Stones River Nation

Historic Reso

Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

U.S. Department of the Interior

Stones River National Battlefield

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Stones River Nation

Historic Reso

Cultural Resources

Southeast Region
Stones River National Battlefield

Historic Resource Study

February 2004

written by Sean M. Styles

additional material supplied by Miranda Fraley

edited by Mary O. Ratcliffe and Robert W. Blythe
Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

National Park Service

100 Alabama Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-3117

Stones River National Battlefield

3501 Old Nashville Highway

Mufreesboro, Tennessee 37129

http://www.nps.gov/stri

About the cover: Silhouetted by sunset, the 1906 

Artillery Monument is a 34-foot concrete obelisk built 

in the shops of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis 

Railroad. Designed by Hunter McDonald, the Artillery 

Monument was the last monument placed on the 

Stones River battlefield before federal acquisition. 

Photo by Gib Backlund for NPS.

The historic resource study presented here exists in two 

formats. A printed version is available for study at the park, 

the Southeast Regional Office of the National Park Service, 

and at a variety of other repositories. For more widespread 

access, this historic resource study also exists in a webbased format through ParkNet, the website of the National 

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

information.
National Park Service iii

Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Figure Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Chapter One: Introduction

Description of Stones River National Battlefield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Scope and Purpose of Historic Resource Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Determination of Historic Contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Historical Base Map Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter Two: The Battle of Stones River and its Place in the Civil War

The Coming of the War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The First Battles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1863: Confederate Tide Broken at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Grant Takes Charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The End of the War. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter Three: Stones River and the Campaign for Middle Tennessee, 1861-1865

Stones River on the Eve of the Battle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Battle of Stones River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Fortress Rosecrans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Hazen Brigade Monument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Stones River National Cemetery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Nashville, Murfreesboro and Shelbyville Turnpike and Tollhouse Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Wilkinson Pike (Manson Pike) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Van Cleve Lane (Old Bowen Lane, McFadden Lane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CSX Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Fortress Rosecrans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Stones River National Cemetery/Hazen Brigade Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Integrity of Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Contributing Properties - Federal Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Historic Structures and Sites Outside NPS Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
iv Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Chapter Four: Stones River National Battlefield Park: The Commemoration of 

American Battlefields and National Park Development, 1866-1948

Post-Battle Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Early Battlefield Commemoration: Civil War Memorial Activity and the

Establishment of Stones River National Military Park, 1866-1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Memorial Efforts at Stones River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

The Creation of a Park: Development of Stones River National Military Park. . . . . . . . . . . . .66

War Department Administration, 1927-1933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

The NPS and the New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Early National Park Service Administration of Stones River National

Military Park, 1933 - 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

The National Park Service Mission 66 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Stones River National Battlefield Development Under Mission 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Integrity of Historic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Contributing Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Noncontributing Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

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

Museum Collections

Cultural Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Ethnographic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Museum Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Chapter Six: Management Recommendations

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Archive and Manuscript Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Appendix: Historical Base Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
National Park Service v

Figures

1 Location of Stones River National Battlefield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Development near Stones River National Cemetery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 Stones River National Cemetery, circa 1890s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 Abraham Lincoln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5 Winfield Scott’s plan to blockade and strangle the South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6 Jefferson Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

7 Confederate dead at the battle of Antietam.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

8 Artist’s conception of Lincoln reading the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet.. . . . . 13

9 Painting of action at the Battle of Gettysburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10 The New York City draft riots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11 Artist’s sketch of the Battle of Chickamauga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

12 Federal entrenchments along the North Anna River, Wilderness campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13 Federal position at Atlanta, Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

14 African Americans serving on a jury during Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

15 Major General William S. Rosecrans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

16 Movement of Rosecrans’s army toward Murfreesboro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

17 General Braxton Bragg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

18 The Nashville Pike about 20 years after the battle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

19 Troop dispositions on the first day of the Battle of Stones River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

20 McFadden’s Ford circa the 1890s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

21 Pay sheet for African Americans who worked on Fortress Rosecrans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

22 Fortress Rosecrans superimposed on modern city streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

23 Blockhouse of type used at Fortress Rosecrans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

24 Hazen Brigade Monument, 1890s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

25 Headstones in Stones River National Cemetery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

26 View in Stones River National Cemetery.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

27 Hord House.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

28 Gresham House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

29 Downtown Murfreesboro, 1890s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

30 Cabins, probably of sharecroppers, on battlefield in 1890s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

31 Badge from a veterans’ reunion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

32 Murfreesboro’s Confederate Memorial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

33 Memorial to the Confederate dead at Evergreen Cemetery.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

34 Historical marker in Evergreen Cemetery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

35 The rail line running through the battlefield brought veterans back for visits.. . . . . . . . . . . 64

36 The Artillery Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

37 Main entrance to park in the 1930s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

38 Mission 66 visitor center at Stones River.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

39 U.S. Regulars Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
vi Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Figure Credits

1-James Womack III for NPS; 2-Robert W. Blythe for NPS; 3-From the Albert Kern Collection, 

Montgomery County Historical Society SR-36; 4-Library of Congress LC-D416-31-DLC; 5-Library of 

Congress map collections 99447020; 6-Courtesy of the Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond, VA; 7-

Library of Congress LC-B8171-0560; 8-Library of Congress LC-USZ62-2070; 9-Library of Congress LCUSZ62-14373; 10-Library of Congress LC-USZ62-125930; 11-Library of Congress LC-USZ62-96714; 12-

Library of Congress LC-B8171-0756; 13-Library of Congress LC-B8171-3635; 14-Library of Congress LCUSZ62-116587; 15-Library of Congress LC-B8172-2001-DLC; 16-James Womack III for NPS, after Bearss, 

Troop Movement Map; 17-courtesy of the Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond, VA; 18-Stones 

River National Battlefield archives STRI-8x20CP-005; 19-James Womack III for NPS; 20-From the Albert 

Kern Collection, Montgomery County Historical Society M-10; 21-Stones River National Battlefield 

museum collection STRI 04241; 22-James Womack III for NPS; 23-After Tennessee Dept. of 

Conservation, A Survey of Civil War Period Military Sites in Middle Tennessee; 24-From the Albert 

Kern Collection, Montgomery County Historical Society SR-33; 25, 26-Robert W. Blythe for NPS; 27 -

From the Albert Kern Collection, Montgomery County Historical Society M-77; 28-Stones River 

National Battlefield archives STRI-ICP-0477; 29-From the Albert Kern Collection, Montgomery County 

Historical Society M-2; 30-From the Albert Kern Collection, Montgomery County Historical Society SR12; 31-Stones River National Battlefield museum collection STRI 167; 32-Stones River National 

Battlefield archives STRI-NN-049; 33, 34-Robert W. Blythe for NPS; 35-Stones River National 

Battlefield archives STRI-ICP-0447; 36-Stones River National Battlefield archives, STRI-NN-037; 37-

Stones River National Battlefield archives STRI-ICP-0683; 38-Stones River National Battlefield archives 

STRI-8x10P-0117; 39-Robert W. Blythe for NPS; Appendix A, Historical Base Maps-James Womack III 

for NPS, following Brian Morris.
National Park Service vii

Foreword

We are pleased to make available this historic resource study for Stones River National Battlefield. 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 Stones River National Battlefield Superintendent 

Stuart Johnson and his staff for their assistance in preparing this study. Copy editors for this study were 

Mary Ratcliffe and Robert W. Blythe. The production editor was James Womack III, who also drew the 

maps. A portion of the research on this study was accomplished under a cooperative agreement with the 

Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation. We hope that this historic resource study will prove valuable to 

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

National Battlefield.

Dan Scheidt

Chief, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

February 2004
viii Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 1

Chapter One: Introduction

Description of Stones River 

National Battlefield

Stones River National Battlefield (STRI) contains a 

portion of the site of the Battle of Stones River, the 

key Civil War battle in the struggle for middle 

Tennessee. The battle took place over two days, 

December 31, 1862, and January 2, 1863, and resulted 

in a Union victory. The park was established 

through the efforts of private individuals, the Stones 

River Battlefield and Park Association, and the 

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway (after 

many mergers, now part of CSX Transportation), 

and, finally, by an act of Congress. In 1927, federal 

legislation authorized a national military park at 

Stones River under the jurisdiction of the War 

Department.

Land acquisition began in 1928 and was finished in 

1934. In 1992, the park accepted the City of 

Murfreesboro’s donation of an intact segment of 

Fortress Rosecrans within Old Fort Park. Stones 

River National Battlefield consists of several 

discontiguous parcels of land. The park’s core area 

is a parcel south of the Stones River National 

Cemetery, encompassing the area where 

Confederate forces on December 31, 1862, turned 

the Union flank and were in turn checked by massed 

Federal artillery. STRI preserves only a small 

portion of the more than 3,000 acres over which the 

battle raged. The park also contains fragments of 

Fortress Rosecrans, the largest enclosed earthwork 

built during the Civil War.

The 570-acre park interprets the Battle of Stones 

River and the subsequent Union occupation of 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, through museum 

exhibits, a videotape presentation, publications, 

wayside exhibits, ranger programs, and a self-guided 

tour of the park. The park is located in Rutherford 

County, Tennessee, three miles northwest of 

Murfreesboro and twenty-eight miles southeast of 

Nashville (see Figure 1). The largest portion of the 

national battlefield is an irregular parcel of 340 

acres, which is a mile and one-quarter north to 

FIGURE 1. Location of Stones River National Battlefield.

95 26

20

20

59

24

65

40

55

30

85

85 75

77

81

64

57

55

44 75

ST. LOUIS

FRANKFORT

LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON CITY

CHARLOTTE

NASHVILLE

COLUMBIA

ATLANTA

CHARLESTON

LITTLE ROCK

BIRMINGHAM

MEMPHIS

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

MISSISSIPPI

ARKANSAS

ALABAMA

GEORGIA

MISSOURI

Great Smoky

Mountains NP

Fort Sumter NM

Chickamauga and

Chattanooga NMP

Shiloh NMP

Kennesaw Mountain NBP

Brices Cross

Roads NBS

Fort Donelson NB

Stones River NB

Tupelo NB

Wilson’s Creek NB
2 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

south, and at its widest point, three-quarters of a 

mile east to west. Other discontiguous components 

of the park include the high ground near 

McFadden’s Ford where Union artillery was 

massed; two remnants of Fortress Rosecrans, and 

two headquarters sites. All park units are in a 

corridor that parallels the Old Nashville Highway 

and the CSX Railroad tracks.

The patchwork of open fields and wooded areas 

that characterized this agricultural area in 1863 

remains clearly readable, with brakes of cedar 

between cultivated fields. The open fields 

maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) 

approximate the position of fields in existence at the 

time of the battle. Likewise, the cedar brakes 

maintained by NPS exist in their approximate 

historic locations, although the existing plant 

materials are not historic. The park’s largest 

individual parcel, the core battle area, is maintained 

to simulate the historic appearance of the landscape. 

Other fields that are proposed for acquisition but 

not currently owned or maintained by NPS may 

retain some of their historic vegetation patterns. 

During the last thirty years, residential and 

commercial development has occurred on the 

battlefield as Murfreesboro has expanded (see 

Figure 2). Most of this development is along U.S. 

Highway 41, across the CSX Railroad tracks from 

Stones River National Cemetery. The accompanying 

traffic increase on the boundary of the park 

prompted the construction of the intrusive 

Thompson Lane Connector by the Tennessee 

Department of Transportation (DOT) across a 

section of the battlefield adjacent to the park. 

Development also has introduced light pollution to 

the park, particularly from the floodlights of nearby 

automobile dealerships. Other more serious threats 

include transportation and infrastructure projects 

and associated development. Traffic noise from as 

far away as Interstate 24 to the southwest is audible 

within the park

Scope and Purpose of 

Historic Resource Study

This Historic Resource Study (HRS) uses National 

Register criteria to identify and evaluate the park’s 

historic resources. Section 110 (a)(2) of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, 

requires federal agencies to:

(i) Establish historic contexts by which to 

identify and evaluate historic properties;

(ii) Use historic contexts to organize data and to 

develop goals, objectives, and priorities for the 

identification, evaluation, registration, and 

treatment of historic properties; and,

FIGURE 2. Development near Stones River National Cemetery.
National Park Service 3

(iii) Make the results of preservation planning 

available for integration into broader planning 

processes.1

This study fulfills this mandate by establishing and 

documenting the historic contexts associated with 

the park and determining the extent to which the 

surviving historic resources represent those contexts. The completed HRS will serve as a tool for site 

planning, resource management, and the continued 

development of park interpretive programs.

Although the Battle of Stones River has been 

examined by scholars in detail, there has not been a 

comprehensive examination of the park’s historic 

resources, particularly the features from early park 

development, within suitable historic contexts. The 

battlefield, including the Artillery Monument and 

Redoubt Brannan, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) on October 15, 1966. 

Fortress Rosecrans was listed on June 7, 1974.2

 STRI 

is classified as a discontiguous NR historic district, 

following the guidelines established in NR Bulletins 

16 and 40.3

 The NR district boundary matches the 

boundary of Stones River National Battlefield. 

A 1958 administrative history addressed the creation 

of the park, the history of the park’s interpretive 

programs, and the construction of park infrastructure to that date.4 It did not include the 

majority of the extant NPS infrastructure, which 

was constructed during the 1960s under the Mission 

66 initiative. This HRS will provide park management with additional information on historic 

structures, an interpretive framework for the park, 

and the basis for updated NR documentation.

Summary of Identification 

and Evaluation Methods

Survey Methodology

The researcher initially examined building records, 

maintenance records, historic research compiled by 

park staff, and maps located at park headquarters. 

The field survey yielded information on the present 

condition of historic resources. Additional archival 

research was conducted in the files of the Southeast 

Regional Office of the NPS. Research with primary 

and secondary sources was conducted at the park 

library, Linebaugh Public Library in Murfreesboro, 

Pullen Library of Georgia State University, and the 

Emory University General Library to obtain 

information about the park’s historic appearance 

and development. The Montgomery County [Ohio] 

Historical Society provided electronic copies of 

archival photographs of Stones River and 

surrounding environs from the Albert Kern 

Collection. The Indiana Historical Society mailed 

copies of primary narrative sources to the Cultural 

Resources Stewardship Division. The survey also 

relies heavily on unpublished manuscripts and 

materials located at the park.

Determination of Historic Contexts

This study evaluates the historic integrity and 

assesses the eligibility of the park’s historic 

structures within three historic contexts, which 

correspond to historic themes identified by the 

National Park Service in its 1993 revised thematic 

framework. The Tennessee State Historical 

Commission (the State Historic Preservation Office, 

or SHPO) does not have distinct historic contexts 

for Tennessee history that could be applied at Stones 

River National Battlefield. Other cultural resources 

(archeological sites, ethnographic resources, 

cultural landscapes, and museum collections) are 

addressed in Chapter Six.

The first context, “Stones River and the Campaign 

for Middle Tennessee, 1861-1865” (Chapter 3) relates 

to the NPS themes “Shaping the Political 

Landscape” and “Expanding Science and 

Technology.” The latter is particularly relevant when 

interpreting the construction and use of Fortress 

Rosecrans. The second context, “Stones River 

National Military Park: The Commemoration of 

American Battlefields and National Park 

Development, 1866-1950” (Chapter 4), is associated 

with the NPS themes “Creating Social Institutions 

and Movements,” “Expressing Cultural Values,” 

1. Section 110 Guidelines, Federal Register, February 17, 1988, 53 FR 4727-46.

2. The National Register accepted Ssupporting documentation was accepted by the National Register on January 26, 1978.

3. National Register Bulletin 16A: Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms (Washington: 

National Park Service, 1991), 56-57; National Register Bulletin 40: Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering 

America’s Historic Battlefields (Washington: National Park Service, 1992), 13-16.

4. Ann W. Willett, “A History of Stones River National Military Park,” (M.A. Thesis, Middle Tennessee State College, 1958), 

passim, 41-124, passim.
4 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

“Transforming the Environment,” and “Shaping the 

Political Landscape.”

Historic resources within the park represent both 

contexts. NPS-owned resources associated with 

“Stones River and the Campaign for Middle 

Tennessee, 1861-1865” are the battlefield itself, 

Bowen Lane/McFadden Lane, Manson Pike, Old 

Nashville Highway, the former Nashville & 

Chattanooga [CSX] Railroad, and the remnants of 

Fortress Rosecrans, including Curtain Wall No. 2, 

Lunette Thomas, Lunette Palmer, and Redoubt 

Brannan. Stones River National Cemetery (see 

Figure 3) and the Hazen Brigade Monument were 

constructed during the Union occupation of 

Murfreesboro, prior to the end of the war. They are 

therefore evaluated under this context. Resources 

that are identified with “Stones River National 

Military Park: The Commemoration of American 

Battlefields and National Park Development, 1866-

1950” include monuments and other features added 

to the Stones River National Cemetery after 1865 

(cemetery markers, Bivouac of the Dead tablets, 

cemetery wall, standing cannon markers, the 43rd 

Wisconsin/180th Ohio Marker, the U.S. Regulars 

Monument, and the cemetery flagstaff) the 

Cannonbal Pyramid, General Bragg’s Headquarters 

Marker, General Rosecrans’s Headquarters 

Marker, and the Main Entrance Gates.5

The majority of the existing NPS infrastructure was 

constructed during the 1960s under the Mission 66 

initiative. The Mission 66 visitor center has been 

evaluated under registration requirements 

established for this building type. Registration 

requirements for other Mission 66 building types, 

such as residences, have not been articulated. When 

these are available, the NR eligibility of the 

remaining Mission 66 structures at STRI should be 

evaluated.

Historical Base Map 

Discussion

The park’s first Historical Base Map (HBM) is a 

combination campaign/battlefield map drawn in 

1952. The campaign portion shows Union and 

Confederate troop movements between 

Murfreesboro and Nashville. The battle map 

portion depicts the topography, roads, structures, 

water features, woods, and troop lines at the close of 

fighting on December 31, 1862, with a superimposed 

dashed line marking the park boundary. Curiously, 

this map identifies a twentieth-century structure, 

the Artillery Monument, but fails to identify any 

other postbattle structures. The map also fails to 

5. A Gettysburg Address plaque from the cemetery is damaged and the pieces are in the maintenance area.

FIGURE 3. Stones River National Cemetery, circa 1890s.
National Park Service 5

identify which resources existed at the time of its 

preparation.6

NPS documented the 1863 battlefield again in 1959 

and 1960 with three historical base or troop 

movement maps that document the Stones River 

campaign and illustrate the topography, water 

features, towns, railroads, and military departments 

affected, in addition to the troops’ lines of march.7

Additional documentation was introduced when 

historian Ed Bearss created a “Historical Fence and 

Ground Cover Plan” for the park’s 1962 Master 

Plan. This map is accompanied by a report that 

explains the methodology of the its preparation and 

quotes official records concerning terrain features. 

Because of its solid scholarship, the “Historical 

Fence and Ground Cover Plan” has served as the 

primary source of information for this investigation 

concerning the location and configuration of roads, 

railroad tracks, earthworks, structures, and 

vegetation patterns of the 1864 battlefield.8

While the “Historical Fence and Ground Cover 

Plan” is exhaustive, it is neither definitive nor 

comprehensive. Bearss notes the existence of a 

blockhouse north of the Nashville & Chattanooga 

Railroad mentioned by no other researcher. The 

presence of a fortified blockhouse near the railroad 

would likely have been a salient point remarked 

upon by both sides when writing the post-battle 

reports. It is mentioned by only one participant who 

notes the presence of a “block house,” which likely 

was a stylistic description rather than military 

terminology. The “Historical Fence and Ground 

Cover Plan” also lacks the topographic lines of the 

1952 HBM. (Note: The blockhouse is a postbattle 

structure associated with Fortress Rosecrans.)

Two additional maps of the battlefield, based largely 

on the “Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan,” 

were drawn in 1976. The “Historic Conditions” map 

outlines the park boundaries over the historic 

battlefield and features topographic lines in addition 

to roads, structures, water features, and vegetation 

patterns. This map was updated two years later with 

a key that fails to account for all features. The 

second version darkened the area within the park 

boundaries and increased the shading of the map’s 

other sections.9 Two additional troop movement 

maps, titled “Battle Plan,” were drawn in 1976 and 

1978. These denote the course of the troop 

movements using darkened arrows but lack detail 

on small-scale features and provide no new 

information on historic resources.10

The Historical Base Maps accompanying this study 

(see Appendix) show the location of existing 

historic structures and their relationship to modern 

park infrastructure features. The maps were 

prepared by James Womack III of the Cultural 

Resources Division staff. Because the park is 

composed of discontiguous units, historic 

structures are shown on a series of maps, all keyed 

to an overall map of Stones River National 

Battlefield.

6. National Park Service, “Historical Base Map, Part of the Master Plan,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-2003 (Richmond, VA: 

Division of Planning & Construction, 1952).

7. National Park Service, “Troop Movement Map, 1862-63,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-3003 (Richmond, VA: Eastern Division 

of Design and Construction, 1959); National Park Service, “Historical Base Map,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-3005 

(Richmond, VA: Eastern Division of Design and Construction, 1960); National Park Service, “Troop Movement Map, 1862-

63,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-3006 (Richmond, VA: Eastern Division of Design and Construction, 1960).

8. National Park Service, “Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan, Part of the Master Plan,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-3011 

(Richmond, VA: Eastern Division of Design and Construction, 1962).

9. National Park Service, “Historic Conditions,” NPS map Number 327-20,031 (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1976); National 

Park Service, “Historic Conditions,” NPS map Number 327-20,031A (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1978).

10. National Park Service, “Battle Map,” NPS map Number 327-20,032 (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1976); National Park 

Service, “Battle Map,” NPS map Number 327-20,032A (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1978).
6 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 7

Chapter Two: The Battle of Stones 

River and its Place in the Civil War

The Battle of Stones River (fought on December 31, 

1862, and January 2, 1863) was a decisive Civil War 

clash in the struggle for control of middle 

Tennessee. Located twenty-five airline miles 

southeast of Nashville, in Rutherford County, 

Murfreesboro in late 1862 was the base of operations 

for the Confederate Army of Tennessee. Control of 

the town was essential to the Federal 14th Army 

Corps (later renamed the Army of the Cumberland) 

because of its proximity to Nashville, a forward 

supply depot for Union forces advancing into the 

South. Murfreesboro was the base of Confederate 

cavalry raids against Union supply lines in 

Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama. It was also 

astride the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad and of 

necessity would have to be occupied before the 

Federals could make a direct thrust on Chattanooga 

from Nashville. The war was concluding its second 

year, and despite Union success in blunting 

Confederate invasions of Kentucky and Maryland 

during the fall, a recent disaster at Fredericksburg, 

Virginia, and destructive Rebel cavalry raids in 

Kentucky, western Tennessee, and northern 

Mississippi had caused many on the Northern home 

front to question President Abraham Lincoln’s 

choice of generals. The Battle of Stones River gave 

Lincoln a badly needed victory during a low point in 

the Union war effort. This chapter places the battle 

within the broader context of the Civil War.

The Coming of the War

Political tensions between North and South had 

continued to rise in the decade before the war. 

Differences over import tariffs, internal 

improvements, and particularly the expansion of 

slavery inflamed passions on both sides of the 

Mason-Dixon Line. The presidential election of 

1860 was a contest between four candidates whose 

platforms represented their sectional outlooks. 

Abraham Lincoln (see Figure 4), an Illinois 

Republican, was elected president by carrying the 

North when the Democratic party split its vote 

between two candidates. The southern Democratic 

candidate, John C. Breckinridge, would later 

command a division at the Battle of Stones River. 

Interpreting Lincoln’s election as an act of hostility 

toward the slave-holding South, seven southern 

states—South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas—seceded from 

the Union before his inauguration and organized the 

Confederate States of America. On February 9, 1861, 

Confederate delegates elected Jefferson Davis their 

provisional president.1

 The seceding states had 

taken over almost all Federal facilities within their 

boundaries. Two exceptions were Fort Pickens in 

Florida and Fort Sumter in the harbor of 

Charleston, South Carolina. When Lincoln assumed 

office on March 4, 1861, he reluctantly dispatched 

ships carrying nonmilitary supplies to Fort Sumter. 

Gunners of the Palmetto Republic of South Carolina 

turned away the supply ship Star of the West with 

several shots across her bow, then trained their guns 

on the fort on April 12, 1861.The fall of Fort Sumter 

prompted Lincoln to call for seventy-five thousand 

volunteers to suppress the rebellion on April 15. 

Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina 

replied by joining the Confederacy rather than 

furnishing troops to subdue their political allies and 

neighbors.

Southerners began the war at a severe numerical 

disadvantage; they had sixteen million fewer white 

citizens than did their adversaries, a number that 

translated into a 2.5-to-1 manpower advantage in the 

field.2

 The South also expected its nearly four 

million slaves to supply the agricultural bounty 

1. James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 259.
8 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

necessary to sustain its armies in the field. In part 

because the slave population remained largely 

illiterate and unskilled, it was no substitute for the 

southern industrial workers that volunteered to 

fight. Immigration declined during the war, but 

Europeans continued to flow into the North, 

providing fresh troops to replace battlefield losses. 

The North also far surpassed the South’s industrial 

capacity to make war. According to the 1860 census, 

it possessed more than 90 percent of the nation’s 

manufacturing capability. While it did develop an 

industrial base during the war, the South found it 

necessary to import machinery, gunpowder, and 

manufactured goods from the outset.

Transportation also proved a challenge for the 

South, which possessed less than half the railroad 

infrastructure of the North and a proportionately 

smaller number of locomotives and cars. Control of 

railroads played a critical role in the campaigns of 

the Civil War; indeed, it was impossible to keep large 

armies in the field without them. Rivers, too, were 

vital to the movement and supply of both armies. 

Domination of the Mississippi River was a war aim 

for each side. The South wished to maintain 

communications and trade between cities and 

hinterlands on opposite banks of the river, while 

denying Midwestern farmers access to foreign 

markets via the Gulf of Mexico. Restoring the 

Midwest’s outlet to the sea and breaking the 

Confederacy in two were the respective political and 

military goals the North would realize if it could 

gain complete control over the Mississippi. In 

addition to their economic value, rivers served as 

avenues of invasion or defensive barriers, depending 

on whether they ran north to south or east to west.

Several advantages lay with the South, and the first 

to be recognized was its outstanding officer corps. 

This leadership edge was the result of the region’s 

tradition of martial education; it was home to seven 

of the nation’s eight antebellum “military” colleges. 

The cause was supported by alumni of these “cadet” 

schools, as well as by 313 U.S. Army officers who 

resigned their commissions to fight for the 

Confederacy.3

 The South also had the benefit of 

interior lines; in theory the Confederates could 

move troops between threatened points along 

shorter lines of communication, generally railroads, 

than their northern counterparts. This worked most 

effectively in Virginia, where the Confederates 

shifted forces from the defensive on the Tidewater 

to the offensive in the Shenandoah Valley on several 

occasions. Longer travel over the Confederacy’s 

rickety railroad network lessened the strategic value 

of interior lines. Southern counteroffensives into 

Kentucky and at Chickamauga each suffered 

because troops arrived too late to take part in 

combat. By far the largest Rebel advantage was the 

sheer size of the territory–750,000 square miles–that 

Union forces would have to occupy. The deeper an 

army drove into the South, the smaller it would 

become as it detached units to guard 

communications and rear areas from cavalry and 

partisan attacks. This enabled the Confederacy’s 

main field armies to closely approximate the size of 

Union armies for the first three years of the war.

The First Battles

In the spring of 1861, few predicted a long war, and 

many Union volunteer units enlisted for ninety days. 

Confederates often underestimated their 

2. McPherson, 322.

FIGURE 4. Abraham Lincoln.

3. McPherson, 328.
National Park Service 9

opponents; one wrote home “I think I can whip 25 

[Yankees] myself.”4 Unionists similarly envisioned a 

quick war won with a lightning thrust on the 

Confederate capital, and Yankee papers echoed the 

cry “On to Richmond.” Union Gen.-in-Chief 

Winfield Scott advanced a plan of blockade and 

envelopment of the Confederacy by the U.S. Navy 

that was greeted with derision by northern 

newspapers, which dubbed it the “Anaconda Plan” 

(see Figure 5). Though Scott would not live to see it, 

the ultimate success of his plan proved pivotal to 

Union victory. The North’s superior navy crippled 

the South with a successful blockade of ports and 

control of the navigable rivers. Any hopes for a 

quick war collapsed on the plains of Manassas, 

Virginia, in June 1861, when a southern army routed 

its enemy after a day-long battle. The result was a 

strategic draw. Although the Confederates lacked 

the resources to follow the beaten army as it fled to 

its Washington defenses, they acquired an air of 

martial invincibility as the Federals steeled 

themselves for a long conflict.

Because the hostilities spanned such a large area, 

operational command of the contending armies was 

divided into three theaters: eastern, encompassing 

Virginia and the coast of North Carolina; western, 

covering most of the territory from Kentucky to the 

Gulf of Mexico and east of the Mississippi River; 

and the massive trans-Mississippi, which stretched 

from New Mexico to the western bank of the 

Mississippi River. While the major battles in the 

eastern theater were the bloodiest, the western 

theater encompassed the Confederacy’s 

4. Grady McWhiney and Perry D. Jamieson, Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage (Tuscaloosa: 

University of Alabama Press, 1982), 170.

FIGURE 5. Winfield Scott’s plan to blockade and strangle the South.
10 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

breadbasket and its loss would offset Southern 

victories in Virginia.5 The trans-Mississippi theater 

furnished manpower and great quantities of 

livestock to the Confederate war effort. A Unioncontrolled Mississippi River would open world 

markets to Midwestern farmers and deny supplies 

to Confederate armies to the east.

Both wartime leaders faced monumental 

organizational challenges that seemed to favor longtime senator and former Secretary of War Jefferson 

Davis (see Figure 6), who assembled a cabinet of 

talented men representative of each state in the 

Confederacy. Political pressures caused wholesale 

changes in its makeup, however; five men would 

serve as his secretary of war. Davis’s inability to 

suffer criticism and a refusal to delegate also 

weakened his health and by extension his 

presidency.

Lincoln, by contrast, had not held an executive 

position before being elected president. He built a 

cabinet that included several of his Republican 

challengers for the 1860 nomination, many of whom 

still considered him unworthy of the office. He also 

contended with a Congress whose members had 

differing war aims. Abolitionists urged the president 

to use the war to free the slaves, while many 

Democrats supported a war to restore the Union 

but opposed emancipation. Echoing and shaping 

public opinion were powerful newspaper editors 

such as Democrat Horace Greeley of the New York 

Tribune, who vilified Lincoln for military reverses. 

Despite his handicaps, Lincoln proved a master 

politician who shaped the cabinet into an 

instrument of his will and deftly steered legislation 

through a wartime Congress that would change the 

structure of the country.6 Unlike Davis, who 

remained loyal to his favored generals, win or lose, 

Lincoln regularly replaced defeated leaders with 

lower-ranking officers of proven ability.

Two Union generals who had earned larger 

commands were George B. McClellan and William 

S. Rosecrans. In the fall of 1861, these men had 

defeated two separate Confederate armies under 

Gen. Robert E. Lee in western Virginia and secured 

the safety of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Lee left 

the mountains saddled with the sobriquet 

“Evacuating Lee,” while McClellan and Rosecrans 

secured a new state, West Virginia, for the Union. 

Meanwhile in the West, one Confederate army 

advanced into Kentucky while another defeated a 

Union army at Wilson’s Creek in Missouri. In 

accordance with President Davis’s “cordon defense” 

strategy, his forces attempted to defend the length of 

the Confederacy’s border. Gen. Joseph P. Johnston 

was assigned the task of protecting Virginia and the 

Confederate capital of Richmond in particular. In 

the western theater, overall command of the 

Confederate forces rested on the shoulders of Gen. 

Albert S. Johnston, newly arrived from California.

In February 1862, a joint army-navy force headed by 

Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Flag-Officer 

Andrew H. Foote sailed up the Tennessee River 

from its base in Paducah, Kentucky. On February 6, 

Union forces captured Confederate Fort Henry 

after a two-hour bombardment by Foote’s ironclad 

warships. Grant immediately marched troops 

overland to Fort Donelson on the Cumberland 

River, twelve miles away. Foote dispatched gunboats 

farther up the Tennessee River to demolish the 

5. Thomas L. Connelly, Army of the Heartland: The Army of Tennessee, 1861-1862 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University 

Press, 1967), 8-11.

FIGURE 6. Jefferson Davis.

6. McPherson, 450.
National Park Service 11

Memphis & Ohio Railroad bridge and detailed his 

ironclads to reduce Donelson in the same manner as 

Henry. It proved a tougher nut to crack, however, as 

Foote’s ships took a pounding from the Rebels’ 

elevated guns. Grant surrounded the fort, 

counterattacking after the Southerners abandoned 

an initially successful dawn breakout. On February 

16, Grant demanded and received the 

“unconditional surrender” of Maj. Gen. Simon B. 

Buckner and his twelve thousand-man garrison, 

becoming in the process the Union’s most 

celebrated general. Threatened by ironclads 

steaming up the Cumberland, the Confederates 

abandoned the manufacturing and logistics hub of 

Nashville on February 23, 1862. Federal forces 

occupied the Tennessee capital and prepared to 

move south on the important railroad center at 

Corinth, Mississippi.

Conceding western Kentucky and middle 

Tennessee, the Rebels concentrated their strength at 

Corinth, in preparation for a counterstroke. At 

dawn on April 6, the Confederate army under the 

combined leadership of Gens. Albert S. Johnston 

and P.G.T. Beauregard attacked Grant’s 

unsuspecting army, encamped 19 miles northeast of 

Corinth, driving it back two miles to the bluffs of the 

Tennessee River. During the night Grant received 

reinforcements from Brig. Gen. Don C. Buell. On 

the morning of April 7, Grant counterattacked with 

fresh men, who regained their lost encampments 

and self-esteem while driving the surprised Rebels 

back to Corinth. The 23,000 casualties of the Battle 

of Shiloh, including the mortally wounded Gen. 

Johnston, indicated that future battles would be as 

costly. While Grant struck his blow at Shiloh, Union 

Brig. Gen. John Pope captured heavily defended 

Island No. 10 on the Mississippi River with very little 

loss of life. These successes, coupled with Adm. 

David G. Farragut’s capture of New Orleans and 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in late April, left the 

Confederacy with a threadbare hold on the 

Mississippi. Between January and May 1862, Union 

forces conquered fifty thousand square miles of 

southern territory, captured the capitals of 

Tennessee and Louisiana, subdued the South’s 

largest city, dominated one thousand miles of 

navigable rivers, and rendered thirty thousand 

Confederate soldiers hors de combat.

7 Greeley’s 

New York Tribune dubbed the recent successes “A 

Deluge of Victories.”8

Union success in the trans-Mississippi theater was 

likewise exceptional. On March 7 and 8, 1862, an 

army of eleven thousand fought a Confederate army 

of sixteen thousand under Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn 

near Elkhorn Tavern, Arkansas. The ensuing clash, 

known to history as Pea Ridge, secured Missouri for 

the Union. Perhaps because of Federal successes on 

both sides of the Mississippi River, expectations 

were high for McClellan’s Army of the Potomac.

Despite the Lincoln administration’s misgivings, 

McClellan had decided to skirt the Confederate 

defenses at Manassas, transporting his troops by 

water to Fortress Monroe to protect his flanks with 

the James and York rivers as he advanced up 

Virginia’s peninsula during April and May 1862. 

From there he was poised to drive “On to 

Richmond,” but proceeded cautiously, daunted by 

Confederate earthworks constructed on the historic 

field of Yorktown. Meanwhile, Confederate Gen. 

Thomas B. “Stonewall” Jackson launched a 

campaign in the Shenandoah Valley intended to 

prevent Union troops from reinforcing McClellan. 

During May and June 1862, Jackson won five battles, 

kept sixty thousand Union troops from launching 

other offensives, and established a reputation for 

invincibility.

As McClellan continued up the peninsula, his 

troops pushed the Confederates through 

Williamsburg to within sight of Richmond’s church 

spires. The Confederates attacked his Army of the 

Potomac on May 31, 1862, near the village of Seven 

Pines. The battle cost the Rebels six thousand 

casualties, including their commander, Joseph P. 

Johnston. The victor of Manassas a year earlier was 

wounded by a stray bullet. His replacement was Lee, 

the same general who had failed miserably in 

western Virginia the year before. Lee reorganized 

the army, recalled Jackson from the valley, and went 

on the offensive on June 25, 1862. His outnumbered 

Army of Northern Virginia attacked and drove back 

the Army of the Potomac over a week’s time in a 

series of clashes known as the Seven Days’ Battles. 

With McClellan cowed, Lee turned his attention to 

Pope, newly promoted to major general and 

recently arrived in northern Virginia after his 

7. McPherson, 422.

8. Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative, Volume II (New York: Vintage Press, 1986), 582.
12 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

success against Island No. 10. While McClellan 

tarried in coming to the aid of Pope, a rival he 

disliked, Lee pounced on the Army of Virginia at the 

first Manassas battle site. This two-day battle 

(August 29-30, 1862), called Second Manassas, 

panicked the Union capital and brought censure in 

the newspapers against the Lincoln administration’s 

prosecution of the war.

In the summer of 1862, the U.S. Congress passed the 

Internal Revenue Tax Act, a levy upon tobacco, 

liquor, income, luxuries, inheritances, professional 

licenses, and many other goods and services. The 

tax act reduced the inflationary pressure created by 

the Legal Tender Act, which Congress had passed 

six months before. Bringing into existence the 

greenback dollar, the Legal Tender Act made paper 

money legal tender, reducing the government’s 

dependence on silver and gold (specie). Greenbacks 

(fiat) were declared to be worth their value in specie 

despite not being backed by a precious metal 

reserve. By this action the United States was able to 

conserve specie for international trade. In 

Richmond, meanwhile, the Confederate Congress 

was passing ground-breaking legislation as well. In 

reaction to military reverses in the spring of 1862, the 

southern legislators enacted the first conscription 

law in American history and imposed martial law in 

Richmond.9 Despite Lee’s success in Virginia that 

summer, the value of Confederate currency 

continued to plummet, dealing the economy a blow 

from which it would never recover. Banks in the 

South (rather than the Confederate government) 

also printed fiat money, but military losses and 

widespread shortages crippled confidence in Dixie 

dollars, causing rampant inflation.

Southern successes in the eastern theater in the 

summer of 1862 were mirrored in the west by Gen. 

Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Mississippi 

(later renamed the Army of Tennessee). While Lee 

was trouncing Pope in Virginia, Bragg was marching 

his men through east Tennessee, en route to 

Kentucky. He drew Buell’s Union force out of 

Tennessee in pursuit, but was reluctant to bring on a 

general engagement and spent the month of 

September watching his opponent. Lee in the 

meantime had taken the attack into Maryland, and it 

appeared the twin offensives would earn British and 

French recognition of the Confederate government. 

That hope vanished when McClellan defeated Lee 

in the Battle of Antietam, near Sharpsburg, 

Maryland, on September 17, 1862 (see Figure 7). 

Bragg’s army won a tactical victory over Buell at 

Perryville, Kentucky (October 8, 1862), but retreated 

back into Tennessee, ending Confederate chances of 

drawing Union forces out of Mississippi and 

Tennessee. A third defeat was inflicted on the 

9. McPherson, 427, 445-46.

FIGURE 7. Confederate dead at the battle of Antietam.
National Park Service 13

Confederates on October 4 when Rosecrans 

repulsed a Rebel attack on Corinth. However, the 

Union did not follow up with attacks on the 

retreating Rebels, blows that could have shortened 

the war.

Lincoln used McClellan’s success at Antietam as an 

opportunity to issue the Emancipation 

Proclamation, which freed all slaves in the areas of 

the South still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863. A 

masterpiece of political maneuvering, the 

Emancipation Proclamation did not interfere with 

slavery in the loyal states of Maryland, Delaware, 

Kentucky, and Missouri (see Figure 8). The support 

of these states was crucial to victory, and the 

president was careful not to alienate them. The 

proclamation blunted the likelihood of British 

recognition of the Confederacy by more firmly 

aligning the North with abolitionism, an extremely 

popular position among most Britons. Although 

British aristocrats usually sympathized with 

southern slave-owning planters, their endorsement 

of the Confederate cause would have alienated the 

working-class voters on whom they depended. 

Afraid of being voted out of office, the British 

government supported neither side during the war. 

Finally, the Emancipation Proclamation would 

encourage slaves to leave their bondage, further 

crippling the Confederate home front. Northern 

Democrats used the Emancipation Proclamation to 

their political advantage, charging that Lincoln had 

changed the war aim from preservation of the 

Union to freedom for the slaves. In the fall 1862 

elections, Democrats gained two governorships, 

thirty-four congressmen, and control of the 

legislatures of Illinois and Indiana.10 Despite this 

electoral rebuke, the Republicans maintained solid 

working majorities in both houses of Congress.

Lincoln’s Gen.-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck 

continued to pressure his generals in the field to 

follow up their recent successes in the fall of 1862. 

Displeased with their lack of alacrity, the president 

replaced McClellan with Major Gen. Ambrose E. 

Burnside as commander of the Army of the Potomac 

and replaced Buell with Rosecrans, the victor of 

Corinth. In response to Lincoln’s prodding, 

Burnside’s army flanked Lee’s legions and arrived at 

the Rappahannock River near Falmouth, Virginia, 

on November 17, 1862. The river crossing was 

delayed a week by the late arrival of pontoon 

bridges, giving Lee time to recover. Burnside feinted 

crossings above and below Fredericksburg for 

several weeks before finally bridging the river at 

Fredericksburg on December 11. Two days later, 

Burnside’s divisions charged Lee’s entrenched and 

waiting army in the hills beyond the town. It was the 

worst defeat yet suffered by the Federals in the 

eastern theater, and its repercussions threatened the 

stability of Lincoln’s administration.11

Adding to Lincoln’s woes were a pair of Union 

setbacks in Mississippi. Grant attempted a twopronged attack on Vicksburg’s defenders, sending 

Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s forces down the 

Mississippi River on transports supported by 

ironclads and leading a separate column south from 

Oxford. Van Dorn, the loser at Pea Ridge who now 

commanded Confederate cavalry in Mississippi, led 

his troops behind Grant’s column. On December 

20, 1862, Van Dorn’s men wrecked Grant’s supply 

depot at Holly Springs, cut telegraph lines, and 

mangled railroad tracks in the Union rear, forcing 

the unsupplied Federals to retreat. Grant’s 

telegraphed notice to Sherman that the campaign 

was off never got through and on December 29, the 

latter led his army against Rebel forces entrenched 

at Chickasaw Bayou. As at Fredericksburg, 

Sherman’s attack produced appalling casualties 

(1,800 compared to the Confederates’ 200) with no 

strategic gain. Two Union military campaigns had 

already failed when Rosecrans marched the 14th

Army Corps out of Nashville’s defenses on 

December 26, 1862 and headed south.

FIGURE 8. Artist’s conception of Lincoln reading the 

Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet.

10. McPherson, 561.

11. McPherson, 574-75.
14 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Rosecrans’s objective was Bragg’s Army of 

Tennessee, encamped in Murfreesboro. The Union 

army reached Stones River, two miles northwest of 

Murfreesboro, before coming into contact with the 

Confederates on December 30. At dawn on 

December 31, the Rebels attacked the Union’s right 

flank. The Federal army buckled but refused to 

break, and on New Year’s Day, Bragg was surprised 

to find them still on the field. Another Rebel assault 

was launched on January 2, 1863, but was repulsed. 

Although the Confederates had inflicted more 

casualties than they had suffered and had driven the 

Union line back more than two miles, Bragg 

inexplicably withdrew his forces to Tullahoma, 

Tennessee. The Federal victory at Stones River 

renewed confidence in the Lincoln administration’s 

handling of the war and earned Rosecrans 

accolades from the president. The Battle of Stones 

River and associated cultural resources are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

The U.S. Congress enacted two important pieces of 

legislation in the winter of 1863: the National 

Banking Act on February 25, and the Federal 

Conscription Act on March 3.12 The former created 

an effective national procedure for regulating the 

country’s financial system, while the latter was 

intended to stimulate volunteerism rather than raise 

a levee en masse. Combined with Lincoln’s 

suspension of civil liberties, these pieces of 

legislation threatened a further split between New 

England and the states of the Old Northwest. Some 

Democrats in Congress advocated peace, noting 

that Grant’s campaign against Vicksburg was a 

failure and that farmers needed the Mississippi 

River to get their produce to markets. The North’s 

blockade strangled the Confederate economy, but 

the shortcomings of the Federal navy were 

illustrated on April 7, 1863, when the Rebels repulsed 

Rear Adm. Samuel F. DuPont’s ironclad fleet in 

Charleston Harbor. Repeated Southern military 

successes added weight to Democratic calls for 

peace.

1863: Confederate Tide 

Broken at Gettysburg and 

Vicksburg

As the summer campaign season opened in late 

April 1863, Union Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker 

maneuvered the Army of the Potomac across the 

Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg. 

Although the campaign started well, Hooker failed 

to press his troops through the thick tangle of brush 

west of Fredericksburg, known locally as the 

Wilderness. Given this respite, Lee divided his 

forces, sending Jackson on a day-long flanking 

march to strike Hooker’s exposed right flank at 

Chancellorsville on the evening of May 1, 1863. 

Although Jackson was wounded during the assault 

and would soon die of pneumonia, the Southerners 

had won a great victory. During the next five days, 

the Army of Northern Virginia hounded Hooker’s 

troops until the latter re-crossed the Rappahannock 

River.

12. McPherson, 594, 600.

FIGURE 9. Painting of action at the Battle of Gettysburg.
National Park Service 15

Meanwhile in Mississippi, Grant loaded his men 

aboard transports and ran the gauntlet of 

Vicksburg’s river batteries on the nights of April 16 

and 21. They crossed over to the east bank of the 

Mississippi below Vicksburg unopposed on April 

30, brushing aside Confederates at Port Gibson on 

May 1. Marching hard for Jackson, the state capital, 

the Union army routed Joseph Johnston’s defenders 

on May 14, and put the city’s industrial section to the 

torch. Turning west toward Vicksburg, the Federals 

defeated a separate army under Lt. Gen. John C. 

Pemberton at Champion’s Hill on May 16 and at the 

Big Black River the next day. Thoroughly 

demoralized, Pemberton’s army retreated into 

Vicksburg’s prepared defenses and turned back two 

determined Union assaults on May 19 and May 22. 

Grant summoned reinforcements from Memphis 

and settled down for a siege. Farther downriver 

Union Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks had begun his 

campaign to take Port Hudson, Louisiana, and was 

laying siege to that fortress by the final week of May.

Following Jackson’s death, Lee reorganized his army 

into three corps and launched a second northern 

invasion in late June. Lacking effective cavalry 

reconnaissance, he stumbled into the Army of the 

Potomac, now commanded by Major Gen. George 

G. Meade, at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on July 1, 

1863. During the three-day battle, Lee’s army 

repeatedly made costly and unsuccessful assaults 

against strong Union positions (see Figure 9). On 

July 4, Lee waited for an attack from Meade’s troops 

that never materialized. The following day the 

Rebels began a retreat back into Virginia. In the 

West, Grant received Pemberton’s surrender of 

Vicksburg on July 4, and Port Hudson fell to Banks 

on July 9. The Union controlled the entire 

Mississippi River, and Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, 

and the bulk of Louisiana were detached from the 

rest of the Confederacy. Denied the produce, 

livestock, and manpower of the trans-Mississippi 

region by Grant’s actions, the South had been struck 

a blow to the vitals. Lee’s army was so shattered by 

its Gettysburg losses that further offensive 

operations in the eastern theater were impossible. 

The twin defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg 

marked the turning point of the war.

Life on both home fronts mirrored the conflict at 

the battle lines in the summer of 1863. The draft 

provoked riots in several Northern cities, the worst 

in New York City during July 1863. On Monday, July 

13, Irish and unskilled workers started a four-day 

riot through lower Manhattan that left 105 people 

dead (see Figure 10). Much of the mobs’ violence 

was directed toward New York’s black population. 

Conscription also caused class struggles in the 

South. A one-time $300 payment secured an 

exemption for Union men, and Southerners with 

twenty or more slaves to oversee were likewise 

spared. Women clamoring for bread started riots, 

and in the spring and summer of 1863 broke into 

merchants’ stores in Richmond, Mobile, and smaller 

cities and took staples and other goods. 13 As 

Southern losses mounted, the fabric of society 

unraveled; guerilla bands ruled some mountain 

counties in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and 

North Carolina; monetary inflation devalued the 

currency, which sent prices soaring; and the 

breakdown of the Confederate transportation 

network caused refugees in many cities to go 

hungry.14

Confederate reverses continued in the western 

theater as Rosecrans, after a sustained buildup, 

moved his Army of the Cumberland out of its 

Murfreesboro defenses toward Chattanooga on 

June 24, 1863. In an impressive maneuver, his men 

flanked Bragg’s army out of its Tullahoma defenses 

within nine days. Rosecrans rested his army on the 

banks of the Elk River for six weeks, moving again 

on August 16 and feinting for the Tennessee River 

crossings above Chattanooga. While elements of the 

Army of the Cumberland moved toward the upriver 

crossings, the bulk of his men crossed the Tennessee 

13. McPherson, 610-11, 616.

14. McPherson, 613, 619.

FIGURE 10. The New York City draft riots.
16 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

at three lightly guarded crossings below 

Chattanooga. Simultaneously, Burnside moved his 

twenty-four thousand troops out of Kentucky 

toward Knoxville, Tennessee. The outnumbered 

Confederates under Buckner evacuated Knoxville 

on September 1, joining Bragg in Chattanooga on 

September 8 in time for that city’s evacuation.

Deeply concerned over the loss of Chattanooga, 

President Davis used railroads and interior lines to 

move troops and reinforce Bragg with Rebels from 

Mississippi and Virginia for a counterattack against 

Rosecrans. Rosecrans provided his foe with an 

opportunity by dividing his army to cross Lookout 

Mountain and had to hastily reassemble it on the 

banks of West Chickamauga Creek during the 

second week of September. Bragg initiated the 

Battle of Chickamauga on September 19 by attacking 

the Union’s left flank (see Figure 11). The following 

day the bulk of Lieutenant Gen. James Longstreet’s 

corps, detached from Lee’s army two weeks earlier, 

launched an assault on the Union right that routed 

half the army and forced Rosecrans back into the 

defenses of Chattanooga. The Federals were kept in 

Chattanooga until November, when reinforcements 

from the Army of the Potomac and Grant’s Army of 

the Tennessee, led by Grant himself, swelled the 

ranks of the besieged beyond the size of the 

besieger. Under Grant’s leadership, the combined 

Union forces captured Lookout Mountain on 

November 24 and drove the Confederates from 

their dominant position on Missionary Ridge the 

next day. Lincoln proclaimed a national day of 

thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November, a 

celebration that became an enduring national 

holiday.15 The Battles for Chattanooga established 

Grant as the Union’s premier general and led 

Jefferson Davis to replace Bragg’s with Joseph 

Johnston.

The elections of fall 1863 reflected battlefield 

successes and failures. In Ohio and New York, home 

to half the North’s population, Republican 

candidates were overwhelmingly favored. This 

response seemed to indicate popular backing of 

emancipation and strengthened the party in its 

desire to fight to victory. In the South a lack of 

political parties confused issues for voters who 

disliked the way Richmond was prosecuting the war. 

Lack of an opposition party also created difficulties 

FIGURE 11. Artist’s sketch of the Battle of Chickamauga.

15. Foote, vol. II, 663-94, 712-870.
National Park Service 17

for Davis, who, unlike Lincoln, could not compare 

his ideas to those of the opposition. Difficulties with 

Vice President Alexander Stephens and Governor 

Joseph Brown, both of Georgia, seemed to typify 

Davis’s relations with staunch states-rights 

politicians. Another midsummer scare occurred in 

North Carolina where incumbent Governor 

Zebulon Vance was threatened with ouster by a propeace candidate who advocated taking the Tar Heel 

State out of the Confederacy. Vance won the 

election, but the losing war effort was clearly taking 

its toll on Confederate sympathies.16 The fall of 

Little Rock, Arkansas, on September 10, the fourth 

Rebel capital to fall since the war’s outset, added to 

the gloom in Richmond.17 Lincoln moved quickly to 

reconstruct Arkansas and Louisiana under his 10 

percent policy, which mandated that if 10 percent of 

a state’s 1860 voters approved a “republican form of 

government,”18 state governments could be 

reconstructed. Both states adopted free-state 

governments and constitutions under the 10 percent 

plan, further dimming hopes of Confederate 

sovereignty.

Grant Takes Charge

In March 1864, the U.S. Congress revived the rank of 

lieutenant general, and Lincoln immediately 

appointed Grant to the post and gave him overall 

command of the Union armies. Halleck stepped 

down to the post of chief of staff, Sherman became 

commander of the Department of the Mississippi, 

and the recently promoted Maj. Gen. Phillip 

Sheridan, hero of the Battle of Stones River, was 

brought to Virginia to assume overall command of 

that theater’s cavalry.19 The Confederates also 

reorganized their forces for the campaign season, 

appointing Johnston leader of the Army of 

Tennessee and sending reinforcements from 

Mississippi in anticipation of battle with Sherman’s 

Chattanooga-based army.

16. McPherson, 698; Foote, vol. II, 828.

17. Foote, vol. II, 707.

18. McPherson, 703.

19. McPherson, 718.

FIGURE 12. Federal entrenchments along the North Anna River, Wilderness campaign.
18 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

The Union strategy as devised by Grant was to go 

after Lee in Virginia while Sherman attacked 

Johnston in north Georgia. Separate commands 

under Maj. Gens. Banks, Benjamin Butler, and 

Franz Siegel would strike secondary objectives in 

Louisiana, southern Virginia, and the Shenandoah 

Valley, respectively. The three secondary thrusts 

failed miserably. Banks was repulsed on his journey 

up Louisiana’s Red River, Butler was brought to 

ground by coastal reinforcements under Beauregard 

at Bermuda Hundred, and Siegel was routed by 

Breckinridge at New Market. Neither Grant nor 

Sherman enjoyed initial success when their armies 

began the summer campaign season in May 1864.

On May 5, three Union corps crossed the Rapidan 

River in northern Virginia and became entangled 

with Lee’s army in the Wilderness, where Hooker 

had come to grief the previous May. Fighting raged 

through the area on May 5 and 6, with Grant’s army 

suffering ten thousand more casualties than Lee. 

Unlike Hooker, however, Grant refused to withdraw 

and instead attempted to turn Lee’s right flank by 

moving toward Spotsylvania Court House. In a 

week of bitter fighting, the Army of the Potomac’s 

losses continued to mount at an appalling rate, but it 

succeeded in depriving Lee of the initiative. 

Throughout May, Grant continued to gnaw at Lee’s 

right flank, forcing action along the line of the North 

Anna River (see Figure 12). On June 1 Federal cavalry 

seized the crossroads at Cold Harbor, nine miles 

from Richmond, and on June 3 Grant ordered an allout assault designed to drive the Confederate army 

into the Chickahominy River. The Union attack was 

rebuffed at a cost of seven thousand casualties, 

instilling in the survivors a dread of charging 

entrenchments. In the first six weeks of the 

campaign the Union army had lost 65,000 men, 

while the Rebels had suffered half as many 

casualties. Grant could afford the toll; at the 

campaign’s outset the Army of the Potomac 

numbered 115,000 men, as opposed to Lee’s 64,000, 

and could call on additional manpower reserves.20

In mid-June the Army of the Potomac was 

entrenched in front of Petersburg, Virginia, laying 

siege to Richmond’s back door. Federal attacks on 

June 15-17 and June 22-24 achieved limited success 

but failed to break the Confederate lines or capture 

Richmond’s supply line–the Weldon Railroad. On 

July 30, a surprise attack following the explosion of a 

mine under the Rebel works came to grief in the 

Battle of the Crater. Three weeks later Union forces 

captured the Weldon Railroad, squeezing Lee’s 

supplies down to a trickle. The siege of Petersburg 

ground on through the fall without a clear Union 

victory to bolster Lincoln’s re-election chances in 

November.21

Sherman adopted a different tactic from Grant, 

preferring to pin the Confederates in place with a 

portion of his army and use the balance to turn the 

flanks. At this game of strategy, he was equally 

matched by Johnston, a general renowned for his 

skillful withdrawals against larger forces in Virginia 

and Mississippi. Sherman’s force comprised three 

armies–the Army of the Cumberland, the Army of 

the Tennessee, and the Army of the Ohio. The 

course of the campaign followed the Western & 

Atlantic (W&A) Railroad, a ribbon that ran through 

north Georgia’s mountains between Chattanooga 

and Atlanta. Control of this vital supply line was the 

key to victory in the campaign for Atlanta. On May 

6, while Grant and Lee tangled in the Wilderness, 

Union troops moved out of Chattanooga toward 

Tunnel Hill, Georgia. Finding Johnston’s men 

strongly entrenched at Rocky Face Ridge, Sherman 

flanked the position, forcing the Confederates to 

fight at Resaca on May 14 and 15. Union forces 

continued to swing wide of the Confederate 

positions, forcing them back across the Etowah 

River on May 19, and away from a strongly 

entrenched post atop Allatoona Pass. The 

Confederates met Sherman’s flanking maneuver 

near Dallas, prompting four days of fighting (May 

25-28) in scrub brush that earned the name “The 

Hell Hole.” Returning to the railroad, the Federals 

pushed on until the last week of June, when rains 

and a strong Confederate position on Kennesaw 

Mountain halted their advance. Sherman elected to 

assault Kennesaw on June 27 but met with a bloody 

repulse. The onset of better weather prompted 

more Union flanking maneuvers, though, and 

Johnston withdrew across the Chattahoochee River 

on July 9.22

On July 17, Davis replaced Johnston with Lt. Gen. 

John B. Hood, an impetuous firebrand who 

20. McPherson, 724.

21. McPherson, 725-43.

22. Dennis Kelly, Kennesaw Mountain and the Atlanta Campaign (Atlanta: Susan Hunter Publishing, 1990), 13-45.
National Park Service 19

immediately placed the Army of Tennessee on the 

offensive. Hood launched three attacks—the Battle 

of Peachtree Creek (July 20), the Battle of Atlanta 

(July 22), and the Battle of Ezra Church (July 28)—all 

of which met with failure. Sherman’s men settled 

down to invest Atlanta’s extensive fortifications (see 

Figure 13) during August before moving against 

Hood’s railroad lifeline at Jonesboro on August 31. 

The two-day Battle of Jonesboro was a signal defeat 

that compelled the Rebels to abandon Atlanta on 

September 2, 1864.23

The fall of Atlanta was the greatest single factor in 

securing Lincoln’s re-election. The issue had been 

in doubt as Union casualties for the summer 

approached ninety thousand—as many men as had 

fought with the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg 

the previous July. On July 18, Lincoln issued a call for 

another half million volunteers, with quota 

deficiencies to be filled by the draft. The price of 

gold, a barometer of Northern home-front 

confidence, skyrocketed from $106 an ounce in July 

1862 to $285 in July 1864.24 The Democratic Party, 

sensing that war-weariness would produce victory 

at the polls, nominated McClellan for president on 

August 31 at their convention in Chicago. The party’s 

platform branded the war a failure and promised 

peace if its candidate were elected. McClellan 

disowned the platform, but the fall of Atlanta and 

Sheridan’s pillaging of the Shenandoah Valley in 

September and October reaffirmed Lincoln’s 

assertions that the war was being won and led to his 

re-election.25

On November 15, 1864, Sherman’s men marched out 

of a desolated Atlanta en route to the Atlantic 

Ocean. Covering twelve miles a day and foraging 

liberally from Georgia’s citizens, Sherman’s men 

23. Kelly, 45-52.

FIGURE 13. Federal position at Atlanta, Georgia.

24. McPherson, 447, 757-58.

25. McPherson, 773-75, 805-806.
20 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

sacked the state capital of Milledgeville on 

Thanksgiving Day and captured Savannah before 

Christmas. In a curious piece of strategy Hood 

turned the Army of Tennessee away from Sherman’s 

veterans, venturing instead toward the fortified 

Tennessee capital of Nashville, hoping to overpower 

isolated commands such as Maj. Gen. John 

Schofield’s corps along the way. Crossing the Duck 

River on November 27, Hood’s army narrowly 

missed capturing Schofield’s outnumbered men 

near Spring Hill, Tennessee, two days later. 

Incensed at the lost opportunity, Hood launched a 

costly assault against the entrenched corps at 

Franklin on November 30 that produced little 

tactical gain. At Nashville on December 15 and 16, a 

Federal army twice its size defeated the Army of 

Tennessee; reducing it to scattered remnants.

The End of the War

In the early months of 1865, Sherman’s army 

marched north from Savannah, laying waste to a 

broad swath of South Carolina. Johnston assembled 

a scratch force to oppose his old adversary but did 

not appreciably delay the Union juggernaut. Grant’s 

forces pried Lee’s desertion-riddled army out of its 

Petersburg entrenchments at the end of March. 

After a week of running skirmishes and the capture 

of thousands of exhausted Confederates, Lee 

surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at 

Appomattox Courthouse on April 9. Five days later 

Johnston gave up his patchwork army to Sherman 

near Durham, North Carolina. The remaining Rebel 

forces in the field capitulated in turn, with Gen. 

Kirby Smith surrendering the trans-Mississippi 

troops on May 26. Brig. Gen. Stand Watie, a 

Cherokee chieftain, yielded the last Confederate 

army in the field on June 23, 1865.26 After the war, 

the country began the painful process of 

reconstructing the United States.

The Civil War was a watershed event in United 

States history, costing the lives of more than 620,000 

people. It changed American life forever: the demise 

of slavery brought a new chapter in race relations 

(see Figure 14)that culminated one hundred years 

later in the civil rights movement; the wartime 

economy in the North created the large industrial 

base that fueled the country’s growth through the 

rest of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; 

westward expansion was further encouraged by 

wartime immigration and legislation; and the South 

embarked on a period of economic stagnation that 

prompted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to label 

the region the nation’s number one economic 

problem seventy-three years after the close of the 

war.27

Within the framework of the Civil War, the Battle of 

Stones River was the definitive battle for control of 

middle Tennessee. Although a tactical stalemate, it 

was a strategic victory for the Federal forces, 

strengthening and expanding their hold on middle 

Tennessee, a region rich in forage, mounts, and 

wheat.28 By driving the Confederates out of 

Murfreesboro, Rosecrans reversed the gains Bragg 

had won in his Kentucky campaign. Transformed 

into a forward supply dump, Murfreesboro became 

the starting point for the successful Federal drive on 

Chattanooga and ultimately Atlanta. If the Rebels 

had consolidated the gains won on the field of 

Stones River, the Federal army would have been 

compelled to fall back to Nashville, thus allowing 

the Army of Tennessee to shift men to Vicksburg. 

Rosecrans’s victory at Stones River prevented a 

Confederate reinforcement of the Vicksburg 

defenses while denying Bragg’s army the sustenance 

of middle Tennessee.

The Stones River battlefield, the remnants of 

Fortress Rosecrans, the Nashville, Murfreesboro 

and Shelbyville Turnpike (present-day Old 

Nashville Highway), the railroad, and other wartime 

26. Stanley F. Horn, The Army of Tennessee (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1955), 427, 434.

27. Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 425.

28. Connelly, 8.

FIGURE 14. African Americans serving on a jury during 

Reconstruction.
National Park Service 21

features that still exist within the park serve as 

tangible links to the Civil War and further our 

understanding of the events that took place on that 

field. Memorial structures such as the U.S. Regulars 

and Hazen Brigade Monuments, together with the 

commemorative landscape of the Stones River 

National Cemetery, remain as evidence that the 

Union veterans of the Battle of Stones River 

considered it important. The echoes of the veterans’ 

efforts to honor the fallen and the creation of a 

national battlefield park sixty-five years after the 

battle reverberate today in Americans’ continuing 

interest in the Civil War.
22 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 23

Chapter Three: Stones River and 

the Campaign for Middle 

Tennessee, 1861-1865

On December 31, 1862, and January 2, 1863, Union 

and Confederate armies clashed at Stones River, 

three miles northwest of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. 

At stake were the rich agricultural region of middle 

Tennessee and the network of turnpikes, rivers, and 

railroads that served it. Murfreesboro in the fall of 

1862 was headquarters for the Confederacy’s 

principal western army, the Army of Tennessee. Its 

commander was Gen. Braxton Bragg, who placed 

his army there to contest Federal dominion over the 

region’s bountiful forage. The town’s central 

location was ideal for launching cavalry raids against 

Union supply lines in Tennessee, Kentucky, and 

Alabama. Twenty-five miles northwest of 

Murfreesboro lay Nashville, Tennessee’s conquered 

capital and supply base to the Federal 14th Army 

Corps (later renamed the Army of the Cumberland), 

which faced shortages due in part to Confederate 

cavalry raids launched from Murfreesboro. A direct 

Federal thrust toward Chattanooga from Nashville 

depended upon the capture of the Nashville & 

Chattanooga Railroad to keep the invasion forces 

supplied in the forage-poor mountains surrounding 

Chattanooga. Because Murfreesboro was the largest 

town on the line, its possession was essential for 

Union forces to move against Chattanooga. 

Command of middle Tennessee would provide the 

strategic advantage. This chapter examines the 

Battle of Stones River and subsequent military 

occupation of Murfreesboro, focusing on park 

historic resources that represent this context.1

On October 30, 1862, Maj. Gen. William S. 

Rosecrans (see Figure 15) assumed command of the 

Federal forces previously under Maj. Gen. Don 

Carlos Buell, then in Bowling Green, Kentucky, 

sixty miles north of the Nashville supply base. 

Elements of Bragg’s army had defeated a portion of 

Buell’s troops at Perryville, Kentucky, earlier in 

October. Bragg retreated into Tennessee when he 

realized that Buell’s men outnumbered his own, and 

eventually moved his forces to the Murfreesboro 

vicinity. When Rosecrans took the reins, Bragg’s 

army was closer to Nashville than he was. 

Tennessee’s military governor, Andrew Johnson, 

wired Washington that Nashville was in peril. To 

rectify this problem, Rosecrans moved the Union 

army to the Tennessee capital in early November.

Rosecrans reorganized his force into three wings, 

commanded by Maj. Gens. Thomas L. Crittenden, 

Alexander M. McCook, and George H. Thomas.2

When Rosecrans’s army occupied Nashville, his 

two crucial supply lines, the Louisville & Nashville 

Railroad (L&N) and the Cumberland River, were 

not fully operational. Confederate cavalry raiders 

1. A brief but informative introduction to the campaign for Murfreesboro is The Battle of Stones River by former park 

historian Charles M. Spearman. Peter Cozzens’s No Better Place to Die, The Battle of Stones River is a detailed, brigadelevel account of the battle that draws upon the Official Records, regimental histories, manuscripts, and other eyewitness 

accounts. Two books portray the Confederate side of events: Stanley F. Horn’s The Army of Tennessee: A Military History

devotes a chapter to Murfreesboro, while Thomas L. Connelly’s Autumn of Glory: The Army of Tennessee, 1862-1865

expertly dissects the Confederate command decisions. Conversely, two books have been written on the Army of the 

Cumberland and its actions at Stones River: Thomas B. Van Horne’s History of the Army of the Cumberland, Its 

Organization, Campaigns, and Battles and William Bickham’s Rosecrans’ Campaign with the Fourteenth Army Corps, or 

the Army of the Cumberland: Aa Narrative of Personal Observations... with Official Reports of the Battle of Stone River are 

informative but suffer from a lack of perspective; each account is well over oneone hundred years old. Research for this 

study has highlighted a need for a new study of the Army of the Cumberland. 
24 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

had cut the L&N, and the Cumberland River was 

too low to allow the passage of steamboats to the 

city. The Union general immediately set about 

stockpiling supplies for his forthcoming campaign 

against Bragg’s army. Much to the irritation of Union 

Gen.-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck, Rosecrans 

delayed his campaign until December 26, when he 

set his three wings in motion. Each took a different 

route south from Nashville: Thomas took the 

turnpike south toward Franklin, McCook led his 

men along the turnpike toward Nolensville, and 

Crittenden followed the turnpike toward 

Murfreesboro (see Figure 16).

Bragg had spent the fall of 1862 in a respite, foraging 

the region around Murfreesboro for supplies and 

recruiting fresh troops. Various divisions of the 

Army of Tennessee were billeted in Murfreesboro 

and surrounding towns in a semicircular line from 

Lebanon to Franklin via Smyrna. Bragg had divided 

the bulk of his cavalry into two independent 

commands under Brig. Gens. Nathan B. Forrest and 

John H. Morgan and dispatched them to strike 

Union rail lines: Forrest to western Tennessee to cut 

the Mobile & Ohio Railroad supplying Brig. Gen. 

Ulysses S. Grant’s army in Mississippi, and Morgan 

to Kentucky to cut the L&N, which supplied 

Rosecrans in Nashville. Retaining a third of his 

cavalry under Brig. Gen. Joe Wheeler for picket 

duty, Bragg stretched his army thin to detect any 

movement by Rosecrans but privately doubted the 

likelihood of any Federal movement.3

 Bragg’s 

dismissive attitude toward the threat of a Union 

offensive led Confederate President Jefferson Davis 

to detach Maj. Gen. Carter Stevenson’s division 

from the Army of Tennessee and send it to 

Vicksburg.4 Rosecrans’s intelligence reported 

Stevenson’s departure, which, coupled with the 

absence of Forrest and Morgan, prompted the 

Federal general to move against the weakened 

Confederates.

Stones River on the Eve of 

the Battle

Stones River passes within a mile of Murfreesboro 

as it snakes its way north to join the Cumberland 

above Nashville. In December 1862, the river was 

low and easy to cross because of a recent drought. 

Bragg had initially posted Lt. Gen. William Hardee’s 

Corps astride the river, anticipating that Rosecrans 

might try to turn the Confederate right flank. But 

because it had been raining since December 26, 

Bragg feared that rising water would make Stones 

River unfordable, cutting Hardee’s force in two and 

subjecting it to destruction in detail. Bragg therefore 

recalled Hardee to the river’s west bank, leaving 

Maj. Gen. John C. Breckinridge’s division behind to 

watch the fords.5

2. Soon after the Battle of Stones River, when the 14th Corps was renamed the Army of the Cumberland, each wing became 

a corps. Peter Cozzens, No Better Place to Die: The Battle of Stones River (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1991), 14-

15.

FIGURE 15. Major General William S. Rosecrans.

3. Thomas L. Connelly, Autumn of Glory: The Army of Tennessee, 1862-1865 (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University 

Press, 1971), 42.

4. Connelly, 41.

5. Charles M. Spearman, The Battle of Stones River (Columbus, OH: Blue & Gray Enterprises Inc., 1993), 11; Stanley F. Horn, 

The Army of Tennessee: A Military History (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953, c1941), 200; Connelly, 

Autumn of Glory, 49-52.
National Park Service 25

The land two and a half miles west of Murfreesboro, 

from which the Confederates would launch their 

attacks, is depicted in contemporary sources as 

scattered farms and woodland. The former 

generally consisted of a farmhouse, barn, and a 

handful of outbuildings such as corn cribs and 

structures sheltering cotton gins, while much of the 

latter contained eastern red cedar, a variety that 

grows in dense thickets or “cedar brakes.” These 

trees had thickly entwined branches that reached to 

the ground, prompting one Confederate colonel to 

remark that “a cedar thicket . . . was the strongest 

natural position we encountered.”6 Cedar glades, 

often mentioned in battle reports, are openings in 

thick stands of red cedar where the shallow, acidic 

soils prohibit permanent invasion by trees but 

support a ground cover of grasses, mosses, and 

herbaceous plants. Contemporary accounts also 

mention the presence of a grove of oak trees near 

Overall Creek.7 The woodland boundaries are 

Nashville & Louisville RR

Nashville & Northwest RR

Cumberland River

Nashville & Decatur RR

Stones River

Nashville & Chattanooga RR

Nashville Pike

Nolensville Turnpike

THOMAS

McCOOK

CRITTENDEN

Nashville

Brentwood

Franklin

Murfreesboro

Lavergne

Antioch

Nolensville

Jefferson

Triune

Walterhill

Smyrna

Gladeville

N

FIGURE 16. Movement of Rosecrans’s army toward Murfreesboro.

6. War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. XX, pt. I, 

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1887), 893 (hereafter cited as O. R.).

7. O.R., 939; although reports of battle participants style it “Overall’s” Creek, the modern spelling of Overall Creek will be 

used in this study.
26 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

depicted in period maps as rectilinear, typically 

bordered by “rail fences” and cultivated fields. 

Fields cultivated in corn or cotton surrounded the 

farmhouses and outbuildings shown on battle-era 

maps.8

As the Federals approached the Confederate 

positions near Stones River on December 30, 1862, 

neither army dug entrenchments; each side 

anticipated that it would take the offensive on the 

morning. On December 31, during lulls in the 

fighting, defenders piled up logs and rocks to create 

impromptu breastworks. Geologists classify the 

battlefield as karst topography, in which shallow 

soils overlay limestone and shale bedrock. The 

bedrock is pitted with sinkholes, caused by surface 

and underground water sources dissolving the 

limestone. Troops of both sides used the sinkholes 

and limestone outcroppings in the shallow soil for 

protection against bullets. Fences became makeshift 

breastworks that protected the men, according to 

Levi Wagner of the 1st Ohio Regiment: “And right 

here, if you were inclined to smile at the idea of a 

fence rail being any protection during a battle, if you 

could just for a few moments transport yourself to 

the opposite side of that fence and view the bullet 

holes those rails contain, you would see that a very 

light obstruction often saves a life.”9 Latenineteenth-century photographs of the area depict 

worm or “drunken man,” double post, and board 

fences, which are typically closely stacked on the 

bottom but have more space between the rails on 

top. This type of fencing became law in Tennessee in 

1807 when the state decreed that “every planter 

should make a sufficient fence about his cleared 

land at least five feet high and sufficiently close to 

prevent hogs from passing through for at least three 

feet high from the surface of the earth.”10

The Federals approached Murfreesboro along the 

Nashville, Murfreesboro and Shelbyville Turnpike 

(commonly referred to as the Nashville Pike), a 

macadamized turnpike running between Nashville 

and Murfreesboro (see Figure 18). The state of 

Tennessee had constructed several macadamized 

roads, including the Nashville Pike, to facilitate 

intrastate commerce during the 1830s. At the time of 

the Battle of Stones River, most of these roads ran 

out from Nashville like spokes from a wheel. A 

macadam road had a convex roadbed overlain with 

crushed stone, topped with stone dust, and 

compacted with water. The Nashville, 

Murfreesboro and Shelbyville Turnpike had “a 

roadbed graded at least thirty feet wide with 

sufficient ditches on each side to drain off water. . . . 

The graveled portion was twenty feet wide and six 

inches thick.” The turnpike corporation’s state 

charter allowed it to construct a toll gate every five 

miles along the road except within one mile of the 

city limits of towns. The company had completed 

the construction of toll gates along its route by the 

end of 1837. The turnpike corporation purchased 

modest parcels of land near toll gates for the 

purpose of building necessary structures such as toll 

houses for the gatekeepers who collected fees from 

persons using the road. By 1842, the entire turnpike 

and its related structures were finished.11 The high 

quality of the pike’s construction is evidenced by 

8. Calvin C. Cowles, compiler, Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington: 

Government Printing Office 1891-1895), Plate XXXII, Figure 1; Edwin C. Bearss, Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan, 

Part of the Master Plan (Washington: National Park Service, 1961), NPS Map Number 327-3011.

FIGURE 17. General Braxton Bragg.

9. Peter Cozzens, No Better Place To Die, The Battle of Stones River (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1991), 95.

10. Tennessee, 1807 Acts of Tennessee, Chapter Eight: “An act declaring what fences shall be deemed sufficient, and for other 

purposes.” 
National Park Service 27

Rosecrans’s willingness to use the road for his 

supply line during winter, a time when most roads in 

the South turned to mud.

Other roads that played important roles in the battle 

include Wilkinson Pike (Manson Pike) and Van 

Cleve Lane (Old Bowen Lane, McFadden Lane). 

The State of Tennessee granted a charter to the 

Wilkinson Turnpike Company for the construction 

of this road in 1858. The turnpike began near 

Franklin, ran through the town of Triune, and 

ended in Murfreesboro, probably at or near the 

Nashville Pike.12 This historic road, now commonly 

referred to as Manson Pike, was one of the roads 

traversed by Union troops as they advanced out of 

Nashville toward Murfreesboro. The present Van 

Cleve Lane, also known as Old Bowen or 

McFadden Lane, was present at the time of the 

Battle of Stones River. In the mid-nineteenth 

century, this road had one terminus at an 

intersection with Wilkinson Pike. It then crossed the 

Nashville Pike, the Nashville & Chattanooga 

Railroad, and Stones River at McFadden’s Ford 

before its second terminus at an unknown road. 

This road appears on maps in The Official Atlas of 

the Civil War and the “Map of Rutherford County, 

Tennessee from New and Actual Surveys,” 

produced by D. B. Beers and Company in 1878. 

However, these sources do not provide a name for 

this road or any information about its 

construction.13

Control of the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad 

was essential for the execution of a Federal 

campaign to capture Confederate-held 

Chattanooga. Chartered in 1845, the Nashville & 

11. Edward C. Annable, Jr., “A History of the Roads of Rutherford County, Tennessee, 1804-1878: Historic Road Research and 

Its Applications for Historic Resource Surveys and Local History,” (M.A. thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 1982) 

published in the Rutherford County Historical Society Publication No. 20 (Winter 1983): on the dates for completion of the 

turnpike and related structures see 50, on regulations concerning toll gates see 74-75, quote at 111. The fees charged for 

turnpike use included: “for twenty head of hogs or sheep, 20 cents; twenty horned or neat cattle, 50 cents; every horse or 

mule not in a drove, 6-1/4 cents; every horse or mule in a drove, 2 cents; four-wheeled pleasure carriage, 25 cents; twowheeled riding carriage, 25 cents; loaded wagon, 25 cents; empty wagon, 12-1/2 cents; man and a horse, 6-1/4 cents; cart, 

12-1/2 cents; and a hogshead of tobacco, 12-1/2 cents,” Annable, “A History of the Roads of Rutherford County,” 74-75. 

See also John W. Walker, J. Donald Merritt, and Steven J. Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National 

Battlefield, Tennessee” (Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, 1989), 15. 

12. The Goodspeed Histories of Maury, Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson, Bedford & Marshall Counties of Tennessee (1886; 

Columbia, TN: Woodward & Stinson, 1971), 817. The author of the Goodspeed Histories refers to this road and company as 

Wilkerson, an alternate spelling of Wilkinson. It is not uncommon to see this turnpike called Wilkerson, but it is the same 

road generally referred to as the Wilkinson Pike. On Wilkinson Pike see also Official Atlas of the Civil War, “Topographical 

Sketch of the Battle-Field near Murfreesborough, Tenn.,” Plate XXX, “Map of the Battle of Murfreesborough,” Plate XXXI, 

“Plans of the Battles on Stone’s River before Murfreesborough,” Plate XXXII.

FIGURE 18. The Nashville Pike about 20 years after the battle.
28 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Chattanooga had begun service from Nashville to 

Murfreesboro on July 4, 1851. The line was 

completed to Chattanooga in February 1854, 

forming a vital link in the trade from the ports of 

Charleston and Savannah to the Midwest. Savannah 

accessed the Midwest via the Central of Georgia, 

Macon & Western, and the Western & Atlantic to 

Chattanooga.14 From there the Nashville & 

Chattanooga carried freight and passengers to 

Nashville for linkage via the Louisville & Nashville 

to Louisville, Kentucky, on the Ohio River. This 

large, deep, free-flowing river rarely ices in the 

winter and provided access to the Midwest and the 

Mississippi River. Charleston’s rail traffic traveled 

the South Carolina Railroad and the Georgia 

Railroad before connecting to the Western & 

Atlantic in Atlanta for the trip north. In turn, these 

two important port cities were linked by the 

Charleston & Savannah Railroad.15

The Nashville & Chattanooga was permitted by law 

to own slaves, and this work force, supplemented by 

Irish immigrant labor, completed the railroad 

through Rutherford County, Tennessee. They laid 

U-rails of iron weighing 80 tons per mile atop cedar 

crossties on a mud roadbed. The rails were laid five 

feet apart, the standard gauge in the Deep South, 

and at the joints were centered on cedar stringers 

twenty feet long, seven inches wide, and seven 

inches deep.16

Running along the railroad were the wires of the 

Western Union Telegraph Company. Telegraph 

operators had offices at intervals along the rail line 

to notify railroad agents of timetable changes, 

obstructions on the line, and routing instructions. 

Both armies used telegraph operators to 

communicate orders and file reports to their 

superiors in Washington or Richmond. Cavalry 

patrols routinely cut telegraph lines in enemy 

territory, often after intercepting dispatches and 

occasionally sending spurious ones.

In 1860, prior to the commencement of hostilities, 

Rutherford County had an aggregate population of 

27,918, nearly half of whom were slaves.17 After 

Kentucky, middle Tennessee was the largest cornproducing region in the Confederacy east of the 

Mississippi River. Each of middle Tennessee’s nine 

counties yielded more than one million bushels of 

corn annually, and Rutherford County’s crop was 

one of the most abundant, amounting to more than 

a million and a half bushels. East Tennessee was 

considered the state’s breadbasket, but Rutherford 

County grew 150,401 bushels of wheat. The county 

also grew more than fifty tons of sweet and Irish 

potatoes in 1860. Furthermore, Tennessee was the 

Confederacy’s second largest pork-producing state. 

The county boasted 64,877 hogs in the 1860 census. 

Rutherford was second only to Maury County in 

horse and mule production, in a state that would 

provide more mules to the Confederate cause than 

any other. Tennessee was second in the country to 

Kentucky in horse husbandry, with 10,308 horses 

and 4,348 mules in Rutherford County, according to 

the 1860 census figures.18 Unfortunately for Bragg, 

13. Official Atlas of the Civil War, “Topographical Sketch of the Battle-Field near Murfreesborough, Tenn.,” Plate XXX, “Plans 

of the Battles on Stone’s River before Murfreesborough,” Plate XXXII; “Map of Rutherford County, Tennessee from New 

and Actual Surveys,” D. G. Beers & Co., 1878, folder 3, drawer 3, Stones River National Battlefield Historic Map Collection, 

Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; on the name Old Bowen Lane, see Ann Wilson Willett, “A 

History of Stones River National Military Park,” (M.A. thesis, Middle Tennessee State College, 1958), 78; for references to 

this road as McFadden Lane, see particularly Cozzens, No Better Place to Die, 65, 76, 124, 141, 152, 155; Earl J. Hess, 

Banners to the Breeze: The Kentucky Campaign, Corinth, and Stones River (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 

206, 208-210. For further documentation of this road see Edwin C. Bearss, “Fence and Ground Cover Map, Part of the 

Master Plan, Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” report, (December 1961), 45-57. 

14. In May 1873, the Nashville & Chattanooga absorbed the Nashville & Northwestern Railroad and changed its name to the 

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad. In 1880, the Louisville & Nashville acquired the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. 

Louis, but the latter continued to operate under its own name until 1957, when it was fully integrated into the Louisville 

& Nashville. In 1980, the Chessie System Inc. and the Seaboard Coastal Line merged to form the CSX Corporation. The 1983 

merger of the Seaboard Coastal Line, the Louisville & Nashville and two other railroads brought the Louisville & Nashville 

(including what started out as the Nashville & Chattanooga in 1845) into the CSX system. The rail line adjacent to STRI 

continues to be operated by CSX Transportation Inc., a subsidiary of CSX Corporation. CSX Corporation, CSX 

Transportation., June 21, 2001, http://www.csxt.com/abt/rial/history/htm.

15. Robert C. Black III, The Railroads of the Confederacy (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1952), 5-7.

16. Thomas N. Johns, Sr. “The Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad Through Rutherford County 1845-1872,” in the Rutherford 

County Historical Society Publication No. 5 (Murfreesboro, TN, June 1975), 14.

17. United States Bureau of Census, Population of the United States in 1860: Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eight 

Census (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1864), 459.

18. United States Bureau of Census, Agriculture of the United States in 1860: Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eight 

Census (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1864), 136.
National Park Service 29

Union forage parties had scoured middle Tennessee 

in July, August, and September 1862.19 A secure 

lodgment of a Rebel army in Murfreesboro would 

curtail future Union foraging expeditions in this 

agriculturally rich region and increase the 

dependence of Nashville’s occupying army on the 

fragile Louisville & Nashville Railroad.

The Battle of Stones River

When Union wing commanders Crittenden, 

McCook, and Thomas moved against Bragg’s scouts 

on December 26, 1862, the surprised Confederate 

commander quickly concentrated his scattered 

infantry at Murfreesboro in anticipation of catching 

a Federal column in the flank. Wheeler’s cavalry 

disputed the crossroads at La Vergne, Nolensville, 

Triune, and Smyrna but, owing to the prior 

detachment of Forrest’s and Morgan’s brigades, 

lacked the strength to seriously contest the superior 

Union numbers. Crittenden’s and Thomas’s wings 

were near Murfreesboro on December 29, 

expecting the Rebels to flee the city without a fight. 

Col. Charles Harker’s brigade was dispatched to 

cross Stones River and reconnoiter the Confederate 

defenses on the night of December 29. Meeting stiff 

resistance, Harker withdrew across the river after a 

brief skirmish, but the report of his reconnaissance 

in force convinced Rosecrans that Bragg intended to 

defend the town. The Union commander decided to 

await the arrival of McCook’s wing to ensure 

numerical superiority before pressing the Rebels 

further. On December 30, advance elements of 

McCook’s troops, under Brig. Gen. Phillip 

Sheridan, had closed to within two-and-a-quarter 

miles of Murfreesboro before meeting determined 

Rebel resistance. Rosecrans brought his men to a 

halt and prepared to attack the Confederate army 

across Stones River the following day.20

Bragg had stationed his army across a fifty-mile 

front in November 1862. When he recalled his farflung troops to Murfreesboro on December 26, he 

positioned them in an arc to cover the approach 

roads into town. This strategy, however, split his 

army into two halves, one on each side of Stones 

River. On December 28, Bragg placed Hardee’s 

Corps along the limestone bluffs on the river’s east 

bank to watch for Union troops advancing south on 

the Lebanon Road. Lt. Gen. Leonidas K. Polk’s 

Corps occupied a large semicircular line from the 

west bank of the river to the Wilkinson Pike. 

Sheridan’s reconnaissance in force on December 30 

convinced Bragg that Rosecrans intended to assail 

his left flank. During that night, Bragg detached 

Breckinridge’s division from Hardee’s Corps, 

leaving it along Stones River’s east bank. He then 

directed the balance of Hardee’s troops to the west 

side of Stones River, extending Polk’s lines toward 

the southwest. Bragg had observed a line of Union 

campfires beyond Polk’s left. The Union built these 

“phony campfires” to deceive the Confederate high 

command into believing the bulk of Rosecrans’s 

army was on the west side of the river. Bragg was 

completely fooled, but it was Rosecrans who would 

pay for the trick.21

Rosecrans’s plan called for Crittenden’s wing to 

leave its position on the west bank, ford Stones 

River, and attack Bragg’s right the following 

morning after breakfast (see Figure 19). He deployed 

the wings of McCook and Thomas on the west bank 

of the river, on his right and center respectively, 

instructing McCook to occupy the Rebels on his 

flank: “Take a strong position; if the enemy attacks 

you, fall back slowly, refusing your right, contesting 

the ground inch by inch. If the enemy does not 

attack you, you will attack him, not vigorously but 

warmly. . . .”22 Oddly enough, Bragg had the same 

plan of attack, calling upon Breckinridge’s division 

to hold his right flank on the river’s east bank, while 

assaulting with Hardee’s Corps toward the artificial 

campfires on his left.23 As at the Battle of First 

Manassas seventeen months before, the 

commanders had identical battle plans. Now the 

advantage would go to the first to strike.

The opposing armies’ infantry were organized as 

follows:

Rosecrans’s 14th Army Corps (Union)

McCook’s Right Wing: Divisions of Davis, 

Johnson, and Sheridan

19. Connelly, 23.

20. Spearman, 7-11; Horn, 196; Connelly, 50-51.

21. Connelly, 44-50.

22. O. R., Series I, Vol. XX, 255.

23. Connelly, 51-54.
30 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Thomas’s Center Wing: Divisions of Rousseau, 

Negley, and Fry

Crittenden’s Left Wing: Divisions of Wood 

(Hascall), Palmer, and Van Cleve (Beatty)

Bragg’s Army of Tennessee (Confederate)

Polk’s Corps: Divisions of Cheatham and 

Withers

Hardee’s Corps: Divisions of Breckenridge, 

Cleburne, and McCown

The following narrative could give the erroneous 

impression that regiments advanced and retreated 

in lockstep. It should be remembered that every 

such movement during a battle is a confused and 

bloody affair. Lines may start out well-dressed and 

orderly, but uneven terrain, obstacles, and the fire of 

the enemy soon cause them to bend, waver, and 

break down. While most of a regiment might be 

advancing, some of its members are being cut down, 

the walking wounded are moving to the rear, and 

some are frantically seeking what cover they can 

find. Through it all, the deafening fire of muskets 

and cannon, the screams of the wounded, the stench 

of gunpowder, and the site of blood and tissue flying 

through the air create a stark atmosphere of barely 

organized chaos.

On December 31, Bragg steeled the resolve of his 

troops with a pre-dawn ration of whiskey, then 

launched an attack on Rosecrans’s right flank. Like 

some Union troops on the first day at Shiloh, 

McCook’s men were still making breakfast when 

Maj. Gen. John McCown’s Rebel division overran 

their right flank near the intersection of Gresham 

Lane and Franklin Road. McCown’s forces drove 

the fleeing Federals west toward Overall Creek, 

creating a gap in the Confederate line between their 

own division and that of Maj. Gen. Jones M. 

Withers on their right. Maj. Gen. Patrick Cleburne 

marched his hard-fighting division into this gap, 

wheeling his line to the right, turning the flank of 

two Union divisions, and pushing scattered Federal 

units north along Gresham Lane. By 8 a.m. 

Rosecrans’s right was in shambles and his army 

would spend the balance of the day on the 

defensive.24

Hardee’s Corps, after routing McCook’s right and 

center divisions, began to wheel north toward the 

Nashville Pike in an attempt to roll up the Federal 

line. Polk’s Corps launched its attack against 

McCook’s remaining division, an outfit led by the 

Irish-born, hard-bitten Sheridan. Brig. Gen. Joshua 

Sill, one of Sheridan’s three brigade commanders, 

had alerted him to Confederate movement during 

the night. Warned of the likelihood of a Rebel strike, 

Sheridan had his men in line of battle before dawn, 

taking cover among the boulders and cedars.

Withers’s division of Polk’s Corps slammed into 

Sheridan’s division at approximately 8 a.m., meeting 

determined resistance from the Federals in the 

cedars. Sill launched a counterattack from his 

position behind a brick kiln southeast of the 

Harding House, and was killed while his men were 

thrown back with heavy casualties. By the end of the 

day all three of Sheridan’s brigade commanders 

were dead. On the defensive again, Sheridan placed 

his artillery on a knoll behind the Harding House, 

and it wreaked havoc on Withers’s units advancing 

across the open cotton and corn fields south of 

McFadden Lane. Cleburne’s Confederates had 

previously swept east through McCook’s other two 

divisions and by 10:45 a.m. had gained Sheridan’s 

FIGURE 19. Troop dispositions on the first day of the Battle of 

Stones River.

STONES RIVER

Overall

Creek

Wilkinson Pike

Franklin Road

Nashville Pike

Nashville & Chattanooga RR

Breckinridge

HARDEE

HARDEE

POLK

POLK

Bragg’s 1st

C

Headquarters onfederate

advance

BRAGG

McC OOK

THOMAS

McCOOK

THOMAS

CRITTEN

DEN

Rosecrans’s

Headquarters

U

nion retreat

ROSECRANS

(8 a.m.)

(12 noon) ROUND

FOREST

indicates Confederate positions

indicates Federal positions

24. Spearman, 13-15; Horn, 200-01; Cozzens, 81-104.
National Park Service 31

rear. Threatened by envelopment and suffering 

enfilading fire, Sheridan’s division grudgingly 

withdrew north to the intersection of McFadden 

Lane and the Wilkinson Pike, facing its brigades 

south, east, and west to form a salient.25

Sheridan’s stout defense gave Rosecrans, who had 

spent the early morning hours supervising 

Crittenden’s crossing of Stones River, a chance to 

restore the shattered Federal line. The Union 

commander directed his units into the line of battle 

on the Federal left. Rosecrans and his staff often 

rode into the thick of combat, behavior that resulted 

in the decapitation of his chief of staff, Col. Julius 

Garesche, who was riding close to his commander 

when slain by a cannonball likely fired from a Rebel 

battery on Wayne’s Hill, across the river. Rosecrans 

recalled Brig. Gen. Horatio Van Cleve’s division 

from the east bank of Stones River and ordered him 

to form a line parallel to the Nashville Pike, 

northwest of the burnt-out shell of the Cowan 

House, to catch stragglers. Brig. Gens. John Palmer’s 

and Thomas Wood’s divisions of Crittenden’s Corps 

were ordered to remain in place and extend their 

frontage from the Nashville Pike to McFadden’s 

Ford. Having stabilized his left, Rosecrans made 

dispositions for his right.26

While Sheridan’s men clung grimly to the cedars 

and boulders, the division on their left under Brig. 

Gen. James S. Negley was also under attack from 

Withers’s Rebels. Negley’s division was ensconced 

in a cedar glade, his troops facing east across 

McFadden Lane, and his right terminating on the 

Wilkinson Pike. The first Confederate charge across 

the cotton field south of the Cowan House ruins 

was repulsed by Negley’s veterans and their artillery. 

A second, more concerted charge by several of 

Jones’s brigades dislodged Negley from the cedars 

and captured twelve of his cannon. Sheridan’s men 

simultaneously withdrew from their salient when 

fire from Confederate artillery occupying the brick 

kiln rendered it untenable, but their tenacious 

defense, with its high cost in dead and wounded, 

had averted disaster and allowed Rosecrans time to 

rebuild his line.27

By noon, Bragg’s Confederates had bent the Union 

line back upon itself at the boulder-strewn, cedarchoked hill known locally as the Round Forest. The 

Round Forest was east of the Nashville Pike and 

bisected by the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad. 

A Rebel attack that captured this hill would break 

the Federal forces in two. Realizing the importance 

of this position, Rosecrans sent every brigade not 

already engaged to the Round Forest and reinforced 

them with artillery. The Union army’s left flank 

faced southeast, anchored on its left by Stones River 

and holding the Round Forest on its right.

Rosecrans’s right flank continued to bend back 

during the course of the day as Hardee’s Corps 

wheeled toward the Nashville Pike. Beyond 

Sheridan’s salient, Cleburne’s and McCown’s 

divisions followed the fleeing Federals north along 

Gresham Lane, stopping at the Wilkinson Pike to 

draw ammunition and dress their ranks. Thomas, 

still holding the Union center, bought time by 

ordering his reserve division under Brig. Gen. 

Lovell Rousseau, which included a brigade of U.S. 

Regulars under Col. Oliver Shepherd, into the cedar 

woods behind Sheridan. Forming on Rousseau’s 

right was Van Cleve’s division, still wet and 

shivering from fording Stones River twice that 

morning. When Hardee’s veterans plunged into the 

trees north of the Wilkinson Pike they encountered 

stiff resistance from Rousseau’s and Van Cleve’s 

fresh men. According to one of Van Cleve’s brigade 

commanders, the nearly impenetrable cedars were 

“so dense as to render it impossible to see the length 

of a regiment,” making the already disordered 

nature of combat command unmanageable.28

In the confusion among the cedars, Hardee’s men 

slugged it out with the Federals, gradually gaining 

the advantage. Rousseau, realizing his position was 

untenable, constructed a fallback line by posting 

two batteries of artillery on a rise of ground behind 

the Nashville Pike, where Stones River National 

Cemetery is today. The Union units withdrew 

unevenly, creating gaps in the blue line that the 

opportunistic Rebels used to turn the flanks of 

Rousseau’s remaining troops. One such gap opened 

in the cedars in front of McCown’s men. Separated 

by the dense thickets, one Rebel brigade exited the 

25. Spearman, 16-17; Cozzens, 109-27.

26. Spearman, 18-19; Cozzens, 130-31.

27. Spearman, 15; Cozzens, 131-35.

28. Spearman, 19-20; Cozzens, 137.
32 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

trees alone and charged across a cotton field toward 

Rousseau’s fallback line of artillery, only to be 

repulsed with terrible casualties. McCown’s Texas 

and Arkansas brigades emerged from the woods 

further down the Nashville Pike shortly thereafter, 

only to meet the same fate at the hands of the 

Chicago Board of Trade Battery, which had been 

placed there by Rosecrans himself. On McCown’s 

right, Cheatham’s division of Tennesseans had 

reached the fringe of the cedars and saw artillery 

backed with blue-clad infantry. Lacking artillery of 

their own, the Rebels declined to attack the Federal 

position and remained at the edge of the woods.

On Hardee’s left side was Cleburne’s division, 

veterans who had crushed McCook’s flank earlier in 

the morning. At noon Cleburne’s men advanced 

north from the Wilkinson Pike, meeting Van Cleve’s 

division in the cedars. Confederate cavalry under 

Brig. Gen. John Wharton had progressed far beyond 

the Federal right flank earlier in the morning, 

capturing stores, burning wagons, and causing 

consternation in Rosecrans’s rear. Wharton’s 

command had reached the Nashville Pike and the 

main Union hospital at the Hord House earlier in 

the day but was repulsed by Federal cavalry. After an 

hour of bitter fighting in the woods south of Asbury 

Lane, Cleburne’s men appeared poised to capture 

the Nashville Pike again. Col. Harker’s brigade, on 

the extreme right of the Union army, retreated 

across Asbury Lane about 1 p.m. and took up a 

position at the Widow Burris House, accidentally 

exposing the flanks of Van Cleve’s brigades on his 

left. Cleburne’s veterans seized upon this blunder, 

outflanked Van Cleve’s men, and pushed the 

Federals toward the Nashville Pike near Rosecrans’s 

headquarters. By 3 p.m. the Rebel onslaught had 

halted, probably from sheer exhaustion, and 

withdrew into the cedars. No reinforcements were 

available to follow up the success on the 

Confederate left because Bragg had committed 

them to capturing the Round Forest.29

While Hardee’s Corps was crushing the Union right, 

the strength of Polk’s Corps was expended trying to 

capture the Round Forest. On December 31, Polk’s 

men made no less than four vain attempts to break 

the center of the Union line. At 8 a.m. Palmer’s 

division of Federal veterans rested obliquely astride 

the Nashville Turnpike and the Nashville & 

Chattanooga Railroad where they crossed 

McFadden Lane. He ordered his units forward, 

toward the burnt-out shell of the Cowan House, 

before grasping that Negley’s division on his right 

was falling back in an attempt to support Sheridan. 

Realizing his flank was uncovered, Palmer recalled 

his men to McFadden Lane and the safety of the 

woods. The fight came quickly as Confederates 

from Withers’s division crossed the cotton fields of 

the Cowan farm and crashed into his lines, but they 

were repulsed with heavy losses after an hour’s 

fighting. The Confederates attacked again at 10 a.m. 

as brigades from Cheatham’s division followed in 

the wake of Withers’s men. Cheatham’s Tennesseans 

also suffered heavily, but the collapse of McCook’s 

Corps brought pursuing Confederates into Palmer’s 

rear. These men were temporarily stopped in the 

cedars behind Palmer by the valiant sacrifice of 

Shepherd’s brigade of U.S. Regulars.

East of the turnpike, Cheatham’s advance along the 

railroad tracks toward the Round Forest ground to a 

halt under withering fire, prompting the attackers to 

nickname these fields “Hell’s Half-Acre.” At 1 p.m. 

the Confederates renewed their attack on the 

Round Forest, sending two fresh brigades from 

Breckinridge’s division into the carnage. The Union 

defenders of the Round Forest, particularly the 

brigade of Col. William B. Hazen, fought off this 

Rebel charge as well. The fences, outbuildings, and 

ruins of the Cowan farmhouse impeded the 

Confederate charges against the Round Forest 

because they were forced to redress ranks after 

crossing these obstacles. Bragg summoned two 

more brigades from Breckinridge for a final assault 

that began at 3:30 p.m., but this too failed to break 

the Union line, and closing darkness halted the 

action.30

Both armies remained in place on January 1, 1863; 

Bragg detailed his men to collect discarded arms, 

colors, and other trophies of war, while Rosecrans 

shortened his line by abandoning the Round Forest 

and dug in for another Rebel onslaught. Soldiers 

combed the battlefield for fallen comrades, 

returning to the field hospitals with wounded from 

both sides who had survived the night’s bitter cold. 

Wheeler’s cavalry destroyed a Union wagon train 

near LaVergne, ensuring that the Federals would 

remain on short rations.31

29. Spearman, 19-21; Cozzens, 134-50.

30. Spearman, 21-22; Horn, 202-05; Cozzens, 151-66.
National Park Service 33

On New Year’s Day, Van Cleve’s division, now 

commanded by Col. Samuel Beatty, crossed Stones 

River for the third time in two days and seized the 

high ground on the east bank near McFadden’s Ford 

(see Figure 20). From this position, Beatty’s artillery 

could enfilade Bragg’s right and center on the west 

side of the river. Confederate reconnaissance on 

January 2 revealed Rosecrans’s crafty move, 

prompting Bragg to order Breckinridge to attack 

Beatty’s division. Breckinridge personally inspected 

the ground before appealing to Polk, his corps 

commander, and Bragg to cancel the assault. The 

former U. S. Vice President noted that Beatty would 

retreat onto higher ground and that the Rebel line of 

battle would be enfiladed from Federal batteries 

posted on the west side of the river. Bragg reinforced 

Breckinridge with additional troops from Polk’s 

Corps but reiterated his order to attack. The 

Confederate commander scheduled the attack for 

late afternoon to prevent Rosecrans from having 

sufficient daylight to launch a counterattack. 

Breckinridge’s brigades marched off Wayne’s Hill at 

4 p.m., quickly coming under fire from Union 

batteries on the west side of the river.32 Confederate 

veteran Ed Thompson described the charge avenue 

as:

an uncleared space, covered for the most part, 

with sassafras and other brushwood, and with 

briars, and a little ahead was another open flat 

of ground, descending from the bushes, for 

some distance, then ascending to the line upon 

which the enemy lay. The general character of 

the ground along the whole division was 

undulating and broken by thickets, forest trees 

and patches of briars.33

Protected by undulations in the ground, 

Breckinridge’s veterans quickly closed with Beatty’s 

men and turned Crittenden’s right. The flanked 

Federals retreated to McFadden’s Ford, passing 

through two brigades that Rosecrans had ordered to 

cross the river to support them. The Rebels were 

halted by these new opponents but again worked 

their way onto their opponent’s flank, forcing 

another Union retreat. The jubilant Confederates 

approached the river, and a few even crossed it in 

pursuit of the fleeing Federals. Soon the tables were 

turned, as they were swept by volleys from forty-five 

Federal cannon placed hub-to-hub on the west 

bank of the river. Capt. John Mendenhall, 

Crittenden’s chief of artillery, had assembled all or 

part of ten batteries on the west bank of Stones 

River. His guns commanded a clear field of fire 

31. Spearman, 22, 24; Cozzens, 171-72.

32. Horn, 206-07; Connelly, 62-64.

FIGURE 20. McFadden’s Ford circa the 1890s.

33. William C. Davis, The Orphan Brigade: the Kentucky Confederates who couldn't go home (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 

1980), 178.
34 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

because the west bank was at least ten feet higher 

than the Confederate-held east bank. The barrage 

from this assemblage of iron and bronze tore apart 

the soldiers’ bodies, breaking the Rebel charge and 

driving it back in disarray to the starting point. The 

Federals pursued the fleeing Rebels but stopped 

when confronted by a scratch line of Confederate 

cannon and cavalry.34

Both armies watched each other warily on January 3 

but neither side offered combat. Believing from 

Crittenden’s captured baggage that Rosecrans had 

been reinforced, Bragg ordered his army to 

withdraw twenty-five miles south to the Duck River 

the night of January 3. The night march through 

driving rain turned the Nashville Pike into a 

quagmire, adding to the retreating Rebels’ misery. 

Wary of another Confederate assault, the Pioneer 

Brigade dug earthworks parallel to the Nashville 

Pike for the Chicago Board of Trade Battery. The 

Union army, victors of the battle by virtue of 

possession of the field, rebuilt the trestle over the 

river that the Confederates had destroyed during 

their retreat and crept into Murfreesboro on 

January 5. Both sides had suffered heavily: of Bragg’s 

37,700 engaged, 9,865 were casualtiesa loss of 26 

percent; the Federals endured even worse, losing 

13,244 men out of 43,400 present, 30 percent of their 

army. It had been a bitterly contested struggle.35

On the tactical level, the Battle of Stones River 

clearly illustrates the advantage gained by seizing the 

initiative and attacking the flank of an opposing 

army. Equally clear is the defensive power of massed 

artillery, particularly when sited on a prominent 

position such as the Round Forest or the elevated 

west bank of Stones River. Finally, the command 

difficulties encountered when fighting over broken 

ground, problems coordinating attacks or 

withdrawals, and the challenges of keeping troops 

aligned are demonstrated by each army’s response 

to the terrain.

The ability of Rosecrans’s army to withstand Bragg’s 

furious assault without breaking established the 

Army of the Cumberland’s reputation as an 

immovable defensive force. This defensive resiliency 

would resurface again in battle at Chickamauga, 

Atlanta, and Franklin, but it was forged at Stones 

River. Likewise, the Battle of Stones River typified 

the Confederate Army of Tennessee’s fate as a hardluck loser and produced dissent within its 

command structure that reduced its effectiveness 

for the balance of the war.

Fortress Rosecrans

After the battle, Gen. Rosecrans renamed his force 

the Army of the Cumberland and initiated 

construction at Murfreesboro of a large enclosed 

earthen fortification. James St. Clair Morton, Chief 

of Engineers, Army of the Cumberland, designed 

the earthwork, which was subsequently named 

Fortress Rosecrans. The basis for the design of the 

fort was likely Dennis Hart Mahan’s Treatise on Field 

Fortifications, a reference work written by the 

former commandant of West Point. Rosecrans 

wrote Chief of Staff Halleck that the fort would 

serve a twofold purpose: enclosing a forward supply 

dump for the Army of the Cumberland and 

providing a refuge for the army if it suffered a 

defeat.36

Morgan’s and Forrest’s cavalry preferred wrecking 

railroad trestles to tearing up railroad tracks because 

the destruction could be accomplished quickly and 

took longer to repair. Given the Nashville & 

Chattanooga Railroad’s role in keeping the Army of 

the Cumberland supplied for the balance of the war, 

Fortress Rosecrans was sited atop several low hills 

for the defense of this vital supply line. Located one 

and a half miles northwest of Murfreesboro, the fort 

encompassed both the Nashville Pike and Nashville 

& Chattanooga Railroad river crossings. Thus, the 

fort protected the largest bridge and railroad trestle 

spans between Nashville and Murfreesboro. A 

brigade of infantry defending the fortress, 

Rosecrans boasted in a letter to Halleck, would “be 

able to cover the depots and bridges against a 

division or two.”37

Construction of Fortress Rosecrans began on 

January 23, 1863. Each brigade in Rosecrans’s army 

worked on the entrenchments for a day or two 

before being replaced by another brigade. The 

34. Spearman, 25-27; Horn, 207-08; Cozzens, 183-96.

35. Spearman, 27; Cozzens, 201; casualties from Official Records, vol. XX, 215, 261.

36. O. R., Series I, Vol. XXIII, pt. II, 81.

37. Ibid., 90.
National Park Service 35

combat engineers of Morton’s Pioneer Brigade, 

specially trained troops who repaired or 

constructed fortifications, roads, and railroads, 

supervised the workers. Between four and five 

thousand troops worked on the fort twenty-four 

hours a day, seven days a week, between January 

and April.38 Civilian John Spence noted in his diary 

on February 15 that “preparation is being made for 

building fortifications and rifle pits near this place. 

Large quantities of timber trees are cut and hauled 

to the grounds. The work is commenced and 

pushed on rigorouslydigging and blasting rocks. A 

great number of negros are employed at this kind of 

work, under pay, of course.”39 In April, the 

workweek was reduced to five days, and on April 20, 

the “graveyard shift” was eliminated. The workload 

increased again in June, prior to Rosecrans’s 

initiation of the Tullahoma Campaign on June 24.

After much prodding from Halleck, Rosecrans 

began the campaign to capture the valuable rail 

center of Chattanooga. The campaign’s first phase 

was designed to drive the Rebels from their strong 

position along the Duck River. Bragg had retreated 

behind the Duck after losing the Battle of Stones 

River and had remained there while Fortress 

Rosecrans was built. Bragg’s Army of Tennessee 

occupied the mountain gaps and passes in this 

rugged area of Tennessee known to geographers as 

the Highland Rim. Rosecrans used this 

mountainous terrain between Murfreesboro and 

Tullahoma to hide his army’s movements. Within a 

week Rosecrans had outmaneuvered Bragg, 

capturing middle Tennessee and north Alabama as 

well. The Union commander detailed Van Cleve to 

remain at Fortress Rosecrans to guard the railroad 

with 2,394 convalescent troops.40

As constructed, Fortress Rosecrans measured 1,250 

yards from north to south and 1,070 yards east to 

west, creating an enclosure of about 200 acres. A 

line of curtain walls, lunettes, and rifle pits 14,600 

feet in length formed the fort’s outer perimeter. The 

nine lunettes were fieldworks that consisted of two 

faces forming a salient angle with two parallel flanks 

that opened to the interior of the fort. Each lunette 

was named for a general officer assigned to the 

Army of the Cumberland. A line of earthworks 

known as Curtain Wall No. 1 was constructed 

between Lunettes Thomas and McCook, on the 

fort’s southeastern face. Another line of earthworks, 

known as Curtain Wall No. 2, ran between Lunettes 

Thomas and Negley on the fort’s southwestern face. 

Because Lunettes Negley, Thomas, and Curtain 

Wall No. 2 could be enfiladed by artillery on the 

west bank of the river, traverses set at right angles 

38. Ibid., 154.

39. John C. Spence, A Diary of the Civil War (Murfreesboro, TN: Rutherford County Historical Society, 1993), 73.

FIGURE 21. Pay sheet for African Americans who worked on Fortress Rosecrans.

40. O. R., Series I, Vol. XXIII, pt. II, 423; Connelly, 126-134.
36 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

were constructed behind their walls. The lunettes 

and curtain walls were fitted with embrasures, Vshaped openings in the earthwork through which 

defenders fired their cannon. Large earth-filled 

wicker baskets called gabions were placed outside 

the embrasures for extra protection. Gabions were 

much larger than sandbags, portable, and would 

absorb several incoming Confederate rounds before 

splintering. Both the railroad and the pike bisected 

the fort, with openings in the fortress walls to allow 

passage on these arteries. Sited near the entrances 

for the railroad were artillery emplacements 

(Batteries Cruft and Mitchell) to reinforce these 

vulnerable points.41

Trees and brush within a thousand yards of the fort 

were cleared to provide unobstructed lines of fire 

for the defenders. Abatis, felled trees laid with their 

branches pointed outward, were placed between 

the lunettes and in the marshy ground where Lytle 

Creek and the river crossed the fort. The remainder 

of the cleared lumber was used to construct housing 

and military structures within the fort. Pvt. James H. 

Jones relates that “there is fortifications on evry [sic] 

FIGURE 22. Fortress Rosecrans superimposed on modern city streets.

OLD FORT

PARK

MURFREESBORO

West Fork Stones River

Ly tle Creek

Manson Pike

Old Fort Parkway

Golf Lane

NW Broad Street

W College St

CSX Transportation

99

96

41

70S

Wilkinson Pike

Nashville &

Chattanooga Railroad

FORTRESS

ROSECRANS

Redoubt

Brannan

Lunette Thomas

Lunette Palmer

Curtain Wall No. 2

North

0

0

0.5 Mile

0.5 Kilometer Features from the time

of the battle – road names,

structures, and Fortress

Rosecrans – are shown

in gray. Some of these

features can still be seen

today.

Original extent of

Fortress Rosecrans

41. O. R., Series I, Vol. XLIX, pt. II, 502; Edwing C. Bearss, The History of Fortress Rosecrans (Washington: National Park Service, 

1960), 4.
National Park Service 37

hill and shore near this place within them are placed 

the twenty four and sixty four pounders ready at all 

times. . . the groves of timber that was waving in the 

breeze at the arrival of Rosecrans’s army is now in 

stockades and ashes nothing left but the stumps and 

brush.”42 Fronting the lunettes and curtain walls 

were ditches six feet deep, to further slow any 

enemy troops that cleared the abatis.

Supporting the lunettes and curtain walls within 

Fortress Rosecrans were four redoubts meant to 

provide the last line of defense if the lunettes were 

breached. The redoubts were named Schofield, 

Brannan, T.J. Wood, and Johnson. Each was a 

rectangular earthwork containing artillery, a 

powder magazine, and a wooden cruciform 

blockhouse (see Figure 23). Every redoubt was 

constructed on a hill and all were within 350 feet of 

the railroad. In addition, Redoubt Brannan was built 

astride the Nashville Pike and was the guardian of 

the wood-trussed rail and road bridges.43

To supply the garrison, a railroad spur 1,200 feet 

long was added within the fortress, crossing the 

Nashville Pike below the guns of Redoubt Johnson. 

The first locomotive hauling supplies from Nashville 

arrived on February 10, 1863, and the car’s contents 

were delivered to the corresponding depots: 

foodstuffs were stored in one of the fort’s three 

commissary depots, dry goods were stockpiled in 

the Quartermaster’s Depot, tools were cached in the 

Engineer’s Warehouse, and ordnance was either 

distributed among the fort’s magazines or 

warehoused in the Ordnance Depot. Additional 

provisions were foraged locally and entered the 

fortress along the pike. During the fort’s 

construction, the United States Military Railroad 

(USMRR) replaced the U-rails of the Nashville & 

Chattanooga with newer and stronger T-rails.44

For additional protection along the line, seven 

wooden blockhouses were constructed at the 

railroad bridges between Nashville and the fort.45

Stones River bisected Fortress Rosecrans, dividing it 

into two unequal parts. The smaller section was 

west of the river and contained Lunettes Negley and 

Stanley, Battery Cruft, and Redoubt Schofield. 

These earthworks protected four sawmills located 

along the banks of the river and two commissary 

depots astride the railroad tracks. The bulk of the 

fort, including Redoubts Brannan, Johnson, and T. J. 

Wood, was on Stones River’s east bank. The 

warehouses and depots on the fort’s east side were 

constructed near the railroad to facilitate offloading of supplies from trains. They were sited in 

the ravine between Redoubt Brannan and Redoubts 

Johnson and T.J. Wood as further protection from 

Confederate artillery. Protecting these facilities were 

Lunettes Crittenden, Gordon, Granger, McCook, 

Rousseau, and Reynolds, Curtain Wall No. 1, and 

Battery Mitchell. Lytle Creek flowed into Stones 

River through the east bank, further dividing the 

eastern area of the fort. Lunettes Palmer and 

Thomas and Curtain Wall No. 2 were constructed 

on the south bank of Lytle Creek to guard the 

Franklin Road. Two outlying demi-lunettes, Davis 

and Garfield, were constructed on a ridge south of 

the fort, close to the Franklin Road. Another 

42. James H. Jones, SC 889, James H. Jones Papers, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

43. Cowles, Plate CXII, Fig.3.

FIGURE 23. Blockhouse of type used at Fortress Rosecrans.

44. George B. Abdill, Civil War Railroads (New York: Bonanza Books, 1961), 137.

45. Bearss, Fortress Rosecrans, i.
38 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

outlying bulwark, the V-shaped earthwork called 

Redan Van Cleve, was built north of the fort on a hill 

that dominated Stones River’s Nashville Ford.46

Hazen Brigade Monument

During the summer of 1863, while the Army of the 

Cumberland was flanking Bragg’s Confederates out 

of their Tullahoma defenses, members of Hazen’s 

Brigade were detailed to construct a monument to 

their unit’s heroism at Stones River. Although 

construction of the monument clearly had official 

sanction, the initiator of this action remains 

unknown. The site selected for the monument was 

an area in the Round Forest containing the graves of 

forty-five of the brigade’s fallen. Lieutenant Edward 

Crebbin of the 17th Indiana Volunteers supervised 

construction of the monument from June to 

November 1863.47 It was hazardous work, and 

Crebbin’s crew was threatened by the appearance of 

Confederate cavalry in October 1863. At the time, 

the Union Army of the Cumberland was besieged 

within Chattanooga, and Wheeler’s Confederate 

command had been ordered to break the railroad 

line at Murfreesboro, but the obvious strength of 

nearby Fortress Rosecrans discouraged assault.

Capt. E. B. Whitman described the monument as a 

“quadrangular pyramidal shaft, ten feet square at 

the base and eleven feet in height, surmounted by a 

neat coping. A dry-stacked stone wall, four feet high 

and two feet thick, enclosed both monument and 

cemetery. Three low steps breached the wall’s south 

side to allow access.” In November 1863, the 115th

Ohio Regiment was transferred to Murfreesboro to 

garrison Fortress Rosecrans and the railroad 

blockhouses along the Nashville & Chattanooga. 

Two experienced stonecutters from the regiment, 

Sgt. Daniel C. Miller and Pvt. Christian Bauhoff, 

46. Bearss, Fortress Rosecrans, 4.

47. Daniel A. Brown, Marked for Future Generations: The Hazen Brigade Monument 1863-1929 (Murfreesboro, TN: National 

Park Service, 1985), 7-8.

FIGURE 24. Hazen Brigade Monument, 1890s.
National Park Service 39

were employed to inscribe the monument’s four 

faces during the spring of 1864.48

Stones River National 

Cemetery

On March 29, 1864, Thomas instructed Van Cleve to 

“select an eligible site for the founding of a National 

Cemetery.” Furthermore, he was to carry out the 

assignment “as rapidly as possible.”49 Van Cleve, in 

turn, detached Capt. John A. Means of the 115th 

Ohio for duty as a topographical engineer in charge 

of siting and laying out the cemetery. Means 

oversaw the cemetery’s layout from June 2, 1864, 

until his discharge on April 25, 1865.50

Means sited the cemetery between the Nashville 

Pike and the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad on a 

slight rise where Union artillery had repulsed 

Hardee’s attacks on the afternoon of December 31, 

1862. As constructed, the cemetery is a trapezoid 

whose parallel sides stretch between the railroad 

and pike. The plan is formal and geometric, with a 

graveled central main carriage path entering the 

cemetery from the pike. The main carriage path 

runs toward a square in the cemetery’s center that is 

surrounded by four larger squares. Smaller, grassy 

walking paths radiate from the central square 

toward the cemetery’s four corners, and an 

additional grassy path circumnavigates the whole. 

Graves were laid parallel to the main carriage path, 

four feet apart.

Like the work crew at the Hazen Monument, the 

workers at the cemetery were members of the 115th 

Ohio, stationed at Blockhouse No. 7, a fortification 

of earth and wood that guarded the railroad bridge 

spanning Overall Creek. After the Battle of Franklin 

(November 30, 1864) in nearby Williamson County, 

Union forces under Maj. Gen. John Schofield 

retreated into strong earthworks at Nashville. The 

Army of Tennessee, now under Gen. John B. Hood, 

followed Schofield to the gates of Nashville. Hood 

detached Forrest to lead a combined cavalry and 

infantry assault on Fortress Rosecrans. 

Confederates attacked Blockhouse No. 7 on 

December 4, 1864, but the garrison was saved by the 

timely arrival of reinforcements from the fort under 

Brig. Gen. Robert H. Milroy. Two days of probing 

failed to convince Forrest of the strength of the 

Federal position. On December 7, Forrest’s troops 

again fought Milroy’s men in the Battle of the 

Cedars. In a reversal of the Battle of Stones River, 

48. Brown, 11-19.

49. Brown, 19.

50. Report of Chaplain William Earnshaw to Brevet Major General J.L. Donaldson, Chief Quartermaster of the Department of 

Tennessee, October 5, 1866, 229.

FIGURE 25. Headstones in Stones River National Cemetery.
40 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Union forces advanced north along Gresham Lane, 

dislodging the Confederates who were stationed 

astride the Wilkinson Pike on the old battlefield. 

Milroy’s men pushed the Rebels back across Overall 

Creek and then retired to Fortress Rosecrans. The 

Army of Tennessee’s destruction at the Battle of 

Nashville on December 16 forced Forrest to 

withdraw from the Murfreesboro area.51

Forrest’s withdrawal signaled the end of formal 

hostilities in the Murfreesboro area. After Gen. 

Joseph Johnston’s surrender of the remnants of the 

Army of Tennessee in North Carolina in May 1865, 

on the heels of Lee’s surrender in Virginia, most of 

the Federal occupation forces at Fortress Rosecrans, 

including Means, were mustered out of service. 

After Means’s departure , Chaplain William 

Earnshaw was designated to oversee the completion 

the cemetery. After the war, Earnshaw directed the 

exhumation of Union dead buried throughout 

middle Tennessee and their reinterment at Stones 

River National Cemetery.52 In 1866, when 

occupation troops left, it is likely that the buildings 

of Fortress Rosecrans were auctioned off to the 

highest bidder, and the earthworks left to continue 

to erode.53

Significance

Battlefield

Today Stones River National Battlefield preserves 

the locations of many of the major events associated 

with the Battle of Stones River and the Federal 

occupation of Murfreesboro. The battle had 

military significance as a key step in the Union 

advance toward Chattanooga and the opening of 

the campaign for Atlanta. The battle also had 

political significance as a signal Union victory amid 

a cluster of Federal losses in the winter of 1862-1863. 

The battlefield itself is significant as the scene of 

intense fighting that cost the lives of thousands and 

maimed thousands more. The surviving elements of 

the battlefield setting, including the earthworks, 

roads, natural landforms, and archeological 

evidence, are tangible links to the events that took 

place near Murfreesboro during the Civil War.

Historic resources dating to the time of the battle, 

including the battlefield, are all nationally 

significant. The battlefield, Van Cleve Lane (Bowen 

Lane, McFadden Lane), Manson Pike (Wilkinson 

Pike), and the Old Nashville Highway (Nashville 

Pike) are nationally significant under National 

Register (NR) Criterion A because they define areas 

of intense fighting during the Battle of Stones River. 

Additionally, the roads were important 

transportation corridors that funneled troops of 

both armies into combat. Furthermore, the Manson 

Pike was the scene of the smaller Battle of the 

Cedars in 1864. The Old Nashville Highway is also 

locally significant under Criterion A for its 

association with the development of Rutherford 

County.

Nashville, Murfreesboro and 

Shelbyville Turnpike and Tollhouse 

Site

The Nashville, Murfreesboro and Shelbyville 

Turnpike was a strategic point on the battlefield, and 

much of the fiercest fighting occurred near it on the 

first day of the battle. From near the Hazen 

Monument to just past the park visitor center, parkowned land lies on both sides of the turnpike (now 

known as the Old Nashville Highway) A wooden 

toll house with a detached kitchen connected with 

this turnpike stood in the midst of the conflict.54 On 

December 29, 1862, Hewett’s Kentucky Battery and 

the 40th Indiana Infantry Regiment were stationed 

near this structure. On the following day, this 

battery moved a short distance from this position in 

order to skirmish with Confederates. The 

Confederate attack on the morning of December 31, 

1862, forced the 40th Indiana to abandon this 

position and to move closer to the Nashville & 

Chattanooga Railroad, which paralleled the pike. 

However, later that morning, this unit returned to its 

previous location “with the right resting at the old 

51. Bearss, Fortress Rosecrans, 68-167.

52. Earnshaw, 227.

53. Lenard E. Brown, “Fortress Rosecrans: A History, 1865-1990,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 50, no.3 (1991), 139.

54. The Union’s use of the Nashville, Murfreesboro, and Shelbyville Pike as a thoroughfare is well-documented. See, for 

example, W. S. Rosecrans, report, OR, series I, volume xx, part I. See also James Lee McDonough, Stones River—Bloody 

Winter in Tennessee (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1980), 131-151; Alexander F. Stevenson, The Battle of Stone’s 

River near Murfreesboro’, Tenn., December 30, 1862, to January 3, 1863 (1884; Dayton: Morningside, 1983), 74-103; 

Cozzens, 48-63; Earl J. Hess, Banners to the Breeze: The Kentucky Campaign, Corinth, and Stones River (University of 

Nebraska Press, 2000), 183-196.
National Park Service 41

house near the toll-gate, and the left extending 

across the railroad.” This was a “position much 

exposed to the fire of the enemy, which was at this 

time very heavy, both artillery and musketry.” This 

regiment successfully repulsed a Confederate 

attack and remained in their position throughout 

the night.55

Archeologists employed both documentary and 

archeological evidence to locate the site of the toll 

house at Stones River National Battlefield. 

Nineteenth-century depictions of this structure 

based on drawings created by A. E. Matthews, a 

Union soldier who fought in the battle, suggested 

that the toll house was probably a small home with a 

dogtrot and a detached kitchen. Although these 

buildings are depicted with white-painted wooden 

siding, it is likely that this siding covered the original 

log walls. Archeological evidence suggests that 

artillery fire during the battle destroyed the toll 

house.56

Wilkinson Pike (Manson Pike)

As mentioned above, Thomas’s wing of the Union 

army used the Wilkinson Pike to reach its initial 

positions at Murfreesboro. Skirmishing between 

Union and Confederate troops occurred near the 

pike on December 30. Many of the troops in the 

Union right were posted near this road on the 

morning of December 31. Brigadier General Philip 

H. Sheridan provided the following description of 

the position of his troops: “at sundown [December 

30] I had taken up my position, my right resting in 

the timber, my left on the Wilkinson pike, and my 

reserve brigade, of four regiments, to the rear and 

opposite the center.” However, the Confederates’ 

surprise assault early in the morning on December 

31 routed the Union right, forcing the Federal troops 

to retreat from the Wilkinson Pike toward the 

Nashville Pike.57 In addition to playing an 

important role in the Battle of Stones River, the 

Wilkinson Pike was also crucial in the Battle of the 

Cedars (December 7, 1864).

Van Cleve Lane (Old Bowen Lane, 

McFadden Lane)

It seems likely that this road acquired the name Van 

Cleve sometime after the battle in honor of Union 

Brigadier General Horatio Van Cleve who served at 

the Battle of Stones River and at Fortress Rosecrans. 

Two possible names for this road prior to the battle 

are Old Bowen Lane and McFadden Lane. This 

road was in the midst of the battle on both 

December 31, 1862, and January 2, 1863, but no 

specific references that identify this road by name 

have yet been located in the The War of the 

Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the 

Union and Confederate Armies.

58

CSX Railroad

The CSX Railroad (Nashville & Chattanooga 

Railroad at the time of the battle) is nationally 

significant under NR Criterion A because it was the 

focal point of intense fighting during the Battle of 

Stones River. In addition to its role in the battle, the 

railroad was used by Confederate forces to bring 

troops and ammunition to the area beforehand. 

After the Battle of Stones River the railroad was a 

critical supply line in the Union attempt to capture 

Chattanooga; Confederate cavalry attempted to cut 

this vital artery several times prior to the end of the 

war. The railroad is locally significant under 

Criterion A for its association with the development 

of Rutherford County and under Criterion B for its 

association with persons influential to the history of 

Tennessee. Sen. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina 

supported the railroad’s construction and may have 

influenced the city of Charleston’s purchase of 

$500,000 in the company’s stock. Railroad president 

Vernon King Stevenson solicited Calhoun’s support, 

presided over the railroad during its construction, 

and later became the Confederacy’s quartermaster 

for the division of Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, 

and Alabama. John W. Thomas served as president 

of the railroad from 1884 until his death in 1906 and 

55. Alban L. Ellsworth, report, OR, 411; Henry Leaming, report, OR, 497-498.

56. Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee,” 15.

57. Jefferson C. Davis, report, OR, 263; Philip H. Sheridan, report, OR, 347-350.

58. Official Atlas of the Civil War, “Topographical Sketch of the Battle-Field near Murfreesborough, Tenn.,” Plate XXX, “Plans 

of the Battles on Stone’s River before Murfreesborough,” Plate XXXII; “Map of Rutherford County, Tennessee from New 

and Actual Surveys,” D. G. Beers & Co., 1878, folder 3, drawer 3, Stones River National Battlefield Historic Map Collection, 

Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; on the name Old Bowen Lane, see Ann Wilson Willett, “A 

History of Stones River National Military Park,” (M.A. thesis, Middle Tennessee State College, 1958), 78; for references to 

this road as McFadden Lane, see particularly Cozzens, No Better Place to Die, 65, 76, 124, 141, 152, 155; Hess, Banners to 

the Breeze, 206, 208-210. For further documentation of this road see Edwin C. Bearss, “Fence and Ground Cover Map, Part 

of the Master Plan, Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” report, (December 1961), 45-57. 
42 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

was a powerful advocate of veterans’ causes and 

reunions during Reconstruction.59

Fortress Rosecrans

The surviving remnants of Fortress 

RosecransLunettes Palmer and Thomas, Curtain 

Wall No. 2, and Redoubt Brannan are nationally 

significant under NR Criteria A, B, C, and D. All are 

significant under Criterion A for their association 

with the post-battle Federal occupation of 

Murfreesboro and under Criterion C because they 

represent advanced nineteenth-century military 

fortifications. Significance under Criterion B derives 

from their association with Rosecrans, who ordered 

the earthworks’ construction. The remains of 

Fortress Rosecrans convey significant information 

about the immense logistical network that allowed 

the Union to prevail in the Civil War. The evaluation 

of archeological sites is beyond the scope of this 

study, but the earthworks are potentially eligible for 

the NR under Criterion D because they may possess 

information that could increase our understanding 

of nineteenth-century fortifications.

Stones River National Cemetery/

Hazen Brigade Monument

To be eligible for the NR, cemeteries must meet the 

requirements of NR Criteria Consideration D. 

Commemorative structures must meet the 

requirements of NR Criteria Consideration F, which 

stipulates that such structures must have gained 

significance in their own right. Both the Hazen 

Brigade Monument and Stones River National 

Cemetery are significant for their design features 

and their association with historic events, thus 

satisfying the criteria considerations. Both 

properties are nationally significant under NR 

Criteria A and C. The Hazen Brigade Monument is 

significance under Criterion A because it was 

constructed before the war’s end, making it one of 

the very first Civil War monuments. It is an 

important milestone in the history of the 

commemoration of the Civil War. It is also 

significant under Criterion C for its design; it 

represents an older tradition of commemorative 

architecture that would largely be abandoned in the 

heyday of Civil War memorialization from 1890 to 

1917. The monument has ample significance in its 

own right to meet the standard of Criteria 

Consideration F.

Stones River National Cemetery is significant under 

Criterion A as an early example of a national 

cemetery, under Criterion B for its association with 

Gen. George H. Thomas (who ordered it 

constructed), and under Criterion C for its formal, 

geometric plan and funerary sculpture. National 

cemeteries at Civil War battlefields and elsewhere 

became important sites of formal and informal 

remembrances by veterans and family members. 

These cemeteries played an important role in the 

nation’s attitudes toward the Civil War and its 

aftermath. At the time that the Stones River National 

Cemetery was laid out, the “rural cemetery” 

aesthetic of winding driveways and “naturalistic” 

plantings had already been established. The Stones 

River cemetery largely departs from that aesthetic 

and was an influence on the design of subsequent 

national cemeteries.

As previously mentioned, the core tract at STRI is 

nationally significant as the site of fighting during 

the battle. This is the terrain that witnessed the near 

59. Miranda L. Fraley “Industry, War, and Memory: An Exploratory Essay” (Practicum paper, University of Indiana, 1998), 2-3, 

6.

FIGURE 26. View in Stones River National Cemetery.
National Park Service 43

envelopment of the Union right by Confederate 

forces on Decemeber 31, 1862. Sill’s Ridge, 

McFadden’s Ford, Wayne’s Hill, sinkholes, and 

many rock outcroppings influenced the course of 

the battle. Final determination of the significance of 

existing vegetation at Stones River National 

Battlefield awaits further field and archival research. 

Vegetation patterns, specifically the relationship 

between open fields and cedar or hardwood forest, 

on the field of Stones River played a key role in 

troop movements and the outcome of the battle. 

Additional research is needed to evaluate whether 

existing vegetation could increase our 

understanding of their role in the conduct and 

tactics of the battle. Until this research is conducted, 

the existing vegetation remains unevaluated and 

should be considered potentially significant for the 

information it may contribute to the recovery of the 

vegetation patterns of the 1863 battlefield. A Cultural 

Landscape Report for Stones River National 

Cemetery, in draft in November 2001, addresses the 

historic landscape of that parcel.

As indicated previously, Stones River National 

Battlefield encompasses only a fraction of the land 

the two armies fought upon; important areas and 

structures that served as staging areas, officers’ 

headquarters, and field hospitals surround the park 

itself. Following the evaluation of historic resources 

that are within STRI and owned by the NPS, some 

of these significant nearby historic resources 

(standing structures and archeological sites) are 

discussed. 

Integrity of Historic 

Resources

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its 

historic significance. According to NR Bulletin 16, 

the seven aspects of integrity are location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association. These are applied to each contributing 

property, taking into account its level of significance 

and the criteria under which it derives its 

significance. For example, a property that is 

significant under Criterion A for its association with 

an event is not held to the same standard of integrity 

as one that derives its significance from Criterion C, 

as an example of art or architecture. For a property 

to contribute to the historic district, it must possess 

several, and usually most, of the aspects of integrity.

The core of the battlefield retains its historic 

location and topography. The Old Nashville 

Highway, Manson Pike, and Van Cleve Lane retain 

their historic location and alignment. Although they 

have been paved, widened, and in some cases 

elevated, they have not been re-graded, and 

therefore maintain their nineteenth-century 

roadbeds. Where these roads pass through the 

battlefield, they maintain considerable integrity of 

setting, feeling, and association, particularly in 

comparison to modern roads such as Thompson 

Lane or U.S. Highway 41/70S. The dirt road section 

(approximately 1,500 feet) of Van Cleve Lane retains 

the workmanship and design aspects of its integrity. 

These roads define the lines of battle during 

separate phases of the fight, allowing visitors to 

understand the sweeping nature of the contest. In 

addition, these roads provided access to different 

points of the battlefield for units of both armies, as 

they now do for the visitor.

The CSX Railroad retains its historic location and 

alignment. The railroad has undergone some 

changes since the battle, including the laying of 

ballast, a narrowing of the gauge, the removal of the 

cedar stringers, and the installation of steel rails and 

concrete ties. However, modifications made during 

the Union occupation of Murfreesboro included the 

replacement of U-rails with the T-rail design still in 

use. The section of the CSX Railroad that runs 

through the battlefield (two thousand feet) 

maintains considerable integrity of setting and 

feeling relating it to the events of battle. Although 

the Round Forest has been obliterated by 

construction of the Thompson Lane Connector and 

a concrete plant, the relationship of the railroad to 

the Old Nashville Highway and Redoubt Brannan 

conveys the association between the battle and the 

railroad to the visitor.

Only a small portion of Fortress Rosecrans is extant 

today. The fort once covered approximately 200 

acres surrounding Stones River, the Nashville Pike, 

and the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad. In 1866, 

the U.S. Army abandoned the fort. Remaining 

structures within the fort were disposed of and the 

fort’s earthen walls and redoubts were likely mined 

for fill dirt or allowed to erode. Now all that is left of 

the fort is Lunettes Thomas and Palmer, Redoubt 

Brannan, a traverse of Lunette Negley, Curtain Wall 

No. 2, and part of Curtain Wall No. 1. All of these 

earthworks, with the exception of Curtain Wall No. 1 
44 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

and the traverse of Lunette Negley, are owned by 

the National Park Service and are within the 

boundaries of the park. The City of Murfreesboro 

owns Curtain Wall No. 1, while the Lunette Negley 

traverse is in private hands.

Although most of Fortress Rosecrans is now gone, 

the elements that remain are substantial enough to 

convey the fort’s massiveness as well as its purpose 

and significance. Lunettes Palmer and Thomas, 

Redoubt Brannan, Curtain Wall No. 2, and Curtain 

Wall No. 1 retain their location, design, materials, 

workmanship, and association to the occupation of 

Murfreesboro. The Lunette Negley traverse is sited 

in the yard of a single-family dwelling and has lost its 

association to the other earthworks. Most of the 

earthworks are in stable condition with grasses 

providing a protective cover. Redoubt Brannan is 

threatened by a severe infestation of groundhogs 

that threatens to undermine the walls of the 

structure. The integrity of Lunette Thomas has been 

partially compromised by construction of a power 

line through its left face and no longer retains its full 

configuration. The section of Curtain Wall No. 1 

north of the railroad tracks has been obliterated by 

development, but the earthwork that is extant is well 

preserved. Lunettes Palmer and Thomas, Curtain 

Wall No. 1, and Curtain Wall No. 2 are set in a park 

environment with broad views, consistent with a 

historic landscape that was swept clean of foliage to 

provide fields of fire. The setting of Redoubt 

Brannan has been somewhat compromised by 

adjacent commercial construction. 

Stones River National Cemetery and the Hazen 

Brigade Monument retain locational and design 

integrity. The Hazen Brigade Monument retains 

integrity of materials, workmanship, and 

association. An in-depth evaluation of the 

vegetation and spatial organization of the Hazen 

Monument has not been conducted. Based on the 

CLI-Level 1, the spatial organization is likely to be a 

contributing feature. Stones River National 

Cemetery is associated with the context, “Stones 

River and the Campaign for Middle Tennessee, 1861-

1865,” because the cemetery was established during 

the war. Many of the cemetery’s features were 

installed after 1865, and the cemetery also has 

significance under the commemorative context 

outlined in Chapter Four below. It is possible that 

some plant materials date to the cemetery’s original 

layout and construction. 

Although they have been altered since 1864, the 

vegetation patterns within the park today resemble 

patterns extant during the battle. The relationship 

of open space to cedar brakes, the planting of corn 

and cotton in the open spaces, and the use of worm 

fencing to demarcate the boundaries of the 

agricultural fields give the visitor strong feelings of 

association with the landscape of 1863. These 

vegetational patterns approximate the historic 

location of agricultural fields and wood lots. The 

internal views of the battlefield enhance the 

integrity of feeling and association to the historic 

landscape. Notable in this regard is the view from 

the Visitor Center toward the loop road, the view 

down Old Nashville Highway, and the view from 

Thompson Lane toward Van Cleve Lane. External 

views from the battlefield have been compromised 

by incompatible development and lack integrity. 

The battlefield’s most notable topographic feature, 

the bluffs above McFadden’s Ford, retain locational 

integrity. The feeling, association, and materials are 

closely tied to the battle era, but off-site views from 

the bluffs have succumbed to contemporary 

residential development across the river. 

Contributing Properties - Federal 

Ownership

Core battlefield tract (1862-1863)

Bowen Lane/McFadden Lane/Van Cleve Lane (c. 

1830)

Manson Pike (c. 1840)

Old Nashville Highway (1842)

Nashville & Chattanooga (now CSX) Railroad (1851)

Curtain Wall No. 2 (1863)

Lunette Thomas (1863)

Lunette Palmer (1863)

Redoubt Brannan (1863)

Hazen Brigade Monument (1863)

Hazen Brigade Cemetery Markers (1863)

Hazen Brigade Monument Wall (1863)

Stones River National Cemetery (1864)

Historic Structures and Sites Outside 

NPS Ownership

The violence and terror of the Civil War unleashed a 

storm of destruction on the agricultural community 

that surrounded Murfreesboro. Individuals’ 

responses to the exigencies of war irrevocably 

altered their relationships with each other and the 

local society and economy. An understanding of the 

local community contributes to the study of the 
National Park Service 45

battle because residents and existing structures 

played significant roles in the battle and its 

aftermath.60

Several of the structures present at the time of battle 

are no longer standing and now exist as 

archeological sites while a few, predominantly 

houses, remain. Some of these structures rest on 

lands that have been proposed for acquisition by 

STRI in the 1999 General Management Plan. Others 

are on private property outside of the battlefield’s 

authorized boundary. These sites offer information 

concerning the local context of the battle, the 

influence of structures on tactics and vice-versa, the 

effects of war on a rural middle Tennessee 

neighborhood, and the Union occupation of the 

Murfreesboro area.

Lunette Negley traverse. Fragments of the Lunette 

Negley traverse exist in a private yard with no sight 

lines to other remaining portions of Fortress 

Rosecrans. The integrity of these remains, 

particularly integrity of feeling and association, have 

been severely compromised, and the remains do not 

possess enough integrity to convey significance to 

an observer.

Chicago Board of Trade Battery earthworks. The 

Chicago Board of Trade Battery earthworks appear 

to retain sufficient integrity to be nominated to the 

National Register. The earthworks are in stable 

condition, and their setting on the edge of the park 

retains its feeling and association to the Battle of 

Stones River because of its proximity to the park 

landscape. They are not owned by the NPS, 

however, and will not be nominated to the NR as 

part of the STRI historic district.

Curtain Wall No. 1. The City of Murfreesboro 

owns the remains of Curtain Wall No. 1, which are 

part of a golf course property. They appear to have 

sufficient integrity to be eligible for the National 

Register.

Cowan House. The Cowan House was a substantial 

brick structure surrounded by wooden piling or 

stockade fences with several outbuildings. The 1860 

census indicated that the prosperous farm family of 

Varner D. and Susan B. Cowan occupied this home. 

By 1860, most of this couple’s children were adults 

and adolescents, and it is not known how many of 

the children were still residing in this house by the 

time of the war. The Cowan House was located near 

the Thompson Lane bridge over the Old Nashville 

Highway on the New Vision Baptist Church’s 

property.61

John C. Spence, a Murfreesboro resident during the 

Civil War, reported that Bragg’s forces burned the 

Cowan House accidentally while preparing for the 

battle. He explained that after Bragg selected the 

ground on which he wished to fight: 

Cowan had to leave his premises in 

consequence of being on the battle field. There 

being a good many out houses on the premises 

and was thought might interfere in getting a fair 

vision, Genl. Bragg ordered the out houses to be 

burned out of the way, reserving the family 

house, it being a large two story brick. 

Unfortunately, the wind was the wrong way. 

While burning the others, it took fire and had 

the same fate.62

The walls of the house, its outbuildings, and fences, 

however, were crucial features of the battlefield. The 

Confederates posted two batteries near the house 

that rained artillery shells onto Colonel William B. 

Hazen’s troops in the Round Forest.63

60. Secondary sources that contain information concerning Murfreesboro and the middle Tennessee area during the 

antebellum period and the Civil War include Stephen V. Ash, Middle Tennessee Society Transformed, 1860-1870: War and 

Peace in the Upper South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988); Mabel Pittard, Rutherford County

(Memphis: Memphis State University Press, 1984); Lisa C. Tolbert, Constructing Townscapes: Space and Society in 

Antebellum Tennessee (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999). For discussions of Union occupation policies 

and relations between Union soldiers and southern civilians see particularly Stephen V. Ash, When the Yankees Came: 

Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, 1861-1865 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995); Mark Grimsley, 

The Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865 (Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press, 1995). 

61. Oma Dee Phillips, compiler and transcriber, 1860 Census of Rutherford County, Tennessee, p. 102. On the location of the 

Cowan House see Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems Facility, “Survey of Battlefield Features at the Civil 

War Site of Stones River, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” 5-6, 8.

62. Spence, A Diary of the Civil War, 57.

63. For information concerning the two Confederate batteries posted near the Cowan House on December 31, 1862, see S. S. 

Stanton, report, OR, 720-721. See also W. B. Hazen, report, OR, 544-545.
46 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

The Cowan House and surrounding structures 

proved to be potent obstacles to Confederate troops 

attempting to assault the Union position in the 

Round Forest. Brigadier General Daniel S. 

Donelson’s troops launched the second of three 

assaults against the Union forces from the vicinity of 

the Cowan House. After seeing Chalmer’s brigade 

forced to retreat, his troops charged forward. He 

explained: “In advancing upon and attacking the 

enemy under such a fire, my brigade found it 

impossible to preserve its alignment, because of the 

burnt house known as Cowan’s and the yard and 

garden fence and picketing left standing around and 

about it.” At great cost, Hazen’s brigade held the 

Round Forest and repelled the Confederates’ 

charges around the Cowan House.64

The Cowan House does not seem to have been 

rebuilt following the war. New Vision Baptist 

Church currently owns this site, and this property is 

not within the authorized boundary proposed in the 

1999 Stones River National Battlefield General 

Management Plan (GMP).65

Harding House and Brick Kiln. The Harding House 

present at the time of the battle was a two-story log 

structure located near the Wilkinson Pike. This was 

the home of Giles Scales Harding and Mary 

Hollowell Blackman Harding and their family. Prior 

to the war, the Hardings planned to construct a new 

brick home, and in preparation for this, they had 

bricks made on the place, most likely by slaves at a 

brick kiln located near the main house. However, 

construction of the house was interrupted by the 

war, and Union soldiers appropriated the Hardings’ 

bricks for military purposes. During the Battle of 

Stones River, the Harding House stood in the midst 

of the fighting on December 31, 1862. The Union 

army used the building as a field hospital. On the 

first day of the battle, the house was captured by 

Confederates and all of its patients made prisoners, 

but after the Confederate retreat towards 

Tullahoma, the house once again fell into Union 

hands.66

On December 28, 1862, Water’s Alabama battery 

stationed themselves near the Harding place and 

saw no action until December 30 “when the enemy, 

having forced in our skirmishers, got possession of a 

gin-house and other outbuildings, belonging to the 

farm of Mr. Harding . . . I was ordered to shell them 

out which I did.” On December 31, Union and 

Confederate infantry and artillery units were again 

fighting around the Harding House and brick kiln. 

During the Confederate attack on the morning of 

December 31, Major General Benjamin F. Cheatham 

stated:

About 8 o’clock, Colonel Manigault’s brigade 

moved out and attacked the enemy directly in 

his front. He met with very strong resistance . . . 

General Maney’s brigade came up and took 

position on the left of Manigault’s when they 

moved forward and took position facing toward 

the Wilkinson pike, near the Harding house, 

when two batteries of the enemy opened upon 

them . . . Turner’s battery of Napoleon guns in 

position near the brick-kiln . . . in a short time 

silenced the battery on the east side of the 

road.67

In the midst of the fighting, Union troops took over 

the Harding House for use as a hospital. On 

December 30 a chaplain and doctor serving in the 

Thirty-Sixth Illinois Infantry assisted an injured 

soldier in reaching the Harding House. In an 

account originally written shortly after the battle, 

the minister provided the following description of 

the scene at the Harding House on that fateful 

morning:

This building, or rather series of buildings, is 

what we called “Hospital Harding,” and was our 

place of residence for over a week, where we 

64. For discussions of the Confederate assaults around the Cowan House see McDonough, Stones River—Bloody Winter in 

Tennessee, 131-151; Stevenson, The Battle of Stones River near Murfreesboro’, 104-118; Cozzens, No Better Place to Die, 

149-166; Daniel S. Donelson, report, OR, 710-711.

65. For information regarding the Cowan House’s location in relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see United 

States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management 

Plan/Development Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (November 1998), 8, 9, 21. 

66. On the Harding family, their wooden home, and their plans to construct a brick residence see Ellen Snell Coleman, “The 

Harding House,” Rutherford County Historical Society Publication No. 23 (Summer 1984): 1-2; on the capture of the 

Harding House by Confederates see especially L. G. Bennett and Wm. M. Haigh, History of the Thirty-Sixth Regiment, 

Illinois Volunteers, during the War of the Rebellion (Aurora, IL: Knickerbocker & Hodder, 1876), copy on file in folder 36th

Pennsylvania, Regimental Files Collection, Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 332-338.

67. David D. Waters, report, OR, 769; Benjamin F. Cheatham, report, OR, 706.
National Park Service 47

had the care of upwards of 150 wounded. The 

house was a third rate frame building, with the 

log cook-house, &c., attached and surrounded 

by negro cabins, as is the custom here, while at a 

little distance was a barn, cotton gin and all the 

appliances of a cotton plantation. The owner 

was evidently a man of considerable wealth, 

owning about fifty negroes, and having an 

extensive plantation. There were evidences on 

the premises of considerable refinement, a well 

cultivated garden and good pianoforte being 

respectively the external and internal 

representatives of it. Mr. Harding was at home, 

and two or three negroes. At the time we took 

possession they had sought safety in the cellar. 

But the rest of the family, white and black, had 

been removed to the other side of 

Murfreesborough, the secesh commanders 

having informed him a few days before that the 

battle would be fought on his land. He looked 

with anything but complacency upon the 

Federal army, and indeed there was nothing 

peculiarly attractive in a body of men taking 

forcible possession of a man’s house, covering 

his floors, carpet, beds and bedding with 

bleeding men, and appropriating anything 

within reach that might be made servicable.

The chaplain and doctor prepared to return to the 

field after assisting their charge but instead chose to 

remain as additional medical personnel to attend to 

the flood of wounded that entered the house. 

Anticipating that the Harding House would be in 

the midst of the battle on December 31, Union 

commanders ordered that the hospital be moved 

two miles to the rear. However, before this could be 

accomplished, the Confederates launched their 

attack against the Union right and captured the 

Harding House, which stood in their path. The 

chaplain and Dr. Pierce happened to be outside 

when the Confederate advance swept toward the 

Harding place, and they temporarily took shelter at 

the Gresham House, another nearby Union field 

hospital. They were at the Gresham House when 

Confederates captured this home. After the 

Confederates paroled the soldiers without serious 

wounds and sent them to Murfreesboro, the 

chaplain and his companion elected to remain with 

the wounded. However, after they had helped for a 

while, they obtained a pass from a Confederate 

officer in order to return to the Harding House 

where they expected most of the wounded from 

their regiment to be located. Shortly after they 

arrived, a cannon ball pierced a wall of the house, 

killing four wounded soldiers and breaking the legs 

of the pianoforte. On January 1, the chaplain 

ventured to Murfreesboro in order to obtain 

desperately needed food for the hospital patients 

from their Confederate captors. They continued 

their work at the hospital, and the Harding place 

was retaken by Union troops on January 4 after the 

Confederate retreat from Murfreesboro.68

The Harding family eventually returned to their 

home, finding one wounded soldier who had been 

left behind. This man became the charge of the 

family’s daughter Ellen Amy Harding who cared for 

him until he recovered enough to leave. To express 

his appreciation, the soldier gave Ellen Amy a 2-3⁄4-

dollar gold piece which she later had set into a 

broach as a memento of the war. The original 

Harding House survived until the late 1870s when it 

burned. The family constructed a frame house as a 

replacement. The Harding property seems to have 

been a popular reunion site for Confederate 

veterans. For example, the First Tennessee 

Regiment held an event there in October 1907. The 

site of the original Harding House is located on land 

proposed for acquisition by Stones River National 

Battlefield’s 1999 GMP.

69

Widow Burris House. The Widow Burris House is 

located on Asbury Lane, a rural road that intersects 

the Nashville Pike. During the 1860s, Asbury Lane 

was an unpaved dirt road providing access for a few 

farms to the Nashville Pike. Census records indicate 

that in 1860, this house and the farm was the home 

of the widow Mrs. E. Burris, three adolescent 

children, and two other small children, probably 

grandchildren. This structure, which is still extant, is 

notable not only because it served as a field hospital, 

but also because it was the scene of a desperate and 

68. L. G. Bennett and Wm. M. Haigh, History of the Thirty-Sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteers, during the War of the Rebellion, 

330-338, 351-382, quote on 330.

69. Concerning the family’s return to their home and their care of a Union soldier see Coleman, “Harding House,” 2-3, on the 

burning of the Harding House see Coleman, “Harding House,” 6; on the use of the Harding property as a site for 

Confederate reunions see Sally (Lawing) Ivie scrapbooks, volume three, Tennessee Historical Society Collection, Tennessee 

State Library and Archives, Nashville, Tennessee; for information on the Harding House’s location in relation to the 

proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 20, 21. 
48 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

successful Union repulse of Confederate troops 

advancing towards the Nashville Pike and the 

Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad on December 31, 

1862.70

Late in the morning of December 31, 1862, 

Confederate troops broke through Union lines near 

the Nashville Pike close to the Widow Burris’s 

house. General Rosecrans himself rallied the Union 

troops to plug this hole in their lines and repel the 

Confederates. Alexander F. Stevenson, a Union 

veteran who composed a history of the Battle of 

Stones River in the 1880s, offered a detailed 

description of this part of the battle. He related that 

Confederate officer

Liddell says, that he went for a few minutes into 

a Federal hospital (Widow Burroughs’s 

[alternate spelling for Burris] house), near the 

little dirt road, being called for protection, and, 

in an incredibly short time, he found his line 

breaking rapidly to the rear, that he galloped 

quickly to head off the stragglers. On halting he 

found them to be Johnson’s men. Riding to the 

right he met General Johnson looking for his 

men. Johnson then informed Liddell that his 

brigade was not far distant, in the neck of the 

woods. It is evident that these rebel brigades 

must have been utterly demoralized, and, if Col. 

Bradley’s attack had been followed up at once, 

the fortunes of that day would have been 

changed.71

The Widow Burris House is a two-story frame 

house with a front porch carried on two boxed 

posts. Private individuals currently own this 

property, and the 1999 GMP does not include this 

site in the proposed authorized boundary.72

McFadden House. One of the central events of the 

battle occurred in the area known as McFadden 

Ford, the site of the McFadden family farm. On 

January 2, 1863, Confederates launched an assault 

against Union troops near the river ford. The 

Federal troops retreated, leading the pursuing 

Confederates into the midst of a large concentration 

of Union artillery on a rise near the ford. The Union 

artillerists inflicted massive casualties on the 

Confederates, and this was the last major action in 

the battle. On January 3, 1863, the Confederates 

began their retreat towards Tullahoma.73

Census records show that at the time of the battle, 

Holly McFadden, widow of Samuel McFadden, and 

her children probably lived on the McFadden farm. 

In an article about James McFadden, one of Holly 

and Samuel’s children, Goodspeed’s History of 

Tennessee recorded “the father came to Tennessee 

when a boy and was reared on a farm in Davidson 

County. He came to Rutherford County and located 

on a farm where he reared his family of fourteen 

children, and was a successful farmer. He was 

magistrate of his district a number of years and died 

in 1852.” Rutherford County probate records 

contained many entries related to the estate of 

Samuel McFadden. McFadden’s minor children 

were assigned male guardians, which was typical 

during this period. Entries concerning the 

management of these minors’ estates continue until 

1861.74 Archeologists discovered a probable location 

for a McFadden family cemetery, but the exact site 

of the McFadden farm house (shown to be on the 

west side of Stones River on the Bearss map) and 

70. On Asbury Lane see, Stevenson, The Battle of Stone’s River near Murfreesboro’, 92; on the Burris family see Phillips, 1860 

Census, 102; on fighting near the Widow Burris House, see particularly Stevenson, The Battle of Stones River near 

Murfreesboro’, 91-103.

71. Stevenson, The Battle of Stones River near Murfreesboro’, 91-103, quote on 102.

72. For an image of the Widow Burris House see Dave Roth, “The General’s Tour: The Battle of Stones River,” The Battle of 

Stones River (Columbus, OH: Blue & Grey Magazine, 1993), 31; for information on the Widow Burris House’s location in 

relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 

21. 

73. Concerning the fighting at McFadden Ford on January 2, 1863 and the subsequent Confederate retreat on January 3, 

1863, see McDonough, Stones River—Bloody Winter in Tennessee, 182-201; Stevenson, The Battle of Stones River near 

Murfreesboro’, 129-148; Cozzens, No Better Place to Die, 177-198; Hess, Banners to the Breeze, 218-225.

74. Phillips, 1860 Census, 100; The Goodspeed Histories of Maury, Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson, Bedford & Marshall 

Counties of Tennessee (1886; Columbia, TN: Woodward & Stinson, 1971), 1051; for documentation concerning Samuel 

McFadden’s estate and the guardians of his minor children see the following: Rutherford County Court Minute Book 16, 

207-209, 212-213, 424, Rutherford County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Rutherford County Court Minute Book 17, 

152-153, 195-196, 435-436, 484-485, 695, Rutherford County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Rutherford County Court 

Minute Book 18, 55, 505-506, Rutherford County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Rutherford County Court Minute 

Book 19, 284, 290-291, Rutherford County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Rutherford County Court Minute Book 21, 

10-11, Rutherford County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
National Park Service 49

outbuildings remains unknown. However, 

archeologists and other researchers determined that 

several other standing or partially destroyed 

structures in this area were not present at the time of 

the battle and therefore could not have been part of 

this farm complex during the Civil War era.75

Blanton House. Several maps concerning the Battle 

of Stones River show the location of the Blanton 

House, which was used as a hospital during and 

following the battle. This structure was located in 

the Wilkinson Pike area, the scene of heavy fighting 

at the beginning of the battle on December 31, 1862, 

as the Confederate attack surprised and put the 

Union right to flight.76

A number of archeologists have investigated the 

ruins of a home that may be the Blanton House. 

However, they have not conclusively determined 

whether these remnants are from a structure 

present at the time of the battle. Cornelison 

suggested that the remains of a brick structure 

presently visible may be covering evidence of an 

earlier wooden structure. Near the house site, 

archeologists have documented the presence of the 

Blanton family cemetery, which contains the 

remains of Thomas Blanton, veteran of the 

American Revolution, and two unknown 

individuals. A private individual owns the land on 

which the Blanton House and cemetery sites are 

located, but this person has permitted National 

Park Service archeologists to perform research on 

his property.77

Hord House. This home, also known as Elmwood, 

is located on the Nashville Pike. It was constructed 

in 1842 using bricks produced by slaves owned by 

Thomas Hord, who supervised the building of this 

house. This structure is an I-house with end wall 

chimneys; a two-story pedimented portico occupies 

the middle bay of the three-bay facade. Some 

historic wooden farm outbuildings also remain. The 

house and other structures on the farm are included 

in the National Register of Historic Places (NR 

Identification 73001823).78

At the time of the battle, Thomas and Mildred 

Amelia Gilmer Hord lived at Elmwood. Although 

his oldest son joined the Confederate army, Thomas 

Hord held unionist sentiments. During the Battle of 

Stones River, Union forces used the Hord House as 

a hospital.79 The Hord family was actually in 

75. Concerning archeologists’ speculations about the location of the McFadden House see particularly Walker, Merritt, and 

Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee,” 36-38; for information about 

post-battle structures in the McFadden Ford area, see Cornelison, “Report on Archeological Investigations of Lunnette 

Palmer and Redoubt Brannan, Parts of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee, SEAC Accessions 993 and 1021,” 21, 25-26, 28; Russell, “Trip Report for Archeological Testing at Stones River 

National Battlefield (SEAC 1351),” 2; Huhta et al., “The Vaughter House.” 

76. On the Confederate assault that encompassed the Blanton House see McDonough, Stones River—Bloody Winter in 

Tennessee, 81-108; Stevenson, The Battle of Stones River near Murfreesboro’, 35-73, see particularly page 65; Cozzens, No 

Better Place to Die, 115-119.

77. On the Blanton House, see Cornelison, “Report on Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt Brannan, 

Parts of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, SEAC Assessions 993 

and 1021,” 31; Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, 

Tennessee,” 25-36; on the Blanton House and Cemetery see also Blee, “An Assessment of the Cultural Resources of Stones 

River National Battlefield and the Proposed Development Impacts on Them,” 15; Wild to Chief, “Trip Report on Phase I 

Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the Construction of a Trail and Parking Lots, 1/28-2/2/91,” 

n.p. 

78. Caneta Skelley Hankins and Carroll Van West, Hearthstones: The Story of Rutherford County Homes, third edition 

(Murfreesboro: Oaklands Association, 1993), 38. See also Mary B. Hughes, Hearthstones: The Story of Historic Rutherford 

County Homes, second edition (Murfreesboro: Mid-South, [1960]), 20, 49, 58. For discussions of the architectural and 

cultural significance of I-houses see Fred Kniffen, “Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion,” Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers 55: 4 (December 1965), 549-577; Henry Glassie, Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of 

Historic Artifacts (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1975).

79. Hughes, Hearthstones, 20, 49.

FIGURE 27. Hord House.
50 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

residence at the time of the battle, and Thomas 

Hord related that “the house was unexpectedly and 

suddenly taken for a hospital and the wounded 

brought in so rapidly that there was not time or 

means of removing the carpets or furniture.” The 

Hords “were allowed to occupy one of the smallest 

rooms below stairs and the chief surgeon directed 

me to put my beds and furniture in one room above 

stairs, which I did, including the front parlor 

furniture (the Louis Quinze set) and my daughter’s 

trunk of clothing. Before I was aware of it, however, 

this room was also occupied.”80 Amelia Hord 

assisted in caring for the wounded despite her 

advanced pregnancy.81

The Hords continued to have significant contact 

with Union soldiers and officials during the 

occupation of Murfreesboro following the Battle of 

Stones River. Union officials impressed Hord family 

slaves to help in the construction of Fortress 

Rosecrans. They also appropriated large amounts of 

farm products and animals from the Hord place.82

Thomas Hord was particularly upset by Union 

contractors working on the Nashville & 

Chattanooga Railroad who were threatening to 

destroy all of the valuable cedar trees on his 

property to use as railroad ties. He requested that 

Union army officers inquire into this situation, and 

after the contractor seemed to be ignoring 

instructions to desist cutting timber on Hord’s land, 

on February 24, 1865, Hord wrote to General 

Thomas to request his assistance. He explained:

When the officer came he examined the 

premises and recommended in his report (as I 

am informed for I did not go with him having 

been too unwell for two weeks to leave the 

house) that the wood choppers be removed or if 

not removed that they be confined to the wood 

near the R Road and positively forbid the 

contractor from going into the only remaining 

patch of cedar I have left, about 20 acres, some 

æ of a mile from the R Road. Yet in contempt of 

this order and report the contractor or Boss has 

gone on cutting this forbidden cedar and unless 

you stop them at once it will all be destroyed for 

they cut two or three acres a day. I regret to be 

forced to trouble you about my private affairs 

but are compelled to appeal to you for 

protection from such gross and unnecessary 

wrong and injustice. I have already lost many 

thousand dollars worth of timber without any 

compensation except $105 dollars for 17 or 18 

hundred R Road ties the cedar of which they 

were made was worth at least 600 dollars as it 

stood. 

Hord added that “on 420 acres of woodland I have 

not a board tree left and scarcely a cedar except on 

the 20 acres above referred to yet I am known by all 

who know me to have been from the beginning of 

this rebellion, as loyal as any man in the 

government.”83 Union officials seem to have 

responded to Hord’s complaints concerning the 

contractors because on March 6, 1865, Brigadier 

General Van Cleve wrote a letter detailing further 

investigations of the matter in which he concluded 

that the contractors were “a pack of scoundrels 

disposed to defraud the Government and the 

citizens.”84 Following the war, the Hord family 

submitted a claim for $60,000 to the federal 

government for property confiscated or destroyed 

by the Union forces, and in 1911, the family ultimately 

was awarded a portion of this sum.85

Elmwood still stands and has remained within the 

Hord family to the present, although development 

threatens their farm, which has already been 

disrupted by the construction of state Highway 840. 

This property is not proposed for acquisition by 

Stones River National Battlefield. 86

Jenkins House. The Jenkins House is located near 

Wilkinson Pike, the present Manson Pike, and I-24. 

80. As quoted in Hughes, Hearthstones, 49.

81. On Amelia Hord’s participation in caring for the wounded see Hughes, Hearthstones, 58; Hankins and Van West, 

Hearthstones, 38.

82. Hughes, Hearthstones, 20, 49, 58. See also Hankins and Van West, Hearthstones, 38.

83. Thomas Hord to General Thomas, February 24, 1865, roll 133, Union Provost Marshals’ File of Papers Relating to Individual 

Civilians, National Archives Microfilm Publications, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

84. Brigadier General Van Cleve to General [Thomas ?], March 6, 1865, roll 133, Union Provost Marshals’ File of Papers 

Relating to Individual Civilians, National Archives Microfilm Publications, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

85. On the Hords’ claim for damages see especially Hankins and Van West, Hearthstones, 38.

86. Bill Carey, “Murfreesboro Battle of ’95,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 21, 1995, B5; for information on the Hord 

House’s location in relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River National Battlefield, Final General 

Management Plan, 8, 9, 21.
National Park Service 51

Built in 1853, this is a three-bay, two-story I-house 

with an exterior chimney at each gable endwall. It 

has a centered, Greek Revival two-story 

pedimented portico carried on four boxed posts 

with capitals across the middle bay. Single-story 

porches extend from the portico across the end 

bays. The cornices of the house and of the pediment 

are adorned with paired Italianate brackets. The 

original version of this home was constructed of 

logs which were later covered with wooden siding. 

At the time of the battle, this house was the home of 

Hiram Jenkins and his family, and in 1870, his son 

James Jenkins, a Confederate veteran, inherited the 

property. This house is included in the National 

Register of Historic Places.87

Through time, individuals have often mistaken this 

house for another nearby home known as the 

Gresham House, which was similar in style and 

constructed for another member of the Jenkins 

family. This type of confusion actually seems to have 

occurred during the Battle of Stones River. In their 

initial reports, both the Seventeenth Tennessee 

Infantry and the Second Arkansas Infantry claimed 

to have been the first regiment to capture what 

appeared to be the same Union hospital on the 

morning of December 31, 1862. However, it seems 

that the Seventeenth Tennessee captured the 

Jenkins House while the Second Arkansas took 

possession of the Gresham House. Lieutenant 

Colonel Watt W. Floyd provided the following 

description of the Seventeenth Tennessee’s capture 

of the Jenkins House:

On emerging from the woods, I discovered a 

Federal hospital immediately in front, and one 

piece of artillery just at the left of it, which was 

silent, and a battery of four pieces about 300 

yards to the right. The regiment at this point 

made a half-wheel to the right, seven companies 

passing to the right and three companies to the 

left of the hospital. The battery that was on my 

right was playing on the right of the brigade and 

seemed not to discover us. On passing the 

hospital and clearing the fences, I discovered 

the enemy in force forming about 300 yards in 

front of me. I ordered a halt and reformed the 

regiment, having passed some 50 yards to the 

rear of the battery that was on my right, and not 

more than 140 yards distant, but a slight 

elevation of ground concealed it from me. It 

silenced, though, about this time, and moved off 

to my right, leaving behind one piece. There we 

captured 2 wagons, well loaded with 

ammunition for small-arms, and 8 mules. At the 

alluded to heretofore; I think in all not less than 

200 unhurt (my officers think more), besides 

killing and wounding a great number. Many of 

the wounded had already been collected at the 

hospital for treatment.

My regiment was fired upon after clearing the 

woods by a party of Federals posted in a cotton-gin 

about 70 yards in front of the hospital, and my men 

returned the fire, killing several of them. The enemy 

continued to fire upon our line, particularly the left 

wing, until we had passed the hospital. I feel very 

certain that my regiment was the first at this 

hospital.

As Floyd’s narrative indicates, there were Union 

batteries posted in the area around Wilkinson Pike 

and near the Jenkins House.88

The Jenkins House is not within the boundary 

proposed in the 1999 GMP.

89

Gresham House. The Gresham House was built for 

Nimrod Jenkins probably during the 1840s. Nimrod 

Jenkins died in 1855, and his wife Jane Woodson 

Moore Jenkins inherited the land tract containing 

their house. Probate records show that her widow’s 

dower portion of the estate encompassed “the 

mansion and out-houses.”90 Prior to the battle, Jane 

Jenkins married Amossa Gresham, and the house 

subsequently became associated with his surname. 

This home was an I-house originally of log 

construction subsequently covered in wooden 

87. Hankins and Van West, Hearthstones, 28. See also Hughes, Hearthstones, 26.

88. On the problem of confusing the Jenkins and Gresham houses see particularly “The Gresham House” Rutherford County 

Historical Society Publication No. 19, n.p.; on the Confederate capture of the Jenkins House see Watt W. Floyd, reports, 

OR, 882-888, quote on 883. On the controversy concerning who captured what hospital see also Daniel C. Govan, report, 

OR, 860-862. 

89. For information on the Jenkins House’s location in relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River 

National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 21.

90. On the date of construction for the Gresham House see Hughes, Hearthstones, 64; for inheritance information, see 

Rutherford County Court Minutes Book 18, 398-401, Rutherford County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
52 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

siding. It had a Greek Revival porch with four 

pilasters and chimneys on the gable end walls. This 

home survived until 1947 when it was torn down 

after being unoccupied for several years and falling 

into disrepair. It was located near the Wilkinson 

Pike on a road known as Gresham Lane, and it 

stood essentially east of the Jenkins House across I24.91

On the morning of December 31, 1862, the battle’s 

fury swirled around the Gresham House. Union 

forces used this home as a hospital, and it also 

served as the headquarters for Brigadier General 

Alexander McCook. The Second Arkansas Infantry 

captured the Gresham House on the first day of the 

battle. Colonel Daniel C. Govan offered the 

following report of the hospital’s capture:

The enemy were closely followed through the 

woods, when we encountered a second line of 

the enemy, posted behind a fence and in the 

woods near a house used by the enemy as a 

hospital. The Second Arkansas Regiment, being 

on the extreme right of the brigade, engaged in 

our front, and also from a portion of the enemy 

who had taken refuge in and behind the 

buildings adjacent to this hospital. It was near 

this point that General Sill, of the Federal Army, 

was killed. After a severe engagement the enemy 

were driven from this second strong position. 

The hospital, together with many prisoners who 

had taken refuge there, were taken possession of 

by General Liddell, and a guard of two men 

detailed from my regiment to guard the 

prisoners. No other brigade or regiment was at 

this time in sight of the hospital.92

Because of post-battle disputes concerning which 

unit captured what hospital, Govan performed an 

investigation within his regiment. In a report to 

Brigadier General St. John R. Liddell, Govan related 

that “Private Elder, of Company D, Second 

Arkansas Regiment, left by you to guard the hospital 

and prisoners, stated as follows: That, in obedience 

to your orders, he and Private Faidley of the same 

company, took possession of the hospital, which he 

understood was the residence of a Mr. Griscom 

[alternate spelling for Gresham].”93

A different perspective on the capture of Gresham 

House is provided by a Union chaplain who was at 

the home at the time. He and a doctor had been 

caught outdoors at the Harding House when the 

Confederate assault began to sweep through the 

area. They sought refuge in the Gresham House and 

began assisting the wounded there. While all the 

wounded men able to travel were ordered to escape, 

the chaplain and doctor elected to remain. Artillery 

shells and bullets hailed around the house, and all of 

the inmates of the hospital sought shelter as best 

they could. After Generals Hardee and Cheatham 

and their staffs arrived at the hospital: 

one of Hardee’s staff soon called out all the 

Federal soldiers who could walk, and ordering 

them to take off their hats, administered to them 

the oath not to take up arms until regularly 

exchanged . . . All who could walk to 

Murfreesboro, except a few detached as nurses, 

were then marched off under guard, and as they 

shouted their ‘good byes’ to their comrades, I 

wondered what strange and perhaps sad scenes 

they would pass through before they would 

meet again. Of course we knew that we could 

not be paroled or treated as prisoners of war, so 

we continued without intermission to the care 

of the wounded.”94

In the 1999 GMP, STRI proposed the Gresham 

House site for acquisition.95

91. Hughes, Hearthstones, 64.

FIGURE 28. Gresham House.

92. Govan, report, OR, 860.

93. Govan, report, OR, 862.

94. Bennett and Haigh, History of the Thirty-Sixth Regiment, 333-336, quote on 348.

95. For information on the Gresham House’s location in relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River 

National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 20, 21.
National Park Service 53

General Smith House. The General Smith House, 

also known as Springfield, stands on Wilkinson Pike 

near Overall Creek. The original owner of this 

home, General John Smith of Virginia, bought a 

640-acre tract in 1805, and his slaves soon 

constructed a residence on this property. Historian 

Caneta Skelley Hankins explained that “although it 

appears to be an I-house with exterior end 

chimneys and five bays on each floor,” the home 

“does not have a central hall floor plan. The most 

significant and the highly unusual features of this 

house are the identical, dual recessed entrances 

with fanlights.”96

On December 31, the General Smith House stood in 

the path of the advancing Confederates as they 

staged their early morning assault on the Union 

right. This structure is outside of Stones River 

National Battlefield’s authorized boundary.97

Widow Smith House. At the time of the battle, the 

Widow Smith home was located near the Triune 

Road (also known as the Franklin or Old Franklin 

Road) to the southeast of the Harding House and 

brick kiln. Skirmishing raged around this home on 

December 30, and then Confederates used this area 

as a stage for launching their attack on the morning 

of December 31, 1862. 98

Colonel A. J. Vaughan Jr. of the Thirteenth 

Tennessee Infantry described the skirmishing 

around the Widow Smith home on December 30. 

This regiment was arranged with “the left resting on 

the Triune road, 300 yards in rear of Loomis’ 

brigade, not far behind Smith’s House.” Vaughan 

related:

About 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the 30th, 

skirmishing, which had been going on between 

the pickets along the whole line, was entered 

into with great warmth in my front, and a 

battery of the enemy, which had been posted on 

an advantageous spot, opened upon the woods 

in which my command was in line, shelling it 

with great fury and wounding some in an 

artillery duel of terrible severity. At one time this 

battery was threatened with an impetuous 

charge by the enemy, when the One hundred 

and fifty-fourth Senior Tennessee Regiment, in 

support, rushed forward, resisting with great 

gallantry the attempt, losing killed and 

wounded several of its officers and men. After a 

shelling, about dark, of the camp-fires of the 

enemy, the contest closed for the day, and we 

rested upon our arms for the night.99

On December 30, 1862, Confederate Major-General 

McCown stationed his troops near this home. This 

placement became a source of controversy 

following the battle, when a dispute arose between 

Bragg and McCown concerning whether or not 

McCown had failed to launch his attack promptly 

on the morning of December 31. McCown 

contended that “General Cheatham, by General 

Hardee’s order, went with me and pointed out the 

position the brigade was to occupy, the right resting 

at a pile of rails near Mrs. Smith’s house, on the 

Triune road.”100

The site of this house is not currently in Stones River 

National Battlefield’s authorized boundary.101

James House. The James House was located on 

Wilkinson Pike near where this road intersected the 

Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad. It served as 

Confederate Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk’s 

headquarters. This house was in the midst of the 

battle and had several groups of troops stationed 

near it. For example, Brigadier General Daniel S. 

Donelson stated that on December 28 his troops 

created a “line of battle...on the brow of a hill, about 

300 yards in a southeast direction from the white 

house, known as Mrs. James’.” These troops 

remained there until the evening of December 29 

and experienced only a light artillery shelling by the 

enemy. Then, the Mississippi battery commanded 

by Captain T. J. Stanford positioned themselves “on 

96. 95Hankins and Van West, Hearthstones, 32; see also Mary B. Hughes, Hearthstones: The Story of Rutherford County 

Homes, first edition (Murfreesboro: Mid-South, 1942), 43, 54.

97. For information on the General Smith House’s location in relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River 

National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 21.

98. The Official Atlas of the Civil War (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1958), “Topographical Sketch of the Battle-Field near 

Murfreesborough, Tenn.,” Plate XXX.

99. A. J. Vaughan, report, OR, 743.

100. J.P. McCown, report, OR, 920.

101. For information on the Widow Smith House’s location in relation to the proposed authorized boundary, see Stones River 

National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 21.
54 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

the west side of Stone’s River, in rear of Mrs. James’ 

house” where they remained all of the day. 102

The James House site is not currently within the 

authorized boundary of Stones River National 

Battlefield.103 

McCulloch House. The site of the McCulloch 

House is now located near I-24 south of Old Fort 

Parkway. During the Battle of Stones River, this 

home served as the base of operations for 

Confederate Lieutenant General William J. 

Hardee.104

The area near the McCulloch House served as the 

staging ground for the Confederates’ early morning 

assault on the Union right on December 31, 1862, 

and several days before the start of the battle, 

soldiers began moving into position around this 

home. Brigadier General Bushrod R. Johnson wrote 

“at early dawn, on the last day of the old year, 1862, a 

year so full of bloody records, our line was formed, 

running north and south on the west side of the 

West Fork of Stone’s River, my left resting on the 

lane leading up to the McCullouch house.” 

Lieutenant Colonel R. H. Keeble of the TwentyThird Tennessee recalled: 

Having been changed from the right to the left 

wing on the evening before the battle, its 

position was in an open field, the left resting 

upon the road leading to the McCullouch 

house. On the morning of the battle, the brigade 

and division made a right-wheel, in doing which 

it passed the house above referred to and 

continued to wheel and march until its course 

was almost at right angles with the one it held 

the evening before, marching in its wheel 

through a large corn-field and a meadow.105

The site of this home is not within Stones River 

National Battlefield’s authorized boundary nor in 

the proposed boundary.106

102. On the James House as Polk’s headquarters see Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8 ; 

Daniel S. Donelson, report, OR, 710; T. J. Stanford, report, OR, 731-732.

103. Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 21.

104. On the McCulloch House as Hardee’s headquarters, see Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management 

Plan, 8.

105. Bushrod R. Johnson, report, OR, 875; R. H. Keeble, report, OR, 888-889.

106. Stones River National Battlefield, Final General Management Plan, 8, 9, 21.
National Park Service 55

Chapter Four: Stones River 

National Battlefield Park: The 

Commemoration of American 

Battlefields and National Park 

Development, 1866-1948

Stones River National Battlefield traces its 

beginnings to the establishment of the Hazen 

Brigade Monument and later the Stones River 

National Cemetery, previously discussed in Chapter 

Three. Several private efforts to commemorate the 

battle were undertaken in the late nineteenth 

century with uneven success. The park’s 

developmental history begins with the creation of 

Stones River National Cemetery during the Civil 

War. Thirty years after the war, veterans and 

Murfreesboro citizens undertook memorial activity 

with the intention of turning the battlefield into a 

national military park similar to the ones that had 

been established at Shiloh and Chickamauga/

Chattanooga. This chapter examines the 

development of a federal military park at Stones 

River and the privately sponsored memorial activity 

that preceded it. Commemorative activity at Stones 

River began with the construction of the Hazen 

Brigade Monument in 1863 and the establishment of 

the Stones River National Cemetery in 1864. 

Veterans groups gathered at the cemetery for 

memorial services during and after Reconstruction 

(1865-1877), culminating in a veteran-sponsored 

attempt to have the battlefield declared a national 

park in the 1890s. Congress established the Stones 

River site as a national military park under the 

control of the War Department on March 3, 1927. 

Although legislation to create a park at Stones River 

had been introduced to Congress several times 

during the early twentieth century, it was not until 

1928 that the War Department began to acquire, 

develop, and administer the land as a park. In 1933, 

the National Park Service (NPS) took over the 

administration of Stones River from the War 

Department, and development work continued, 

much of it performed through Public Works 

Administration funding.

Post-Battle Development

After the war, Confederate veterans and their 

families returned to their homes in Murfreesboro 

and surrounding Rutherford County. Buildings that 

had been abandoned or demolished during the 

fighting or subsequent Union occupation in the 

winter and spring of 1863 were salvaged for lumber. 

When the Federal occupation forces pulled out of 

Fortress Rosecrans in April 1866, they probably 

auctioned off remaining frame structures within the 

fort to local residents. The earthworks themselves 

likely were mined by Murfreesboro residents for fill 

dirt.1

Many Confederate sympathizers had moved farther 

south after the January 1863 defeat at Stones River, 

abandoning their houses and farms in the wake of 

the battle. Most returned to their farms on the 

battlefield in the summer of 1865, although some 

1. Lenard Brown, “Fortress Rosecrans: A History, 1865-1990.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 50, no. 3 (1991), 139.
56 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

structures such as the Cowan House were destroyed 

during the fighting and never rebuilt. While the 

Union fallen were reinterred into Stones River 

National Cemetery, many of the Confederate dead 

that had been interred in local family plots after the 

battle were left where they had been buried. As the 

South experienced Reconstruction, the citizens of 

Rutherford County attempted to rebuild their wartorn economy. Freed slaves had moved close to the 

railroad after the battle for the protection offered by 

the Union garrison. Postbellum photographs of 

prominent wartime structures such as Maj. Gen. 

William S. Rosecrans’s headquarters show black 

occupants in those buildings. An analysis of the 

Beers Map of Rutherford County, drawn in 1878, 

reveals several interesting details when compared to 

Ed Bearss’s “Historical Fence and Ground Cover 

Plan.” The Beers Map shows that four houses 

standing on the battlefield at the time of the battle–

Burris, Gresham, Harding, and Jenkins–were extant 

in 1878. The Blanton House appeared to be in the 

post-war possession of Mrs. A.C. Bedford. The 

Beers Map identified a structure near McFadden’s 

Ford as the Leach House. It is unclear whether the 

Leach House is the wartime McFadden House or a 

post-war structure. Today, an old structure called 

the Vaughter House stands in the vicinity of 

McFadden’s Ford. Recent investigations indicate the 

Vaughter House is a post-battle structure, excluding 

the possibility that it is the McFadden House, but it 

could be the Leach House depicted on the Beers 

Map.2

 According to the Beers Map, post-battle 

dwellings owned by H.H. Kerr existed along 

McFadden Lane and the Wilkinson Pike. The cabin 

along the Nashville Pike where Rosecrans 

maintained his headquarters during the battle was 

listed in 1878 as a “Colored Church.”3

Abandoned and confiscated lands in Rutherford 

County totaled 11,933 acres. These parcels were 

distributed to freedmen during the war by the 

federal government, which considered land 

abandoned when its owners voluntarily left for the 

purpose of aiding the Confederacy.4 Confiscated 

lands were seized under the First and Second 

Confiscation Acts, which allowed the federal 

government to expropriate the property of those in 

rebellion and distribute it to freed slaves.5

Freedmen’s hopes of owning the land permanently 

were dashed with President Andrew Johnson’s 

pardon of former Confederates after the war. Much 

of this land reverted to its previous owners, who 

grew corn and cotton as they had done before the 

war (see Figure 31). Most of the Stones River 

FIGURE 29. Downtown Murfreesboro, 1890s.

2. Carroll Van West et al., “The Vaughter House: Recordation Drawings, Photography, and Architectural Description; Review 

of Historic Documentation” Invasive Investigation and Analysis; and Eligibility Determination (Murfreesboro, TN: Middle 

Tennessee State University, 1999), 45.

3. D. G. Beers & Company, Map of Rutherford County, Tennessee from New and Actual Surveys. Compiled and Published by 

D.G. Beers & Company, Philadelphia, 1878. Engraved by Worley and Bracler, Philadelphia. Printed by E. Bourgan.

4. Janet H. Goodrum, “A Profile of Black Landownership in Rutherford County During Reconstruction” (Honors Paper, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 1989), 6.

5. Claude F. Oubre, Forty Acres and a Mule (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1978), 1-3.
National Park Service 57

battlefield remained in private hands from the 

conclusion of the battle in 1863 until 1928, when the 

War Department began to acquire land to establish a 

battlefield park. 

Early Battlefield 

Commemoration: Civil War 

Memorial Activity and the 

Establishment of Stones 

River National Military 

Park, 1866-1927

The Civil War changed the course of American 

history, touching the lives of nearly all Americans. 

Out of a total 1860 U.S. population of 30.5 million 

(including nearly four million slaves), 2.75 million, or 

almost 10 percent, served in the military. Of that 2.75 

million, 621,000 perished and another 470,000 were 

wounded.6 Efforts to memorialize the sacrifices 

made by the fallen began before the war ended. As 

mentioned above, the Hazen Brigade Monument 

was erected on the Stones River battlefield by 

brigade veterans during the summer of 1863. In 

September of that year, Pennsylvania attorney David 

McConaughy led a group of private citizens to form 

the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association. Its 

purpose was to preserve the battlefield landscape as 

a memorial to the Union victory at Gettysburg.7

 The 

first national military park, dedicated at 

Chickamauga, Georgia, and Chattanooga, 

Tennessee, in 1895, was preceded by thirty years of 

private and state commemoration.

The soldiers’ cemetery at Gettysburg, laid out by the 

State of Pennsylvania in 1863, was the first 

established unit of what would later become the 

United States national cemetery system.8 On 

Christmas Day, 1863, Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas 

ordered the establishment of a national cemetery at 

Chattanooga. This burial ground, unlike 

Gettysburg, which held the dead from a single 

battle, accepted the remains of Union casualties 

who had or would “fall in that region in defending 

their country.” Although it was not officially 

established until 1865, Stones River National 

Cemetery was used during the Civil War and 

included regional interments. After the war, 

Congress authorized a system of national cemeteries 

at Civil War battlefields and elsewhere. Beginning 

with legislation enacted February 22, 1867, the 

federal government ultimately established twentysix national cemeteries on or near Civil War 

battlefields and accepted responsibility for the 

upkeep of the Gettysburg and Antietam cemeteries. 

6. Bruce Catton, American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War (New York: American Heritage, 1960), 79.

FIGURE 30. Cabins, probably of sharecroppers, on battlefield in 1890s.

7. Richard L. Austin, et al., eds., The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983), 

70.

8. The first national cemetery was established in 1850, in Mexico City. Interred there were U.S. veterans of the Mexican War 

of 1846-1847, who died in or around the town.
58 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Federal establishment of the national cemetery 

system, coupled with the private idea of setting aside 

the battlefield of Gettysburg, created a uniquely 

American notion that the government should 

purchase and preserve battlefields.

The national cemeteries became central to 

memorial services for the Union dead when the 

holiday known as Decoration Day became a 

national day of homage to the fallen. Many 

communities claim to have originated Decoration 

Day, mostly based on oral traditions. Contemporary 

documentation exists showing that freedpeople in 

Charleston, South Carolina, formally celebrated 

Decoration Day on May 1, 1865, at a makeshift 

cemetery for Union dead at the city’s horse-racing 

track.9 On May 5, 1868, former Gen. John A. “Black 

Jack” Logan, commander-in-chief of the Union 

veterans group known as the Grand Army of the 

Republic (GAR), issued Order No. 11, designating 

May 30 as Decoration Day. Logan’s order began 

“The thirtieth of May 1868 is designated for the 

purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise 

decorating the graves of comrades who died in 

defense of their country (during the late rebellion) 

and whose bodies lie in almost every city, village, 

and hamlet churchyard in the land.”10 Decoration 

Day later became Memorial Day in most states and 

territories.

During the war, Confederate dead were commonly 

buried on the battlefield or in a nearby cemetery, or 

were occasionally sent home in sealed coffins. 

Unlike their Union counterparts, the Confederates 

had no systematic method for burying their dead 

and lacked the resources to do so. In 1866, in 

Columbus, Georgia, Lizzie Rutherford and her 

friends began a custom of placing flowers on 

Confederate graves. They chose April 26, the date of 

Johnston’s surrender to Sherman, to commemorate 

the fallen. This practice spread throughout the 

South with different dates honored in different 

localities. Merchants in many towns closed for the 

day to remind people of the solemn observances.11

After the war, local memorial associations sprang up 

across the South, primarily to address the 

Confederate burial problem. Some of these groups 

claimed their origin from wartime women’s aid 

societies that were organized to do hospital and 

relief work. They usually took the name of ladies’ 

memorial associations, or LMAs, since Victorians 

thought “memorial work [was] peculiarly fitting to 

women.”12 Southern men typically provided 

financial support, organizational direction, and 

labor to LMA efforts, but rarely joined the 

associations. The associations’ first concern often 

was the creation of resting places for the 

Confederate dead, but after the cemeteries were laid 

out, the women turned their attention to memorial 

statuary. Until 1885, these memorials generally had a 

funereal appearance; draped stone obelisks were 

often placed in the cemetery. After 1885, when the 

wounds of war had begun to close, statues of 

ordinary privates on pedestals of varying height 

were erected near the courthouse in towns 

throughout the South to celebrate the role of the 

rank and file.13

In the North, several veterans’ organizations formed 

in the wake of the national cemetery movement. 

The largest and most influential of these was the 

GAR, which organized in Springfield, Illinois, in 

1866. Unlike previous officers-only associations, the 

GAR included Union veterans of all ranks and 

ultimately acquired the largest membership of any 

veterans group. The idea was so popular that within 

six months of its founding the GAR had 

encampments in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, 

Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. Each state was 

responsible for the local posts or camps of Union 

veterans. The GAR adopted a paramilitary structure 

that mirrored the wartime command structure of 

the U.S. Army. These statewide departments in turn 

reported to a national commander-in-chief.14

Each year the GAR held national encampments that 

brought together veterans from different states. The 

group could muster 25,000 members in 1877, but 

9. David W. Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 

65-69.

10. Stuart McConnell, Glorious Contentment: The Grand Army of the Republic, 1865-1900 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1992), 183.

11. Gaines M. Foster, Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost Cause, and the Emergence of the New South, 1865 to 1913

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 42.

12. Foster, 38.

13. Foster, 40.

14. McConnell, 30-38.
National Park Service 59

participation and political clout increased sharply 

during the early 1880s, and its popularity peaked in 

1890 with a membership of 409,000. The GAR’s rise 

in membership is attributable to several factors. As 

the horrors of war faded from memory, many 

former soldiers longed for the comradeship they 

had experienced during the war. GAR meetings 

also gave veterans a venue to gather and reminisce 

about heroic wartime deeds. A desire to perpetuate 

what GAR veterans perceived as a “true history” of 

the war and to rightfully establish their place in 

history also contributed to a rise in membership. 

Two important benefits offered by the GAR–

funeral services for members and admission to 

GAR-run old soldiers’ homes–undoubtedly 

increased membership as the veterans grew older. 

In the final twenty years of the nineteenth century 

the GAR used its political muscle to lobby Congress 

on veterans issues, raised funds for monuments, led 

Decoration Day observances, and worked to create 

national military parks.15

While the GAR was the largest and most influential 

association of Union veterans, it was not the earliest. 

The first of these veterans groups was the Military 

Order of the Loyal Legion, founded soon after the 

war in 1865. The order’s membership was restricted 

to Civil War officers and their male descendants. 

Soon to follow were the Society of the Army of the 

Tennessee (1865), the Society of the Army of the 

Cumberland (1868), and the Society of the Army of 

the Potomac (1869). Some of these groups admitted 

enlisted men, but the bulk of their membership 

consisted of former Civil War officers. Other 

veterans groups formed at the height of the GAR’s 

popularity, primarily in reaction to its inclusiveness. 

In 1884, the Union Veteran Legion was created by 

veterans who resented non-combat personnel filling 

the ranks of the GAR. The legion’s membership was 

restricted to veterans who had volunteered before 

July 1, 1863, had served two years, or had been 

wounded in service. In a similar vein of exclusivity, 

the Union Veterans’ Union was founded in 

Washington in 1886, offering membership to 

veterans who had at least six months of continuous 

service and had spent time at the front. One 

member justified this position by noting that “men 

who were at the front have an experience peculiarly 

their own, and a feeling for each other which none 

but themselves can enter into or fully appreciate.”16

None of these assemblies approached the national 

influence of the GAR, but some were quite 

successful in lobbying state legislatures to 

appropriate money for the erection of state 

monuments on battlefields.17

Confederate veterans were slower to organize 

associations. Several factors account for the delayed 

establishment of a Confederate counterpart to 

Union veterans groups. At war’s end, Confederate 

veterans returned to an economically devastated 

South. The everyday challenges of rebuilding their 

farms and businesses precluded them from 

spending energy creating veterans groups. Professor 

Gaines Foster argues that Confederate veterans felt 

a sense of shame for losing the war and initially 

avoided association with that losing conflict, 

preferring instead to retreat to the isolation of their 

homes and farms.18Also, groups of ex-Confederates 

banding together could be accused of disloyalty, 

15. Wallace E. Davies, Patriotism on Parade: the Story of Veterans’ and Hereditary Organizations in America, 1783-1900

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955), 31-35.

16. McConnell, 121-22.

17. Davies, 29-30, 36-37.

18. Foster, 13-18.

FIGURE 31. Badge from a veterans’ reunion.
60 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

particularly if the participants had taken the oath of 

loyalty to the United States. The impetus to 

celebrate the Confederacy began in 1866 with 

Edward Pollard’s The Lost Cause, a book that 

celebrated Virginia’s contribution to the Rebel war 

effort. Several other titles appeared within five years 

of the war’s close, each a defense of the South’s 

position. Most rested on the idea that the 

Constitution embraced a compact theory of 

government that allowed states to withdraw from 

the agreement. One of these, Robert L. Dabney’s A 

Defense of Virginia, advanced a biblical defense of 

slavery as well.19

Several former Confederates, including Gen. 

Braxton Bragg, met in New Orleans in April 1869 

and made plans for a May 1 public meeting that 

many prominent Confederate veterans attended. 

The purpose of the group, called the Southern 

Historical Society (SHS), was to promote what the 

members believed to be the “true history” of the 

war. The SHS feared that history texts being 

published in the North inaccurately portrayed the 

war. Most despised were Emma Willard’s History of 

the United States (1869), Quackenbos’s Illustrated 

School History of the United States (1867 and 1868), 

and Worcester’s Elements of History, Ancient and 

Modern (1866). The last recounted that 

“Confederate prisoners at the North were 

comfortably housed and fed; but the inhumane 

treatment and horrible suffering of Federal soldiers 

in the prisons of the South form one of the most 

shocking chapters in the history of the Rebellion.”20

The death of former Gen. Robert E. Lee on October 

12, 1870, galvanized ex-Confederates to erect a 

memorial tomb at Washington College (later 

Washington and Lee), where Lee had spent his final 

years as the college’s president. In November 1870, a 

group of Confederate veterans dedicated to erecting 

a Lee statue in Richmond organized the Association 

of the Army of Northern Virginia (AANV), and 

elected Virginian and former Gen. Jubal Early as 

president. Upon his election as president of the SHS 

in 1873, he moved the SHS headquarters from New 

Orleans to Richmond. Early used the SHS to begin 

publication of the “Southern Historical Society 

Papers” (SHSP) in 1876, promulgating the South’s 

interpretation of the war. A year later, western 

Confederate veterans created the Association of the 

Army of Tennessee.21

Despite the existence of two army societies, local 

groups of Confederate veterans began to form their 

own associations, two of the earliest being the 

Confederate Survivors’ Association of Augusta, 

Georgia, in 1878 and the Robert E. Lee Camp No. 1 

of Richmond in 1883. Unlike the AANV, whose 

membership came primarily from the upper and 

middle classes, the Lee Camp appealed to the 

agricultural and working classes and did not require 

service in the Army of Northern Virginia for 

membership. Paralleling the activities of the GAR, 

many Confederate units held reunions during the 

1880s, sometimes resulting in the permanent 

foundation of veterans societies. Representatives of 

ten such groups met in New Orleans in June 1889 to 

form the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) and 

elected the renowned former Confederate Gen. 

John B. Gordon as president. A year later another 

eighteen groups joined the UCV. Membership in the 

egalitarian UCV increased in the 1890s thanks to 

Gordon’s popularity and the veterans’ growing spirit 

of reconciliation with their northern counterparts. 

The magazine “The Confederate Veteran” became 

the unofficial voice of the UCV. It published shorter, 

illustrated human interest pieces that contrasted 

sharply with the scholarly SHSP and enjoyed a 

larger subscription base.22

Two high-profile monuments to Lee were erected in 

the 1880s, signaling a shift in national acceptance of 

his embodiment of Confederate gallantry. The first 

of these was built in New Orleans in 1884 by citizens 

of that city. The second was an equestrian statue 

paid for by the SHS and AANV and unveiled in 

Richmond in 1890. Although these efforts were led 

by veterans, the burden of commemoration in the 

late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was 

carried primarily by the women of the South. Local 

groups calling themselves the Daughters of the 

Confederacy appeared in seven southern states 

between 1890 and 1894. These groups banded 

together, forming the United Daughters of the 

Confederacy (UDC) in September 1894 in Nashville.

19. Foster, 49.

20. Paul Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1937), 57.

21. Foster, 50-54, 91.

22. Davies, 40-41; Foster, 93, 104-14.
National Park Service 61

Confederate Memorial Day was the focus of UDC 

activity, and members also urged the observance of 

days such as the birthdays of Lee and former 

Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The UDC 

kept the celebration alive by raising funds for 

Confederate monuments to be erected on the 

square of many towns in the South. Sixty percent of 

these were built within twenty years of the UDC’s 

formation. Of these monuments, eighty percent 

were of lone Confederate soldiers and were placed 

in a public space such as the courthouse lawn. These 

statues, particularly the one on Murfreesboro’s 

courthouse square, depict Confederate privates 

standing at the ready and defiantly facing north 

toward their foes. This indicated a marked shift 

from the funereal memorials erected in cemeteries 

by LMAs to statuary that more explicitly celebrated 

the Confederate cause. Central to continuing the 

Confederate commemoration was the perpetuation 

of the South’s version of the war’s “true history,” and 

the UDC echoed the SHSP in its strident attempts to 

vindicate the Confederate cause. The group also 

established museums or relic rooms where artifacts 

of the Civil War, particularly Confederate items, 

could be displayed.23

The movement toward sectional reconciliation that 

marked the 1880s and 1890s and found expression in 

blue-gray reunions was notable for what it omitted. 

The focus on battlefield bravery and the sacrifice of 

both sections came at the expense of any 

recognition of the contributions of black Americans 

during the war. At the same time that many white 

veterans on both sides were forgetting wartime 

antagonism, white Southerners were completing the 

disenfranchisement of blacks and codifying 

segregation, with northern acquiescence. It is no 

accident that the role of blacks in American life–an 

issue that lay at the heart of the Civil War–played no 

part in the postwar commemoration. The idea of the 

New South, based on economic intercourse with the 

North and promoted by Atlanta journalist Henry 

Grady, was built on the foundations of the Old 

South. Grady extolled the virtues of industrialism, 

arguing that manufacturing would replace the 

wealth lost from the demise of the antebellum 

cotton plantations, with the tacit understanding that 

blacks would continue to occupy the bottom rungs 

of society, enforced by legal restrictions and 

extralegal terror. The attitude of many northerners 

was reflected in the GAR’s segregation of its 

members. Many white GAR veterans disassociated 

themselves from posts that allowed black 

membership. With very few exceptions, 

memorialization of black servicemen would not 

occur until the latter twentieth century.24

The thrust of veterans’ commemorative efforts 

changed as their focus shifted from mourning the 

dead to recalling a glorious past and establishing 

their place in history. Veteran activity centered 

around the annual regional reunions. For GAR 

members these events were in the larger cities of the 

North, with the first national encampment in 

Indianapolis in 1866 and the first veterans’ parade 

ten years later at the Philadelphia encampment. In 

1882, the GAR held its national encampment in 

Baltimore, a city that had exhibited Confederate 

sympathies during the war. The success of the event 

demonstrated a “restored feeling of brotherly love 

between the people of the South and people of the 

North” and set the stage for further reconciliation 

when rank-and-file GAR veterans realized they 

were welcome in the South and were invited to UCV 

reunions.25 The GAR in turn invited reconstructed 

23. Foster, 158-59, 172-73; Davies, 41-42.

24. James M. Mayo, War Memorials as Political Landscape (New York: Preager Publishers, 1988), 256; McConnell, 213-18; 

Foster, 79-87.

FIGURE 32. Murfreesboro’s Confederate Memorial.
62 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Confederates to participate in their reunions after 

1880. Southern heroism was praised, even if its 

motive was considered wayward, and both sides 

avoided the issues of slavery and race relations. 

Diehards on both sides continued to deplore 

fraternal contact with former enemies, but this 

provocation failed to prevent a twenty-fifth 

anniversary blue-gray reunion on the field of 

Gettysburg. The 1888 reunion at Gettysburg was a 

watershed event that forged a common bond 

between the veterans of both sections.26 As noted 

above, this spirit of reconciliation was confined to 

white veterans.

The reunion at Gettysburg was sparked, in part, by 

the actions of Congress. On June 6, 1880, President 

James Garfield signed a measure passed by the 

House and Senate that directed John Bachelder to 

complete a survey of the Gettysburg battlefield. 

Bachelder had tremendous knowledge of the battle 

from interviews with participants, studies of official 

correspondence, and familiarity with the terrain. 

The Union lines of battle at Gettysburg had been 

marked and memorialized by northern states 

immediately after the war. Bachelder’s survey of 

both armies’ actions, with the blessing of Congress, 

signaled a new national commemorative effort. The 

GAR then lobbied for the preservation of the 

Gettysburg battlefield as a memorial to the men who 

fought the battle.27

Extending its scope, the GAR aroused interest in 

preserving the battlefield of Vicksburg. The 

Societies of the Army of the Cumberland and the 

Army of the Tennessee also urged the creation of 

parks, the former to preserve the battlefields of 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga and the latter to 

preserve the battlefield of Shiloh. A bill was 

submitted in early 1890 to create a national park at 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga that would mark the 

lines of both sides and interpret the tactical aspects 

of the battles with strategically placed observation 

towers. These two clashes engaged troops from 

every southern state, eighteen northern states, and 

troops from the regular army. A constellation of 

famous generals on both sides had commanded on 

these fields as well. Realizing the national character 

of the battlefield, Congress established a national 

park at Chickamauga and Chattanooga on August 

18, 1890, two years after the Gettysburg reunion. 

Congress subsequently passed legislation that 

created national parks at Shiloh in 1894, Gettysburg 

in 1895, and Vicksburg in 1899. Congress declared 

Antietam, where far less acreage was acquired, a 

national battlefield site in 1890.28

Memorial Efforts at Stones 

River

Typical of memorial activity throughout the South 

was the post-war LMA effort in Murfreesboro. Here 

local ladies formed “The Memorial Society of 

Murfreesboro” with the express purpose of 

25. Buck, 239.

26. McConnell, 189-91; Davies, 250-56; Buck, 256-60. 

FIGURE 33. Memorial to the Confederate dead at Evergreen 

Cemetery.

27. Ronald F. Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Office 

of Park Historic Preservation, 1973), 22-26; Davies, 28.

28. John C. Paige and Jerome A. Greene, Administrative History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park

(Denver: National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1983), 9-10; Lee, 28-32.
National Park Service 63

purchasing land for a cemetery and reinterring 

Confederate dead with proper burial rites. Located 

one-and-a-half miles south of Murfreesboro, 

between the railroad and the turnpike, the 

Confederate Cemetery was laid out in squares that 

were accessed by graded and graveled walks lined 

with shrubbery. Graves were marked by wooden 

headboards, although ninety percent of the dead 

were unknown. Reinterment of two thousand 

Confederate dead in the cemetery began in 

December 1867. Within seven years of its creation, 

the cemetery was in poor shape; the surrounding 

fence was in disrepair, allowing livestock to enter 

and eat the ornamental shrubbery. On April 3, 1873, 

the city of Murfreesboro bought twenty acres of 

land for the creation of Evergreen Cemetery with 

the intention of moving the dead from the 

Confederate Cemetery.29

Evergreen is located east of Murfreesboro’s 

downtown on a parcel that once belonged to 

Oaklands Plantation. The Confederate dead are 

buried in a circular plot approximately 327 feet in 

circumference, reminiscent of landscape gardener 

William Saunders’s circular burial ground at 

Gettysburg. Thirty-four stone markers, formerly 

linked by a chain, trace a line around the plot. The 

Confederates Circle, as it is called, began receiving 

the remains from the Confederate Cemetery south 

of the city in 1874. Confederate graves at Evergreen 

Cemetery were designated with wooden markers 

that were extant in 1882, but no longer remain.30

Prior to 1928, four parcels of land had been set aside 

to commemorate the Battle of Stones River. Two of 

those parcels, Stones River National Cemetery and 

the Hazen Brigade Monument, were owned and 

administered by the War Department from the time 

of the Civil War. The other two were owned by the 

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway 

(NC&St.L) formerly known as the Nashville & 

Chattanooga Railroad (see note 13 to chapter three 

for the history of name changes to this rail line).

From the start of the Stones River National 

Cemetery’s construction, the railroad was 

envisioned as a means of accessing the battlefield, as 

evidenced by the erection of a small stone 

monument near the cemetery’s wall in 1865. The 

monument is on the railroad side of the cemetery 

and its inscription was meant to be read by 

passengers debarking from the train. It reads 

“Erected by the 43rd. Reg’t. Wis. Vol. Inf. in memory 

of deceased soldiers in that Reg’t and of the 180th 

Ohio. Tennessee Union Soldiers. Railroad 

Employees. & c. 1865.” The Phil Sheridan GAR Post 

in Nashville began to conduct Decoration Day 

ceremonies at the Stones River National Cemetery 

in 1887, continuing the practice into the twentieth 

century. The cemetery later became a railroad stop 

when Union veterans visited battlefields after the 

war. 31

Beginning in the Reconstruction period, the 

NC&St.L operated special trains to take Union 

veterans to Decoration Day ceremonies at Stones 

River National Cemetery (see Figure 36). GAR 

members continued to frequent the cemetery at 

Stones River, holding Decoration Day ceremonies 

throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth 

centuries. In keeping with the racial codes of that 

times the celebrations took a decidedly segregated 

bent, according to cemetery Superintendent Edwin 

P. Barrett, who noted in his reports that during GAR 

ceremonies whites gathered within the cemetery 

walls and African-American celebrants gathered 

outside. 32 In 1907, the Nashville American posted 

29. Mabel Pittard, Rutherford County (Memphis: Memphis State University Press, 1984), 96; John C. Spence, Annals of 

Rutherford County, Vol. 2 (Murfreesboro, TN: Rutherford County Historical Society, 1991), 257-58; Murfreesboro Monitor, 

December 7, 1867 and June 18, 1874.

30. Pittard, 96; Nashville Banner, January 28, 1882.

31. Miranda L. Fraley “Industry, War, and Memory: An Exploratory Essay” (Practicum paper, University of Indiana, 1998), 23.

32. Edwin P. Barrett, Superintendent, Stones River National Cemetery, Monthly Report to the Quartermaster General, May, 

1898, on file at Stones River National Battlefield.

FIGURE 34. Historical marker in Evergreen Cemetery.
64 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

the times for these special trains and noted that the 

exercises “near Murfreesboro will be attended by 

negroes.”33 The scheduling of trains to 

Murfreesboro for African-Americans to celebrate 

the freedoms brought by the war and remember the 

sacrifices made by black veterans was an early step 

towards recognition of African-American 

participation in the war effort.

Recognizing an opportunity to increase passenger 

traffic, the NC&St.L also advertised itself as a 

vehicle for visiting the battlefields of the Civil War. 

Advertising in Confederate Veteran, the railroad 

listed Stones River among the sites that would be of 

interest to veterans.34 The railroad’s president, John 

Thomas, was friendly to the UCV and promoted its 

reunions by offering special rates for reunion 

participants. For visitors who required more 

information, the NC&St.L published Southern 

Battlefields in 1890. This book and its successor, 

Battlefields in Dixie land, published in 1917, gave a 

brief history of the battles with maps noting their 

proximity to the railroad.35

In 1904, the NC&St.L acquired 4.64 acres that 

included Redoubt Brannan. The site was 

maintained by the railway company as a point of 

historical interest, visible from the windows of its 

passenger cars. The redoubt was interpreted to 

railway passengers in a company-published 

brochure as “the remains of the earthwork placed 

there in Civil War times to guard the bridge. Cannon 

of the period have been mounted on this work.”36

Interestingly, Redoubt Brannan is not identified in 

the brochure as a Union earthwork and no mention 

is made of Fortress Rosecrans. The railroad also 

acquired, at an unknown date, a 1.55-acre tract near 

McFadden’s Ford that occupies a rise overlooking 

Stones River. In 1906, the company erected a 31-foot 

obelisk upon a stepped base on the property to 

mark and commemorate the January 2, 1863, 

position of massed Union artillery, used to repel a 

Confederate assault on Union troops across the 

33. “Observance of Memorial Day: Exercises Will Be Held as Usual at Nashville and Murfreesboro Cemeteries,” The Nashville 

American, May 30, 1907.

34. Confederate Veteran 6, (June 1904), 87.

FIGURE 35. The rail line running through the battlefield brought veterans back for visits.

35. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway,“Southern battlefields:” a list of battlefields on and near the lines of the 

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway and Western & Atlantic Railway, and a brief description of the more important 

battles fought along these lines, also information about Lookout Mountain, Chickamauga Park and the famous engine 

“General.” (Nashville: Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 1890); Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway 

Battlefields in Dixie land, and Chickamauga National Military Park, with description of the important battles fought along 

these lines and the story of the engine “General.” (Nashville: Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 1917).

36. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, Introducing You to Dixie (Chicago: Poole Bros. Inc., 1928), 4.
National Park Service 65

river. Emphasizing the view from the railroad, the 

Confederate Veteran describes the obelisk as “a 

monument of granite [sic] nearly forty feet high . . . 

set immediately at the battery point, which may 

easily be seen by passengers on the train.”37 The 

obelisk is commonly known as the Artillery 

Monument. Redoubt Brannan and the Artillery 

Monument were the two parcels acquired by the 

NC&St.L to commemorate the events of the battle 

and federal occupation of the Stones River area.38

Few monuments commemorating the sacrifices of 

the battle’s participants were placed in Stones River 

National Cemetery or on private property during 

the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Stones 

River lacks the extensive monumentation that 

adorns the battlefields of Shiloh, Vicksburg, and 

Chickamauga. This can be explained, in part, by 

Stones River’s development in a period when fewer 

veterans survived. After 1900, the veterans’ political 

clout diminished with their numbers. The reduced 

lobby lacked the votes to pressure Congress and 

state legislatures for battlefield acquisition and 

monument appropriations.

The monuments erected at Stones River during the 

nineteenth and early twentieth century reflect 

contemporary currents in American architecture. 

The Hazen Brigade Monument, built in 1863 by 

skilled volunteers of Hazen’s Brigade, is a four-sided 

limestone monument with battered (inwardly 

sloping) walls, surrounded by a stone fence. The 

austere block is unornamented save for a simple 

concave cornice and harkens back to ancient 

Egyptian funerary architecture, particularly the 

mastaba. The 1888 U.S. Regulars Monument, by 

contrast, is a fifteen-foot sandstone column with 

classical details such as an egg-and-dart molding 

and carved floral and laurel motifs. Returning to an 

ancient Egyptian motif that was revived in the 

Neoclassical period, the 1906 Artillery Monument is 

a thirty-four-foot concrete obelisk built by the shops 

of the NC&St.L. Designed by Hunter McDonald, 

the Artillery Monument was the last monument 

placed on the Stones River battlefield before federal 

acquisition.

After the establishment of Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga National Military Park had spurred 

interest in the preservation of significant 

battlefields, a private group organized in the 1890s to 

make Stones River battlefield a military park. On 

April 28, 1896, the Stones River Battlefield and Park 

Association was chartered, with a membership that 

included both Union and Confederate veterans. The 

association secured options for the purchase of 

property connected with the battle, reportly 2,400 

acres in January 1897 and 3,400 acres in June of that 

year.39 Association members were responsible for 

erecting a number of wooden signs to mark and 

interpret specific locations on the battlefield. The 

Stones River Battlefield and National Park 

Association secretary wrote: “The association has 

placed upon the battlefield a large number of 

substantial wooden tablets, marking points of 

special interest and importance, such as 

headquarters of Federal and Confederate 

commanders, McFadden’s ford on Stone’s River, 

places where distinguished officers were slain, and 

many other important localities.”40

37. “The John W. Thomas Memorial,” Confederate Veteran, February 1908, 55.

38. Fraley, 30-32.

39. Jesse W. Sparks, “Stones River Battlefield and Park Association,” Confederate Veteran, Vol. V, No.1 (1897): 31.

40. Jesse W. Sparks, “The Stone’s River Battle-Field,” Confederate Veteran, Vol. VI, No. 2 (1898): 58.

FIGURE 36. The Artillery Monument.
66 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

As early as the first session of the 55th Congress in 

December 1895, Tennessee Congressman James D. 

Richardson had introduced legislation to establish a 

Stones River National Military Park. In its first 

version, the bill proposed the acquisition of 1,000 

acres in addition to the existing national cemetery. 

Later versions proposed acquiring 3,100 acres. 

Failing to secure enactment of any of these bills, the 

Stone’s River Battlefield and National Park 

Association scaled back its ambitions and lobbied to 

have markers erected on the field. Senate Bill 4818 

and House Resolution 18713, introduced in 1912, 

were meant “to establish an accurate system of 

markers on the battle field of Stones River, in 

Tennessee.” These efforts also came to nothing, 

perhaps because of Chickamauga and Chattanooga 

National Park Commissioner Charles H. 

Grosvenor’s argument against it. “More than fifty 

years have elapsed since the battle of Stone’s River 

and the marks, locations, earth works, or whatever 

else there was there are entirely obliterated. . . . The 

Commission is of the opinion that the bill should 

not pass,” he told the secretary of war.41

Congress continued to defer the creation of a park 

at Stones River after the turn of the century because 

of a deluge of military park requests from all corners 

of the nation. Legislators made several attempts to 

deal with the flood of park creation requests, the 

first being the failed effort to create a National 

Military Park Commission. When the commissions 

that oversaw the first four military parks were 

phased out by the Sundry Civil Bill of 1912, 

responsibility for all military parks was shifted to the 

secretary of war, who would administer them 

through the War Department. The National Park 

Service, created by 1916 legislation, had jurisdiction 

over “the several national parks and monuments 

now under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 

Interior,” but had no authority over battlefield parks. 

After World War I, Congress again turned to the 

problem of creating battlefield parks by authorizing 

a broad historic sites survey called the 1926 Act for 

the Study and Investigation of Battlefields. Acting 

upon the recommendations of the study, which 

classified Stones River as a Class IIA battlefield 

worthy of some kind of monument or marker, 

Congress authorized the establishment of Stones 

River National Military Park on March 3, 1927.42

The Creation of a Park: 

Development of Stones 

River National Military 

Park

War Department Administration, 

1927-1933

The War Department appointed a three-member 

commission, consisting of Maj. John F. Conklin of 

the U.S. Army Engineers, Union veteran John D. 

Hanson, and Confederate veteran Sam H. Mitchell 

to research the troop movements and inspect the 

Stone’s River battlefield.43 The majority of the 

research was conducted by Lt. Col. H.L. Landers of 

the Army War College. His study resulted in the 

production of ten maps, including seven of troop 

movements. In 1928, the commission submitted its 

written report (supported by the Landers troop 

movement maps) describing its findings and 

recommendations for land acquisition and park 

development. The acting secretary of war approved 

the plan and directed the commission to oversee its 

implementation. The State of Tennessee ceded 

jurisdiction over all lands that would be included in 

the park.44

The bulk of acquisition targeted a 325-acre tract that 

the commission considered to have encompassed 

most of the battle’s heaviest action. The northern 

boundary of the tract was the NC&StL right-of-way. 

Manson Pike, the southern boundary, was 

considered by the commission to have been the 

fulcrum on which the Army of Tennessee turned 

Rosecrans’s right on December 31, 1862. The tract’s 

eastern boundary encompassed Van Cleve Lane, 

still a dirt track at the time of the acquisition 

proposal. The western boundary of the tract was 

parallel to and less than half a mile from the eastern 

boundary. Two small, quarter-acre detached tracts 

41. 54th Congress, 1st sess., H.R. 1996; 56th Congress, 1st sess., H.R. 3363; C.H. Grosvenor to Secretary of War, June 7, 1912, 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park archives, Folder 111, Box 7, Accession 205.

42. Ann W. Willett, “A History of Stones River National Military Park,” (M.A. Thesis, Middle Tennessee State College, 1958), 59-

61.

43. “Report of the Inspection of Battlefield of Stones River, Tennessee,” typescript submitted to The Secretary of War, July 17, 

1928; Daily News Journal (Murfreesboro), April 23, 1929.

44. Willett, 62, 75.
National Park Service 67

of private land were also recommended for 

acquisition to preserve and interpret the location of 

the headquarters sites of Gens. Bragg and 

Rosecrans.45

The War Department closely followed the 

commission’s recommendations for land 

acquisition. No portion of the battlefield north of 

Stones River, the scene of Breckinridge’s attack on 

January 2, 1863, was proposed for acquisition. This 

was due, in part, to the area’s inaccessibility–no 

bridges crossed the river in the vicinity of 

McFadden’s Ford. The only properties 

recommended for acquisition by the commission 

and not acquired by the War Department were 

seven one-eighth-acre parcels designated to hold 

interpretive markers. Central to the commission’s 

plan was the recognition that available funding was 

not sufficient to allow for the acquisition of the 

entire field of battle. Previous research has 

underscored that the commission’s final report 

recognized that only a portion of the approximately 

3.100-acre battlefield could be acquired. The 

recommended land was described by the 

commission as a nucleus for future acquisition 

should funding be made available.46

The War Department acquired land for Stones River 

National Military Park between 1928 and 1934. 

Acquisition included the acceptance of the Artillery 

Monument (Monument Lot) and Redoubt Brannan 

(Old Fort Lot) by donation from the Nashville, 

Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway. The park also 

acquired the Hazen Brigade Monument and Stones 

River National Cemetery, both of which were 

present before the 1927 establishment act was 

authorized. Although these sites were federally 

owned and had already been developed as 

memorials, they were to be henceforth administered 

by the park.

The commission recommended that thirty-five 

interpretive markers be erected within the park 

proper, two at the Artillery Monument and one at 

Redoubt Brannan. Another seven tablets were to be 

erected on seven parcels of land to interpret and 

mark specific events of the battle. As noted above, 

these seven one-eighth-acre parcels were the only 

tracts recommended by the commission that were 

not eventually purchased for the park.

Although title to all forty-six properties slated for 

procurement had yet not been acquired, the War 

Department began rehabilitation and alteration of 

the grounds in July 1930. All existing domestic and 

agricultural structures on park property, particularly 

along Van Cleve Lane, were determined to postdate 

the battle and were subsequently removed. A cluster 

of African-American dwellings lined Van Cleve 

Lane during the 1920s, and the commission 

recommended their removal. A 1931 newspaper 

account mentions a “Negro settlement” along Van 

45. Willett, 64-65.

46. Ibid., 65-73.

FIGURE 37. Main entrance to park in the 1930s.
68 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Cleve Lane. One of these dwellings was spared for 

future use as a museum for the UDC.47

The administrative functions of the military park 

and the national cemetery were consolidated in 

1927. All visitor contact, administrative, and utility 

functions continued to operate out of the national 

cemetery’s superintendent’s lodge and 

dependencies. Nashville Pike and Van Cleve Lane, 

two roads that existed at the time of the battle, were 

widened, graded, and graveled in areas where they 

passed through the park and were incorporated into 

the park circulation network. Visitor access and 

interpretation was accommodated by the 

construction of a new tour road leading from 

Nashville Pike, south through the park, turning east 

to Van Cleve Lane. Formal entrance features, 

including stone walls, columns, gates, and entrance 

signs, were constructed at both ends of the tour 

road. From the initial development of the battlefield 

until the implementation of the Mission 66 plans in 

the early 1960s, there were actually four entrances 

into the main park area. Two of these entrances had 

stone pillars and provided access for cars into the 

main park area from the Old Nashville Highway: the 

main entrance was located across from the staff 

residence area (see Figure 38), and the second was at 

the intersection of Old Nashville Highway and Van 

Cleve Lane. The first park tour road also connected 

with Van Cleve Lane at two other points, forming 

the third and fourth entrances.48

Herbert Smith, an African-American man from the 

local community who was a highly gifted stone 

mason, constructed the stone pillars at the two 

entrances from Old Nashville Highway into the 

main park area. The quartermaster department 

officials responsible for the development of this and 

other national military parks were so pleased with 

his design that they sent plans for the entrances to 

other parks. Smith subsequently was hired to create 

entrances at Fort Donelson National Battlefield and 

Shiloh National Military Park.49

Prior to the official dedication of the park in July 

1932, the battlefield held a special ceremony at the 

main entrance gate across from the staff residence 

area in October 1931. This program included Sam 

Mitchell, a Confederate veteran who served on the 

Stones River Battlefield Park Commission, raising 

an American flag on the flagstaff near the ranger 

station at the main gate. This ranger station was 

located in the center of the main entrance drive near 

the stone pillars.50Three cannon (relocated from 

Redoubt Brannan) and a flagstaff were erected 

adjacent to the northern entrance gate.51

The commission described the northern section of 

the 324-acre tract as open and under cultivation in 

its 1928 field inspection. The central and southern 

portions of the field, north of Manson Pike, were 

described by the commission as rocky and under 

the cover of cedar. Immediately following 

acquisition by the War Department, local farmers 

plowed and seeded the open areas of the tract with 

fall oats. The farmers were promised the harvest for 

their work.52 Wholesale landscape changes were 

made under the direction of Capt. H. J. Conner, and 

according to an October 1931 newspaper article, 

“acres and acres of dense underbrush have given 

way to carefully cleared land and many of the huge 

rocks, which dotted the landscape, have been 

removed, however leaving a sufficient number to 

add greatly to the attractiveness of the park.”53

Definitive descriptions of the War Department’s 

landscape alterations to the grounds are lacking. 

More information is available about the treatment of 

the park entrance and tour road; specifically, the 

park roads were “boulevarded” by separating the 

lanes with a median, and “landscape plans were 

prepared . . . and 2,500 trees, plants, and shrubs 

47. Daily News Journal (Murfreesboro, TN), October 1, 1931.

48. On initial park construction, see “Stones River Battle, Park Plans Described by Capt. Conner,” Murfreesboro Daily News 

Journal, April 7, 1931, 1, 6; “Stones River Park Becoming Beauty Spot of Mid-State,” Murfreesboro, Daily News Journal, 

October 1, 1931, 1, 6; Willett, “A History of Stones River National Military Park,” 81-84; on the number and location of 

park entrances, see particularly drafts of Mission 66 master plans located in folder 40 “D-18 Master Plan Study” and folder 

42 “D-18 Master Plan Study,” Stones River National Battlefield Central Files Collection, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee. 

49. “Negro’s Ability as Stone Mason Beats Depression,” Murfreesboro Daily News Journal, June 10, 1932, 1.

50. “Aged ‘Rebel’ Unfurls First Flag over Battleground Site since Civil War,” Murfreesboro, Daily News Journal, October 27, 

1931, 1, 3.

51. Willett, 74-76.

52. Willett, 75.

53. Daily News Journal (Murfreesboro, TN), October 1, 1931.
National Park Service 69

were planted.”54 After taking over responsibility for 

the Stones River battlefield in 1933, the NPS 

prepared two maps; these document the continued 

survival of these formal landscape treatments during 

the Great Depression. These two maps (NPS 

drawing numbers 327-1063, 327-1064) record the 

configuration and species composition of formal 

plantings of exotic flowering trees and shrubs that 

were planted along the Nashville Pike, and in 

clusters along the tour road in association with the 

main park entrance features.

The NPS and the New Deal

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 

March 1933, he expanded existing federal programs 

and implemented many new ones to combat the 

effects of the Great Depression. Widespread 

unemployment coupled with Roosevelt’s 

commitment to conserving America’s land and 

water resources resulted in new programs that built 

the infrastructure of many state and national parks. 

During the first hundred days of Roosevelt’s 

presidency, his administration submitted fifteen 

major Congressional bills that were the cornerstone 

of his New Deal, including unemployment relief 

through public works projects and direct aid. Public 

works agencies created under the New Deal 

included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 

the Public Works Administration (PWA), and the 

Works Progress Administration (WPA). Although 

these programs were often reorganized and 

reauthorized under different federal agencies, they 

remained a vital part of the president’s economic 

recovery plan until the beginning of World War II. 

Roosevelt used labor from the public works 

programs to help the NPS conserve the country’s 

resources through land reclamation and park 

development. These park projects had multiple 

impacts: land reclamation, the creation of recreation 

opportunities, and economic improvement through 

employment.55

The much-heralded CCC performed valuable soil 

conservation work in the national parks and gave 

young, inexperienced men an opportunity to 

acquire job skills. Federal funding through the PWA 

and the WPA also benefited the park service. These 

programs were established under the National 

Industrial Recovery Act of June 1933 with the 

intention of reviving local economies by hiring the 

unemployed for public construction. Secretary of 

the Interior Harold Ickes administered both 

programs and used part of the monetary allotments 

to put men to work building the infrastructure of 

national parks. The PWA allocated $40 million for 

NPS projects from 1933 to 1937, funding road and 

trail construction, campground development, 

museum construction, and restoration of historic 

structures.56

The CCC, PWA, and other public works programs 

came at a time of rapid expansion and increased 

responsibilities for the NPS. On August 10, 1933, 

Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6166, which gave 

the NPS jurisdiction over all historic sites, 

battlefields, monuments, and parks previously 

administered by the War Department, the 

Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Public 

Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capitol. 

With Roosevelt’s signature, the NPS’s 

responsibilities increased from 63 sites to 161, and 

the service became responsible for the majority of 

future national monuments created by presidential 

action.57 The NPS created several large parks east of 

the Mississippi River in the 1930s. These new 

parks—Great Smoky Mountains, Shenandoah, 

Mammoth Cave, and Blue Ridge Parkway—

generated tremendous visitation and visibility for 

NPS from their inception. The infusion of funds 

and manpower from the public works programs 

allowed the agency to expand its staff of landscape 

architects, engineers, and foresters. The Depression 

allowed the NPS to hire highly qualified 

professionals unable to secure private employment, 

many of whom became career NPS employees.58

54. Willett, 73-76.

55. Samuel E. Morison, The Oxford History of the American People (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 942-43, 954-56; 

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 3; Harlan D. Unrau and 

G. Frank Williss, Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s (Denver: National Park Service, 

1983), 75-77.

56. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959), 284-88; Unrau, 96-101.

57. Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991), 24; 

Unrau, 43.

58. Conrad L. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), 111; Unrau, 59-62.
70 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Early National Park Service 

Administration ofStones River 

National Military Park, 1933 - 1960 

Within a year of the War Department’s official 

dedication of the Stones River National Military 

Park in 1932, the park was transferred by Executive 

Order 6166 to the administrative control of the NPS. 

Several tracts of land (65.6 acres) that had been 

authorized for acquisition by the War Department 

but had not been transferred officially to the 

government were then deeded to the agency. Total 

park acreage was brought to 344.69 acres after the 

transfer of title. From 1933 until 1955, the park did 

not have its own superintendent, but was 

administered by Chickamauga and Chattanooga 

National Military Park.

The physical development and rehabilitation of the 

park’s core area occurred in three phases: 1933-1934, 

the late 1930s-1950s, and the 1960s. For the first two 

years after the park’s transfer to the NPS, PWA 

workers made improvements to the main battlefield 

and erected a wire fence around the park perimeter 

to keep out neighboring livestock. In 1933-1934, the 

tour road and Nashville Pike were regraded, 

vegetative buffers were planted along portions of the 

park’s perimeter, and the open fields were 

harrowed, fertilized, and graded. On March 25, 1935, 

severe storms struck the park, uprooting more than 

one hundred large trees and damaging many smaller 

ones. The wire fence was damaged by falling trees. 

The UDC cabin along Van Cleve Lane was flattened 

by the driving winds and was not rebuilt.59

NPS maps 327-1063 and 327-1064 depict the War 

Department’s plantings of exotic flowering trees 

and shrubs at the park entrance and along sections 

of the park tour road. These exotics include roses, 

arbor-vitae, wisteria, holly, chokeberry, dwarf 

spirea, maple, peach, juniper, and a magnolia. 

Because these plantings were not recorded on the 

park maps drawn in 1962, it is inferred that park staff 

removed them before that date. A trend toward the 

removal of exotic plantings from historical parks 

and the reintroduction of native species during the 

1930s and 1940s was likely the impetus for the 

exotics’ removal from the site.60 An aerial 

photograph of the park taken in April 1938 reveals 

that most of the park, with the exception of the 

western boundary, was bereft of trees.61 Isolated 

trees and small stands dotted the landscape; 

however, no vestiges remained of the dense cedar 

brakes of 1863.

Between the late 1930s and the late 1950s, NPS 

prepared several comprehensive or master plans for 

the park, pending the availability of funding. The 

common link among these plans was the 

rehabilitation of the park through physical 

development, typically including the construction 

of a new visitor center, the relocation of the tour 

road and entrance gates, and the acquisition of an 

additional one thousand acres to connect the 

discontiguous tracts within the park and increase 

the percentage of the battlefield under federal 

protection. Preparation of these master plans failed 

to either include the preparation of a historic base 

map or reference the troop movement maps 

prepared earlier by the War Department. Funding 

never was made available to initiate the 

recommendations of these plans. During the 1940s 

and 1950s, available funding allowed only for the 

resurfacing of the tour road and Van Cleve Lane.62

The National Park Service Mission 66 

Program

Mission 66 was a NPS design and construction 

program intended to revitalize the national parks 

through a massive tenyear program of capital 

investment. Very low funding and maintenance 

levels for national parks during World War II 

coupled with a massive increase in postwar park 

visitation had created a systemwide infrastructure 

crisis. Increased personal income, leisure time, and 

automobile ownership contributed to the large 

influx of visitors into the parks in the postwar 

period. These visitors were met by poorly 

maintained and aging facilities without adequate 

interpretive facilities, campgrounds, hotel 

accommodations, roads, and sanitary stations. The 

park service lacked the funding to address these 

issues, and increased appropriations from Congress 

59. Richard B. Randolph, Superintendent, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Superintendent’s Narrative 

Report, March, 1935, CHCH park archives.

60. Brian Morris, “Cultural Landscape Inventory of Stones River National Battlefield” (Atlanta: National Park Service, 1994), 9.

61. Record Group 145, Records of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Can #2281, AEY-8-69, National 

Archives and Records Administration, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, College Park, Maryland.

62. Willett, 87.
National Park Service 71

were not forthcoming, due in part to that body’s 

concern with the Cold War. In 1951, Conrad L. Wirth 

was appointed director of the NPS. Wirth was a 

career NPS landscape architect who had overseen 

the service’s recreational planning and state park 

development efforts during the 1930s. His continual 

efforts to increase the agency’s appropriations 

reached fruition in January 1956 when he presented 

a slide show depicting the poor conditions of the 

parks to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his 

cabinet. To combat the decay, Wirth proposed an 

ambitious planning, design, and construction 

program that he called “Mission 66.” This 

ambitious, multimillion-dollar project involved 

improving roads, expanding park facilities, and 

repairing existing infrastructure. Its estimated 

completion date was planned to coincide with the 

agency’s fiftieth anniversary in 1966.63

Stones River National Battlefield 

Development Under Mission 66

Legislation enacted in 1960 changed the name of the 

park from Stones River National Military Park to 

Stones River National Battlefield. The bulk of 

Stones River National Battlefield’s built resources 

are associated with the service-wide Mission 66 

initiative. The 1962 Master Plan, which included a 

historic ground cover map prepared by NPS 

historian Edwin Bearss, guided the park’s physical 

development. Work completed between 1962 and 

1965 included construction of a new visitor center 

(see Figure 39) and parking lot, and the conversion 

of the tour road into a closed-loop road with a single 

entrance on the Nashville Pike. Alterations were also 

made to entrance gates from Nashville Pike to the 

tour road (see integrity discussion below).

 Vegetation management during the Mission 66 

period is poorly documented, but a comparison of 

park maps documenting existing conditions in 1936 

and 1962 indicates that the relationship of open 

(mown) space to woodland remained constant 

during that period. Comparing the existing 

conditions maps of 1962 and 1978, it appears that 

mowing practices were curbed to allow more of the 

park’s core area to achieve second-growth forest. 

The configuration of open areas and woodland 

changed dramatically during this period, albeit 

without a planting plan. There appears to have been 

no prolonged, systematic effort by the park to 

restore the 1863 appearance of the battlefield. The 

park has changed its vegetative management 

practices since 1978, in an attempt to replicate the 

historic 1860s scene along the Nashville Pike.

Significance

Stones River National Battlefield Park has a long 

history of commemoration beginning with the construction of the Hazen Brigade Monument in 1863, 

63. Mackintosh, 66.

FIGURE 38. Mission 66 visitor center at Stones River.
72 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

perhaps the first Civil War monument erected in the 

United States. Stones River National Cemetery, 

established during the war, was the focus of much 

commemorative activity during the nineteenth 

century. The history and development of Stones 

River National Cemetery is discussed in greater 

detail in a forthcoming cultural landscape report for 

the cemetery. The park exists as a result of commemorative efforts by the Nashville, Chattanooga & 

St. Louis Railway, the Stones River Battlefield and 

Park Association, and lobbying efforts by the GAR 

and UCV. Although Stones River did not become a 

military park until March 3, 1927, attempts by these 

groups to create a park and demarcate important 

sites influenced the government’s eventual decision 

to establish a park and acquire land.

The Artillery Monument, 43rd Wisconsin/180th

Ohio Marker, U.S. Regulars Monument, General 

Bragg’s Headquarters Marker, Rosecrans’s Headquarters Marker, Cannonball Pyramid, Standing 

Cannon Markers are all contribute to the national 

significance of STRI under National Register (NR) 

Criterion A for their association with the long 

history of commemorative activity at the park. Most 

of these markers are also significant under Criterion 

C for their design characteristics. The national cemetery and its component structures (grave markers, 

stone wall, Bivouac of the Dead markers, and flagstaff) are also significant under Criterion A for their 

association with history of commemoration of Civil 

War veterans and Criterion C for design. The main 

entrance gates to the park are significant under Criterion A as part of the history of the development of 

the park. 

The Artillery Monument, 43rd Wisconsin/180th

Ohio Marker, U.S. Regulars Monument, General 

Bragg’s Headquarters Marker, Rosecrans’s Headquarters Marker, Cannonball Pyramid, Standing 

Cannon Markers all meet the test of Criterion Consideration F. All have gained significance in their 

own right for their connection with the long history 

of commemoration and remembrance at the Stones 

River battlefield.

The War Department initially developed the park 

between 1928 and 1934, after the bulk of property 

acquisition had occurred. After the park was transferred to the NPS in 1933, development continued, 

chiefly in the Mission 66 period. The park’s 1963 

Visitor Center has been determined not to meet the 

test of exceptional significance for Mission 66 

visitor centers. Evaluation criteria for other structures, such as residences, from the Mission 66 

period have not been developed as of yet. It seems 

unlikely that the residences, roads, and other development from this period at STRI would meet the 

test of exceptional significance.

Current vegetation management practices in the 

park, including agricultural planting and successive 

woodland growth, approximate vegetative conditions at the time of the battle. These practices and 

the subsequent patterns of growth are not historically significant. The majority of vegetation in the 

park exists despite, not because of, a demonstrated 

intent or park planting plan designed to restore the 

landscape of 1863 or preserve the commemorative 

War Department landscape. At present the park is 

making a major effort to manage exotic plant 

species.

FIGURE 39. U.S. Regulars Monument.
National Park Service 73

Integrity of Historic 

Resources

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its 

historic significance. According to NR Bulletin 16, 

the seven aspects of integrity are location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association. These are applied to each contributing 

property, taking into account its level of significance 

and the criteria under which it derives its 

significance. For example, a property that is 

significant under Criterion A for its association with 

an event is not held to the same standard of integrity 

as one that derives its significance from Criterion C, 

as an example of art or architecture. For a property 

to contribute to the historic district, it must possess 

several, and usually most, of the aspects of integrity.

The Artillery Monument, 43rd Wisconsin/180th

Ohio Marker, U.S. Regulars Monument, Standing 

Cannon Markers, Cannonball Pyramid, and both 

headquarters markers retain integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association. All possess ample integrity to convey 

their significance under the context of 

commemoration of the Battle of Stones River. 

Structures associated with the national cemetery 

built from 1866 on (grave markers, cemetery wall, 

flagstaff, and the Bivouac of the Dead markers) also 

possess a high degree of integrity.

The main entrance gates, although altered, retain 

sufficient integrity to be eligible for the National 

Register. Wing walls were added to the original 

pillars as part of the Mission 66 construction plans, 

and the pillars themselves have undergone some 

alterations. The pillars originally installed at the 

intersection of Old Nashville Highway and Van 

Cleve Lane (see above) were dismantled, and the 

stones from these structures were used to construct 

walls joined to the pillars at the main entrance. A 

wall extends from each pillar towards the road 

leading into the Visitor Center parking area. 

Superintendent Melroe Tarter, the first 

superintendent of the new park, originally placed a 

chain between the stone pillars in order to close the 

gates at night, but in the early 1960s, wooden 

crossbars which are retracted during the day and 

locked shut at night were added. These crossbar 

posts were mounted into the new stone walls. 

Initially, a metal plaque reading “Stones River 

National Military Park” was mounted on each post. 

These plaques were later removed and other 

National Park Service signs put in their place. The 

original cannonball pyramids atop the pillars were 

removed sometime prior to 1949. In 1982, park staff 

placed new cannonball pyramids on the pillars, and 

also at this time, a metal flag holder was added to the 

back of each wing wall.64

The tour road, which was reconfigured during the 

Mission 66 period, no longer retains integrity from 

the period of the park’s initial developments. The 

tour road’s viewshed has been affected by the 

release to succession vegetation management 

practice adopted by the park.

Contributing Properties

Stones River National Cemetery (1864-1869)65

43rd Wisconsin and 180th Ohio Marker (1865) 

(IDLCS 007041)

Stones River National Cemetery Markers (1867) 

(IDLCS 007032)

64. On the Mission 66 construction on the main park entrance and the dismantling of the pillars that stood at the intersection 

of Van Cleve Lane and Old Nashville Highway see “Planting Plan and Incidental Construction,” NB-SR/3067A, February 26, 

1963, page 4 of 4, folder 3, drawer 10, Stones River National Battlefield Map Collection, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee; see also documentation concerning construction on the main entrance gate in folder 314 “D-32 

Landscape Construction Project,” Stones River National Battlefield Central Files Collection. Concerning the use of a chain 

to close the entrance, see H. J. Conner, Captain, Quartermaster Corps, Officer in Charge to Harry Brackman, Keith Simmons 

Company, Inc, Nashville, Tennessee, March 3, 1931, folder 82 “H-14 History” Stones River National Battlefield Central Files 

Collection. For information about the cannonball pyramids and flag holders, see early images of the main entrance gates 

such as STRI-NN-0092 and STRI-NN-0093, Stones River National Battlefield Nitrate Negative Collection, Stones River 

National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; for an image showing the pillars without cannonball pyramids see Mike 

Pirtle, editor, A Pictorial History of Rutherford County, Tennessee: A Tennessee Bicentennial Edition (Marceline, MO: 

Heritage House, 1995), 77; concerning the installation of the new cannonball pyramids and flag holders in 1982, see 

personal communication with Albert Pomplun, Maintenance Worker, Stones River National Battlefield, August 23, 2001 (in 

the author’s possession).

65. The cemetery’s significance and integrity were evaluated under the previous context, but the cemetery is also significant 

under this context, because much of the cemetery was developed from 1865 to 1869.
74 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Stones River National Cemetery Wall (1867) (IDLCS 

090222)

Standing Cannon Markers (1867) (IDLCS 090227)

U.S. Regulars Monument (1882) (IDLCS 007040)

Cemetery Flagstaff (1888) (IDLCS 090226)

Artillery Monument (1906) (IDLCS 007034)

Bivouac of the Dead Markers (1927) (IDLCS 

090223)

Cannonball Pyramid (1930) (IDLCS 090228)

General Bragg’s Headquarters Marker (1931) 

(IDLCS 007038)

Rosecrans’s Headquarters Marker (1931) (IDLCS 

007039)

Main Entrance Gates (1931, with 1960s alterations)

Noncontributing Properties

Visitor Center (1961-1963): Because it is less than 50 

years old, the visitor center would have to possess 

exceptional significance to be eligible for the 

National Register. Sarah Allaback’s study, Mission 66 

Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type,

establishes five areas of potential significance for 

Mission 66 visitor centers. A determination of 

eligibility in May 2001 concluded that the STRI 

visitor center did not exhibit exceptional 

significance in any of the five areas.

Loop Tour Road (1962), Utility Building (1962), 

Residence No. 1 (1962), Residence No. 2 (1962), 

Pumphouse (1962), Residence No. 3 (1963), Parking 

lot at Artillery Monument (1964): As of this writing, 

evaluation criteria for Mission 66 structures other 

than visitor centers had not been established. These 

structures are less than 50 years old, and no 

evidence has been discovered to indicate that they 

possess exceptional significance as prototypes for 

subsequent structures, as examples of the work of 

regionally known architects, or for any other reason. 

Therefore, these structures are considered 

noncontributing to the significance of the historic 

district.

Michigan State Historical Commission Marker 

(1966): This structure is considered noncontributing 

because of its age. It is managed by the NPS as a 

cultural resource, under an NPS policy that 

considers all commemorative structures and 

markers within park units to be cultural resources.

Stone wall along Stones River (1976): This structure 

is ineligible because of its age.
National Park Service 75

Chapter Five: Cultural Landscapes, 

Ethnographic Resources, 

Archeology, and Museum 

Collections

Cultural Landscapes

A Cultural Landscape Inventory-Level 1 was 

prepared for Stones River National Battlefield in 

1994.1

 The CLI-Level 1 identified eight historic 

landscapes within the park, six of which are 

potentially significant. These six, each classified as a 

component landscape, are:

1. Stones River National Cemetery

2. Hazen Memorial

3. Main Park Area

4. Artillery Memorial

5. Bragg’s Headquarters Site

6. Rosecrans’s Headquarters Site

The regional cultural landscape program 

determined that two landscapes — Lunettes Palmer 

and Thomas and Curtain Wall Number Two of 

Fortress Rosecrans and Redoubt Brannan of 

Fortress Rosecrans — lacked sufficient integrity to 

be potentially significant. Every effort has been 

made to incorporate the findings of the CLI-Level 1 

in the evaluations of historic resources contained in 

chapters three, four, and five.

Under a contract with NPS, Clint Genoble began a 

Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for the Stones 

River National Cemetery. As of January 2004, STRI 

staff member Miranda Fraley was in the process of 

expanding and revising the draft CLR.

Ethnographic Resources

Miranda Fraley’s 1999 paper reveals a variety of 

contemporary cultural meanings associated with 

STRI — the battle, the cemetery, and the park itself 

— which are carried in the oral histories of a number 

of families in the surrounding area.2

 Some of these 

are indicative of strong sentiments about the park 

and the conditions of its establishment. Although 

there has not been an Ethnographic Overview and 

Assessment done of the park, the available 

information suggests the potential for a number of 

family groups and local civic organizations that 

might qualify as “traditionally associated peoples” 

under Director’s Order 28, chapter 10 (managing 

ethnographic resources). In addition to descendants 

of families residing within the present boundaries of 

the park at the time of the battle and establishment 

of the cemetery, other families and groups 

(including church congregations) located on the 

property later in history should be surveyed. This 

would be especially true of any removed at the 

establishment of the park (or its state and local 

predecessors), as , for example, the apparent 

1. Office of Cultural Resources Planning, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, “Cultural Landscape Report – 

Level 1: Stones River National Battlefield” (Atlanta: NPS, 1994).

2. Miranda Fraley, “Commemorating the Battle of Stones River: Memory and Oral History,” Middle Tennessee State 

University, History 575, October 19,1999.
76 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

African-American hamlet of the 1920s and 30s (see 

page 71). Likewise, there might be park neighbors 

who had a prior use of present-day park lands, e.g., 

for livestock grazing (page 73 above), that should be 

considered in developing Ethnographic Resource 

Inventory records for the park.

The type of work Fraley has done should be 

extended to identify all groups currently having a 

sense of historical connection to the park — 

including family of former park staff — and to assay 

the whole range of cultural meanings that might be 

attached to the park, from family stories of 

battlefield incidents, to burials of kinsmen, to 

reunions and commemorative events, to “illicit” but 

culturally meaningful activities, e.g., trysts and 

“drinking.”3

 Also within the scope of ethnographic 

resources are any cultural meanings that presentday American Indian tribes with ancestral ties to the 

region might attach to the site, whether evidenced 

by archaeological remains or not. For all the types of 

groups potentially associated with the park — 

tribes, local civic organizations, prior land-owners, 

latter-day residents, etc. — identification of 

ethnographic resources depends upon review of 

existing literature on the folklife, genealogy, history, 

sociology, and anthropology of the park and its 

environs, key informant interviewing (including 

present and former park staff), and consultation 

with representatives of groups associated with the 

park, including some that might not meet all the 

tests of being specifically a “traditionally associated 

people” under Director’s Order 28, chapter 10.

Archeological 

Investigations at Stones 

River National Battlefield

From the 1970s to 2000, several archeologists 

assisted STRI managers in identifying and 

protecting archeological resources.4 These studies 

chiefly focused on a few themes: assessing sites prior 

to ground disturbance, archeological investigation 

of portions of Fortress Rosecrans, surveys of areas 

thought to contain remnants of Civil War-era homes 

and other structures, and the excavation of the 

interior of the Hazen Brigade Monument.

Most of the archeological work performed at STRI 

aimed to identify Civil War-era cultural resources. 

However, researchers also evaluated park sites to 

determine whether they contained prehistoric 

artifacts. A few Native American artifacts such as 

lithic flakes were discovered, but in general 

archeologists found few prehistoric cultural 

resources on park lands.5

 None of the archeological 

3. Fraley, 19.

4. The following is a list of reports produced in conjunction with archeological surveys at Stones River National Battlefield: 

Catherine H. Blee, “An Assessment of the Cultural Resources of Stones River National Battlefield and the Proposed 

Development Impacts on Them” (Denver: Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Division, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, 1976); John W. Walker, “Investigation of the Hazen Brigade Monument, Stones River National 

Battlefield, Tennessee” (Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, 1989); Archeologist, Wild, 

Southeast Archeological Center to Chief, Southeast Archeological Center, memorandum, “Trip Report on Archeological 

Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the Removal of Line Towers, 9/4-9/6/90,” Oct. 19, 1990; 

Stephen P. Bryne, “An Archeological Survey of the Visitor Center Addition and Parking Lot Expansion, Stones River 

National Battlefield, Rutherford County, Tennessee,” (Tallahassee: National Park Service, 1990); John W. Walker, J. Donald 

Merritt, and Steven J. Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee,” 

(Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, 1990); Archeologist, Wild, Southeast Archeological 

Center to Chief, Southeast Archeological Center, Archeologist, Wild, Southeast Archeological Center to Chief, Southeast 

Archeological Center, “Trip Report on Phase I Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the 

Construction of a Trail and Parking Lots, 1/28-2/2/91,” memorandum, March 27, 1991; John E. Cornelison, Jr., “Report on 

Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt Brannan, Parts of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in Stones River 

National Battlefield, Mufreesboro, Tennessee, SEAC Accessions 993 and 1021” (Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, 1992); Archeologist Horvath to Chief, Southeast Archeology Center, memorandum, “Trip 

Report for the Stones River Survey—SEAC Acc. 1134—May 23-25, 1994,” June 3, 1994; Archeologist [John E. Cornelison, 

Jr.], Southeast Archeological Center to Chief, Investigation & Evaluation, Southeast Archeological Center, memorandum, 

“Trip Report on Archeological Monitoring at STRI, October 23-25, 1994, Accession 1149, Park Accession STRI-127,” 

December 1, 1994; Archeological Technician Russell to Chief, Southeast Archeological Center, memorandum, “Trip Report 

for Archeological Testing at Stones River National Battlefield (SEAC 1351),” Sept. 9, 1998. See also: Interagency Resources 

Division, Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems Facility, “Survey of Battlefield Features at the Civil War Site 

of Stones River, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” Open File Report #1 (Winter 1993); Samuel D. Smith, Fred M. Prouty, and 

Benjamin C. Nance, A Survey of Civil War Period Military Sites in Middle Tennessee, Tennessee Department of 

Conservation, Division of Archeology, Report Investigations No. 7 (Nashville: Tennessee Printing Division, 1990); Daniel A. 

Brown, “Marked for Future Generations: The Hazen Brigade Monument, 1863-1929,” unpublished paper (1986). Each of 

these reports is available at Stones River National Battlefield library. 
National Park Service 77

sites at STRI has been nominated to the National 

Register of Historic Places.

Archeological investigations contributed greatly to 

knowledge concerning Fortress Rosecrans, 

particularly Redoubt Brannan, one of its 

component structures. John E. Cornelison Jr. 

documented that a cross-shaped elevation located 

in the center of Redoubt Brannan, thought to be the 

ruins of a blockhouse, is not actually the remains of 

this building. However, he speculated that this 

raised portion of earth may cover the original site of 

the blockhouse and have artifacts related to this 

structure underneath it. The Southeast 

Archeological Center (SEAC) archeology field team 

also determined a probable location for a powder 

magazine within the redoubt and tested the sally 

port (entrance) area of the structure. The team 

excavated a trash pit in the redoubt conclusively 

dated to the 1880s that provided information 

concerning post-Civil War use of the earthwork. 

The investigators expressed surprise at finding few 

artifacts related to Civil War ordnance but 

speculated that this resulted from the army’s 

peaceful and organized abandonment of Fort 

Rosecrans in 1866.6

Archeologists assessed and performed some 

excavations on other portions of Fortress 

Rosecrans. Prior to the construction of a boardwalk 

at Lunette Palmer, researchers conducted field tests 

in order to identify sites that contained artifacts. 

They discovered that erosion had significantly 

altered the area in front of Lunette Palmer, and tests 

did not reveal any period artifacts. In contrast, the 

archeology team located the remains of a substantial 

structure at the back of the lunette that had a brick 

floor and glass windows. Unfortunately, they found 

evidence suggesting that looters had disturbed this 

site in the past. At this location, they also discovered 

many nails and food remnants. They determined 

that a conical structure in the lunette was not a 

powder magazine and hypothesized that the 

magazine may have been built into the double 

traverse in the lunette’s wall.7

 In addition to these 

investigations, archeologists also conducted other 

research such as shovel tests in conjunction with 

planning for constructing portions of the Stones 

River Greenway on park lands.8

The excavation of the Hazen Brigade Monument 

revealed the presence of artifacts placed by the 

monument’s builders in its interior prior to the 

monument being sealed and completely filled.9 This 

investigation also provided valuable information 

concerning the construction details of the 

monument. While repairing the monument, park 

staff members discovered two twelve-pounder 

cannon balls within the monument and requested 

the assistance of a SEAC archeologist at the site. In 

addition to these two items, one six-pounder 

cannon ball, an Archer, a Read, and a Burton 

artillery shell, two rifle barrels, and a cedar staff 

rested on the same level within the monument. John 

W. Walker identified the artillery shells as being of 

Confederate origin and suggested that the other 

items found in this cache were also representative of 

weapons used by Confederates attacking Hazen’s 

brigade during the crucial engagement in the area 

known as the Round Forest, where the monument is 

located. During this series of Confederate artillery 

and infantry assaults, even the trees surrounding the 

Union troops became dangerous projectiles as 

cannon balls and shells tore through them, 

dangerously raining sharp fragments of shattered 

branches upon the troops below.10

In addition to revealing artifacts sealed within the 

monument’s interior, this investigation provided 

information concerning the construction of the 

5. On archeological investigations involving prehistoric sites, see Blee, “An Assessment of the Cultural Resources of Stones 

River National Battlefield and the Proposed Development Impacts on Them,” 4-6; Wild to Chief, “Trip Report on 

Archeological Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the Removal of Line Towers, 9/4-9/6/90),” 

n.p.; Horvath to Chief, “Trip Report for the Stones River Field Survey – SEAC Acc. 1134 – May 23-25, 1994,” 2, 4-5; Bryne, 

“An Archeological Survey of the Visitor Center Addition and Parking Lot Expansion, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Rutherford County, Tennessee,” 5, 8-10.

6. Cornelison, “Report on Archeological Investigations at Redoubt Brannan,” 6-9, 15-38. See also Cornelison, “Report on 

Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt Brannan,” 21, 28.

7. Cornelison, “Report on Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt Brannan,” 27.

8. See particularly Wild to Chief, “Trip Report on Phase I Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the

Construction of a Trail and Parking Lots, 1/28-2/2/98,” n.p.; Russell to Chief, “Trip Report for Archeological Testing at 

Stones River National Battlefield,” 3-4.

9. On the construction and early history of the Hazen Brigade Monument, see Brown, “Marked for Future Generations.”

10. Walker, “Investigation of the Hazen Brigade Monument,” 6-13. The Stones River National Battlefield visitor center 

museum currently has an exhibit on this excavation that contains some of the objects found.
78 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

monument. Archeologist John W. Walker 

discovered that the monument’s builders filled most 

of the interior with small pieces of stone left from 

constructing the monument walls and some soil that 

contained a few artifacts from the battle. Removing 

the contents of the monument’s interior revealed 

that “the base underlying the monument walls was 

found to be a dry-laid limestone block floor, which 

was about 10 inches thick and which extended 

outward from the walls for about 16 inches. Removal 

of one block from this floor indicated that it was 

underlain by a second stone floor.” However, in 

order to avoid the possibility of disturbing the 

foundation of the monument, excavation ceased at 

this point.11

Park managers employed archeological research as a 

means of exploring battle-related structures. This 

included sites such as the remains of houses that 

served as hospitals, other structures such as a toll 

house that once stood next to the Nashville Pike, 

and the Cowan House, a large brick home that 

burned sometime shortly before the battle and 

greatly hindered the Confederate assaults upon 

Hazen’s Brigade in the Round Forest. Perhaps the 

most studied yet still elusive site is the Blanton 

House. The remains of a home thought to have 

served as a field hospital during the Battle of Stones 

River are present on privately owned land. 

However, property owner William Ketron Jr. agreed 

to allow NPS personnel to examine these ruins on 

several occasions. Walker described this site as “the 

remains of a rather large house. They consist of 

stone foundations and the ruins of two brick and 

stone chimneys, each of which contained two backto-back fireplaces.” Although archeologists located 

some artifacts within the house site consistent with a 

Civil War-era date for the structure, they were not 

able definitely to date the remains because the items 

found were of a type that continued to be used into 

the late nineteenth century. Researchers have not 

performed any excavations at this site, although this 

is a recommended course of action for the future. 

Archeologists also speculated that the brick ruins 

may actually be covering the remnants of an earlier 

wood structure that may have been present at the 

time of the battle.12

The toll house site near the intersection of Nashville 

Pike and Van Cleve Lane has been excavated. The 

investigation of this structure revealed evidence of 

chimneys, and archeologists positively determined 

that this was actually the toll house structure. They 

also concluded that it was destroyed during the 

battle by artillery fire.13

The McFadden’s Ford site, scene of the devastating 

Union artillery bombardment of Confederate 

troops, has received some attention during 

archeological investigations. In order to ascertain 

whether farming would have an effect on historic 

resources, archeologists Elizabeth Horvath and 

Christian Russell examined recently disked fields in 

this area for period artifacts, but Horvath 

determined that little material evidence of the Civil 

War remained in the upper levels of soil at this site. 

The widow Holly McFadden and her family lived 

on a farm in the McFadden Ford area at the time of 

the battle, but no conclusive archeological evidence 

has yet revealed the site of the house and 

outbuildings. However, archeologists and other 

researchers identified some post-battle structures in 

this area. For example, Cornelison determined from 

a burnt home’s foundation and nearby artifacts that 

it was built following the battle. In 1999, the Middle 

Tennessee State University Center for Historic 

Preservation completed an investigation on the 

Vaughter House, a home located in the McFadden 

Ford area on property owned by the National Park 

Service. The purpose of this study was to ascertain 

whether the home was present at the time of the 

battle and to assess its eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places. After examining 

documentary and structural evidence, researchers 

11. Walker, “Investigation of the Hazen Brigade Monument,” 6-7, 12-13, quote on 12.

12. Concerning the toll house, see Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National 

Battlefield,” 14-22. For information about the Cowan House site, see particularly Cultural Resources Geographic 

Information Systems Facility, “Survey of Battlefield Features at the Civil War Site of Stones River Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee,” 5-6, 8. On the Blanton House, see Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River 

National Battlefield, Tennessee,” 25-33, quote on 25. Concerning the Blanton House, see also Blee, “An Assessment of the 

Cultural Resources of Stones River National Battlefield and the Proposed Development Impacts on Them,” 15; Wild to 

Chief, “Trip Report on Phase I Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the Construction of a Trail 

and Parking Lots, 1/28-2/2/91,” n.p.; Cornelison, “Report on Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt 

Brannan, Parts of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, SEAC 

Assessions 993 and 1021,” 25, 28.

13. Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, “Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, 14-22.
National Park Service 79

concluded that the house was constructed following 

the battle and that it failed to meet the National 

Register’s criteria for inclusion.14

The exact location of the Cowan House is presently 

unknown, although archeologists speculated that its 

remains lie near the Thompson Lane bridge on 

property now owned by the New Vision Baptist 

Church. Researchers have been unable to locate the 

remains of a block house, which documentary 

evidence suggested once stood next to the railroad 

in the area now encompassed by the national 

cemetery. No conclusive evidence has been found 

concerning several log structures described in 

soldiers’ reports of the battle that were thought to 

exist in what is now the main park area near the 

Nashville Pike.15

Archeologists conducted some field tests in the 

main park area near the visitor center in conjunction 

with proposals for expanding the parking lot, 

altering the picnic area, and prior to the removal of 

large metal electric transmission line towers. These 

surveys indicated that the ground in this area of the 

park had been previously disturbed, and the surface 

layers of soil were largely devoid of Civil War 

artifacts.16

Museum Collection

The museum collection at STRI consists of about 

two dozen historic cannon tubes, mostly on 

reproduction carriages; personal weapons; 

accoutrements; flags; and personal items from the 

Civil War period and after; archeological artifacts 

recovered from park property; and archival items.17

The park’s 1999 Collection Management Report 

identified 83,259 museum objects in the collection, 

some 71,000 of which were not cataloged at that 

time. Approximately 77,000 of the objects are part 

of the archival collection, and approximately 5,000 

are artifacts recovered during archeological 

projects. 

With the exception of 5,000 archeological artifacts 

housed at the Southeast Archeological Center in 

Tallahassee, Florida, and some natural history 

objects are on loan to and stored at the University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville, and Middle Tennessee State 

University, Murfreesboro, the remainder of the 

park’s collections are on-site. Most of the objects 

are stored in the curatorial storage room in the 

basement of the Visitor Center. The park’s museum 

exhibits were originally installed when the Mission 

66 Visitor Center was opened in 1966. Site-specific 

objects have been added to the museum display 

since then. Among the highlights of the objects on 

display are four cannon tubes that were present at 

the battle in 1862-1863; the regimental flag of an 

Arkansas unit; muskets and small arms, and 

uniforms. 

The park’s museum planning documents include: a 

Scope of Collections Statement (1983, with a 1992 

addendum); a Housekeeping Plan (1999); an 

Integrated Pest Management Program Plan (in draft 

as of December 2001); an Access and Use Policy for 

the park’s library (1997); an Archives and Records 

Management Plan (2001); a Museum Fire and 

14. Horvath, “Trip Report for the Stones River Field Survey – SEAC Acc. 1134 – May 23-25, 1994,” 1-6; Cornelison, “Report on 

Archeological Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt Brannan, Part of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in Stones River 

National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, SEAC Accessions 993 and 1021,” 21, 25, 28; James K. Huhta, Carroll Van 

West, Edward A. Johnson, Michael Strutt, Abbey Christman, and Anne-Leslie Owens, “The Vaughter House: Recordation 

Drawings, Photography, and Architectural Description; Review of Historic Documentation; Invasive Investigation and 

Analysis; and Eligibility Determination,” (Murfreesboro: Center for Historic Preservation, Middle Tennessee State 

University, January, 1999).

15. On the Cowan House see Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems Facility, “Survey of Battlefield Features at 

the Civil War Site of Stones River, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” 5-6, 8. On the blockhouse, see Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, 

“Archeological Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee,” 13-14; concerning log structures that 

possibly existed in the main park area at the time of the battle, see Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, “Archeological 

Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee,” 22-24.

16. For information about archeological surveys conducted in the main park area see especially Blee, “An Assessment of the 

Cultural Resources of Stones River National Battlefield and the Proposed Development Impacts on Them,” 21-25; Wild to 

Chief, “Trip Report on Archeological Investigations Conducted at Stones River National Battlefield for the Removal of Line 

Towers, 9/4-9/6/90,” n.p.; Russell to Chief, “Trip Report for Archeological Testing at Stones River National Battlefield (SEAC 

1351),” 2-3.

17. Summary information on STRI’s museum collections was derived from a draft Museum Collection Management Plan dated 

October 31, 2001, and Sara L. Van Beck, “Stones River National Battlefield: Archives and Record Management Action Plan” 

(Atlanta: National Park Service, 2001).
80 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Security Survey Report (1997); and a Museum 

Emergency Operations Plan (in draft as of 

December 2001).

When National Register of Historic Places 

additional documentation is prepared for Stones 

River National Battlefield based on the finding of 

this study, the park’s museum collections should be 

included as objects contributing to the significance 

of the National Register district.
National Park Service 81

Chapter Six: Management 

Recommendations

The Southeast Regional Office Cultural Resources 

Stewardship Division offers the following 

management recommendations to help resource 

managers identify areas for further research, expand 

existing interpretive programs, and maintain 

records related to historic cultural resources at 

Stones River National Battlefield (STRI). These 

management recommendations are a direct result of 

the program to update the List of Classified 

Structures (LCS) and to initiate the Cultural 

Landscape Inventory–Level I (CLI–Level I). 

Included are some preliminary recommendations 

for the management and treatment of cultural 

resources that may require additional funding and 

that the park should incorporate into its Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). Projects to accomplish 

the recommendations should also be entered in the 

Project Management Information System, if they are 

not already represented there.

The park’s significant resources fall into two 

categories: those directly associated with the Civil 

War period and those associated with the 

commemoration and subsequent development of 

Stones River as a national military park. The 

resources related to the battle include the historic 

district encompassing the battlefield and Fortress 

Rosecrans, the roads present at the time of the 

battle, extant earthworks, the railroad, archeological 

sites, cannon tubes, and some items carried by 

soldiers in the battle. All retain aspects of integrity 

that contribute to the national significance of the 

park as a whole. The maintenance and preservation 

of these resources should be the park’s top cultural 

resource management priorities.

Vegetation

Further research into and evaluation of the 

vegetation at STRI are needed to understand the 

potential historical significance of this resource in 

the context of the battle action and as it defines the 

historic setting. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) 

is the primary landscape treatment document and 

could be the vehicle by which vegetation 

management alternatives for restoring the historic 

setting are explored. Capts. Francis Mohrhardt and 

N. Michler, topographical engineers on Brig. Gen. 

Phillip Sheridan’s and Gen. William S. Rosecrans’s 

staff, respectively, drew maps of the battlefield that 

are the most complete graphical representations of 

the battlefield during the period of significance.1

 An 

in-depth analysis of historic vegetation patterns 

would require study of Mohrhardt’s and Michler’s 

1863 maps, and overlaying the various Historical 

Base Maps (1952, 1963, and 1976) with the Landers 

troop movement map (1928).2

 Combined with 

baseline data on the existing park vegetation that 

was captured in the park’s CLI–Level I, this might 

provide a framework by which a Scope of Work for 

the CLR could be created. Additional biotic 

1. “Topographical Sketch of the Battle Field of Stone [sic] River by Capt. Francis Mohrhardt, Top. Eng. Of Gen. Sheridan’s Div. 

(Washington: National Archives, RG 77: Z 338-1); “Topographical Sketch of the Battle Field of Stones River near 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, December 30, 1862 to January 3d, 1863. Major General W. S. Rosecrans Commanding the Forces 

of the United States, General Braxton Bragg Commanding the Forces of the Enemy. Sheet No. II. Position of the U.S. 

Troops on the 31st of December 1862, Surveyed under the Direction of Capt. N. Michler, Corps of Topographical Engrs., 

U.S.A., by Major J. E. Weyss.” (Washington: National Archives, RG 77: T 28-4).

2. National Park Service, “Historical Base Map, Part of the Master Plan,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-2003 (Richmond, VA: 

Division of Planning & Construction, 1952); National Park Service, “Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan, Part of the 

Master Plan,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-3011 (Richmond, VA: Eastern Division of Design and Construction, 1962); National 

Park Service, “Historic Conditions,” NPS map Number 327-20,031 (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1976); “Stones River 

National Park Commission Maps Nos. 1 to 10 Incl. to Accompany Report of Commission,” Stones River National Park 

Commission (July 17, 1928) on file at Stones River National Battlefield.
82 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

research should be conducted in order to evaluate 

whether extant vegetation could yield information 

on historical agricultural field patterns. This process 

should consider the management of earthworks at 

Fortress Rosecrans and the role vegetation plays in 

their current preservation and interpretation.

Cultural Resources

Protection of historic resources within the park’s 

boundaries is, of course, an important management 

consideration. Park management is well aware of 

this responsibility and has adopted a proactive 

stance toward resource conservation. Because of 

the fragility of historic resources, it is recommended 

that the park maintain this level of awareness. 

Located in a rapidly urbanizing area, the park’s 

historic resources, particularly the viewsheds, are 

threatened by existing and proposed adjacent 

development. The park has opposed nearby 

development that is incompatible with the historic 

rural character of the battlefield. Although not 

always successful in protecting the park’s viewsheds, 

park management has made a commendable effort 

that should continue.

Many historic properties not owned by the park are 

also threatened by urban expansion, and decisions 

affecting their preservation or alteration will 

significantly influence the park’s historic resources. 

Structures that date to the time of the battle, 

including houses, earthworks, roads, and railroads, 

have significant value in helping us comprehend and 

interpret the course of the battle. Even properties 

that are not visible from the park, such as the Hord 

House, the Widow Burris House, and Asbury Road, 

are historic resources that increase our 

understanding of the battle and the area where it 

took place. The destruction or compromise of these 

resources negatively influences the park by reducing 

the historic fabric of the whole battlefield, of which 

the park is the major part. Incompatible 

development, such as high-density commercial or 

residential construction, could jeopardize these 

structures and indirectly undermine the park’s 

integrity by compromising vistas that are key to the 

interpretation of the battle’s noteworthy events. 

Similarly, widening of historic roads or constructing 

new roads could introduce heavy and unsafe traffic 

within the park’s boundary. These developments 

can affect historic properties directly, but they also 

create noise, light, air, and water pollution that 

would be detrimental to the park visitor’s 

experience and hazardous to the environment. In 

light of these considerations the park has recently 

pursued alternatives to development within and 

adjacent to its boundaries, in cooperation with state, 

local, and private interests and the Tennessee 

Historical Commission. The park should continue 

these efforts and may want to initiate National 

Register nominations for adjacent historic 

properties, also in cooperation with local or state 

preservation groups.

Old Nashville Highway marks the northern 

boundary of the battlefield, separating it from 

Stones River National Cemetery. Manson Pike is 

currently the battlefield’s southern boundary. Both 

played a crucial role in the course of the battle but 

neither is owned or maintained by the park. Old 

Nashville Highway is maintained by Tennessee 

Department of Transportation, while Rutherford 

County is responsible for Manson Pike. Because 

these thoroughfares are crucial to telling the story of 

the battle, the park should adopt a proactive stance 

toward their preservation and be vigilant about 

state, county, or city plans to widen or change their 

alignment. Van Cleve Lane north of U.S. Highway 

41, another historic road maintained by the county, 

borders the park near McFadden’s Ford. The park 

should attempt to curb any proposed change in the 

width or alignment of this historic lane. The 

battlefield’s core area is bounded on the eastern side 

by a new road, the Thompson Lane Connector. This 

intrusive causeway has had a detrimental impact on 

the park’s off-site views and contributes to 

developmental pressures on the park’s fringe. Park 

managers should monitor new roads and use their 

influence to deflect construction away from historic 

property. It is unlikely that CSX, the current 

operator of the railroad, will add new trackage or 

attempt to change the alignment of the existing 

tracks near the park, but a commuter rail has been 

proposed. The park should watch for any change.

The earthworks on adjacent properties are of 

particular value to the park. The first of these, the 

Chicago Board of Trade Battery earthworks, is on 

private property adjacent to the park’s core area. 

Located in a heavily wooded area, they are unlikely 

to suffer from erosion; however, the potential for 

vandalism of this site is high. Because these 

earthworks are on private land, there is always a 

possibility that they could be compromised or 

destroyed by development.
National Park Service 83

The remains of Curtain Wall No. 1 are adjacent to 

Lunette Thomas and owned by the City of 

Murfreesboro. The park should provide vigorous 

input throughout the golf course plan review 

process to create a design that is compatible with the 

resources and to lessen the impact of the course’s 

construction on park property. The park should 

study the feasibility of acquiring the remnants of 

Curtain Wall No. 1, and acquire the tract if practical. 

Curtain Wall No. 1 is one of the last remaining intact 

portions of Fortress Rosecrans not in federal hands, 

and its acquisition and interpretation would greatly 

increase visitor appreciation of the site.

One fragment of Fortress Rosecrans, a portion of 

Lunette Negley, is privately owned. Located south 

of Manson Pike, less than half a mile from Redoubt 

Brannan and Lunette Palmer, its isolation from the 

other remains of the fort gives it no association with 

its surrounding landscape. Issues of current setting 

aside, it should be stressed that Lunette Negley was 

one of Fortress Rosecrans’s six perimeter strong 

points, and this remnant contributes to the 

appreciation of the fort’s size because it marks the 

perimeter. The park should study the feasibility of 

acquiring this earthwork fragment. If acquisition is 

not feasible, the park should explore the possibility 

of a preservation easement with the earthworks’ 

owner to ensure its protection.

The park’s authorized boundary was expanded in 

1987 (Public Law 100-205) and in 1991 (Public Law 

102-225). At this writing, several parcels of land are 

under consideration for acquisition by the park. 

Prior to the acquisition of new lands, the park must 

assess the property to determine whether hazardous 

materials are present. A Special History Study (SHS) 

of these areas should also be considered. This 

document could help the park determine the 

historical association of the property and further 

illustrate identified historic contexts. Depending on 

its scope, the SHS could contribute to assembling a 

land ownership history and possibly identify 

previously unknown sources.

No systematic archeological surveys have been 

conducted that conform to current NPS28 

standards. The NPS has completed a General 

Management Plan that proposes a preferred 

alternative. Archeological surveys should be 

completed. It is recommended that the park survey 

the battlefield in accordance with the regional 

archeological survey program plan and Director’s 

Order No. 28. The survey should attempt to locate 

prehistoric as well as historic archeological sites 

within the survey area. It is recommended that a 

team from the Southeast Archeological Center 

complete the work or oversee contracted 

archeologists hired by the park. The technical 

report should comply with NPS requirements and 

any standards established by the Tennessee state 

historic preservation office. Additional 

archeological surveys should be done on any land 

acquisitions.

The park has contemplated the restoration of Van 

Cleve Lane to a battle-era look upon the transfer of 

title to the surrounding property. Another option 

that has been considered is incorporating Van Cleve 

Lane into the park tour road. If Van Cleve Lane is to 

be restored, a period of significance for the resource 

will have to be determined.

It is recommended that the park compile complete 

information on all existing structures on its 

property. The resulting compilation should then be 

used to create building files or cultural resource files 

for these structures. The information collected 

should include the age, condition, alterations, and 

recommended treatment for each structure. The 

region’s List of Classified Structures team has 

already captured much of this information; 

however, information about non-historic structures 

should be also be collected. Accurate information 

about structural and cosmetic changes to the park’s 

more recent buildings will assist future cultural 

resource management decisions if these structures 

are determined to be significant because of their 

association with events such as the NPS Mission 66 

program.

Interpretation

Traditionally, park interpretation has focused on the 

events of the Battle of Stones River, the decisions of 

the opposing commanders, and the subsequent 

Federal occupation of Murfreesboro. The park has 

also interpreted the camp life of Union and 

Confederate forces with living history exhibits. 

Opportunities exist to broaden the interpretation of 

the context of the battle’s events. Topics for 

consideration include the effects of the battle and its 

aftermath on the political climate and home front 

morale, as well as the war’s effect on the region, 

including the displacement of local residents and 
84 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

the disruption of agricultural production as 

Murfreesboro was captured, abandoned, and 

recaptured by Union forces.

After the Civil War, the Stones River battlefield 

returned to agricultural production. The changing 

patterns of postwar land ownership have not been 

documented fully here, but it is apparent that a 

number of African-Americans settled along Van 

Cleve Lane and elsewhere on the battlefield. 

Additional research should be undertaken to further 

the park’s knowledge of the evolution of Stones 

River National Battlefield in the postwar period. 

Additional archival research is needed to illuminate 

the Stones River Battlefield Association’s role in 

spearheading the effort to create a park. The park 

also could explore a variety of other Reconstruction 

history topics, such as sharecropping, Gilded Age 

industrial development, and veterans’ 

commemorations, to increase the visitor’s 

appreciation of the impact the Civil War had on the 

development of the United States.

Archive and Manuscript Collection

The park has a small archive and manuscript 

collection that includes irreplaceable documents 

from the battle and occupation eras, as well as 

valuable graphic and photographic park 

development-era sources. Recent work to process 

and arrange the archives and manuscript collection 

has proven valuable for this report and others. The 

NPS should make every effort to continue 

processing and cataloging, provide appropriate 

storage facilities, properly curate, conserve as 

needed, and protect this valuable collection while 

making it more accessible to future researchers. To 

this end an archival survey would be beneficial to 

the park to define the scope of the its collection. 

Concurrently, the creation of a finding aid to help 

researchers identify and locate material would be 

very useful. The archival survey would also identify 

data gaps in the park’s archives that could be 

bridged by acquiring microfilm copies of old 

newspapers, records from the National Archives, 

and copies of primary source material from 

libraries, academic institutions, historical societies, 

and private collectors. To further increase the 

collection’s research value, rare and fragile original 

documents should be transcribed to prevent their 

degradation from handling and conserved by a 

professional paper conservator. Similarly, the park’s 

graphic and photographic collections should be 

digitized for research access to reduce wear and tear 

on the originals.
National Park Service 85

Bibliography

Abdill, George B. Civil War Railroads. New York: Bonanza 

Books, 1961.

Allaback, Sarah. Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of 

a Building Type. Washington, D.C.: National Park 

Service, 2000.

Annabel Jr., Edward C. “A History of The Roads of 

Rutherford County, Tennessee, 1804-1878: Historic 

Road Research and its Application for Historic 

Resource Surveys and Local History.” M.A. Thesis, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 1982.

Ash, Stephen V. Middle Tennessee Society Transformed, 

1860-1870: War and Peace in the Upper South. Baton 

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988.

__________. When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in 

the Occupied South, 1861-1865. Chapel Hill: University 

of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Austin, Richard L., et al., eds. The Yearbook of Landscape 

Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 

Company, 1983.

Barrett, Edwin P. Monthly Report of Superintendent, 

Stones River National Cemetery to the 

Quartermaster General, May, 1898, on file at Stones 

River National Battlefield.

Bearss, Edwin C. Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan, 

Part of the Master Plan. Washington: National Park 

Service, 1961, NPS Map Number 327-3011.

__________. The History of Fortress Rosecrans.

Washington: National Park Service, 1960.

Beers, D. G. & Co., compiler. “Map of Rutherford County, 

Tennessee” In New and Actual Surveys. Philadelphia: 

E. Bourgan, 1878. 

Bennett, L. G., and William M. Haigh. History of the 

Thirty-Sixth Regiment, Illinois Volunteers, during the 

War of the Rebellion. Aurora, Ill.: Knickerbocker & 

Hodder, 1876.

Bickham, William. Rosecrans’ Campaign with the 

Fourteenth Army Corps, or the Army of the 

Cumberland: A Narrative of Personal 

Observations...with Official Reports of the Battle of 

Stone River. Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstach, Keys & Co., 

1863.

Black, Robert C. The Railroads of the Confederacy. Chapel 

Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1952.

Blee, Catherine H. “An Assessment of the Cultural 

Resources of Stones River National Battlefield and 

the Proposed Development Impacts on Them.” 

Denver: Denver Service Center, Historic 

Preservation Division, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, 1976.

Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in 

American Memory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press, 2001.

Brown, Daniel A. Marked for Future Generations: The 

Hazen Brigade Monument 1863-1929. Murfreesboro, 

Tenn.: National Park Service, 1985.

Brown, Lenard. “Fortress Rosecrans: A History, 1865-

1990.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 135-41.

Bryne, Stephen P. “An Archeological Survey of the Visitor 

Center Addition and Parking Lot Expansion, Stones 

River National Battlefield, Rutherford County, 

Tennessee.” Tallahassee: National Park Service, 1990,

Buck, Paul. The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900. Boston: Little, 

Brown, 1937.

Carey, Bill. “Murfreesboro Battle of ’95.” Atlanta JournalConstitution, June 21, 1995.

Catton, Bruce. American Heritage Picture History of the 

Civil War. New York: American Heritage, 1960.

Confederate Veteran.

Coleman, Ellen Snell. “The Harding House.” Rutherford 

County Historical Society Publication No. 23 (Summer 

1984).

Connelly, Thomas L. Army of the Heartland: The Army of 

Tennessee, 1861-1862. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 

University Press, 1967.

__________. Autumn of Glory: The Army of Tennessee, 1862-

1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 

1971.

Cornelison Jr., John E. “Report on Archeological 

Investigations of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt 

Brannan, Parts of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in 

Stones River National Battlefield, Mufreesboro, 

Tennessee, SEAC Accessions 993 and 1021.” 

Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, 1992.

Cowles, Calvin C., compiler. Atlas to Accompany the 

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.

Washington: Government Printing Office 1891-1895.
86 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Cozzens, Peter. No Better Place To Die, The Battle of Stones 

River. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1991.

Davies, Wallace E. Patriotism on Parade: the Story of 

Veterans’ and Hereditary Organizations in America, 

1783-1900. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University 

Press, 1955.

Davis, William C. The Orphan Brigade: the Kentucky 

Confederates who couldn't go home. Garden City, 

N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980.

Earnshaw, William. Report to Brevet Major General J.L. 

Donaldson, Chief Quartermaster of the Department 

of Tennessee, October 5, 1866, 229.

Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative. 3 vols. New 

York: Vintage Press, 1986.

Foster, Gaines M. Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the 

Lost Cause, and the Emergence of the New South, 1865 

to 1913. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Fraley, Miranda L. “Industry, War, and Memory: An 

Exploratory Essay.” Practicum paper, University of 

Indiana, 1998.

Glassie, Henry. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A 

Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts. Knoxville: 

University of Tennessee Press, 1975.

Goodrum, Janet H. “A Profile of Black Landownership in 

Rutherford County During Reconstruction.” Honors 

Paper, Middle Tennessee State University, 1989.

The Goodspeed Histories of Maury, Williamson, 

Rutherford, Wilson, Bedford & Marshall Counties of 

Tennessee. 1886. Reprint, Columbia, Tenn.: 

Woodward & Stinson, 1971.

“The Gresham House.”Rutherford County Historical 

Society Publication No. 19.

Grimsley, Mark. The Hard Hand of War: Union Military 

Policy toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865. 

Cambridge, England: Cambrige University Press, 

1995.

Grosvenor, C.H. Letter to Secretary of War, June 7, 1912, 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 

Park archives, Folder 111, Box 7, Accession 205.

Hankins, Caneta Skelly, and Carroll Van West. 

Hearthstones: The Story of Rutherford County Homes.

3d ed. Murfreesboro: Oaklands Association, 1993.

Hess, Earl J. Banners to the Breeze: The Kentucky 

Campaign, Corinth, and Stones River. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 2000.

Horn, Stanley F. The Army of Tennessee: A Military 

History. Norman, Oklahoma: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1955.

Hughes, Mary B. Hearthstones: The Story of Historic 

Rutherford County Homes. 2d ed. Murfreesboro: 

Mid-South, 1960.

Huhta, James K., Carroll Van West, Edward A. Johnson, 

Michael Strutt, Abbey Christman, and Anne-Leslie 

Owens. “The Vaughter House: Recordation 

Drawings, Photography, and Architectural 

Description; Review of Historic Documentation; 

Invasive Investigation and Analysis; and Eligibility 

Determination.” Murfreesboro: Center for Historic 

Preservation, Middle Tennessee State University, 

1999.

Interagency Resources Division, Cultural Resources 

Geographic Information Systems Facility. “Survey of 

Battlefield Features at the Civil War Site of Stones 

River, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” Open File Report 

#1 (Winter 1993).

Johns Sr., Thomas N. “The Nashville and Chattanooga 

Railroad Through Rutherford County 1845-1872.” In 

Rutherford County Historical Society Publication No. 

5. Murfreesboro, Tenn., June 1975.

Jones, James H. SC 889, James H. Jones Papers, Indiana 

Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Kelly, Dennis. Kennesaw Mountain and the Atlanta 

Campaign. Atlanta: Susan Hunter Publishing, 1990.

Kniffen, Fred. “Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion.” Annals of 

the Association of American Geographers 55/4 

(December 1965): 549-77.

Lee, Ronald F. The Origin and Evolution of the National 

Military Park Idea. Washington, D.C.: National Park 

Service, Office of Park Historic Preservation, 1973.

Mackintosh, Barry. The National Parks: Shaping the 

System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1991.

“Map of Rutherford County, Tennessee from New and 

Actual Surveys.” N.p.: D. G. Beers & Co., 1878.

Mayo, James M. War Memorials as Political Landscape.

New York: Preager Publishers, 1988.

McConnell, Stuart. Glorious Contentment: The Grand 

Army of the Republic, 1865-1900. Chapel Hill, N.C.: 

University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

McDonough, James Lee. Stones River—Bloody Winter in 

Tennessee (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 

1980.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil 

War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

McWhiney, Grady, and Perry D. Jamieson. Attack and Die: 

Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage. 

Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1982.

Morison, Samuel E. The Oxford History of the American 

People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Morris, Brian, “Cultural Landscape Inventory of Stones 

River National Battlefield.” Atlanta: National Park 

Service, 1994.
National Park Service 87

Morris, Richard B., ed. Encyclopedia of American History.

New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

Murfreesboro Daily News Journal

Murfreesboro Monitor, December 7, 1867 and June 18, 1874.

Nashville Banner, January 28, 1882.

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway. “Southern 

battlefields:” a list of battlefields on and near the lines of 

the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway and 

Western & Atlantic Railway, and a brief description of 

the more important battles fought along these lines, also 

information about Lookout Mountain, Chickamauga 

Park and the famous engine “General.” Nashville: 

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 1890.

__________. Battlefields in Dixie land, and Chickamauga 

National Military Park, with description of the 

important battles fought along these lines and the story 

of the engine “General.” Nashville: Nashville, 

Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 1917.

__________. Introducing You to Dixie. Chicago: Poole Bros. 

Inc., 1928.

National Park Service. “Battle Map.” NPS map Number 

327-20,032. Denver: Denver Service Center, 1976.

__________. “Battle Map.” NPS map Number 327-20,032A. 

Denver: Denver Service Center, 1978.

__________. Final General Management Plan/Development 

Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Atlanta: National Park Service, 1998.

__________. “Historic Conditions.” NPS map Number 

327-20,031 Denver: Denver Service Center, 1976.

__________. “Historic Conditions.” NPS map Number 

327-20,031. Denver: Denver Service Center, 1976.

__________. “Historic Conditions.” NPS map Number 

327-20,031A. Denver: Denver Service Center, 1978.

__________. “Historical Base Map, Part of the Master 

Plan,” NPS map Number NMP-SR-2003 (Richmond, 

VA: Division of Planning & Construction, 1952).

__________. “Historical Base Map, Part of the Master 

Plan.” NPS map Number NMP-SR-2003. Richmond, 

Virg.: Division of Planning & Construction, 1952.

__________. “Historical Base Map.” NPS map Number 

NMP-SR-3005. Richmond, Virg.: Eastern Division of 

Design and Construction, 1960.

__________. “Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan, 

Part of the Master Plan,” NPS map Number NMPSR-3011. Richmond, Virg.: Eastern Division of Design 

and Construction, 1962.

__________. “Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan, 

Part of the Master Plan.” NPS map Number NMPSR-3011. Richmond, Virg.: Eastern Division of Design 

and Construction, 1962.

__________. “Troop Movement Map, 1862-63.” NPS map 

Number NMP-SR-3003. Richmond, Virg.: Eastern 

Division of Design and Construction, 1959)

__________. “Troop Movement Map, 1862-63.” NPS map 

Number NMP-SR-3006. Richmond, Virg.: Eastern 

Division of Design and Construction, 1960.

National Register Bulletin 16A: Guidelines for Completing 

National Register of Historic Places Forms.

Washington: National Park Service, 1991.

National Register Bulletin 40: Guidelines for Identifying, 

Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic 

Battlefields. Washington: National Park Service, 1992.

“Observance of Memorial Day: Exercises Will Be Held as 

Usual at Nashville and Murfreesboro Cemeteries.” 

The Nashville American, May 30, 1907.

The Official Atlas of the Civil War. New York: Thomas 

Yoseloff, 1958.

Oubre, Claude F. Forty Acres and a Mule. Baton Rouge, 

Louis.: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.

Paige, John C., and Jerome A. Greene. Administrative 

History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 

Military Park. Denver: National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center, 1983.

Pirtle, Mike, ed. A Pictorial History of Rutherford County, 

Tennessee: A Tennessee Bicentennial Edition. 

Marceline, Mo.: Heritage House, 1995.

Pittard, Mabel. Rutherford County. Memphis: Memphis 

State University Press, 1984.

Randolph, Richard B. Superintendent’s Narrative Report 

,Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 

Park, March, 1935, CHCH park archives.

Record Group 145. Records of the Agricultural 

Stabilization and Conservation Service, Can #2281, 

AEY-8-69. National Archives and Records 

Administration, Cartographic and Architectural 

Branch, College Park, Maryland.

Record Group 77. National Archives and Records 

Administration. Topographical sketches of 

Murfreesboro and vicinity, battle field of Stones 

River.

Roth, Dave. “The General’s Tour: The Battle of Stones 

River.” The Battle of Stones River. Columbus, Ohio: 

Blue & Grey Magazine, 1993.

Rutherford County Court Minute Books. Rutherford 

County Archives, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-

1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957.

__________, Arthur M. The Coming of the New Deal.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959.
88 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Smith, Samuel D., Fred M. Prouty, and Benjamin C. 

Nance. A Survey of Civil War Period Military Sites in 

Middle Tennessee. Tennessee Department of 

Conservation, Division of Archeology, Report 

Investigations No. 7. Nashville: Tennessee Printing 

Division, 1990.

Sparks, Jesse W. “Stones River Battlefield and Park 

Association.” Confederate Veteran 5:1 (1897).

__________. “The Stone’s River Battle-Field.” Confederate 

Veteran 4:2 (1898).

Spearman, Charles M. TheBattle of Stones River. 

Columbus, Ohio: Blue & Gray Enterprises Inc., 1993.

Spence, John C. A Diary of the Civil War. Murfreesboro, 

Tenn.: Rutherford County Historical Society, 1993.

__________. Annals of Rutherford County. 2 vols.

Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Rutherford County Historical 

Society, 1991.

State of Tennessee, 1807 Acts of Tennessee, Chapter Eight: 

“An act declaring what fences shall be deemed 

sufficient, and for other purposes.” 

Stevenson, Alexander F. The Battle of Stone’s Rivernear 

Murfreesboro’, Tenn., December 30, 1862, to January3, 

1863. 1884. Reprint, Dayton: Morningside, 1983.

“Stones River National Park Commission Maps Nos. 1 to 

10 Incl. to Accompany Report of Commission.” 

Stones River National Park Commission (July 17, 

1928). On file at Stones River National Battlefield. 

Tolbert, Lisa C. Constructing Townscapes: Space and 

Society in Antebellum Tennessee. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Union Provost Marshals’ File of Papers Relating to 

Civilians. National Archives Microfilm Publications. 

Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville.

United States Bureau of Census. Agriculture of the United 

States in 1860: Compiled from the Original Returns of 

the Eight Census. Washington: Government Printing 

Office, 1864.

__________. Population of the United States in 1860: 

Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eight 

Census. Washington: Government Printing Office, 

1864.

Unrau, Harlan D., and G. Frank Williss. Administrative 

History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 

1930s. Denver: National Park Service, 1983.

Van Horne, Thomas B. History of the Army of the 

Cumberland, Its Organization, Campaigns, and 

Battles. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1875.

Van West, Carroll. Letter to Maureen Carroll, National 

Park Service, Southeast Regional Office. 

Memorandum dated June 10, 1994. On file, Park Files, 

Cultural Resources Stewardship, Southeast Regional 

Office, Atlanta, Georgia.

Van West, Carroll, et al., “The Vaughter House: 

Recordation Drawings, Photography, and 

Architectural Description; Review of Historic 

Documentation” Invasive Investigation and Analysis; 

and Eligibility Determination. Murfreesboro, Tenn.: 

Middle Tennessee State University, 1999.

Walker, John W. “Investigation of the Hazen Brigade 

Monument, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Tennessee.” Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, 1989.

Walker, John W., J. Donald Merritt, and Steven J. Shepard. 

“Archeological Investigations at Stones River 

National Battlefield, Tennessee.” Tallahassee: 

Southeast Archeological Center, National Park 

Service, 1990.

War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records 

of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. 

XX, pt. I. Washington: Government Printing Office, 

1887.

Willett, Ann W. “A History of Stones River National 

Military Park.” M.A. Thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

College, 1958.

Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman, 

Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.
National Park Service 89

Appendix:

Historical Base Maps
90 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 91 Historical Base Map - Location Map Fortress Rosecrans Stones River National Battlefield = contributing resource 0 800 1600 2400ft note: scale is approximate

Main Park AreaMap Four

National CemeteryMap Three

Rosecrans's Headquarters SiteMap One

Bragg's Headquarters SiteMap Six

Hazen MemorialMap Five

Artillery MemorialMap Two

Lunette PalmerCurtain Wall No. 2

Lunette Thomas

Redoubt Brannan

Lytle Creek

Stones River

CSX Railroad
92 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Historical Base Map - Map One

Rosecrans's Headquarters Site

Stones River National Battlefield

= contributing resource

note: scale is approximate

0 10 20 30ft

Old Nashville Pike

Rosecrans's Headquarters Marker

Concrete Walk

Wire Fence

Hedge
National Park Service 93

Historical Base Map - Map Two

Artillery Monument

Stones River National Battlefield

= contributing resource

note: scale is approximate

0 500 1000ft

Artillery

Monument 

McFadden Cemetery McFadden Ford

Van Cleve Lane
94 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study Stones River National Battlefield National Cemetery Historical Base Map - Map Three = contributing resource note: scale is approximate 0 100 200 400ft

Utility and Residential Area

Nashville & Chattanooga (CSX) Railroad

MarkersStanding Cannon

PyramidCannonball

Flagstaff

180th Ohio Marker43rd Wisconsin &

MonumentU.S. Regulars

Dead MarkersBivouac of the

Cemetery Wall

Cemetery Markers
National Park Service 95

Historical Base Map - Map Four

Main Park Area

Stones River National Battlefield

= contributing resource

note: scale is approximate

0 25 50 100ft

Main

Entrance

Gates

National Cemetery

Core Battlefield Tract

Manson Pike

Tour Road

Va

n

Vleve Lane

Hickens Lane

Old Nashville Highway

Louisville & Nashville (CSX) RR

Visitor

Center
96 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

Historical Base Map - Map Five

Hazen Brigade Monument

Stones River National Battlefield

= contributing resource

note: scale is approximate

0 25 50 100ft

Wire Fence

Concrete Walk

Old Nashville Pike

Wood Fence

Nashville & Chattanooga (CSX) Railroad

Hazen Brigade Monument

Hazen Brigade Cemetery Markers

Stone Wall
National Park Service 97

Historical Base Map - Map Six

General Bragg's Headquarters Site

Stones River National Battlefield

= contributing resource

note: scale is approximate

0 20 40 60ft

County Road

Bragg's Headquarters Marker

Wire Fence

Fencerow

Concrete Walk
98 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study
National Park Service 99

Index

Numerics

14th Army Corps (Union) 7, 13, 23, 29

1860 national election 7

1862 Congressional elections 13

1863 state elections 16

1864 national election 19

43rd Wisconsin/180th Ohio Marker 73

A

Anaconda Plan 9

Antietam Battlefield 62

Antietam, Battle of 12

Appomattox Courthouse, VA 20

Army of Mississippi (Confederate) 12

Army of Northern Virginia (Confederate) 11, 14, 20

Army of Tennessee (Confederate) 7, 12–14, 17–24, 34, 35, 39, 40, 66

Army of the Cumberland (Union) 7, 15, 18, 23, 34, 35, 38, 59

Army of the Ohio (Union) 18

Army of the Potomac (Union) 11, 13–19

Army of the Tennessee (Union) 16, 18

Artillery Monument 3, 65, 67, 74

Asbury Lane 32, 47

Atlanta Campaign 18–20, 40

B

Banks, Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. 15, 18

Battery Cruft 36, 37

Battery Mitchell 36, 37

Bearss, Ed 5, 56, 71

Beatty, Col. Samuel 33

Beauregard, P. G. T. 11, 18

Big Black River, MS 15

Bivouac of the Dead tablets 74

Blanton House 49, 56

Blockhouse No. 7 39

Bowen Lane 27, 41, 44

Bragg, Gen. Braxton 12–16, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29–35, 45, 60

Brown, Joseph - GA governor 17

Buckner, Simon B. 11, 16

Buell, Maj. Gen. Don Carlos 11, 12, 13, 23

Burnside, Gen. Ambrose E. 13, 16

Burris House 32, 47–48, 56

Butler, Maj. Gen. Benjamin 18

C

Calhoun, John C. 41

Cannonball pyramid 73, 74

Cedar brakes 2, 25

Cedars, Battle of the 39, 40, 41

Central of Georgia Railroad 28

Champion’s Hill, MS 15

Chancellorsville, VA 14

Charleston & Savannah Railroad 28

Chattanooga, TN 15, 16, 27, 35

Cheatham, Maj. Gen. Benjamin F. 32, 46, 52

Chicago Board of Trade Battery 32, 34, 45, 82

Chickamauga Battlefield 55, 57, 62, 65

Chickamauga, GA 8, 16, 34

Chickasaw Bayou, MS 13

Civilian Conservation Corps 69

Cleburne, Maj. Gen. Patrick 32

Cold Harbor, VA 18

Confederate Veteran 64, 65

Conklin, Maj. John F. 66

Conner, Capt. H. J. 68

Conscription

in Confederacy 12, 15

in Union 14

Corinth, MS 11, 13

Cowan House 31, 32, 45–46, 56

Crebbin, Lt. Edward 38

Crittenden, Maj. Gen. Thomas L. 23, 24, 29–34

CSX 1, 41, 43, 44, 82

Curtain Wall No. 1 35, 37, 43, 44, 45, 83

Curtain Wall No. 2 35, 37, 42, 43, 44

D

Davis, Jefferson 7, 10, 16, 17, 18, 24, 61

Decoration Day 58, 63

Donelson, Brig. Gen. Daniel S. 46, 53

Draft Riots, New York City 15

Duck River 20, 34, 35

DuPont, Rear Adm. Samuel F. 14

E

Earnshaw, Chaplain William 40

Emancipation Proclamation 13

Evergreen Cemetery 63

F

Farragut, Adm. David G. 11

Floyd, Lt. Col. Watt W. 51

Foote, Andrew H. 10

Forrest, Brig. Gen. Nathan B. 24, 29, 34, 39

Fort Donelson, TN 10, 68

Fort Henry, TN 10

Fort Pickens, FL 7

Fort Sumter, SC 7

Fortress Rosecrans 1, 3, 34–38, 42

Franklin Road 30, 37, 53

Franklin, TN 20, 24, 27

Fredericksburg, VA 7, 13, 14

G

GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) 58–63, 72

General Bragg’s Headquarters Marker 74

General Rosecrans’s Headquarters Marker 74

Georgia Railroad 28

Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association 57

Gettysburg, PA 15, 19, 57, 62

Govan, Col. Daniel C. 52

Grady, Henry 61

Grant, Ulysses S. 10, 13, 16, 17, 24

Greeley, Horace 10

Gresham House 47, 51, 56

Gresham Lane 30, 31, 52
100 Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study

H

Halleck, Gen. Henry W. 13, 17, 24, 35

Hanson, John D. 66

Hardee, Lt. Gen. William 24, 29–32, 52, 54

Harding House & brick kiln 30, 46–47, 52

Harker, Col. Charles 29, 32

Hazen Brigade Cemetery Markers 44

Hazen Brigade Monument 21, 38, 42, 44, 57, 65

Hazen Brigade Monument Wall 44

Hazen, Col. William B 32

Historical Base Maps 4–5, 81, 89

Historical Fence and Ground Cover Plan 5, 56

Holly Springs, MS 13

Hood, Gen. John B. 18, 19, 39

Hooker, Maj. Gen. Joseph 14

Hord House 49, 50

J

Jackson, Gen. Thomas B. "Stonewall" 11

James House 53

Jenkins House 50, 51

Johnson, Andrew 23, 56

Johnston, Albert S. 10, 11 Johnston, Joseph P. 10, 11, 15, 16

Jones, Pvt. James H. 36

K

Keeble, Lt. Col. R. H. 54

Kennesaw Mountain, GA 18

Knoxville, TN 16

L

Ladies memorial associations 58, 62

Landers, Lt. Col. H. L. 66, 81

LaVergne, TN 32

Leach House 56

Lee, Robert E. 10–18, 60

Lincoln, Abraham 7, 10, 16, 19

Logan, John A. 58

Longstreet, Gen. James 16

Lookout Mountain, TN 16

Louisville & Nashville Railroad 23, 28

Lunette Crittenden 37

Lunette Gordon 37

Lunette Granger 37

Lunette McCook 35, 37

Lunette Negley 35, 37, 43, 44, 45, 83

Lunette Palmer 37, 42, 43, 44

Lunette Reynolds 37

Lunette Rousseau 37

Lunette Stanley 37

Lunette Thomas 35, 37, 42, 43, 44

Lytle Creek 36, 37

M

Macon & Western Railroad 28

Mahan, Dennis Hart 34

Main Entrance Gates 72, 73, 74

Manassas

First Battle of 12, 29

Second Battle of 12

Manson Pike 27, 41, 44, 66, 82

McClellan, George B. 10, 13, 19

McCook, Maj. Gen. Alexander M. 23, 24, 29, 30

McCown, Maj. Gen. John 30, 31, 53

McCulloch House 54

McDonald, Hunter 65

McFadden House 48, 56

McFadden Lane 27, 30, 31, 41, 44

McFadden’s Ford 2, 27, 31, 33

Meade, Maj. Gen. George G. 15

Means, Capt. John A. 39

Memorial Day 58

Memorial Society of Murfreesboro 62

Michigan State Historical Commission Marker 74

Michler, Capt. N. 81

Mission 66 3, 4, 68, 70, 73

Missionary Ridge, TN 16

Mississippi River 8, 10, 14, 15

Mitchell, Sam H. 66, 68

Mobile & Ohio Railroad 24

Mohrhardt, Capt. Francis 81

Morgan, Brig. Gen. John H. 24, 34

Morton, James St. Clair 34

Murfreesboro, TN 1, 7, 14, 20, 24, 34, 40

N

Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad 7, 23, 27, 34, 37, 41, 44, 50, 63

Nashville Pike 26, 27, 34, 68, 70

Nashville, Battle of 40

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway 1, 63, 67, 72

Nashville, Murfreesboro and Shelbyville Turnpike 26, 40

Nashville, TN 7, 20, 23

National Park Service 55, 66, 70

National Register of Historic Places 3

New Deal 69

North Anna River 17, 18

O

Ohio River 28

Old Fort Park 1

Old Nashville Highway 44, 82

Overall Creek 25, 30, 39

P

Pea Ridge, MO 11, 13

Pemberton, Lt. Gen. John C. 15

Perryville, KY 12, 23

Petersburg, VA 18, 20

Pierce (Union physician) 47

Polk, Lt. Gen. Leonidas K. 29, 30, 32, 53

Pope, Gen. John 11

Port Hudson, LA 15

Public Works Administration 55, 69, 70

R

Railroads, role of in Civil War 8

Reconstruction 42, 55, 84

Redan Van Cleve 38

Redoubt Brannan 3, 37, 42, 43, 44, 64, 67

Redoubt Johnson 37

Redoubt Schofield 37

Redoubt T.J. Wood 37

Reunions, Veterans’ 42, 60, 61, 64

Richmond, VA 10, 12

Rosecrans, Maj. Gen. William S. 10, 13–16, 20, 23–24, 29– 34, 48

Round Forest 31, 32, 38, 43

Rousseau, Brig. Gen. Lovell 31

Rutherford County, TN 1, 28, 56

S

Schofield, Maj. Gen. John 20, 39

Scott, Winfield 9

Seven Days Battles, VA 11

Shenandoah Valley, VA 8, 11, 19

Sheridan, Maj. Gen. Phillip 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 41

Sherman, William Tecumseh 13

March through GA, 1864 18, 19, 20

Shiloh Battlefield 55, 62, 65

Shiloh, Battle of 11, 30

Siegel, Maj. Gen. Franz 18

Sill’s Ridge 43

Smith (General) House (Springfield) 53

Smith (Widow) House 53

Smith, Gen. Kirby 20

Smith, Herbert 68
National Park Service 101

South Carolina Railroad 28

Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) 77, 79

Southern Historical Society 60

Spence, John 35, 45

Spotsylvania Court House, VA 18

Standing cannon markers 72, 73, 74

Star of the West 7

Stephens, Alexander 17

Stevenson, Alexander F. 48

Stevenson, Maj. Gen. Carter 24

Stones River Battlefield and Park Association 1, 65, 72

Stones River National Battlefield

Administrative History (1958) 3

Archeology 76–79, 83

Archive and manuscript collection 84

Boundary expansion 83

Cultural Landscape Inventory 75

Cultural Landscape Report 75, 81

Entrance gates 70, 71

Ethnography 75

Interpretation 83

Loop road 71

Mission 66 development 71

Museum collection 79–80

Nearby development 2, 82

Transferred to NPS 70

Stones River National Cemetery 1, 39, 42, 44, 55, 73

Stones River, Battle of 1

casualties 14, 30, 32, 34, 48

December 31, 1862 14

January 2, 1863 14

T

Tennessee River 10, 11

Tennessee State Historical Commission 3

Thomas, Maj. Gen. George H. 23, 24, 29, 42, 57

Thompson Lane Connector 82

Thompson, Ed 33

Trans-Mississippi Theater in Civil War 9, 10

Treatise on Field Fortifications 34

Tullahoma, TN 14, 15, 35

U

U.S. Regulars Monument 65, 72, 74

United Confederate Veterans 60

United Daughters of the Confederacy 60–61

Cabin at Stones River 70

V

Van Cleve Lane 41, 44, 66, 68, 82, 83

Van Cleve, Brig. Gen. Horatio 31, 32, 35, 39, 41, 50

Van Dorn, Maj. Gen. Earl 11, 13

Vance, Zebulon - NC governor 17

Vaughan Jr., Col. A. J. 53

Veterans’ organization 58

Vicksburg Battlefield 65

Vicksburg, MS 13, 14

Visitor Center 70, 71, 74

W

War Department 55, 57, 63, 66, 67

Watie, Brig. Gen. Stand 20

Wayne’s Hill 31, 33, 43

Western & Atlantic Railroad 18, 28

Wheeler, Brig. Gen. Joe 24, 29, 32

Whitman, Capt. E. B. 38

Wilderness Campaign 14, 18

Wilkinson Pike 27, 41

Wilson’s Creek 10

Withers, Maj. Gen. Jones M. 30, 32

Works Progress Administration 69
102 Stones River National Battlefield 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- 433 January 1997

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA T M

Stones River National Battlefield

3501 Old Nashville Highway

Murfreesboro, TN 37129

www.nps.gov/stri