in the study area, coming in the 

middle of the Great Depression when new vacation 

property construction was uncommon. 

Island Ford Lodge

Island Ford Lodge is a Rustic Style (sometimes 

called Adirondack Style) log building constructed as 

a private resort lodge in the late 1930s. The property’s ownership has been traced to the 1860s, when 

Jackson Gregory acquired the land. It passed to 

William J. Kimberly (owner 1860- 1863), Ambry 

Martin (owner 1863- 1913), and W.A. Morgan (owner 

1913- 1925), before Samuel Dunbar Hewlett, Sr., later 

an associate justice on the Georgia Supreme Court, 

bought the property in 1925 and built the current 

lodge over a five- to six- year period beginning circa 

1935 for use as a summer retreat for his family.

The Rustic Style of architecture was a natural, and 

not uncommon, choice for country retreats of the 

wealthy in the early 20th century. The style has its 

origins in the Great Camp Movement of the 1870s 

and was popularized further by Gustav Stickley and 

the Craftsman Movement. The style was also commonly used in parks, first in urban settings such as 

New York’s Central Park and in the Boston “Emerald Necklace” system, and later in national parks. 

The style remained popular for such retreats during 

the Depression, with the Callaway family’s great 

lodge in Harris County being one of the most 

prominent, Depression- era examples in Georgia.58

Following its use by the Hewlett family, the property 

was purchased by the Buckhead Century Club in 

1950. The club renovated it for use as a clubhouse, 

partially finishing the basement, closing in the east 

porch, and expanding the kitchen. The Century 

Club sold the property in 1955 to the Atlanta Baptist 

Association, which established a retreat on the site. 

In 1979, the National Park Service acquired the 

property and began remodeling the lodge for its 

present use as headquarters and visitor contact station for Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area.59

Measuring roughly 130’ by 75’ by 30’ on a T- plan, 

Island Ford Lodge is a one- story, Rustic- style 

building situated in a wooded environment at the 

end of a ridge overlooking an island in the Chattahoochee River. A steeply pitched gable roof shelters 

log walls set on a thick stone foundation that, 

because of the steep terrain, forms a daylight basement on the north, east, and south sides. Typical of 

the Rustic style, logs, which are cypress taken from 

land that Hewlett owned in the Okeefenokee 

Swamp in southeast Georgia, were left in the round 

with V- notched corners. The stone foundation 

FIGURE 38. View north of Island Ford Lodge. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 39. View of rear wing of Island Ford Lodge. 

(Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

58. Historic Structure Assessment Report, Island Ford 

Lodge, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

(Atlanta: National Park Service, Cultural Resources, 

Southeast Region, 2000). The HSAR contains more 

detailed information on Samuel Hewlett, his career as 

a lawyer and judge and his construction of the lodge 

complex.

59. Ibid. The HSAR notes that the property’s period of 

significance dates to its 1925-1955 association with 

Mr. Hewlett and the Buckhead Century Club.
National Park Service 95

walls are 14” thick with beaded mortar joints. 

Masonry was executed by John Epps, an ex- convict 

who lived on the property with his wife throughout 

the construction. Some of the stone was quarried 

from a field upstream.

The lodge has a gable- on- hip roof, which is sidegabled over the main block with a cross- gabled section running to the rear over the stem of the T. The 

western (entry) façade has a three- part organization, with a recessed entry that has its own frontgabled roof. The overhanging roof features log 

brackets at the gable ends. Typical windows are 

double- hung, 6/6, ranging from one to five windows at each opening. Most date to the original 

construction but a number of them have been 

replaced. Two large stone chimneys of uncoursed, 

mosaic stonework rise from the roof, one on the 

ridge crest west of the juncture of the ridges and the 

other on the east slope of the south wing. A large 

eyebrow dormer with attic vents is centered low on 

the west- facing roof slope on each wing.

In addition to the lodge, four landscape features are 

associated with the Island Ford property:

■ Down the hill from the lodge is a picnic shelter 

measuring 17’ by 14’ in plan and about 15’ high 

The structure is set on a stone terrace with low 

stone walls and a double- pitch gabled roof 

supported by four log posts with short angle 

braces to the rafter headers. The open- air 

structure features a coursed- stone chimney and 

barbecue with a fire pit that was rebuilt in 2004. 

Roofing was replaced at the same time. Copper 

flashing was added at the chimney when the 

roofing was replaced.

■ A stone retaining wall with concrete coping 

shores up the east bank of the creek and 

channels the stream to the north. The wall is 66’ 

long and 3’ to 5’ high. The wall is covered by ivy 

and moss. A trail runs along the embankment 

next to the wall.

■ A series of stone steps lead from the picnic 

shelter to the creek that lies north and 

downslope of the lodge. The steps have been 

inexpertly repointed so that much of the 

original stone on the risers appears parged.

■ A spring box is built into a slope north of the 

house near the creek. It is 5’ by 5’ by 5’ and 

constructed of randomly coursed granite with 

 grapevine joints and a concrete wing wall on the

 southwest slope. The materials and craftsman-

 ship match the lodge and picnic shelter chim-

 ney.60

Significance and Integrity: At the time of this study, a 

National Register nomination is in process for the 

Island Ford Lodge. It is being nominated as locally 

significant under Criterion A as a rare surviving 

example of a historic country retreat near Atlanta; 

under Criterion B for its association with prominent 

60. Island Ford structure data from the List of Classified 

Structures.

FIGURE 40. View of front entrance to Island 

Ford Lodge. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 

2005)

FIGURE 41. View of spring box at Island Ford 

Lodge. (Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
96 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

attorney and justice Samuel Hewlett; and under 

Criterion C for exemplary representation of Rustic 

design and construction. Along with its association 

with Hewlett, Island Ford Lodge is also significant 

for its subsequent operation as a Baptist retreat, 

associating the property with the early national tradition of establishing church camps in rural areas. 

The associated Picnic Shelter, Retaining Wall, Shelter Steps, and Spring Box are also locally significant 

under National Register Criteria A and C.

The lodge demonstrates high integrity of location, 

workmanship, and materials, with the exposed logs 

having been regularly maintained and the masonry 

joints repointed. The original fenestration pattern 

and materials bolster the building’s historic character. The integrity of setting is slightly compromised 

on the south elevation by the nearby metal warehouse; however the overall wooded, riverside setting remains pristine, with views of the island in the 

Chattahoochee still unparalleled. Although the 

interior sPace’s have been dramatically altered in 

some cases, the original stonework of the fireplaces 

and the exposed round- log walls strongly convey 

the character of the interior. In addition, the lodge’s 

exterior remains largely unaltered and portrays the 

original aesthetic and functional choices.

Much of the original workmanship of the Picnic 

Shelter remains and the original function of the 

shelter is readily apparent. The alterations are confined to the roof; the massive barbecue pit and 

chimney and stone platform are original. The setting 

also retains a high degree of integrity. The Retaining 

Wall and Spring Box retain their historic integrity. 

The Retaining Wall continues to perform its function. The repointing/parging executed on the Shelter Steps slightly reduce their integrity of materials 

and workmanship. The presence of the original rustic- style landscape elements at the Island Ford 

complex, echoing the aesthetics of the lodge itself, 

add substantially to the interest and significance of 

the complex.

Much of the original fabric remains intact, although 

there have been numerous, mostly minor, alterations, many of them related to changes in use and 

ownership. Most of the entry doors have been 

replaced and some of the basement windows have 

been replaced or closed. Renovation, particularly by 

the National Park Service in 1985, resulted in the loss 

of a number of significant historic features, including all of the interior doors, bookcases, some flooring and some roof covering. In addition, some door 

openings were relocated, modern bathrooms 

installed, and sheetrock partitions constructed. A 

pre- engineered metal storage building was erected 

close to the south side of the lodge, detracting from 

the historic lodge and the views. These alterations 

and additions have somewhat compromised the 

building’s historic character. 61

Other Historic 

Structures

There are a number of other historic structures in 

the study area that are not significant in and of 

themselves, but which, nevertheless, can be treated 

as cultural resources. These resources include sites 

of wood- framed houses, now vanished except for a 

chimney or scattered rock or brick piers; agricultural terracing, particularly in the park’s Gold 

Branch unit; Civil War rifle pits; and the remains of 

the Roswell Railroad. Regardless of the fact that 

FIGURE 42. Site map for Island Ford Lodge, 

2006. (NPS-SERO-CRD)

61. Ibid.
National Park Service 97

these above- ground structures and earthworks are 

not likely eligible to the National Register, the park 

should manage them as cultural resources and, in 

consultation with the Regional LCS Coordinator, 

create LCS records for each.

Chimneys and Piers

O’Grady and Poe’s 1980 inventory of archeological 

sites and the 2006 CAP survey have identified several home sites within the boundaries of the 

CRNRA that are now marked only by chimneys, 

piers, and/or landscape features.62 One of the sites 

identified in 1980 (NPS- 5) was located west of Rottenwood Creek in the West Palisades unit, but it was 

apparently destroyed during construction of the 

interchange between Akers Mill Road and I- 75. A 

pair of chimneys (NPS- 33) noted on a hill above 

Sope Creek were perhaps associated with the Marietta Paper Company mills.63 Standing chimneys 

have also been identified at Powers Island (CHAT83), near Jones Bridge (CHAT- 104), in the Bowman’s Island unit off Island Ford Church Road 

(NPS- 43) and south of Richland Creek (NPS- 51).64

All that remains of the King House (NPS- 51) are 

some piers and rubble from a long- fallen chimney. 

Another home site identified in both inventories is 

near the Chattahoochee Nature Center (NPS- 58), 

but it is not owned by the park.65 Other sites have 

also been identified in the 2006 survey, including 

one at Cochran Shoals near Sibley Creek.66

Gold Branch Terraces

The so- called Gold Branch Terraces are created by 

a series of dry- laid fieldstone walls situated in the 

roughly 150- foot- wide easement the National Park 

Service holds off of Lower Roswell Road in the 

CRNRA’s Gold Branch Unit. The easement extends 

in a northeasterly direction from Surrey Trail just 

north of its intersection with Conway Drive.

This tract is sandwiched between upscale housing 

developments, and several homeowners use the 

easement as extensions to their back yards, installing bird feeders and tree houses, as well as using the 

area for disposal of yard debris, all on NPS land. 

Except for its edges, the land is thickly overgrown 

with blackberries and privet that are extremely difficult to penetrate. 

Use of such terracing to control erosion when farming hilly terrain is widespread, although suburban 

development has obliterated the surrounding context for these terraces. However, the land was part 

of the extensive holdings of pioneer Joseph Power, 

who lived nearby in the second and third quarters of 

the 19th century. The site is thought to have been 

used after about 1880 by Arthur and Leona Bellah 

Eavenson, a granddaughter of James Cooper Power, 

for agriculture and later for grazing cattle, and they 

may have been responsible for construction of the 

Gold Branch terraces. The Eavensons’ home stood 

at the curve of Lower Roswell Road near Hyde 

Farm Road.67

The terraces include four historic stone walls and a 

circular arrangement of stones next to a freshwater 

spring just north of Land Lots 278 and 279. A 1986 

archeological survey interpreted the stone walls as 

erosion control structures, and the 1995 survey 

describes the stone circle as a well protected by the 

terrace walls.68 The smallest terrace lies about 50 

feet off Lower Roswell Road. It is barely visible, 

erosion having left it nearly imperceptible in the 

surrounding landscape. Approximately midway 

along the length of the easement, a pipe driven into 

the ground appears to have served as a corner 

property marker with a remnant of barbed- wire 

62. O’Grady and Poe, 1980 Cultural Resource Inventory: 

Archaeological Sites, 68.

63. Ibid.,77.

64. Ibid., 86-87.

65. Ibid., 90.

66. The complete report from the 2006 CAP survey was 

not yet complete at the writing of this HRS.

67. Morning Washburn E-mail to Marti Gerdes, February 

11, 2005.

68. Ibid., 6.

FIGURE 43. View of Gold Branch terraces. 

(Marti Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
98 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

fence running east- west nearby. It is in this area that 

the larger terraces begin, running on a relatively 

north- south axis in what is believed to be Land Lot 

278, which was part of Joseph Power’s extensive 

holdings along this section of the river.

The three larger terraces were created with dry- laid 

fieldstone and run roughly perpendicular to the 

easement’s length. The terraces vary in length but 

no remnant is longer than about 50 feet. Their condition varies from good to poor, with some voids 

that compromise the stability of the walls. Most of 

the walls are covered with pine straw, sticks, and 

other debris that helps them blend into the landscape, which has probably kept them from being 

mined for landscape stones.

The workmanship on the walls is elementary, with 

no clear attention to overlapping joints for strength 

or an attempt to make the faces flush. A spring 

emerges just below the base of the final stonewall at 

the northernmost end of the easement before it 

veers west and continues to the larger Gold Branch 

Unit. The wall curves around and above the spring, 

which creates a slow stream that flows through the 

housing development to the north. Above the spring 

wall is a ring of stones approximately five feet in 

diameter with a small center depression. This is 

thought to have been a wellhead as it is immediately 

above the spring.

Significance and Integrity: A 1995 report by the 

Southeast Archeological Center noted that the site 

has “potential for significant antebellum resources.” 

The 1995 survey recovered early 19th century artifacts associated with an antebellum farmstead and 

collection of data regarding the nature of preColumbian use of the site. The latter included projectile points from the Early Archaic (8000- 6000 

B.C.) and Late Archaic (3000- 1000 B.C.) time periods and other artifacts that indicated nut processing 

was a key activity at the site.69

An 1831 plat map depicts a house on the boundary 

separating Land Lots 278 and 279, an adjacent agricultural field, and a nearby spring. Artifacts collected in the 1995 survey indicate the site was 

abandoned after circa 1837 then later occupied 

between circa 1880 and 1918. Importantly, the report 

notes that because this land was barred to white settlement prior to the 1832 land lottery, evidence 

strongly suggests that the site was occupied prior to 

1832 by persons of Cherokee descent, although 

white squatters were known to have illegally settled 

on Cherokee lands by this time. The absence of historic materials post- dating 1840 might also suggest 

that the house site was abandoned soon after the 

property was surveyed in 1830, which might support 

the suggestion that the farmstead was inhabited by 

persons of Cherokee descent who were forced to 

leave Georgia in 1837.70

Although the Gold Branch terraces and walls appear 

to be associated with the area’s agricultural past, the 

terraces no longer have other agriculture features or 

buildings associated with them. Without the context 

of an agricultural landscape, the terraces are difficult 

to understand and interpret and do not, by themselves, convey significant information about the 

period during which they were constructed.

Roswell Railroad

In addition to the trace of historic roads, the 

remains of a road bed for the Roswell Railroad are 

visible in the park’s Vickery Creek unit on the west 

side of Big Creek in the vicinity of Allenbrook. Construction of the railroad began around 1879, but the 

expense of a river bridge led to termination of the 

line about a half mile south of the Chattahoochee 

River and tracks were apparently never laid north of 

the river.71 The railroad was abandoned in 1921, and 

there is virtually no physical evidence for the railroad’s existence south of the river and only the 

grade for the proposed track and stone retaining 

walls near Allenbrook are evident on the north side 

of the river. Still extant are sections of retaining 

walls built with large stones, although erosion has 

caused some of these stones to fall. An hundredfoot- tall outcropping known as “Lovers’ Rock” or 

“Lovers’ Leap” sits between the railroad grade and 

the creek. On the underside of the rock, the initials 

“JRH” can be read clearly; Julia R. Hand was the 

granddaughter of Roswell King.72

69. Gary Prentice and Elizabeth A. Horvath, “An Assessment of the Archeological Resources at the Morgan 

Falls West (CHAT-57) Site, Tract 105-08 and Tract 105-

26, Bull Sluice District, Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area, Cobb County, Georgia” (Tallahassee, 

Fla.: Southeast Archeological Center/National Park 

Service, 1995), 1. 

70. Ibid., 26, 28.

71. Todd deFeo, “Where the Tracks No Longer Run,” 

http://railfanning.harpblaster.net/history/roswell.htm, 

accessed October 10, 2006.
National Park Service 99

Significance and Integrity: The Roswell Railroad had 

some local significance for its relation to the mills at 

Roswell and the construction of Morgan Falls Dam. 

However, the wall and railroad grade on the east 

side of Big Creek behind Allenbrook do not possess 

the integrity of design, materials, and association 

necessary to convey their significance and so are 

probably not eligible for listing on the National 

Register. As stated earlier, the remaining structural 

elements of the railroad should be managed as cultural resources and listed as such on the park’s List 

of Classified Structures (LCS).

Scribner Cemetery

Although the patriarch of the Scribner family, 

Daniel Scribner, was a physician, he was an integral 

part of the Mt. Bethel community in eastern Cobb 

County. His home, which was later occupied by 

McKenzies who were relatives of the Scribners,73 is 

gone, but the small family cemetery remains about 

1.5 miles southwest of Paper Mill Road on the east 

side of a knoll in the Cochran Shoals Unit. The 

home site is nearby but was not located during field 

visits for this study. 74 The cemetery is located in a 

mix of hardwood and pine forest, although the 

immediate area is dominated by pine and a few 

cedars (probably ornamental) adjacent to the cemetery. 

The cemetery measures approximately 26’ by 14’ 

and is enclosed by a 3’- high, cast- iron fence. A large 

granite obelisk approximately 12’ tall dominates the 

small plot. The obelisk sits on a plinth, and all four 

sides of the base of the obelisk are inscribed with a 

name of a family member in the cemetery. 75 One 

other monument, a carved headstone, is decorated 

with a Victorian floral motif and marks the grave of 

Mary W. Andrews. The tops of two other small 

headstones are nearly buried in the soil. One is

inscribed with “M. W. A.”, while the other is a simple 

field stone marker with no apparent inscription. 

The marked burials include:

■ Daniel Dana Scribner, M.D. (July 23, 1822 – April 

23, 1863)

■ Sarah Ansley Scribner (February 16, 1836 – 

August 9, 1883), wife of Daniel Scribner

■ Arthur Scribner (aged 19 months, dates 

unknown), son of Daniel and Sarah Walter 

Scribner (aged 17 months, dates unknown) son 

of Daniel and Sarah

■ Mary W. Andrews (June 29. 1826 – July 31, 1882), 

“Our Mother.”

72. The Mill Wheel, the quarterly newsletter of the 

Roswell Historical Society, Vol., 1, No., 3, Summer 

1991, 2.

73. Memo from Jerry Hightower to Chattahoochee 

National Recreation Area superintendent, December 

7, 1981, on file at the recreation area in the Scribner 

Cemetery folder.

74. According to state law, unless the cemetery has been 

declared abandoned, the family retains ownership of 

the individual graves, although the overall site is 

within the CRNRA boundaries

75. The names, one on each side of the obelisk, are: Sarah 

Ansley, Daniel Scribner, Walter Scribner, and Arthur 

Scribner, the latter two being the infant sons of Sarah 

and Daniel.

FIGURE 45. View of the retaining wall 

constructed for the Roswell Railroad. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)

FIGURE 46. View of Scribner Cemetery. (Marti 

Gerdes, NPS-SERO-CRD, 2005)
100 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Significance and Integrity: Cemeteries are not generally eligible for the National Register unless they 

are part of an historic district. If so nominated, the 

Scribner Cemetery would have significance under 

Criteria A and D. Broad changes in land use in the 

area make the Scribner Cemetery a rare surviving 

example of a family cemetery. It conveys important 

information on burial practices along the upper 

Chattahoochee in the 19th century. Though the surrounding area has reverted to forest, the degree of 

change is minimal relative to alterations that have 

occurred beyond the study area’s boundary. The 

integrity of location, setting, and feeling is strong, as 

are the materials, workmanship, and association 

with the Scribner family. Again, if not nominated as 

a contributing element of a historic district, the 

cemetery could be managed as a cultural resource 

and listed on the park’s LCS.

Civil War 

Resources

A variety of Civil War sites are located in the study 

area in Cobb and Fulton Counties but only a few 

earthworks survive that are directly related to the 

Atlanta Campaign. These include portions of 

Johnston’s “river line,” which are outside the 

CRNRA along the west side of the river below 

Peachtree Creek. Numerous rifle pits/picket posts 

are also found in the Gold Branch Unit along what is 

now Bull Sluice Lake, on the west side of the river. 

These depressions are found at the edge of an inlet 

that could have served as a site for troops to assemble for a river crossing at Shallow Ford. Other extant 

earthworks in the study area include a series of possible picket posts on the west side of the Chattahoochee near the old Power’s Ferry crossing 

between the Palisades and Cochran Shoals units 

near the present I- 285 bridge. Rifle pits are also said 

to exist on the west side of the river in District 17, 

Land Lot 1035, and at Island Ford. Further investigation of the depressions in the earth in these two 

areas needs to be done to determine conclusively 

whether they are indeed rifle pits dating to the Civil 

War.

Working with the Georgia Civil War Commission, 

Cobb County hopes to save four segments of Union 

earthworks between Buckner Road and Nickajack 

Creek that contain artillery positions believed to be 

for the 10th and 15th Ohio batteries, who faced Confederate troops between July 4 and July 10, 1864.76

Union troops also established defensive works elsewhere in the study area, in particular at the mouth of 

Sope Creek.77 Under the command of Maj. Gen. 

John M. Schofield, Federal soldiers crossed the 

Chattahoochee on July 9, 1864, at Isom’s Ferry (also 

known as Isham’s Ferry or Heard’s Ferry78), near 

Sope Creek some six miles above Pace’s Ferry. Using 

the dam at the Marietta Paper Mill or walking in the 

stream itself, another brigade79 waded across Sope 

Creek then climbed the steep slopes near the main 

factory of the Marietta Paper Mills, bushwhacking 

through the woods toward the Chattahoochee. 

Other Union troops carried pontoon boats down 

the steep banks of Sope Creek, launching them near 

the paper mills and floating down to the river where 

they were used for troop crossing at that location. 

This Federal crossing forced Johnston to abandon 

his river line at and below Bolton, withdrawing to 

the Fulton County side of the river. 80 Later the 

same day, a cavalry division crossed the Chattahoochee at Shallow Ford, a mile below the Roswell 

bridge.81 A third unit of Union troops forded the 

Chattahoochee at Cochran’s Ford, a half- mile 

below Sope Creek. These outflanking maneuvers 

forced the Confederacy to abandon Johnston’s 

River Line, burning the railroad bridge across the 

Chattahoochee en route to defensive lines closer to 

Atlanta.82

Johnston’s River Line

Although located outside the boundaries of the 

CRNRA, Johnston’s River Line is one of the most 

significant entrenchments remaining from the Civil 

War in the study area. Stretching along the Cobb 

County side of the Chattahoochee River in an arc 

between Nickajack and Rottenwood Creeks, the 

line ran between the communities of Mableton and 

Vinings, guarding crossings on the Chattahoochee.83 On a ridge overlooking Nickajack Creek 

and the Chattahoochee River, the line was built by 

76. “Cobb County Trenches May Be Next Preservation 

Opportunity,” Georgia Battlefields Association, Inc. 

newsletter, May 2003. http://www.georgiabattlefields.org/pdf-files/GBAnews0305.pdf, accessed October 28, 2004.

77. Cultural Resource Inventory, 78.

78. Lenard Brown, 32. Ishom’s Ferry was in Land Lot 207 

of the 17th District.

79. Historic marker at Sope Creek parking lot.

80. Temple, 331.

81. Shallow Ford was submerged by Bull Sluice Lake.

82. Fred Brown, 105.

83. Roth, 126.
National Park Service 101

slave labor along with Georgia Militia troops.84 It 

consisted of redoubts of logs and earth interspersed 

with two- cannon artillery emplacements. Abatis 

entanglements protected the front along open 

fields, while segments through the woods were 

safeguarded by large piles of logs.85

Johnston’s line was built primarily by General 

Johnston’s Confederate Army of Tennessee after it 

was forced from its Kennesaw Mountain defenses 

by Sherman’s troops. The rebels initially fell back 

five miles to the Smyrna Line, defensive works that 

crossed the railroad near Smyrna on a northeastsouthwest ridge before turning to follow Nickajack 

Creek to the river. Southern troops retreated farther 

a few days later to the well- established Johnston’s 

River Line, which was anchored by 13 two- tiered 

infantry forts. These forts became known as “Shoupades” after their designer, Brig. Gen. Francis A. 

Shoup, Chief of Artillery for the Army of Tennessee.86 It was this line that Union commander Sherman later termed one of the most formidable he 

encountered during the war: “During the night 

Johnston drew back all his army and trains inside 

the tete- du- pont at the Chattahoochee, which 

proved one of the strongest pieces of field- fortifications I ever saw.”87 These fortifications prevented 

Sherman’s troops from completing a frontal attack 

despite their substantial numerical advantage over 

the rebel forces, and after a week occupying federal 

earthworks, Union soldiers gave up trying to break 

through Johnston’s line and forged up river to Sope 

Creek to cross the Chattahoochee and continue 

toward Atlanta.88 Union crossings on the Chattahoochee also took place at Pace’s and Power’s Ferries, at Roswell, and elsewhere.89

Although Johnston’s River Line terminates south of 

the study area,90 it helps provide context for and 

illustrates the high standard of earthworks constructed during summer 1864 in and around the 

study area. Johnston’s River Line was an integral 

element of the June and July battles leading up to 

the siege of Atlanta, which included Union and 

Confederate skirmishes within the study area. A 

unique aspect of the River Line is that instead of 

digging trenches for protection, Johnston devised 

above- grade earthworks, creating both defensive 

and offensive positions. They were also distinctive 

because elements had been under construction 

since August 1863,91 when work began at Chattahoochee River fords and ferries; these supplemented a circle of fortifications around Atlanta in a 

radius roughly one- and- one- quarter miles from 

the city center. The inner line of defenses was never 

tested. When federal forces threatened to cut the 

last remaining rail line into Atlanta in early September 1864, the rebels abandoned the city.

At a tactical level, the battles along Johnston’s River 

Line, at Kennesaw Mountain, and elsewhere that 

employed engineered earthworks demonstrated the 

futility of frontal assaults on entrenched positions. 

Only after repeated experience and casualties, 

including the monumental losses among Confederate attackers at Gettysburg and Federal troops at 

Fredericksburg, Virginia, did officers fully understand that accurate rifled muskets and field 

entrenchments had irrevocably changed infantry 

combat. Sherman absorbed this lesson, and his 

advance toward Atlanta relied heavily on outmaneuvering his opponent. The earthworks that survive in and around the study area are a testament to 

those lessons and to the men killed or injured in 

these historic landscapes.92 Many of the earthworks 

have weathered away, and development has 

destroyed most of the Shoupades and artillery forts 

(although some remain on private property).93 In 

October 2003, one of the last Union artillery forts – 

a four- gun emplacement – was bulldozed to 

accommodate a grocery store and shopping center 

on Bankhead Highway. 84. Ibid. Southern forces constructed the majority of 94

entrenchments east of Nickajack Creek while Union 

troops dug those to the west. 

85. Temple, 328.

86. Joe Kirby, “Developer Bulldozes Artillery Fort, 

Trenches Near Atlanta,” Historical Publications Inc., 

December 2003, http://www.civilwarnews.com/ 

archive/articles/fort_ bulldozed.htm (accessed October 

14, 2004).

87. Sherman, 66.

88. “Georgia Historical Markers,” http://www.cviog.uga 

.edu/Projects/gainfo/gahistmarkers/towardtheriver 

histmarker.htm.

89. Temple, 336-337. The crossings took place between 

July 12 and 17, 1864.

90. Roth, 126-128, 237, 240-241. Johnson’s River Line falls 

in the 18th District, Land Lots 177, 282, 287, 397-401 

(Nickajack Creek bisects Land Lot 401); and in the 17th

District, Land Lot 900. 

91. Lenard Brown, 58.

92. Blythe, et al., 23.

93. Richard J. Lenz, “Johnston’s River Line,” The Civil War 

in Georgia: An Illustrated Traveler’s Guide, Sherpa 

Guides, http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/ 

civil_war/atlanta/smyrna_area.html (accessed Oct. 15, 

2004).
102 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Remnants of Johnston’s River Line today are scattered and few.95 Most are now on or adjacent to 

developed property, and all are outside the park’s 

current boundary. However because they were key 

to the Civil War battles fought within the study area, 

they are pertinent to this historic context. Cobb 

County owns about 80 acres of Johnston’s River 

Line that are slated for preservation.96

The northernmost anchor of the line – the site closest to the river and the study area – was the most 

appropriate section to physically investigate for this 

report. The area is much impacted by development, 

primarily by upscale housing. Many homeowners 

with elements of the line on their property have left 

these historic earthworks intact where possible and 

treat them with respect. Some homeowners have 

carefully built swimming pools and play structures 

around trenches or four- gun emplacements, but at 

least one homeowner is using a Shoupade to pile 

yard debris. The two- gun battery that was the 

northern anchor to the line was not located using 

maps and directions available, but it is probable it 

was destroyed by the newer housing built in the 

area. 

Nearby remnants of Johnston’s River Line were 

located, however, including the salient angle of the 

Confederate line (the point that jutted out past the 

rest of the defensive line of works). 97 These earthworks are situated at the top of a hill fully developed 

by homes, with the individual sites in residents’ 

yards. The first site is a trench immediately behind a 

house at 4522 Rebel Valley View Road and south of 

its swimming pool. Above this to the west is the 

four- gun Shoupade in use as a yard debris collection site. This is located behind both 4522 and 4532 

Rebel Valley View Road. A child’s elevated playhouse behind 4532 overlooks the Shoupade north of 

the playhouse. All the earthworks are covered with 

ivy and rounded from erosion but clearly discernible as man- made constructions. Two are distinct 

behind 4522 and 4532, but the other two of the four 

have subsided more and are not as prominent on the 

landscape. There is also a remnant of an entrenchment on the east side of Rebel Valley View Road 

behind the house at 4527.

About a half- mile northeast of the salient angle site, 

an infantry fort can be found above the railroad cut; 

the current track follows the historic route.98 Originally a series of infantry forts were dug in here, but 

apartments and other residences have obliterated all 

but one. Sherman’s troops advancing down the railroad heavily shelled this Confederate position.99

Other remnants of Johnston’s River Line were not 

physically investigated for this report because of 

their distance from the study area.

Significance and Integrity: The portions of 

Johnston’s River Line that survive are well- preserved examples of an infantry line system, with 

intact trenches, forts, gun emplacements, and rifle 

pits. These earthworks were listed in the National 

Register in 1973. The line is significant at the national 

level under National Register Criterion A for its 

association with the Civil War; under Criterion B for 

its association with its engineer, Confederate Gen. 

Joseph E. Johnston; and under Criterion C for its 

method of construction. It is an outstanding example of Civil War defensive fortifications, unique for 

its length and mass, and distinctive because it was 

one of the few earthworks built well before a Civil 

War battle. According to the State Historic Preservation Office in Georgia, the site is significant 

because it constitutes a rare intact example of Civil 

War fortifications used in the 1864 Battle of Atlanta 

and because it represents a unique arrangement of 

fortifications by both Confederate and Union 

forces. The presence of two sets of fortifications 

from opposing armies, in their historical relationship and geographic area, give Johnston’s River Line 

94. The fort sat atop a ridge and was probably built by 

the 15th Ohio Light Battery on July 5, 1864; it was supplied with twelve Napoleon cannons – popular, 

smooth bore, French-designed light-artillery pieces, 

highly accurate and reliable, with a range of 1,600 

yards. The U.S. Army had about 150, while the South 

possessed about 30 (Antietam on the Web, http:// 

aotw.org/ weapons.phyweapon_id=1 (accessed Oct. 

24, 2004). The fort and accompanying Union trenches 

were part of a twenty-two-acre tract. Pete and Kay 

Jorgensen, Civil War News, http://www.civilwarnews 

.com/archive/articles/fort_ bulldozed.htm.

95. To prepare this study, historian Tom Dickey’s “A Tour 

of Johnston’s River Line,” from Brown’s Guide to 

Georgia (College Park, Ga.: Alfred Brown Publishing 

Company, 1972-1982), was used to physically locate 

extant resources. The starting point is Log Cabin Drive 

off of Georgia Highway 3/Marietta Boulevard.

96. Joe Kirby, “Georgia Plans Civil War Trail,” Historical 

Publications, Inc., http://www.civilwarnews.com/ 

archive/articles/cwtrail_kirby.htm (accessed October 

18, 2004).

97. Ibid., 27.

98. Ibid. This is east from Log Cabin Road, where the railroad track crosses Paradise Shoals Road.

99. Ibid.
National Park Service 103

a special significance for military history. The line 

may also be significant under Criterion D for its 

potential to yield additional information about the 

Battle of Atlanta through additional archeological 

investigation.100 Also of note is that the opposing 

force’s commander, Maj. Gen. William Sherman, 

considered Johnston’s River Line the best field 

entrenchment work he had ever seen, commenting 

on its formidable nature. This also speaks for its 

exceptional construction, which is underscored by 

the fact that so much of the line remains intact 140 

years after the battle. 

Johnston’s River Line retains all seven aspects of 

integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It retains its original location, and the design is still evident, reflecting 

the structure’s historic functions, technologies, and 

aesthetics. Although much of the setting has been 

developed, the topographic features that shaped its 

design remain extant and help convey the character 

of the site during the Civil War. Regarding materials 

and workmanship, while wooden elements of the 

earthworks have long since rotted away, the key 

material – earth, and the way it was formed into fortifications – remains largely as it was during the 

period of significance. Integrity of feeling and association are compromised by the residential development that now adjoins or surrounds the 

earthworks, but the property’s combined physical 

features taken together still convey the site’s historic 

character.

Civil War Rifle Pits

The best- known of the Civil War earthworks in the 

vicinity of the study area are those constructed as 

part of Confederate General Johnston’s so- called 

“River Line.” Listed on the National Register, 

Johnston’s River Line is not within the authorized 

boundaries of the park but forms an important part 

of the context for much smaller, less significant rifle 

pits that are within the park’s authorized boundaries. In the Gold Branch Unit, several rifle pits or 

picket posts line the west side of what is now Bull 

Sluice Lake, the pits being located east of the inlet 

that edges south into this park unit. These were 

apparently built to provide cover for the Union 

army as it crossed the river at Shallow Ford. Other 

rifle pits within the park boundaries have been 

reported in Land Lot 1035 of the 17th District of Fulton County and near Island Ford, but the integrity 

and significance of these sites have not been 

assessed.

All of the rifle pits in the Gold Branch unit of the 

CRNRA are almost obscured by underbrush and 

trees that cover the area today. The first, and most 

distinct, of the pits is found at the southernmost 

edge of the inlet, on the west side of the trail. This 

appears to be a well- dug entrenchment for protecting the inlet. Prior to construction of Morgan Falls 

Dam, it would have been a well- concealed site for 

troops to assemble for a river crossing. The second 

set of rifle pit depressions is scattered along the 

peninsula as the trail curves around to the east. They 

follow a distinct line on an east- west axis. Other 

possible sites are found uphill from the trail, again 

on the same east- west line. It is difficult in some 

locations to tell for certain whether some indentations are natural or man- made, but the distinct 

east- west axis for those described here leads to the 

conclusion that these depressions were likely for 

picket positions. 

Rifle pits are also thought to exist within the park 

boundaries on the west side of the river in District 

17, Land Lot 1035 (approximately two- and- a- half 

land lots north of the junction of Power’s Ferry 

Road and Interstate 285).101 These are characterized 

by three depressions, the center being approximately 12’ by 15’.102 Elsewhere in the CRNRA, probable rifle pits are situated east of the river along a 

ridge above the islands at Island Ford, but these 

most likely were built by local state militia guarding 

the crossing prior to the advance of the Union 

army.103

Significance and Integrity: The picket posts/rifle pits 

in the Gold Branch Unit/Morgan Falls area are 

potentially eligible for listing in the National Register with significance at the state level under National 

Register Criterion A for their association with the 

Civil War, and under Criterion D for their potential 

to yield additional information. They are rare 

examples of entrenchments dug primarily by individual Civil War soldiers, lending them a special 

military significance. The sites also could yield 

100. Elizabeth Lyon letter to Ralston Cox, April 25, 1989, 

on file in the Georgia State Historic Preservation 

Office in the Johnston’s River Line file.

101. Roth, 29, 126, 217-41. A gun battery site is documented in the 17th District, Land Lot 1018.

102. Cultural Resource Inventory), 112.

103. Ibid., 102.
104 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

additional data about the Atlanta Campaign through 

additional archeological investigation.

The picket posts retain high integrity of location, 

setting, feeling, and association, but limited integrity 

of workmanship, materials, and design due to 

weathering over the past 140 years. Although the 

setting now includes hiking trails, the rifle pits retain 

their original locations and, given their placement in 

what is now a park, still convey the character of the 

site in 1864. The topographic features of the immediate area have not changed despite the creation of 

Bull Sluice Lake from Morgan Falls Dam; although 

the hydrologic system has been altered, those 

changes have not affected the extant rifle pits. The 

park should consider amending the National Register nomination for the Johnson’s River Line to 

include these earthworks as part of a discontiguous 

district based upon Civil War resources. In the 

interim, the park should list them as cultural 

resources in the LCS. Further research on the other 

identified sites is needed to determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register.
National Park Service 105

Chapter Four: Cultural 

Landscapes, Ethnographic 

Resources, Archeology, and 

Museum Collections

The primary purpose of this study is to provide an 

historical overview of the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area and to identify and 

evaluate its historic structures. The purpose of this 

chapter is to sketch in broad strokes existing 

knowledge about the recreation area’s other cultural 

resources, including cultural landscapes, 

ethnographic resources, archeological resources, 

and museum collections.

Cultural 

Landscapes

Cultural landscapes are defined as geographic areas, 

including both cultural and natural resources and 

the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated 

with a historic event, activity, or person, or that 

exhibit other cultural or aesthetic values. There are 

four general types of cultural landscapes, not 

mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed 

landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and 

ethnographic landscapes.1

The NPS Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) is a 

web- based inventory of NPS- owned or managed 

cultural landscapes that have been determined 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. CLI entries include a site 

development history, statement of significance, 

documentation of existing conditions, and 

condition assessment. The CLI partially satisfies the 

inventory and assessment requirements for cultural 

resources under Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. A Cultural Landscape Report 

(CLR) is a thoroughly researched report which 

builds on the information gathered in the CLI to 

further document and assess a site’s historical 

development, significance, and integrity with the 

goal of providing a feasible treatment and 

preservation plan or strategy for the cultural 

landscape. 

To date, there has been minimal investigation or 

documentation of the cultural landscapes at 

Chattahoochee River CRNRA. No CLIs or CLRs 

exist for park resources. However, through initial 

literature review, site visits, and communication 

between park and regional NPS staff, it is evident 

that the park contains several cultural landscapes 

that may have sufficient integrity to meet National 

Register criteria. If so identified, these resources 

would be eligible for listing on the CLI and would 

need individual CLRs developed to ensure resource 

preservation. 

Cultural landscapes that have tentatively been 

identified at Chattahoochee River CRNRA include:

■ Akers/Banner Mill

■ Allenbrook

■ Ivy Mill

1. Page, Robert R., Gilbert, Cathy A., Dolan, Susan A., A 

Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, 

Process, and Techniques. Washington, DC: US 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, 

Cultural Landscapes Program, Washington DC, 1998. 

p. 12.
106 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

■ Collins- Yardum House

■ Hyde Farm

■ Island Ford Lodge

■ George Power House

■ John Rogers House

■ Roswell Mills

■ Scribner Cemetery

■ Marietta Paper Mill

Planning for documentation, evaluation, 

preservation, and treatment of these or other 

subsequently identified cultural landscapes should 

be a priority for park staff. CRNRA managers are 

urged to work with the Cultural Landscapes 

Program manager in the Regional Office to set 

priorities for completing Cultural Landscapes 

Inventories and Cultural Landscape Reports for 

these historic landscapes. If not already existing, 

appropriate projects to complete these studies 

should be entered into PMIS (Project Management 

Information System) and funding sought for 

completing the work. Investigation should begin 

into the historical associations of the Rogers Farm, 

which lies near the Suwanee and Abbotts Bridge 

Units, while coordination with The Trust for Public 

Lands for this land acquisition continues.

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Few traditionally associated peoples retain ties to 

resources in the study area today. Contemporary 

representatives of the Cherokee Nation- - the 

present- day federally recognized tribe most likely 

to have an affiliation with the park- - claim no 

remaining connection with the park. Cherokee 

representatives believe the lands along the river in 

the study area are farther south than the lands 

traditionally associated with the Trail of Tears that 

involved their ancestors. 2

Descendants of other groups, such as ferry 

operators, farmers, fishermen, and paper and textile 

mill workers, have not established formal claims or 

groups that connect them to particular sites or other 

resources within the recreation area today. A 

literature review might reveal previously unknown 

links to contemporary groups, including 

descendants of the above and of resort lodge 

owners or visitors, churches that used the river for 

baptisms, civic organizations, and others. However, 

an Ethnographic Overview and Assessment of the 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area has 

not been done, and none is scheduled at the present 

time.

Archeology

Archeological surveys of the park have been limited 

to the broad- brush overviews of Ehrenhard in 1979 

and 19803

 and to later, localized surveys conducted 

when sewers, underground utilities, and roadways 

were being constructed. The 2001 Parsons report4

notes 189 archeological sites related to Indian occupation of the study area, but many more sites are 

likely to be present. The sites are illustrative of the 

temporal periods from the Archaic to the early historical period of the Cherokee and Creek and 

include quarries, lithic scatters (remnants from the 

production of stone tools), ceramic scatters, village 

sites, fish weirs, and rock shelters.

Extant resources related to American Indian occupation of the study area are limited mostly to archeological sites, and development has compromised 

many of those. The area around the site of Standing 

Peachtree is one of the most heavily developed parts 

of the river corridor. In the 1890s, the City of 

Atlanta’s water intake facility was built near the 

junction of Peachtree Creek and the river, and additional industrial and commercial development in the 

20th century, especially after World War II, have 

obliterated what was the most significant Indian 

settlement in the study area. Along the river in the 

vicinity of the railroad and vehicular bridges south 

2. Angela Drewes, acting director, Cherokee Nation, Email correspondence Nov. 11, 2004.

3. Ellen B. Ehrenhard, Patricia D. O’Grady, and Charles B. 

Poe, “Chattahoochee National Recreation Area: Proposed Research Design and Archeological Overview” 

(Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, 1979), and “Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area, Georgia: Cultural 

Resource Inventory/Archeological Sites Final Report.” 

(Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, 1980.)

4. Cultural Resources Overview and Predictive Model for 

the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, 

Cobb, Forsyth, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia (Norcross, GA: Parsons Engineering and Science, 

Inc., March 2001, updated November 2001).
National Park Service 107

of Peachtree Creek, there has been so much ground 

disturbance that the potential for undisturbed 

archaeological resources has been greatly compromised. The 1980 archaeological reconnaissance survey recovered part of an Indian chungke5

 stone as 

well as bullets dating to the Civil War but little else.

Assumptions that the archeological potential at the 

site of the core of the Indian village of Standing 

Peachtree was destroyed when Atlanta built its 

water intake facility just south of the creek are 

probably correct.6 The same may not be true of Fort 

Gilmer, which many have assumed was also located 

in the river’s flood plain. However, Garrett places 

the fort on top of the hill on the north side of the 

creek, within the authorized boundaries of CRNRA 

but on a site that remains privately owned. With “a 

superb view of the river, both up and down,” the hill 

top is certainly a more logical location for such a 

fort, and most of that site appears to have remained 

relatively undisturbed.7

Two texts by Bill Jordan provide general overviews 

of archeology in the Chattahoochee National 

Recreation Area:

■ Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Phase 2 Site 

Evaluation of the Proposed McGinnis Ferry 

Road Widening Corridor, Fulton and Forsyth 

Counties, Georgia

■ Archeological Survey of Proposed Fuel 

Reduction Areas, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area Cobb, Forsyth, 

Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia

Other archeological surveys in the study area have 

also been completed. These studies generally 

focused on assessing sites prior to grounddisturbing activities such as road widening, bridge 

building, or controlled burns. Researchers also 

evaluated the park as a whole to determine the 

presence of prehistoric and Civil War- era artifacts. 

Occasional sites with lithic scatter (such as at rock 

shelters) were noted, and Civil War gun positions 

and possible picket posts were recorded. 

There are more than a hundred known 

archeological sites within the recreation area that 

are sufficiently significant to warrant nomination to 

the National Register of Historic Places. A list of 

archeological reports relating to the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area will be found in the 

bibliography for the present report. There has been 

no comprehensive Archeological Overview and 

Assessment for the park and none is scheduled at 

the present time.8 Full documentation and 

assessment of fish weirs in the park should be 

completed. A detailed inventory that states 

locations and conditions of all weirs within the 

authorized park boundary would bolster efforts to 

maintain and preserve these rare resources. 

Professional archeological assessment of the weirs is 

also recommended.

Museum 

Collections

The museum collection on site at Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area includes objects 

ranging from macro- invertebrates and an 

herbarium collection numbering in the hundreds to 

cultural heritage objects found in structures 

acquired by the National Park Service. The macroinvertebrate specimens, estimated to number over 

1,000, were being consolidated in fall 2005 into a 

wet specimens storage cabinet in the park’s Water 

Quality Lab. 

A freshwater mussel survey of the park has also 

been completed and specimens are included in the 

park’s museum collection. The museum collection 

also includes small- mammal and fish inventories as 

well as a collection resulting from a herpetological 

survey; these are housed at the Savannah River 

Ecological Lab in Savannah, Georgia. The majority 

of the park’s archeological collection is housed in 

the Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, 

Florida.

The National Park Service is mandated to acquire 

and preserve museum collections as directed in the 

5. A game played by early American Indians in the 

region.

6. Johnston’s River Line National Register of Historic 

Places draft nomination, Section 7, July 5, 1990, on 

file in the Johnston’s River Line folder at the Georgia 

SHPO. The file quotes Franklin M. Garrett, The 

Atlanta Historical Bulletin Vol. I, No. 39, Sept. 1965, 

39. Cultural Resource Inventory: Chattahoochee Final 

Report draft (National Park Service Southeast Region 

Office, 1981), 94.

7. Garrett, Atlanta and Environs, Vol. 1, 14. 8. Bennie Keel E-mail, November 23, 2004.
108 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 

and the Management of Museum Properties Act of 

1935. Other legal mandates and authorities include 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979.

The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 requires a written summary 

of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, 

and objects of cultural patrimony. According to 

archeological data recorded by the National Park 

Service in 1980, virtually every major temporal 

period of human occupation in the southeastern 

United States is represented in the Chattahoochee 

corridor. Furthermore, prehistoric sites were 

present in all major topographic and environmental 

zones, including Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland 

aboriginal occupations and historic traditions. 

Additional investigations in the Chattahoochee 

corridor documented the presence of 23 historical 

sites of European affiliation. However, based on 

available information, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area has no collections that fall 

within the scope of the NAGPRA categories, and 

acquisition of such objects is not anticipated.9

The park’s museum planning documents include a 

Scope of Collections Statement (SOCS) (1986). This 

states that the museum collection should be 

maintained to document and support 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area’s 

resource management and interpretive 

programming. As identified in the park’s General 

Management Plan (Draft), interpretive programs 

would provide opportunities for the visitor to learn 

about and study the wide variety of natural and 

cultural resources found in the corridor, and for 

developing an understanding of the responsibilities 

of the individual visitor, the National Park Service, 

and other entities in protecting these resources.

The SOCS states that the museum collection is 

intended to be an extension of the park’s primary 

resources. Objects in the collection must relate to 

the recreation area’s resource management goals 

and objectives and to interpretive themes. Historical 

and archeological materials found within the park 

boundary must be accessioned and catalogued into 

the park’s museum collection. The types of 

collection should illustrate the phenomena of 

nature and the environmental influences of man 

along this section of the Chattahoochee corridor. 

The SOCS states that the museum collection should 

preserve those features of the park that cannot 

safely be left in situ, and that it should serve the 

research study and reference needs of staff and 

visitors.

The collection at the museum should be divided 

into two major categories: the Natural History 

Collection and the Cultural History Collection. The 

Natural History Collection – subdivided into two 

disciplines, biology and geology – will provide a 

historically accurate record of plant and animal 

species present in the park, for future reference, 

interpretation, and research purposes. The Cultural 

History Collection will include significant historic 

artifacts representative of the history along this 

section of the Chattahoochee River and the people 

who lived here (prehistoric and historic traditions), 

including military objects and archival material 

(maps, manuscripts, photographs, etc.). 

Specimens of architectural fabric from restored or 

rehabilitated structures that cannot be retained in 

the structures should be saved for future reference. 

Also, objects and documents that chronicle the 

creation, planning, and management of the park 

should be maintained. When National Register 

documentation is prepared for the park based on 

the findings of this study, any associated museum 

collections should be included as objects 

contributing to the significance of the National 

Register district or site being nominated.

Efforts need to be undertaken to expand and further organize the park museum collection for public 

and research use. Guidelines for accessioning and 

cataloging are outlined in the NPS publication 

Museum Handbook, Part II, and the Automated 

National Catalog System (ANCS+) manual, both 

available online at <http://www.cr.nps.gov/

museum/ publications /index.htm>.

Archival and 

Library Collections 

The archives of the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area are consolidated in file cabinets in 

9. Marvin Madry memo, “Addendum to Scope of 

Collection Statement,” October 6, 1992, attached to 

Scope of Collection Statement (April 1986).
National Park Service 109

the office of the chief of science and resource 

management. They include maps, resource 

management documents, land files, historic park 

documents, and various reports and other files. This 

room also houses a records cabinet with additional 

accession and collection files. A separate collections 

cabinet in another room of the park includes deeds, 

diaries, and the herbarium noted earlier. Other 

interpretive materials relevant to the park are 

located in the Chattahoochee Nature Center.

The park library collection has been consolidated in 

a room in the basement of Island Ford Lodge and 

includes various histories and biographies, volumes 

related to indigenous peoples, the Civil War, 

agricultural development and settlement, 

manufacturing, and recreation in the river corridor, 

as well as other types of resource materials normally 

found in park libraries. The library and archives 

should be organized for ease of use by researchers. 

The park should complete accessioning and 

cataloging of all material pertinent to park history 

and maintain such information as an aid to the study 

and interpretation of history and culture in the 

park. Making some of this material available online 

is also recommended as funding permits. 

Documentation for all resource management 

projects, natural and cultural, should be included in 

the park’s museum collection. It is also 

recommended that the park develop a formal 

Collection Management Plan to guide its museum 

program.
110 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 111

Chapter Five: Management 

Recommendations

Based on findings of the current study, the following 

recommendations are offered as a guide for 

resource managers in protecting the park’s cultural 

resources, identifying areas for future research, 

developing interpretive programs, and achieving 

other management goals in the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area. These include recommendations for identifying, evaluating, and otherwise managing cultural resources within the park, 

while recognizing that implementation may require 

the park to seek additional funding. The park’s significant cultural resources include both prehistoric 

and historic buildings and structures, as well as cultural landscapes, archeological sites, artifacts, and 

archival collections. Emphasis is on historic buildings, structures, and landscapes, in particular those 

pertaining to early settlement; the historic development of agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation; and the Civil War. These historic resources 

include farmsteads, textile mills, a paper mill, a grist 

mill, roads and bridges, Civil War earthworks, and 

nineteenth- and twentieth- century residential 

properties. Archeological resources include several 

rock shelters and numerous lithic scatter sites, as 

well as the ruins of stone fish weirs constructed by 

American Indians that are some of the earliest manmade structures remaining in the study area. All 

these resource types retain sufficient integrity to 

convey the significant historic themes represented 

in CRNRA. The maintenance and preservation of 

these cultural resources should be the park’s top 

cultural resource management priority.

Cultural Resources 

Documentation

Better documentation is needed for all cultural 

resources at CRNRA. Section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act requires park managers, 

in consultation with their SHPOs, to locate, inventory, and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all properties that appear to qualify. 

Such documentary research and field investigations 

help develop a park’s inventory of cultural 

resources. 

The park inventory should include all cultural 

resources as required for planning, Section 106 and 

Section 110 compliance, historic resource protection, monitoring, and interpretation. Cultural 

resources that have been identified and evaluated as 

eligible should be listed in the appropriate Servicewide inventories, including the Cultural Landscapes 

Inventory (CLI), Cultural Sites Inventory (CSIArcheology and Ethnography, under development), 

List of Classified Structures (LCS), National Catalog 

of Museum Objects, and the National Register of 

Historic Places.

Baseline Cultural Resources Reports

NPS policy recommends a number of baseline 

research reports that provide information for a 

variety of purposes from planning to interpretation. 

This Historic Resource Study is one of those baseline reports, providing a general overview of park 

cultural resources and serving as a framework for 

further identification, evaluation, and nomination 

of cultural resources to the National Register of 

Historic Places. The park also has a Scope of Collections Statement (1986) that was most recently 

updated in 1992 and may need updating to ensure its 

accuracy.

Another required baseline report is a park- wide 

overview and assessment of archaeological sites 

along with studies that identify and evaluate individual archaeological sites. An inventory of archaeological resources was done in 1980 and should be 
112 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

updated to ensure that it accurately reflects existing 

conditions.

Other baseline research reports that the park has 

not yet completed are an ethnographic overview, a 

study of cultural affiliations, and an administrative 

history of the park. Finally, the park does not have a 

Cultural Resources Base Map that depicts all known 

historic sites and structures, cultural landscapes, 

and historic trails and roads. This map should also 

include archeological and ethnographic resources 

as well as documented Civil War troop movements 

through the area. While this information may 

already exist in a number of individual maps, it 

should be compiled in a single, comprehensive map 

for the entire park.

Mapping

GIS mapping should be completed for all the earthworks within the study area, both Civil War 

resources and those related to historic agricultural 

use (e.g., the terraces in the Gold Branch Unit off 

Lower Roswell Road). GIS mapping of Civil War 

earthworks within the authorized park boundary 

could be coordinated with county and other agencies that oversee related earthworks outside the 

park boundary, to create a database and map of all 

regional earthworks related to the Atlanta Campaign. These earthworks include the Gold Branch 

Unit rifle pits in the Morgan Fall area and similar 

locations identified in archeological studies. In 

addition, mapping of abandoned home sites, especially those with standing chimneys and other features, and of fish weirs and historic roadways would 

help insure their continued preservation.

List of Classified Structures (LCS)

The National Park Service’s List of Classified Structures (LCS) defines a structure as a constructed 

work that serves some form of human activity and 

that generally is immovable. Because the LCS is a 

listing of structures considered to be “historic,” the 

following criteria are applied before a structure is 

entered on the LCS:

■ all historic and prehistoric structures within 

parks of the National Park System that 

individually meet the criteria of the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

■ all structures that are contributing elements of 

sites or districts that meet National Register 

criteria, and structures that are managed as 

cultural resources because of law, policy, or 

decisions reached through the planning 

process. These structures include certain 

structures that have been moved or 

reconstructed, commemorative structures, and 

structures that have achieved significance 

within the last 50 years. 

In most cases, in order for a historic structure within 

a park to be listed on the LCS, it must first be determined eligible for listing in the National Register as 

noted above. Even if not already a contributing 

resource in an existing historic district, Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) can be made in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO). Once concurrence is received from the 

SHPO in the form of a signed and dated letter, the 

structure/s can be entered on the LCS and the final 

National Register documentation can be submitted 

at a later date. Before the structure can be “certified,” agreement to its Management Category must 

be made by the Park Superintendent and a letter 

stating the same must be sent to the Regional LCS 

Coordinator. 

The only structures identified in this HRS that are 

located within the park and currently listed on the 

LCS are the Sope Creek Ruins. All other structures 

and earthworks identified in this study, both inside 

and outside the park boundaries, should undergo 

DOEs. Because many of the structures located outside of the park are contextually related to structures on NPS property, the DOE process should be 

approached holistically and include all related 

structures in the study area. Any National Register 

nominations should also follow that approach.

Prior to this study, fourteen structures were identified by CRNRA and Southeast Regional Office staff 

as having high potential for NR eligibility and were 

subsequently listed on the LCS. At that time, listing 

structures on the LCS was not contingent on SHPO 

concurrence as it is today. Those structures were 

moved to the “Shadow” version of the LCS in anticipation of eventual SHPO concurrence. It is hoped 

that this study can supplement any formal DOEs for 

those structures when they are submitted to the 

SHPO.

National Register of Historic Places

Three properties within the boundaries of the 

CRNRA are currently listed in the National Register 
National Park Service 113

of Historic Places: George A. Power House (Cobb 

County), Sope Creek Ruins (Cobb County), and 

part of the Roswell Historic District (Fulton 

County). Johnston’s River Line (Cobb County) is 

also listed in the National Register, but it is outside 

the boundaries of the CRNRA. In conjunction with 

this Historic Resource Study, National Register 

nominations for Island Ford Lodge (Park headquarters, Fulton County) and for Allenbrook (Fulton County) are being prepared by the Cultural 

Resources Division of the Southeast Regional 

Office.

Determinations of Eligibility

Over the past decade, requirements of the Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 have led to the production 

of several Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) for 

properties located within the boundaries of the 

CRNRA. DOEs were produced for the Barnwell 

Cabin in the Jones Bridge Unit, the Dispatch Office 

Complex in the Palisades Unit, and a complex of 

residential buildings in the Gold Branch Unit. In 

consultation with and the concurrence of Georiga’s 

SHPO, each of these properties was determined 

ineligible to the National Register Copies of the 

Statements of Concurrence are on file at SERO.

As noted above, National Register nominations for 

Island Ford Lodge and for Allenbrook are at the 

time of this study being written by Cultural 

Resources Division staff at SERO. Drafts of these 

nominations will be used as DOEs for SHPO concurrence before formal submission are made to the 

Keeper of the National Register. Once concurrence 

is received from the SHPO, the historic resources 

associated with the two properties will be added to 

the park’s LCS.

Management of 

Historic Structures

Several historic buildings under park management 

are deteriorating. Of particular concern are Allenbrook and the Collins- Yardum House, both of 

which have remained unoccupied for a number of 

years. While an historic structure report (HSR) has 

been completed for Allenbrook and planning has 

begun for its rehabilitation, little has been done to 

protect the Collins- Yardum House, which is at risk 

of demolition by neglect if preservation measures 

are not taken soon. The house is awaiting funding 

for a historic structure report and for repair and 

rehabilitation. Unoccupied structures are at high 

risk for deterioration, and every effort should be 

made to expedite completion of an HSR and rehabilitation of the house.

While NPS policy discourages residential occupancy of park buildings by park staff where housing 

is available in nearby communities, policy also 

encourages adaptive use of historic buildings rather 

than construction of new facilities. Creative thinking should be brought to bear on the problem of 

appropriate long- term use for both the CollinsYardum House and for Allenbrook.

Neglected for decades, Jones Bridge, Settles Bridge, 

and Rogers Bridge are all deteriorating, in part 

because none of these bridges is wholly owned by 

the NPS although all three are located within the 

boundaries of the CRNRA. In the southern part of 

the CRNRA, a friends group has been established to 

help preserve the historic steel- truss bridge at 

Pace’s Ferry Road. While ownership of Jones, Settles, and Rogers bridges is cloudy, the Pace’s Ferry 

group might serve as a model for partnerships with 

the NPS that could support preservation of these 

historic resources. Without protective coatings, the 

steel structure of these bridges will eventually deteriorate to the point of collapse. In addition, the piers 

at the eastern side of Settles Bridge have been so 

badly undermined by the river’s flow that the stability of the entire bridge has been compromised. The 

CRNRA should work with State and local officials 

to resolve questions of ownership and look for ways 

to preserve these important resources.

The historically significant concrete bridge where 

U.S. 41 crosses the river at Paces Mill is also deteriorating, and while it is and will remain under the 

ownership and care of the Georgia Department of 

Transportation, the CRNRA has a clear interest in 

its treatment and should work with State officials to 

insure its continued preservation.

The ruins of mills and other structures in the 

CRNRA will require continued care if they are to be 

preserved. The ruins of Akers Mill are especially 

vulnerable to deterioration due to rampant growth 

of vegetation, inaccessibility, and other causes. 

Abandoned roads, including the bed of the erstwhile Roswell Railroad, are also vulnerable, primarily from erosion and reforestation of the trace of 
114 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

these roads. The routes of the most important of 

these roads, especially the Roswell Railroad and the 

roads around Hyde Farm and the George Power 

House, should be identified and perhaps maintained as trails to insure their continued preservation.

Interpretation

CRNRA should consider creating displays at Park 

Headquarters at Island Ford and at other appropriate locations in the park that orient visitors to the 

cultural resources in the recreation area. Some park 

units have interpretive signs for individual 

resources, but there should be a single location in 

the park, perhaps at Island Ford, that provides an 

overview of cultural resources. Interpretive markers 

for the dams on Big Creek, Allenbrook, Akers Mill, 

the river bridges, and other resources would introduce visitors to park resources that they might otherwise overlook.
National Park Service 115

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Abbott, Belle K. The Cherokee Indians in Georgia. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Confederate Publishing Company, 1980.

Anderson, William L., ed. Cherokee Removal: Before and 

After. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991.

Bagley, Garland C. History of Forsyth County, Georgia: 

1832- 1932. Easley, S.C.: Southern Historical Press, 

Inc., 1985.

Bartram,William. Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, A facsimile of the 

1792 London edition. Savannah: The Beehive Press, 

1973.

Bassett, John Spencer, ed. Correspondence of Andrew 

Jackson. 7 volumes. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie 

Institution, 1926- 1935.

Blythe, Robert W., Maureen A. Carroll, and Steven H. 

Moffson. Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

Park Historic Resource Study. Atlanta: National Park 

Service, 1995.

Bonner, James C. A History of Georgia Agriculture: 1732-

1860. Athens: University of Georgia Press,1964.

Braely, Chad, Karen G. Wood, and Jeffrey T. Price. “An 

Archeological and Historical Survey of a Fifteen Acre 

Tract in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia.” Unpublished report. Athens, Ga.: Southeastern Archeological Services for the Georgia Department of 

Transportation, 1992.

Brand, Kathryn E. Holland. Deerskins & Duffels: The Creek 

Indian Trade with Anglo- America, 1685- 1815. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1993.

Bronski, Everett E. Jr. “Archeological Survey of CobbFulton Counties: Sope Creek Manufacturing Complex.” Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1978.

Brown, Fred, and Sherri M.L. Smith. The Riverkeeper’s 

Guide to the Chattahoochee. Atlanta: CI Publishing, 

1997.

Brown, Lenard E. Historic Resource Study: Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area and Chattahoochee 

River Corridor. Atlanta: Southeast Region Office, 

National Park Service, 1980.

Candler, Allen D. The Confederate Records of the State of 

Georgia / Compiled and Published Under Authority of 

the Legislature. 6 vols. 1909- 11. Reprint, New York: 

AMS Press, 1972.

Carson, O.E. The Trolley Titans, a Mobile History of 

Atlanta. Glendale, Calif.: Interurban Press, 1981.

City of Atlanta/Georgia Power. “Morgan Fall Dam 

Enlargement: A Joint Project to Regulate Flow of the 

Chattahoochee River.” N.p., n.d.

Coleman, Kenneth. Colonial Georgia: A History. New 

York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976.

______, editor. A History of Georgia. Athens: University of 

Georgia Press, 1977.

Coleman, Richard G. “A Short History of The Roswell 

Manufacturing Company of Roswell, Georgia Home 

Of ‘Roswell Grey.’” Booklet on file at Bulloch Hall 

Library, Roswell, 1982.

Condit, Carl W. American Building Art: The Nineteenth 

Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Cooper, Walter G. Official History of Fulton County. 1934.

Reprint, Spartanburg, S.C.: The Reprint Company, 

1978.

Corkran, David H. The Cherokee Frontier: Conflict and 

Survival 1740- 62. Norman, Okla.: The University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1962.

Crist, James F. They Electrified the South: The Story of the 

Southern Electric System. N.p.: James F. Crist, 1981.

DeVane, Ernest E., and Clarece Martin. Roswell Historic 

Homes and Landmarks: A Collection of Drawings. 

Roswell, Ga.: Roswell Historical Society, n.d.

Ehrenhard, Ellen B., Patricia D. O’Grady, and Charles B. 

Poe. “Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area, Georgia: Cultural Resource Inventory/Archeological Sites Final Report.” Tallahassee, Fla.: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

1980.

Ehrenhard, Ellen B., Patricia D. O’Grady, and Gregory K. 

Tool. “Chattahoochee National Recreation Area: 

Proposed Research Design and Archeological Overview.” Tallahassee, Fla.: Southeast Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, 1979.

Fairbanks, Charles H. Cherokee and Creek Indians. New 

York.: Garland Publishing Co., 1974.
116 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Flanigan, James C. History of Gwinnett County, Georgia. 2 

volumes. 1943- 1960. Reprint, Gwinnett County Historical Society, 1975.

Frazier, Bill. “Fish Traps Georgia River System.” Indian 

Artifact Magazine (May 2000),

Garrett, Franklin M. Atlanta and Environs; a Chronicle of 

Its People and Events. Athens, Ga.: University of 

Georgia Press, 1954.

Garrett, Franklin. “James McC. Montgomery of Standing 

Peachtree.” Atlanta Historical Bulletin, No.12 

(December 1937).

Georgia Institute of Technology. Economic Development 

Possibilities in the Chattahoochee River Basin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce: Economic Development Administration, 1967.

Gresham, Thomas H. “Cultural Resources Survey of the 

Proposed Lake Sidney Lanier Reregulation Dam and 

lake Area, Forsyth and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia.” 

Athens, Ga.: Southeastern Archeological Services, 

Inc., 1987.

Harper, Ronald M. Development of Agriculture in Georgia 

from 1850 to 1920. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Ronald M. Harper, 

1923.

Hartrampf, Inc., and OJP/Architect, Inc. “Historic Structure Report: Allenbrook, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Roswell, Fulton County, 

Georgia.” Atlanta: Hartrampf, Inc., July 2004.

Hatcher, George. Georgia Rivers. Athens: University of 

Georgia Press, 1962.

Higgins, Michael. “The Geology of the Brevard Lineament near Atlanta, Georgia.” Georgia State Division 

of Conservation, Department of Mine, Mining and 

Geology. The Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 77, 

1966.

Hitt, Michael. Charged With Treason. Monroe, N.Y.: Liberty Research Associates, Inc., 1992.

______. Cherokee Lands Within What is Now Roswell, 

Georgia in the 1820’s and 1830’s. Roswell, Ga.: M.D. 

Hitt, 1993.

Hoxie, Frederick E., ed. Encyclopedia of North American 

Indians. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Hudson, Charles M., ed. Ethnology of Southeastern Indians: A Source Book. New York: Garland Publishing, 

Inc., 1985.

Hunter, Louis C. A History of Industrial Power in the 

United States 1780- 1930 – Volume I: Waterpower in the 

Century of the Steam Engine. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.

Jones, Charles C., Jr. Antiquities of the Southern Indians, 

Particularly of the Georgia Tribes. New York: D, 

Appleton and Company, 1873.

Jones, Tommy H. “George A. Power House Historic 

Structure Report,” Cobb Landmarks, 2001.

Kehoe, Alice Beck. America Before the European Invasions. London: Pearson Education Ltd., 2002.

Kelly, Dennis. Kennesaw Mountain and the Atlanta Campaign, a Tour Guide. Marietta, Ga.: Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association, Inc., 1989.

King, Duane H., ed. The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled History. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 

1979.

Krakow, Kenneth K. Georgia Place Names. Macon, Ga.: 

Winship Press, 1975. Also available at <http://

www.kenkrakow.com/gpn/georgia_placenames.htm>.

Martin, Clarece. “Roswell Historic Homes and Landmarks.” Roswell, Ga.: Roswell Historical Society, Inc., 

n.d.

Martin; Joel E. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for 

a New World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1991.

The Mill Wheel. Roswell Historical Society, Vol., 1, No., 3, 

Summer 1991.

Miller, Page, project director. Revision of the National Park 

Service’s Thematic Framework. Washington, D.C.: 

National Park Service, 1996.

Miri, Ali. Historic Structure Assessment Report: Allenbrook 

House. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Region, Historic Architecture Division, 1994.

Mitchell, Ruthanne L., ed. Appalachian Cultural Resources 

Workshop Papers. Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 1993.

Mitchell, Stephens. “The Old Ferries and the Ferry 

Roads.” Atlanta Historical Bulletin, June 1933.

Moritz, L. A. Grain Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Inventory: 

Chattahoochee Final Report draft. Atlanta: Southeast 

Regional Office, 1981.

_______. “De Soto National Historic Trail Study.” Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 1990.

_______. “Historic Structure Assessment Report, Island 

Ford Lodge, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.” Atlanta: National Park Service Cultural 

Resources, Southeast Region, 2000.

Nesbit, R.T., Georgia: Her Resources and Possibilities.

Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing Co., 1896.

Newman, Harvey K. Southern Hospitality: Tourism and the 

Growth of Atlanta. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama 

Press, 1999.

Parsons Engineering. “Cultural Resources Overview and 

Predictive Model for the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Cobb, Forsyth, Fulton, and 
National Park Service 117

Gwinnett Counties, Georgia.” Norcross, Ga.: Parsons 

Engineering and Science, Inc., March 2001, updated 

November 2001.

Prentice, Gary, and Elizabeth A. Horvath. “An Assessment 

of the Archeological Resources at the Morgan Falls 

West (CHAT- 57) Site, Tract 105- 08 and Tract 105- 26, 

Bull Sluice District, Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area, Cobb County, Georgia.” Tallahassee, Fla.: Southeast Archeological Center/National 

Park Service, 1995.

Rabun, James W. “Georgia and the Creek Indians.” Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina, 1937. 

Range, Willard. A Century of Georgia Agriculture 1850-

1950. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1954. 

Reprint, 1969.

Roller, David C., and Robert W. Twyman, eds. The Encyclopedia of Southern History. Baton Rouge: Louisiana 

State University Press, 1979.

Roth, Darlene M. “Architecture, Archaeology and Landscapes.” Marietta, Ga.: Cobb County Historic Preservation Commission, 1988.

Scaife, William R. The Campaign for Atlanta. Atlanta: William R. Scaife, 1985.

Shadburn, Don L., ed. Pioneer History of Forsyth County, 

Georiga. Forsyth County Heritage Series. Volume I. 

Roswell, Ga: WH Associates, 1981. 

Sherman, William T. Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. 2 Vols. 1875. Reprint, New York: Penguin Classics, 2000. 

Smith, James F. The Cherokee Land Lottery, Containing a 

Numerical List of the Names of the Fortunate Drawers 

in Said Lottery. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1838.

Steedman, Marguerite. “Sope Creek Mill Made History.” 

The Atlanta Journal, March 12, 1939.

Swanton, John R. The Indians of the Southeastern United 

States. Smithsonian Bureau of American Ethnology, 

Bulletin 137. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office, 1946.

Temple, Sarah Blackwell Gober. The First Hundred Years: 

A Short History of Cobb County, in Georgia. Atlanta: 

Walter . Brown Publishing Company, 1935.

Tompkins, D. A. Cotton Mill Commercial Features. Charlotte: D. A. Tompkins, 1899.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1840 Census of Georgia, Schedule of Mines, Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufacturing (Georgia Archives #331/30- 31), Cobb County. 

Also Population Schedules: NARA M704, Rolls 37-

53. (Georgia Archives #331/13- 29).

_________. 1850 Census of Georgia, Population Schedules 

(NARA M432, Rolls 61- 96), Slave Schedules (Georgia 

Archives #331/59- 67), Agriculture Schedules (Georgia 

Archives #331/68- 70), Mortality Schedules (Georgia 

Archives #331/71), Social Statistics (Georgia Archives 

#331/72).

_________. Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in 

the year 1910. Vol. 6, Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1913.

_________. The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850. 

Washington, D.C.: Robert Armstrong, Public Printer, 

1853.

________. Twelfth Census of the United States Taken in the 

Year 1900, Vol. 6, Agriculture, Part II. Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1902.

________. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Agriculture, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932.

________. Agriculture of the United States in 1860: Compiled 

from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1864.

________. Report of the Productions of Agriculture as 

Returned at the Tenth Census ( June 1, 1880). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1883.

________. Report of the Statistics of Agriculture of the United 

States at the Eleventh Census: 1890. Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1895.

________. The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the 

United States from the Original Returns of Ninth Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 

1870.

U. S. Congress. An Act To Amend the Act of August 15, 1978, 

regarding the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia. 98 U.S. Statutes at 

Large 2928 (1984).

________. An Act to Authorize Establishment of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of 

Georgia, and for Other Purposes. 92 U.S. Statutes at 

Large 474; Public Law 95- 344; 16 U.S.C. 460ii (1978).

________. An Act to Improve Protection and Management 

of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

in the State of Georgia. Public Law 106- 154 (1999).

U. S. Department of Agriculture. Gwinnett County Farm 

Statistics: 1900- 1966. Georgia Crop Reporting Service, 1967.

U. S. Department of State. Statistics of the United States of 

America as Collected and Returned to the Marshals of 

the Several Judicial Districts under the Thirteenth Section of the Act for Taking the Sixth Census. Washington, D.C.: Blair and Rives, 1841.

U. S. Department of War. The War of the Rebellion: a 

Complication of the Official Records of the Union and 

Confederate Armies. Series 1, Vol. XXXVIII, Part II- -

Reports. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office, 1891.
118 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Van Putten, Mark. “Water for People and Wildlife.” 

National Wildlife, June/July 2001.

Walsh, Darlene M., ed. Roswell Pictorial History. Roswell, 

Ga.: Roswell Historical Society, Inc., 1985. Reprint 

1994. 

White, George. Historical collections of Georgia : containing the most interesting facts, traditions, biographical 

sketches, anecdotes, etc. relating to its history and 

antiquities, from its first settlement to the present time.

New York: Pudney & Russell, 1854. Reprint, 1969.

________. Statistics of the State of Georgia: including an 

account of its natural, civil, and ecclesiastical history; 

together with a particular description of each county, 

notices of the manners and customs of its aboriginal 

tribes, and a correct map of the State. Savannah: W. T. 

Williams, 1849. Reprint, Spartanburg, S.C.: Reprint 

Co., 1972.

Wilkins, Thurman. Cherokee Tragedy: The Story of the 

Ridge Family and the Decimation of a People. New 

York: Macmillan, 1970.

Wilms, Douglas C. “Cherokee Land Use in Georgia, 1800-

1838.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973.

Winn. William W. The Old Beloved Path: Daily Life Among 

the Indians of the Chattahoochee Valley. Eufala, Ala.: 

Historic Chattahoochee Commission, 1992.

Wood, Karen G. “An Archeological Survey of the Presumed Location of the First Roswell Factory.” 

Unpublished report, Southeastern Archeological 

Services for the Roswell Historical Society, 1989.

________. “The Textile Mills of Roswell, Georgia.” Early 

Georgia, Volume 21, No. 1 (1993).

Wright, Wade H. History of the Georgia Power Company; 

1855- 1956. Atlanta: Georgia Power Co., 1957.

Archaeological Reports

(All available at library of Southeastern 

Archaeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida)

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division. “Archeological Survey of CobbFulton Counties.” Atlanta: N.p., 1973.

Bradley, Chad O. ,Karen G. Wood, and Jeffrey T. Price, 

“An Archeological and Historical Survey of Fifteen 

Acre Tract in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia.” Athens, Ga.: Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 

1992.

Duff, Eric A. “An Archaeological Survey of Georgia 

Department of Transportation Project BHF- STP001- 5(24), Including a Portion of the Chattahoochee 

National Recreation Area, Palisades Unit, Cobb and 

Fulton Counties, Georgia.” Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia 

Department of Transportation, 1997.

Ehrenhard, Ellen B. “Archeological Data Section Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area DRAFT. 

Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service Southeast 

Archeological Center, 1982. 

Ehrenhard, Ellen B. Patricia D. O'Grady, and Gregory K. 

Toole, “Chattahoochee National Recreation Area 

Proposed Research Design and Archaeological 

Overview.” Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service 

Southeast Archeological Center, 1979.

Faust, Richard D. “Archeological Resources in the Southeast Region, Status Report and Projection of Future 

Requirements. Vols. I and II.” Tallahassee, Fla.: 

National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, 1986.

Gantt, Mary E. “Phase 1 Archeological Resources Survey 

Grimes Bridge Road at Big Creek Project Roswell, 

Fulton County, Georgia.” Atlanta: Pond & Co., 2003.

__________. “Phase 1 Archeological Resources Survey 

Vickery Creek Pedestrian Bridge Abutment Roswell, 

Georgia.” Holly Springs, Ga.: Webb & Associates, 

2004.

__________. “1997 Preliminary Investigation of Archaeological Resources Survey Grimes Bridge Road at Big 

Creek Project Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia. 

Holly Springs, Ga.: RS Webb & Assoc., 1997.

Gresham, Thomas H. “Cultural Resources Survey of the 

Proposed Lake Sidney Lanier Regulation Dam and 

Lake Area Forsyth and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia, 

State Site Forms.” Athens, Ga.: Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1987.

Hamilton, Christopher E. “An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Chattahoochee River Corridor Between 

Buford Dam and Georgia 20 Highway Bridge.” Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, 1974.

Jordan, William R. “Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and 

Phase 2 Site Evaluation of the Proposed McGinnis 

Ferry Road Widening Corridor, Fulton and Forsyth 

Counties, Georgia.” Atlanta: Brockington and Associates, Inc., 1999.

___________. “Archeological Survey of Proposed Fuel 

Reduction Areas, Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area Cobb, Forsyth, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia.” Holly Springs, Ga.: R. S. 

Webb and Associates, 2004.

Joseph, J. W. “Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the Chattahoochee Water Main Replacement; Chattahoochee 

National Recreation Area.” Stone Mountain, Ga.: 

New South Associates, 1995)

Joseph, J. W., Theresa M. Hamby, and Mary Beth Reed. 

“Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of Two Well Sites in 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Cobb 
National Park Service 119

County, Georgia.” Stone Mountain, Ga.: New South 

Associates, 1995.

________. “Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 

Roswell Pedestrian Bridge: Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Vickery Creek Unit.” Stone 

Mountain, Ga.: New South Associates, 1998.

Komara, Gregory Lee. “Roberts Drive Entrance Road 

Survey, Island Ford Section, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area. Tallahassee, Fla.: National 

Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, 1983.

Lawson, Charles F. “Archeological Survey of the Cochran 

Shoals Unit Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.” Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service 

Southeast Archeological Center, 2004.

Meier, Lawrence W. “Archaeological and Historical 

Research in Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.” Marietta, Ga.: N.p, 1979.

_________. “Archaeological Survey of Cobb and Fulton 

Counties, Georgia, A Synopsis of Cultural Resources 

in the Chattahoochee River Corridors.” Atlanta: 

Cobb County, 1978.

Moore, Jackson W., Jr., “Archeological Surveys of Surplus 

Properties in the Gold Branch, Palisades, and Powers 

Ferry Units, and Archeological Survey of the Proposed Entrance Road Alignments in the Island Ford 

Unit Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area.” Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, 1986.

O’Grady, Patricia D., and Charles B. Poe. “Cultural 

Resource Inventory Archaeological Sites, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.” Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service Southeast 

Archeological Center, 1980.

Prentice, Guy L. “An Assessment of the Archeological 

Resources At the Morgan Falls West (CHAT - 57) 

Site, Tract 105- 26, Land Lots 224 and 279, Bull Sluice 

District, Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area, Cobb County, Georgia.” Tallahassee, Fla.: 

National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, 1994.

Prentice, Guy L. and Elizabeth A. Horvath, “An Assessment of the Archeological Resources at the Morgan 

Falls West (CHAT - 57) Site, Tract 105- 08 and Tract 

105- 26, Bull Sluice District, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, Cobb County, Georgia.” 

Tallahassee, Fla.: National Park Service Southeast 

Archeological Center, 1995.

Rogers, Ronnie H. “An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Riverside Road Pump Station and Associated 

Pipeline Corridors Roswell, Georgia” (Athens, Ga.: 

Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., 1991.

Smith, Betty A. “Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 

Chattahoochee River Interceptor, Gwinnett County, 

Georgia” (N.p., 1985).

Secondary Internet Resources

Ashby St. Trolley Car Barn. Marietta Street Artery Association. Nov. 4, 2004. http://www.artery.org/TrollyBarn.htm>. 

American Rivers. Chattahoochee water quality. Oct. 29, 

2004. <http://www.amrivers.org/index.php?module=Hyper Content&func=display&cid=422>.

BridgeSight Software, 2688 Venado Way, Rescue, CA 

95672. Jan. 4, 2005. Historic bridge information. 

<http://www.bridgesite.com/ funand.htm>.

Chaffin, Tom. “There’s Nothing New About Toll Roads, 

Bridges.” Atlanta Journal- Constitution, Jan. 24, 1998. 

United Toll Systems LLC website. Oct. 1, 2004. <http:/

/www.unitedtoll.com/GaArticles/ gaarticle11.htm>.

Chattahoochee Nature Center. “The Chattahoochee 

River.” Oct. 29, 2004. <http://www.chattnaturecenter.com/tour/hattahoochee.html>.

Chattahoochee Riverway BacteriALERT project. Partnership for Regional Livability and Georgia's Community Greenspace Program. Oct. 2,, 2004. Oct. 19, 

2004. <http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/bacteria/default.cfm> 

and < http://www.chattnaturecenter. com/tour/ 

chattachoochee.html>.

Climb Tennessee. Oct. 20, 2004. <http://www.climbtennessee.com/local/georgia.html>.

DEMOGRAPHIA, US Metropolitan Areas: Population 

from 1900, http://www. demographia.com/dbxusmet.htm.

Friends of Hyde Farm. Nov. 3, 2004. <http://www.friendsofhydefarm.org/history.html>.

Funk, Adrienne. “Water quality study addresses pollution 

questions at Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.” Nov. 2, 2004. < http://www2.nature.nps. 

gov/YearInReview/yir99/pages/05risks/

05funk_chat.htm>.

Georgia Electric and Railway Company and Atlanta Water 

and Electric Power Company. New Georgia Encyclopedia. Oct. 13, 2004. <http://www.georgiaencyclopedia. org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h- 1879>.

Georgia Public Policy Foundation. “Agenda 2005: A 

Guide to the Issues.” Oct. 19, 2004. <http://

www.gppf.org/article.asp?RT=20&p=pub/Water/

water_frontpage.htm>.

GEOSPAT Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, University of Virginia. United States Historical Census 

Data Browser. May 15, 2000. <http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/ census/>.

Holliday, Pamela P. “The Chattahoochee: A River Facing 

Peril and Possibility.” Oct. 11, 2004. <http://

www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/chattahoochee/

chattahoochee _in_peril/ index.html>.
120 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study

Kirby, Joe. “Developer Bulldozes Artillery Fort, Trenches 

Near Atlanta.” Historical Publications Inc., December 2003. Oct. 14, 2004. <http://www.civilwarnews.com/ archive/articles/fort_ bulldozed.htm>.

Kirby, Joe. “Georgia Plans Civil War Trail.” Historical 

Publications, Inc. Oct. 18, 2004. <http://www.civilwar 

news.com/archive/articles/cwtrail_kirby.htm>.

Lenz, Richard J. “Johnston’s River Line,” The Civil War in 

Georgia: An Illustrated Traveler’s Guide, Decatur, 

Georgia: Sherpa Guides. Nov. 6, 2004. <http://sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/atlanta/

smyrna_area.html>.

Militia districts. Cherokee County Historical Society. Oct. 

6, 2004. <www.rockbarn.org/history.htm.>.

National Park Service. The Archaic Period (ca.8000 B.C. – 

1000 B.C.). Southeastern Archeological Center. Nov. 

19, 1999. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/archaic.htm>.

National Park Service.The Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 900 ñ 17000). Southeastern Archeological Center. Nov. 19, 1999. <http://

www.cr.nps.gov/seac/ archaic.htm>. 

National Park Service. The Paleoindian Period (ca.13,000 

B.C. – 7,900 B.C.). Southeastern Archeological Center. Nov. 19, 1999. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/ 

archaic.htm>.

National Park Service. The Woodland Period (ca.2000 

B.C. – A.D. 1000). Southeastern Archeological Center. 

Nov. 19, 1999. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/ woodland.htm>.

New Georgia Encyclopedia. <http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h- 693>.

Sherpa Guides. Johnston’s River Line information. Oc. 15, 

2004. <http://sherpaguides. com/georgia/civil_war/

atlanta/smyrna_ area.html>.

Simpsonwood Retreat. Nov. 3, 2004. <http://www.simpsonwood.org/about/History.htm>

Watford, Chris. “Dixie Cragger’s Atlas, a Climber Guide to 

Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.” Climb Tennessee. 

Nov. 2, 2004. <http://www.climbtennessee. com/

local/georgia.html>. 

Wendell Cox Consultancy. US Metropolitan Areas: Population from 1900. Aug. 23, 2000. <http://

www.demographia.com/db- usmetfr1900.pdf>.

______. “Cobb County Trenches May Be Next Preservation Opportunity.” Georgia Battlefields Association, 

Inc. newsletter, May 2003. Oc. 28, 2004. <http://

www.georgiabattlefields.org/pdf_ files/

GBAnews0305.pdf>. 

______. “Chattahoochee River Named One of America’s 

Most Endangered Rivers.” April 6, 1998. American 

Rivers. Oct. 18, 2004. <http://www.amrivers.org/ 

index.php?module=HyperContent &func=display&cid=422>.
National Park Service 121

Historical Base Map
122 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study
As the nation’s principal conservation agency,

the Department of the Interior has

responsibility for most of our nationally owned

public lands and natural resources. This

includes fostering sound use of our land and

water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife,

and biological diversity; preserving the

environmental and cultural values of our

national parks and historical places; and

providing for the enjoyment of life through

outdoor recreation. The department assesses

our energy and mineral resources and works to

ensure that their development is in the best

interests of all our people by encouraging

stewardship and citizen participation in their

care. The department also has a major

responsibility for American Indian reservation

communities and for people who live in island

territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-70 February 2007