Stones River National 

Battlefield

Administrative History

November 2016

Prepared for National Park Service

Dr. Angela Sirna, Project Historian

Dr. Rebecca Conard, Principal Investigator

Middle Tennessee State University
i Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Table of Contents

Table of Figures ......................................................................................................iv

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................. viii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. x

Executive Summary..................................................................................................1

Chapter One: Reconstruction and Reconciliation at Stones River, 1865-1900.........5

Need for a National Cemetery ......................................................................................... 7

Emancipation in Middle Tennessee................................................................................. 9

Recovering the Dead...................................................................................................... 10

Cemetery Community ................................................................................................... 12

Freedmen’s Bureau, Civil Rights, and End of Reconstruction....................................... 13

Memorial Day................................................................................................................ 15

Developing Stones River National Cemetery................................................................. 16

Rise of Veterans’ Organizations..................................................................................... 17

Golden Age of Battlefield Preservation.......................................................................... 18

Continued Efforts to Create a National Battlefield........................................................ 20

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter Two: Establishing Stones River National Military Park, 1900-1932 .........21

Continued and New Support for a Battlefield Park ....................................................... 21

Second Wave of Battlefield Preservation....................................................................... 23

Stones River Battlefield Commission............................................................................. 25

Land Acquisition and Cemetery Community ................................................................ 28

Constructing the Park ................................................................................................... 31

Stones River National Cemetery.................................................................................... 33

Dedication of Stones River National Military Park ....................................................... 33

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter Three: National Park Service Administration, 1933-1956 ........................35

Administration .............................................................................................................. 36

Cemetery Community ................................................................................................... 38

New Deal Work Programs ............................................................................................. 39

Research and Interpretation.......................................................................................... 43

Planning ........................................................................................................................ 47

World War II ................................................................................................................. 48

Postwar Management.................................................................................................... 49

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 52

Chapter Four: Mission 66 and Civil War Centennial, 1956-1971 ...........................53

Mission 66 Overview ..................................................................................................... 54

Mission 66 Prospectus ................................................................................................... 55

Van Cleve Lane Dispute................................................................................................. 56

A New Kind of Superintendent...................................................................................... 57

1960 Legislation............................................................................................................. 60

Park Master Plan and Mission 66 Development............................................................ 64
National Park Service ii

Civil War Centennial ..................................................................................................... 67

The Great Society: Civil Rights and Antipoverty Programs ........................................... 72

End of Mission 66 and Centennial Observances ............................................................ 75

Park Staffing .................................................................................................................. 76

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 77

Chapter Five: Preserving the Greater Battlefield, 1971-1980 .................................78

Environmental Education.............................................................................................. 78

Landscape Management................................................................................................ 82

Living History Interpretation ........................................................................................ 85

Preservation and Archeology......................................................................................... 87

Recreational Development ............................................................................................ 89

Youth Programs............................................................................................................. 91

National Cemetery Flooding ......................................................................................... 92

1980 General Management Plan .................................................................................... 94

Park Staffing .................................................................................................................. 96

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 97

Chapter Six: Expanding Stones River National Battlefield, 1980-2000...................98

Historic Preservation and Archeology........................................................................... 98

Interpreting Military History........................................................................................102

1987 Boundary Expansion Legislation..........................................................................103

Friends of Stones River National Battlefield.................................................................105

Change in Administration ............................................................................................106

1991 Boundary Expansion ............................................................................................107

Resource Management Plan .........................................................................................110

1999 General Management Plan ...................................................................................115

Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area ...............................................................117

Holding the High Ground.............................................................................................117

Park Staffing .................................................................................................................118

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................122

Chapter Seven: Rebuilding the Park, 2000-2012...................................................124

Implementing GMP Alternative 2.................................................................................124

Natural Resource Challenge .........................................................................................128

Landscape Restoration .................................................................................................129

Cultural Resource Studies ............................................................................................131

Harding House Survey..................................................................................................133

Interpretation and Education.......................................................................................134

MTSU Public History Program.....................................................................................136

Community Relations, Partnerships, and Volunteers...................................................137

Bart Gordon Retires .....................................................................................................138

Civil War Sesquicentennial...........................................................................................138

Park Staffing .................................................................................................................140

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................141

Epilogue ...............................................................................................................142

Friends of Stones River National Battlefield.................................................................143

2013 Visitor Study.........................................................................................................144

2014 Foundation Document .........................................................................................145

Long-Range Interpretive Plan ......................................................................................147

Confederate Symbols Controversy ...............................................................................149

Interpreting Cemetery Community ..............................................................................151
iii Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Road to the Centennial.................................................................................................153

Park Staffing .................................................................................................................154

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................156

Bibliography ........................................................................................................157

Appendices...........................................................................................................164

Appendix A: List of Superintendents....................................................................165

Appendix B: Timeline ..........................................................................................166

Appendix C: Park Boundary Expansions .............................................................167

Appendix D: Landownership Map, 1929..............................................................168

Appendix E: Park Circulation Routes ..................................................................169

Appendix F: Battlefield Protection District..........................................................170
National Park Service iv

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Hazen Brigade Monument. This is the earliest known picture, taken sometime between 1863

and 1869. Source: Library of Congress. .........................................................................................................8

Figure 2 “Map of Cemeterial District showing section of country from which the Union Dead have 

been disinterred and removed to the ‘Stones River’ National Cemetery near Murfreesboro, 

Rutherford Co. Tenn.”....................................................................................................................................11

Figure 3 Earliest known photograph of Stones River National Cemetery, circa 1866. Source: National 

Archives.............................................................................................................................................................17

Figure 4 Rostrum in Stones River National Cemetery. Photographed by Oswald E. Camp, circa 

1933-1939. Courtesy of STRI. ........................................................................................................................17

Figure 5 U.S. Regulars Monument in Stones River National Cemetery. Photographed by Oswald E. 

Camp, circa 1933-1939. Courtesy of STRI. ..................................................................................................18

Figure 6 Confederate Monument in Murfreesboro, TN. Photographed by Albert Kern, date unknown. 

Source: MTSU Walker Library. .....................................................................................................................18

Figure 7 Artillery Monument, sculpted using Portland cement with a granite dust finish. Photographed 

by Oswald E. Camp, circa 1933-1939. Courtesy of STRI. ..........................................................................22

Figure 8 Melroe Tarter talks with Regional Historian Roy Appleman in 1938 at the park checking 

station. Source: National Archives. ...............................................................................................................37

Figure 9 Log cabin taken over by UDC for Confederate museum. Courtesy of STRI....................................38

Figure 10 UDC cabin after the storm. Source: National Archives. ....................................................................39

Figure 11 PWA workers on project to widen northern gate of the national cemetery. Source: National 

Archives.............................................................................................................................................................40

Figure 12 PWA workers used plants to screen out store adjacent to the park. Source: National Archives. 41

Figure 13 1937 roadwork project map. Source: National Archives. ..................................................................42

Figure 14 Flooding in national cemetery, circa 1930s. Courtesy of STRI. ........................................................43

Figure 15 Design for new trailside marker. Courtesy of STRI............................................................................45

Figure 16 Tour map with exhibit marker locations included in the 1941 park pamphlet. Source:

National Archives............................................................................................................................................46

Figure 17 Proposed plan of new Highway 41 drawn in 1946 (shown in green) by Tennessee Highway 

Department. Source: National Archives.......................................................................................................51

Figure 18 Drawing of proposed land acquisition with tracing of possible new entrance. April 30, 1956. 

Courtesy of STRI..............................................................................................................................................61

Figure 19 “Proposed Interstate HWY in vicinity of Stones River National Mil. Park,” 

September 8, 1958. Courtesy of STRI. ..........................................................................................................62
v Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 20 “Sketch Showing Proposed Boundary Adjustments at Union Artillery Site,” 

October 21, 1957. Courtesy of STRI. ............................................................................................................ 62

Figure 21 “Plan showing 1) Site of Lunette Gordon Granger as surveyed by E. S. Voorhies, 

July 31, 1959, being part of land owned by John Tarver 2) Types of development bordering 

lunette site,” September 1959. Courtesy of STRI........................................................................................ 63

Figure 22 Staff Quarters. Photographed by Angela Sirna, February 2016. ....................................................... 66

Figure 23 Visitor Center at Stones River National Battlefield, April 1965. Source: Tennessee 

Department of Conservation Photograph Collection, Tennessee State Library and Archives. .......... 67

Figure 24 “As Built Drawings Basement & Foundation and Other Details, Visitor Center, Headquarters 

Area, Stones River National Battlefield,” Drawing 3004 E, by Lukens, EODC, National Park 

Service, July 25, 1963. Courtesy of E-TIC. ................................................................................................... 67

Figure 25 “North-South Memorial” Drawing, EODC, No. 3004 A. Courtesy of E-TIC................................ 70

Figure 26 Visitor Center Plan, EODC, 1961. Courtesy of E-TIC....................................................................... 70

Figure 27 “Tennessee Governor Frank G. Clement Addressing Spectators at the Dedication 

Ceremony,” April 11, 1964. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI................................................ 71

Figure 28 Eleven women standing behind refreshment table at visitor center dedication ceremony, 

April 11, 1964. Photographer unknown. This photo reinforces Fraley’s argument that women 

were relegated to subordinate roles during Civil War centennial commemorative activities in 

Rutherford County. Courtesy of STRI......................................................................................................... 71

Figure 29 Superintendent Sherman Perry, Mrs. Perry, and Tennessee Secretary of State Joe C. Carr talk 

during reception following Michigan Marker dedication, July 1, 1966. Photographer unknown. 

Courtesy of STRI. ............................................................................................................................................ 76

Figure 30 Refreshment table in visitor center for the NPS’s fiftieth anniversary, August 25, 1966. 

Card says “National Park Service 1916-1966.” Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. .............. 76

Figure 31 Environmental education workshop at Cedar Glades National Environmental Study Area. 

Photographed in July 1979. Courtesy of STRI. ........................................................................................... 81

Figure 32 Auction sign adjoining Artillery Monument land. Photographed by Teresa (Bratcher) 

Watson, December 5, 1980. Courtesy of STRI............................................................................................ 84

Figure 33 Land Acquisition Plan from 1980 GMP. .............................................................................................. 84

Figure 34 Living history program at STRI, circa 1960s or 1970s. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of 

STRI................................................................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 35 Individual identified as Tony Zeibel, wearing a period costume, is shown running across the 

area between the visitor center and national cemetery. Photographed in Courtesy of STRI. ............. 86

Figure 36 Cavalry living history demonstration, June 15, 1987, photographed by Don Magee. Cavalry 

programs began nearly a decade earlier. Courtesy of STRI. ..................................................................... 86

Figure 37 Hayride in the fall of 1975. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI......................................... 87

Figure 38 Stones River National Battlefield Trail Map, Heart of Tennessee Trails, 1972. Courtesy of 

STRI................................................................................................................................................................... 90
National Park Service vi

Figure 39 Boy Scouts salute the American flag in Stones River National Cemetery, sometime in the 

1960s or 1970s. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. ....................................................................90

Figure 40 Male and female YCC members wearing YCC jumpsuits working in a field. Date and 

photographer unknown, but appears to be from 1980s. Courtesy of STRI. ...........................................92

Figure 41 YCC crew members construct a fence. Photographed by J. Hesson in 1980. Courtesy of STRI. 92

Figure 42 Flooding in the national cemetery, showing graves under water. Photographed by Jack Totty, 

December 29, 1972. Courtesy of STRI..........................................................................................................93

Figure 43 Construction of swale to alleviate flooding in national cemetery in 1975. Courtesy of STRI. .....94

Figure 44 Installation of culvert under park tour road in 1975 to help direct water. Courtesy of STRI. .....94

Figure 45 U.S. Regulars Monument without bronze eagle. Photographed by Teresa (Bratcher) Watson, 

April 1980. Courtesy of STRI. ........................................................................................................................99

Figure 46 NPS staff working on the Hazen Brigade Monument in July 1985. Photographer unknown. 

Courtesy of STRI............................................................................................................................................100

Figure 47 NPS archeologists working in the Hazen Brigade Monument in July 1985. Courtesy of STRI. 101

Figure 48 Park Ranger Bettie Cook giving Hallowed Ground program in December 1987. Courtesy of 

STRI. ................................................................................................................................................................102

Figure 49 Blanton House foundations, photographed during the winter of 1989-1990. Photographer 

unknown. Courtesy of STRI.........................................................................................................................104

Figure 50 Vaughter House, included in 1999 MTSU Center for Historic Preservation Report. Likely 

photographed in 1998, photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. .....................................................113

Figure 51 Photograph showing erosion at Fortress Rosecrans. Possibly photographed in 1930s. 

Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI...............................................................................................114

Figure 52 Rehabilitation of Fortress Rosecrans. Photographed by Mike Mosley, 1994...............................114

Figure 53 NPS Director Roger Kennedy, Congressman Bart Gordon, Murfreesboro Mayor Joe 

Jackson, and Superintendent Mary Ann Peckham cut the ribbon at the dedication of Fortress 

Rosecrans. Photographed by Lou Carter on October 31, 1994. Courtesy of STRI..............................115

Figure 54 Bobby Simerly observes historic preservation and archeology work on the Hazen Brigade 

Monument in July 1985. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. ..................................................119

Figure 55 “Ms. Bettie Cook, Park Aid.” Photograph, taken September 29, 1972, shows Cook in an NPS 

women’s uniform standing next to STRI sign. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI..............119

Figure 56 “Gus King and Frankie King setting up link chipper.” Photographed by Teresa (Bratcher) 

Watson on December 5, 1980. Courtesy of STRI.....................................................................................120

Figure 57 Park Ranger Jim Lewis during living history program. Photographer and date unknown. 

Courtesy of Jim Lewis/STRI.........................................................................................................................122

Figure 58 Stuart Johnson observes events commemorating the 148th anniversary of the Battle of Stones 

River, January 2011. Courtesy of Jim Lewis/STRI. ...................................................................................125

Figure 59 Visitor Center, photographed by Rebecca Conard, March 2016. ..................................................126
vii Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 60 Rostrum, reconstructed in 2007, in Stones River National Cemetery, photographed by 

Rebecca Conard, March 2016. ....................................................................................................................127

Figure 61 Entrance gates, constructed in 2011, along Thompson Lane, photographed by Rebecca 

Conard, March 2016. ....................................................................................................................................128

Figure 62 Team conducting a prescribed burn at STRI on March 8, 2011. Photographed by Jim Lewis. 

Courtesy of Jim Lewis/STRI. .......................................................................................................................130

Figure 63 USCT living history interpreter at STRI, photographed by David Wittenburg,

October 27, 2013. Courtesy of STRI. .........................................................................................................139

Figure 64 Confederate living history interpreters during 150th anniversary, December 29, 2012. 

Courtesy of STRI. ..........................................................................................................................................139

Figure 65 Union living history interpreters during 150th anniversary, December 29, 2012. Courtesy of 

STRI.................................................................................................................................................................139

Figure 66 Visitors watch 150th anniversary events, December 30, 2012. Courtesy of STRI.........................140

Figure 67 Stuart Johnson with his family at his retirement party, September 29, 2012. Courtesy of 

STRI.................................................................................................................................................................140

Figure 68 Superintendent Gayle Hazelwood at the Legacy of Stones River symposium, 

October 26, 2012. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. .............................................................142

Figure 69 Superintendent Gayle Hazelwood welcomes Mike Liles as the new president of Friends of 

Stones River National Battlefield, 2014. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of Friends of Stones 

River National Battlefield.............................................................................................................................143

Figure 70 Screenshot of Facebook post on August 1, 2015...............................................................................150

Figure 71 USCT living history interpreter giving a program at the grave of William Holland by the 

Hazen Brigade Monument, one stop of the Cemetery tour. Photographed by Angela Sirna, 

February 6, 2016. ...........................................................................................................................................151

Figure 72 Audience watches play about Cemetery community. Photographed by Angela Sirna, 

February 20, 2016. .........................................................................................................................................152

Figure 73 Decoration Day activities began with the group marching from the visitor center to the 

national cemetery, singing “John Brown’s Body.” Photographed by Angela Sirna, May 7, 2016......152

Figure 74 Visitors place flowers on the graves in national cemetery during Decoration Day program. 

Photographed by Angela Sirna, May 7, 2016.............................................................................................152

Figure 75 Former STRI administrative officer Teresa Watson and Chief of Operations Gib Backlund 

hold up Backlund’s retirement cake. Photographed by Frank Caperton, April 30, 2016. Courtesy 

of Friends of Stones River National Battlefield.........................................................................................156

Figure 76 Superintendent Brenda Waters with USCT living history group at Decoration Day program, 

May 7, 2016. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. ......................................................................156
National Park Service viii

List of Acronyms

AAHS African American Heritage Society

ABPP American Battlefield Protection Program

AGRC Albert Gore Research Center

AME African Methodist Episcopal

ANPR Association for National Park Rangers

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

CESU Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit

CETA Comprehensive Employment and Training Assistance

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps

CHCH Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park

CLI Cultural Landscape Inventory

CLR Cultural Landscape Report

CPC Crafts, Protective, and Custodial

CWA Civil Works Administration

CWCC Civil War Centennial Committee

DAR Daughters of the American Revolution

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EOA Economic Opportunity Act

EODC Eastern Office of Design and Construction

ESA Environmental Study Area

FRV Fundamental Resources and Values

GAR Grand Army of the Republic

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GMP General Management Plan

HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities

HPTC Historic Preservation Training Center

LRIP Long-Range Interpretive Plan

MTSC Middle Tennessee State College

MTSU Middle Tennessee State University

NAACP National Association of Colored People

NACP National Archives College Park

NBFCWRT Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War Round Table

NC&StL Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway

NEED National Environmental Education Development

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHA National Heritage Area

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NYC Neighborhood Youth Corps

OEO Office of Economic Opportunity

OIRV Other Important Resources and Values

PMIS Project Management Information System

PWA Public Works Administration

RCHS Rutherford County Historical Society

ROTC Reserve Officers’ Training Center

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math

STRI Stones River National Battlefield

TCWNHA Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area

UCV United Confederate Veterans
ix Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

UDC United Daughters of the Confederacy

UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization

USCT United States Colored Troops

VSP Visitor Services Project

WODC Western Office of Design and Construction

YCC Youth Conservation Corps

YOC Youth Opportunity Campaign
National Park Service x

Acknowledgements

This project was made possible through a Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit (CESU) agreement 

between the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office and Middle Tennessee State University. 

There are several individuals we would like to thank for making this project happen, including Dr. 

Turkiya Lowe and Brian Coffey of the Southeast Regional Office along with Gilbert Backlund and Jim 

Lewis at Stones River National Battlefield. We have had the pleasure of working with two park 

superintendents for the duration of this project. Gayle Hazelwood helped us kick off the project, and 

current Superintendent Brenda Waters has seen us through completion. Ray Albright, Coordinator of the 

Southern Appalachian CESU, who we got to know better while he was Acting Superintendent at the park, 

assisted us in getting the agreement together. 

Special thanks must be extended to Gib Backlund and Jim Lewis for answering our numerous questions, 

drawing upon their many years at the park and with the National Park Service. Jim was very 

accommodating in pulling our file requests from the park archive. Alexandra Collins, the park’s museum 

technician, was also very helpful in helping us find images as we were piecing the final document together. 

We would also like to thank Jim Sczjkowski, Chief of Resources Management at ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park, who arranged for us to look at park records. Evan Spencer, Casey 

Gymrek, Bradley Harjehausen, and Sarah Calise, graduate student assistants at the Albert Gore Research 

Center, should be commended for their professionalism and helpfulness as we looked through the Bart 

Gordon Papers, which are currently being processed. We also appreciated Dr. Dallas Hanbury for sharing 

his research notes for the Bart Gordon Papers. Bethany Hall, GIS Analyst for Rutherford County, helped 

us solve several puzzling road and zoning questions. Zada Law, Director of MTSU’s Geosciences 

Research Center, did a wonderful job in drawing some of the maps included in this document. 

This project was only possible in the time frame we were given because of the wonderful work of the 

scholars who have come before us. We must recognize the works of Ann Wilson Willett, Miranda Fraley, 

John George, Sean Styles, and Gib Backlund. 

We were very fortunate to have a sizable group of people with intimate knowledge of the park agree to 

share their personal memories. Much thanks to Mary Ann Peckham, Jim Sanders, Don Magee, Larry 

Hicklen, Bart Gordon, Kent Syler, Stuart Johnson, Gayle Hazelwood, Jim Lewis, Eddie Macon, Teresa 

Watson, and Gib Backlund for participating in the project’s oral history component.

We have already thanked Gib several times, but we do not want to understate how much he has 

contributed to this project. He sat down for multiple oral history sessions, and we remained friends even 

after technical glitches. He continued to provide comments after his retirement in May 2016. 

Finally, we would like to say how much of a joy it has been to work with park staff that are dedicated to 

preserving the park’s institutional memory. This is often not the case in the National Park Service. The 

park is in the midst of an important transition this year, and we feel honored to help transmit that 

institutional knowledge on to another generation of park managers. 
1 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Executive Summary

Stones River National Battlefield (STRI) occupies 

709 acres in Rutherford County, Tennessee, near 

the city of Murfreesboro, approximately thirty 

miles southeast of Nashville. The park includes 

only a portion of the 4,000 acres over which the 

armies of the Union and Confederacy fought, 

beginning December 31, 1862, and concluding 

January 2, 1862. Nearly 24,000 men were killed, 

wounded, or missing during the Battle of Stones 

River. Some 6,000 Union dead are buried in Stones 

River National Cemetery, established in 1865. 

The park itself contains seven non-contiguous sites

in addition to Stones River National Cemetery. It 

includes the headquarters for the commanding 

generals of both armies (Braxton Bragg and 

William Rosecrans), which are situated along Old 

Nashville Highway. The “core battlefield unit,” is 

located south of the national cemetery, and is 

where Confederate forces turned the Union flank 

on December 31, 1862. The Hazen Brigade 

Monument, believed to be the oldest intact Civil 

War monument, is situated between Old Nashville 

Highway and CSX railroad (historically the 

Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway). On a 

hill overlooking the Stones River, the NPS owns an 

area of land, called the McFadden Farm Unit,

where Union artillery thwarted a Confederate 

assault on the last day of the battle. The park also 

owns portions of Fortress Rosecrans, one of the 

largest Union earthworks built during that time, 

which was a forward supply base for the Union 

army constructed after the battle. Redoubt 

Brannan is located adjacent to Old Nashville 

Highway and overlooks the Stones River.

President Calvin Coolidge signed a law creating the 

Stones River Battlefield Commission on March 3, 

1927, which completed a report on creating Stones 

River National Military Park. The War Department 

was responsible for managing Stones River 

National Military Park, when Congress authorized 

the War Department to construct park facilities 

and roads in April 1930. The park was dedicated in 

1932. President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred 

the park from the War Department to the National 

Park Service in 1933. Congress changed the name

to Stones River National Battlefield in 1960. 

This administrative history builds upon the work 

of Ann Wilson Willett, who wrote the park’s first 

administrative history in 1958 as a master’s thesis 

for Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), 

then known as Middle Tennessee State College

(MTSC). Willett was married to the park’s 

superintendent, John T. Willett, who was also a 

historian by training. In her thesis, Ann provided 

an overview of the area’s history and the battle, but 

also covers early efforts to create the park, 

development of the War Department, and a brief 

overview of the National Park Service’s 

management.

In the past dozen years, graduate students, faculty, 

and contractors have made significant strides in 

fleshing out periods of the park’s history. In her 

2004 dissertation for Indiana University, Miranda 

Fraley explored the development of Civil War 

memory in Rutherford County and placed parkmaking efforts at STRI as a central feature of her 

analysis. John George similarly examined park 

creation efforts in his 2013 MTSU public history 

doctoral dissertation, “Stones River: Making a 

Battlefield Park, 1863-1932.” Gilbert J. Backlund, 

then the park’s Chief of Operations, wrote his 2005 

MTSU public history master’s thesis on the park’s 

Mission 66 program. Angela Sirna, the Project 

Historian for this study, wrote a graduate seminar 

paper on the park during the 1930s. Sean Styles, 

who was contracted by the NPS, undertook a 

Historic Resource Study of the park, finished in 

2004. While this study mostly focuses on the Civil 

War-era, it does cover some aspects of the War 

Department’s administration of the park, and the 
Executive Summary

National Park Service 2

NPS’s administration during the New Deal. Dr. 

Rebecca Conard, this study’s Principal Investigator, 

also published an article in the George Wright 

Forum, called “The Changing Face of the 

Countryside: Environmental History and the 

Legacy of the Civil War at Stones River National 

Battlefield,” which argued that environmental 

history can be a useful lens in interpreting the 

legacies of the battle and African American history 

at the park. 

This administrative history aims to bring together 

this scholarship into one document, while 

embarking on new research covering the park’s 

more recent years. To accomplish this, Project 

Historian Angela Sirna completed twelve oral 

histories with current and former park staff, park 

neighbors, and stakeholders. These people, who 

graciously shared their time and personal 

memories, have helped shaped the narrative from 

the 1970s to this year. 

In addition to these oral histories, the authors have 

used primary source material found at the park, 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park, 

National Archives, and MTSU’s Albert Gore 

Research Center, including NPS documents, 

newspapers, maps, drawings, and photographs. 

The park has a nearly complete set of 

superintendent’s reports, which were extremely 

valuable. The scope of this study extends from the 

creation of the national cemetery in the wake of the 

battle to the current activities leading to the NPS 

centennial this year. Upon discussions with park 

staff and regional historians, this study addresses 

various aspects of park’s development and 

operations, including legislative history and 

changes in park interpretation, natural and cultural 

resource management, interpretation, and staffing. 

This study also attempts to incorporate local, 

national, and agency history to provide essential 

context for these developments. 

Stones River National Cemetery was created before 

the Civil War ended. The cemetery became the 

focus of Union and African American

commemorative efforts in Rutherford County after 

the war. A freedmen community established itself 

on the former battlefield after the war was over. It 

was called Cemetery community because of its 

proximity to the national cemetery, which some of 

its residents helped build. Cemetery residents were 

active contributors to Union commemoration 

activities at the national cemetery until the 1920s.

Chapter One explores Reconstruction politics 

during this period, which yielded the battlefield 

preservation movement in the 1890s, in the spirit 

of “sectional reconciliation.” Earliest efforts to 

create a battlefield park date to the 1890s, a period 

historian Timothy B. Smith calls the “Golden Age 

of Battlefield Preservation,” when Congress 

established military parks at ChattanoogaChickamauga, Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and 

Antietam. Veterans of the Battle of Stones River 

also tried to have a battlefield park established, but 

Congress grew concerned at the size and expense 

of these battlefield parks. 

Battlefield efforts continued in the first two 

decades of the twentieth century, which is the 

focus of Chapter Two. Battlefield preservation did 

not gain traction in Congress until the 1920s, when 

patriotism from the First World War and the rapid 

decline of Civil War veterans spurred another wave 

of battlefield park creation. In 1927, Congress 

authorized the Stones River Battlefield

Commission. This three-member commission 

consisted of a Union veteran, Confederate veteran, 

and an active duty officer. They completed an 

investigation of the former battlefield and found 

four historic sites, including the Hazen Brigade 

Monument, the Artillery Monument erected by the 

railroad in 1906, portions of Fortress Rosecrans, 

and the national cemetery. 

The commissioners focused land acquisition 

efforts on a 325-acre area of land across from the 

national cemetery roughly bounded by Old 

Nashville Highway, Van Cleve Lane, and Manson 

Pike. Although the battle itself covered

approximately 4,000 acres, the commissioners

knew Congress would not designate the whole 

battlefield area for a national military park, as was 

the case with the first battlefield parks. Instead they 

focused on areas where pivotal moments in the 

battle occurred, relying on the assumption that the 

surrounding area would remain farmland in the 

future. This particular area that they chose was 

where Confederate forces turned the flank of the 

Union army on the first day of the battle. They also 

had practical reasons for choosing this area. They 

thought it would be economical to purchase

because there was an African American community 

living there, who managed to eke a living on the 
3 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

land’s poor soil. The War Department began 

purchasing the core battlefield area in 1929, which 

meant the displacement of a portion of Cemetery 

community. 

The War Department oversaw the initial 

developments of the park, and held a dedication 

ceremony in July 1932. Its administration of the 

park was short-lived, however. In August 1933, 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive 

Order 6166, which transferred all military parks 

and some national cemeteries to the National Park 

Service. The NPS took over management of Stones 

River National Military Park and National 

Cemetery that year, just as the agency was 

experiencing a fervor of park-making activity 

thanks to New Deal funding. Stones River received 

a small share of this funding, which is examined in 

Chapter Three. However, the NPS did not do 

much with the park until the 1950s.

In 1956, the NPS kicked off a national campaign 

called “Mission 66” that aimed at modernizing the 

national parks in time for the agency’s fiftieth 

anniversary in 1966. Stones River National Military 

Park got a much-needed upgrade with Mission 66 

funds, including a new visitor center, tour road, 

maintenance service area, and three staff 

residences. This program is explored in Chapter 

Four. The park also got a name change in 1960, 

when Congress passed the legislation changing the 

name to Stones River National Battlefield. The 

park’s facility upgrades coincided with the battle’s 

one hundredth anniversary. Civil War centennial 

observances were very much an exercise in Cold 

War patriotism, which emphasized sectional 

reconciliation after the war and how the country 

was made stronger than ever, which by extension 

implied the country’s ability to defeat communism 

abroad. However, the emerging Civil Rights 

Movement provided an important counternarrative that undermined centennial efforts. 

Observations at Stones River were understated 

compared to other centennial events in the 

country. 

During the 1970s, the NPS returned to a more 

austere fiscal reality, which forced park staff at 

STRI to be more outward looking. Park staff 

incorporated new interpretive programs aimed at 

engaging the local community, which are discussed 

in Chapter Five. The modern environmental 

movement, which had gained much ground in the 

early-1970s, prompted park staff to develop 

environmental education programming aimed at 

bringing in local youth. Park staff also became 

more aware of the park’s natural resources, notably 

the cedar glades, and began incorporating the 

importance on the park’s physical setting in how it 

affected the battle. Living history programs became 

popular at parks and historic sites across the 

country as people became interested in the lived 

experience of their ancestors. STRI instituted a 

variety of living history programs, which remain an 

important part of its programming today. These 

programs also aimed to bring in local community 

members as audience members and volunteers.

With this new outward outlook, park staff noticed 

that the rural nature of surrounding park lands 

were starting to diminish as new transportation 

corridors and industries began to urbanize the 

area. 

From the 1970s until the 1990s, land acquisition 

was the main issue of concern for the park, which 

is covered in Chapters Five and Six. Rutherford 

County became one of the fastest growing counties 

in the country, and development threatened the 

greater battlefield area, diminishing the rural 

qualities of the park. The park completed a General 

Management Plan in 1980 that outlined desired 

land acquisition efforts, but the park needed 

Congress to approve an expanded park boundary. 

After several years of Congressional inaction, 

Congressman Bart Gordon successfully introduced 

legislation to expand the park’s boundaries by 

approximately fifty acres in 1987. In 1991, 

Congress passed another boundary expansion, this 

time by over three hundred acres. However, 

relationships between the park and its neighbors 

grew tense as landowners felt that their property 

rights were being threatened. The window for 

boundary expansion closed by the mid-1990s, due 

to strained community relations and changes in 

Congress. 

The park completed another General Management 

Plan in 1999 that focused on preservation and 

telling a broader story at the park. Between 2001 

and 2012, the NPS rehabilitated the park’s 

facilities, including renovating the visitor center, 

upgrading the tour road, and installing new 

waysides. Chapter Seven examines how the NPS 

essentially remade the park for the second time 

after Mission 66. Park staff were at the leading edge 

of conversations about incorporating sociocultural history into park interpretation, including 
Executive Summary

National Park Service 4

the centrality of slavery and emancipation in the 

war’s causes and consequences. They also worked 

to build up the park’s natural resource program to 

address some of the environmental issues, most 

notably the spread of invasive plant species. 

At the end of 2012, the park commemorated the 

battle’s 150th anniversary. Park staff sought to 

create more inclusive programming, but still 

struggled to bring in a more diverse audience. In 

the past four years, the park has made great strides 

in community outreach and creating partnerships 

with African American organizations. The Epilogue 

describes how the park has committed itself to 

telling the history of Cemetery community, while 

simultaneously dealing with renewed controversies 

surrounding Confederate symbols. The Epilogue 

also covers the revitalization of the Friends of 

Stones River National Battlefield, the road to the 

National Park Service’s one hundredth anniversary 

in 2016, and how park staff are looking toward the 

next century of management. 

While putting together this administrative history, 

several important themes emerged that may have 

lasting implications to park management. First, and 

perhaps most important, the park’s creation was 

indelibly shaped by racial politics. Stones River 

National Cemetery was the focal point for Union 

veteran and African American commemorative 

activities from after the war until the 1920s. African 

Americans from the surrounding area had vibrant 

celebrations there every year with picnics, 

speeches, and yard games. However, tensions 

mounted as local whites increasingly viewed these 

displays as vulgar. Having abandoned the 

battlefield for over two decades, Confederate 

veterans decided to reclaim space on the former 

fighting ground to validate the cause that they lost.

The creation of the battlefield park meant the 

displacement of a portion of Cemetery community 

from this area. Until the 1990s, African American 

history had largely been absent from the park’s 

interpretation. As the park continues to reach out 

to African American audiences, it is important to 

keep in mind that African Americans felt 

unwelcome from the park for a very long time. 

Congress’s reluctance to create large military parks 

has inhibited the park’s ability to tell its story ever 

since its creation. The War Department in the 

1920s relied on the assumption that the 

surrounding area would remain rural for an 

indeterminate amount of time. Urbanization came 

swiftly to Rutherford County and the battlefield 

was under threat by the 1970s. Congress did not 

expand the boundaries until 1987 and 1991. The 

NPS had a very narrow window in which to act. 

Today, the park is firmly an urban park. Although 

the NPS abandoned an aggressive land acquisition

agenda by 2000, development continues around 

Stones River National Battlefield. Park staff 

continue to work with partners to help mitigate 

that development. 

Politics, both local and national, have influenced 

park management in more ways than just land 

issues. The culture wars of the 1990s brought 

historical interpretations of events like the Civil 

War into sharp focus. Some politicians pushed the 

NPS to be more inclusive in its programming and 

specifically asked the agency to incorporate the 

centrality of slavery into its interpretation, much to 

the dismay of southern heritage groups, who 

wanted the NPS to focus more on military history. 

Today, these tensions are heightened by the advent 

of social media, which can broadcast conversations 

all over the world. 

Federal funding for the national parks has also 

impacted how the park has operated over the 

years. Periods of fiscal austerity or bipartisanship 

have forced park staff to be more outward looking 

in their approach. They have counteracted budget 

limitations with creative approaches to volunteer 

development and reciprocal partnerships. This is 

unlikely to change in the near future. 

Stones River National Battlefield is unique for its 

relationship with Middle Tennessee State 

University. This relationship dates back to at least 

the 1930s when students were hired as historian 

aids at the park during the New Deal, but really 

expanded during the 1990s and 2000s. MTSU 

students and faculty have been instrumental in 

increasing the park’s research and operations 

capacity, by completing baseline natural and 

cultural resource data, providing seasonal labor, 

and more. 
5 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Chapter One

Reconstruction and Reconciliation at Stones 

River, 1865-1900

Confederate General Braxton Bragg commanded 

his Army of Tennessee to retreat south toward

Tullahoma after the Battle of Stones River, leaving

a force of Union soldiers to address the battle's 

immediate aftermath. African Americans, many 

having escaped bondage from nearby plantations 

and towns, helped Union soldiers and local whites 

to bury thousands of dead soldiers and discard the 

remains of livestock killed in the conflict that 

littered the landscape among ruined homes and 

farms. The Union army hastily buried the dead 

and built Fortress Rosecrans, a forward supply 

depot and one of the largest earthworks built in 

the South during the war. Soon, hasty interments 

gave way to a formal national cemetery, completed 

in 1867, in a location between the Nashville Pike 

and Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad. The 

battle itself was closely fought, but Confederate 

withdrawal from the battlefield gave the Union the 

tactical victory and inadvertently forfeited their 

rights to commemorating those lost on the Stones 

River battlefield to the Union. Confederate 

veterans would not claim space on the battlefield 

until old age, after the spirit of reconciliation 

brought these former foes together in the 1890s to 

lobby Congress to create a battlefield park at 

Stones River, as was being done at other Civil War 

battlefields at the time.

Historian David Blight revealed that several 

threads shaped by race and politics ran through 

Civil War memory, which emerged in the last years 

of the conflict and defined the war's memory for 

years to come. First, there were African Americans 

and their white abolition supporters who held an 

"emancipationist vision" of the war, which 

centered the conflict's cause and legacy around 

slavery and civil rights. Second, there were Union 

veterans who harbored a "reconciliationist vision." 

They had witnessed mass death and believed it was 

a necessary sacrifice to save the Union, and that 

the nation could be reborn from the blood spilled. 

And, third, defeated Confederates who subscribed 

to a "white supremacist vision" that romanticized 

southern heritage and made the war seem like a 

noble but ill-fated venture. The last two threads 

largely omitted slavery from the war's cause in 

order to use white supremacy as a unifying factor 

for sectional reconciliation.1

In her study of Civil War politics and memory in 

Rutherford County, historian Miranda Fraley 

contends that two views were prevalent in 

Rutherford County, both of which had interesting 

internal dynamics shaped by race and gender. The 

first group included African Americans and 

northern white migrants committed to 

commemorating Union victory and emancipation. 

In contrast, the second group consisted of local 

whites sympathetic to the Confederacy who 

glorified its past to safeguard the supremacy of 

white males in the community. Women 

spearheaded the commemorative efforts of the 

latter group, but were challenged by white men 

who took over their projects at strategic times 

when their own power was being tested by social 

and political changes. She found that these 

gendered debates helped propel Confederate 

commemoration from a culture of mourning to 

celebrating Confederate soldiers’ heroism and 

																																																							 1. David Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in 

American Memory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press, 2001), 2.
Chapter One

National Park Service 6

then to a mode of entertainment that glorified 

Confederate heritage and white supremacy. 2 Both 

Stones River National Cemetery and the 

battlefield were focal points for these groups who 

each conceived of these spaces in their own way in 

the immediate decades following the battle and the 

Civil War—conceptions that were very much 

shaped by politics, memory, and race as 

experienced by these groups across the country. 

Stones River National Cemetery became the focus 

of Union commemoration from 1865 until the 

1920s.3 African Americans also honored the 

sacrifice of the Union soldiers at Memorial Day 

activities held at the national cemetery every year. 

Confederate veterans and local sympathizers 

essentially avoided the battlefield for many years, 

not wishing to reflect upon the South's defeat. 

Because of Confederate abandonment and the 

federal presence at the national cemetery, newly 

emancipated people settled on the battlefield 

landscape to build new lives for themselves, 

forging a new community called Cemetery. 

However, this community was threatened as white 

veterans, both Union and Confederate, sought to 

preserve the battlefield site as a place of reflection 

and to tell a narrative that emphasized honor, 

valor, and sacrifice over the actual cause of the 

war—slavery—and the war's consequence—

emancipation and the inauguration of civil rights 

legislation. 

Reconstruction is one of two historical themes 

that provides critical context for understanding 

the establishment and early development of Stones 

River National Cemetery and Battlefield. 

Historians have demonstrated that emancipation 

wrought tremendous economic, political, and 

social change in the South, including Middle 

Tennessee.4 In recent years, historians have sought 

to understand the slippery transition African 

Americans experienced moving from slavery to 

freedom after the war. John Lodl confirmed his 

																																																							 2. Miranda Fraley, "The Politics of Memory: Remembering 

the Civil War in Rutherford County, Tennessee," 

dissertation, Indiana University, 2004, vii-viii, 16.

3. Ibid., 71.

4. Eric Foner, America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 

(New York: Harper and Row, 1988), xxvi; John Cimprich, 

Slavery's End in Tennessee, 1861-1865 (Tuscaloosa: 

University of Alabama Press, 1985), 4-5; Stephen Ash, 

Middle Tennessee Society Transformed, 1860-1870

(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987), 195.

suspicion that predominantly black communities 

found in Murfreesboro today are living legacies of 

those formed during Reconstruction.5 Lydia 

Simpson also looked at African American 

community building during Reconstruction, on 

the battlefield directly, in her examination of the 

Cemetery community. Compared to other African 

American rural hamlets in which residents left few 

written records, she found that it was possible to 

trace African American residents in the Cemetery 

community because a number were United States 

Colored Troops (USCT) veterans in the Civil War, 

had worked at the national cemetery, and were 

landowners who sold their land to the government 

for the creation of the battlefield.6 Both Lodl and 

Simpson demonstrate the importance of marriage 

and family, education, religious institutions, and 

land ownership to these communities and describe 

their tenuous relationships with local whites who 

were also coming to terms with the loss of the war 

and end to slavery.7

Sectional reconciliation, the second historical 

theme, soon followed Reconstruction when it 

officially ended in 1877. Part of this reconciliation 

between former Union and Confederate foes was 

to forge narratives about the war that honored 

both sides of the conflict. To do so meant leaving 

out the central issue of slavery in the war's origins 

and the realities of emancipation as a consequence 

of the conflict. This omission (or distortion) of the 

African American experience reflected complicity 

among many white veterans on both sides of the 

conflict to disenfranchise African Americans of 

their newly conferred rights through the 

restriction or denial of voting rights, de facto and 

de jure segregation, and even outright violence. As 

white veterans of both Union and Confederate 

armies worked to exclude African Americans from 

white society, it is little wonder these white 

veterans kept African Americans separate from 

their commemorations of the war.8

																																																							 5. John Lodl, "Building Viable Black Communities: The 

Transition from Slavery to Freedom in Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee, 1860-1880," master's thesis, Middle Tennessee 

State University, 2004, 2.

6. Lydia Simpson, "Settling In: Tracking the Formation of 

the Cemetery Community through Public Records," master's 

thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 2011, 1-2.

7. Lodl, "Building Viable Black Communities," 40-61; 

Simpson, "Settling In,” 52-66.

8. Blight, Race and Reunion, 9, 361.
7 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1977 by Eric 

Foner (1988) ushered in a new wave of historical 

scholarship on politics, memory, and race after the 

Civil War.9 The work of Foner, Blight, Kammen, 

and others has greatly influenced the study of Civil 

War commemorative sites, including Stones River 

National Battlefield and National Cemetery. 

Fraley’s work was certainly influenced by Blight in 

her interrogation of Civil War memory in 

Rutherford County and how different groups 

perceived spaces like the national cemetery and 

battlefield in different ways based upon politics, 

race, and gender. She shows that the national 

cemetery and battlefield became racialized 

landscapes since the national cemetery and 

battlefield were central to Union and African 

American commemoration after the war. In the 

1890s, white Confederate veterans and their 

descendants sought to reclaim the battlefield 

landscape through federal preservation, which 

resulted in the removal of a local African American 

community.10 While Fraley describes the instances 

at Stones River National Cemetery and Battlefield 

as episodes in a larger drama of evolving Civil War 

memory in Rutherford County, John George 

delves deeper into the early efforts to create the 

battlefield park. By focusing on the long process to 

designate a national battlefield, he reveals how 

local and national politics and power dynamics 

shaped battlefield park legislation. His work 

informs our understanding of how Civil War 

memory and commemoration yielded two waves 

																																																							 9. This body of scholarship is quite broad, but it is worth 

mentioning several influential works that inform

commemorative sites like Stones River National Cemetery 

and Battlefield. Foner, Reconstruction; Foner, Nothing but 

Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Foner, The Story of 

American Freedom (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 

1998); Blight, Race and Reunion; Blight, Race, Memory, and 

the American Civil War (Amherst: University of 

Massachusetts Press, 2002); Michael Kammen, Mystic Chords 

of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American 

Culture (New York: Knopf, 1991); Nina Silber, The Romance 

of Reunion: Northerners and the South, 1865-1900 (Chapel 

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993); Thomas 

Brown, ed., Reconstructions: New Perspectives on the 

Postbellum United States (New York: Oxford, 2006); 

Caroline Janney, Burying the Dead but Not the Past: Ladies’ 

Memorial Associations and the Lost Cause (Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 2008); Kirk Savage, 

Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and 

Monument in Nineteenth-Century America (Princeton, NJ: 

University of Princeton Press, 1997). 

10. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 70-71.

of battlefield preservation, the first in the 1890s 

and the second in the 1920s.11

This chapter will synthesize recent scholarship 

about the cemetery's establishment and efforts 

among local veterans to create a battlefield park in 

the 1890s. It will demonstrate how both the 

cemetery and battlefield landscape are intrinsically 

tied to Reconstruction and reconciliation 

experiences of African Americans, Union veterans, 

and Confederate veterans and their descendants. 

It will also place efforts to create the battlefield 

park in context with the Golden Age of Battlefield 

Preservation that occurred in the 1890s, which 

resulted in the protection of Gettysburg, 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga, Antietam, 

Vicksburg, and Shiloh battlefields. But the very 

nature of the battlefield preservation movement 

was shaped by the devastation that marked these 

battles at their conclusion. 

Need for a National Cemetery 

After the Battle of Stones River was over, evidence 

of the carnage in which approximately 23,500 

souls were killed, wounded, or reported missing 

remained on the 4000-acre battlefield for days, 

months, even years.12 Union survivors and 

members of the local community buried the 

dead—or what remained—in shallow graves near 

where they had fallen. They buried others in mass 

graves, sometimes intermingling Union and 

Confederate dead since there were few bits of 

material evidence identifying who they were. 

Strewn among the bodies and parts of bodies were 

dead horses and livestock, burned homes and 

outbuildings, ruined crops, splintered trees, 

abandoned rifles and supplies, artillery shells, and 

broken cannon carriages and wagons.13 The fields 

and scattered woodlots that previously made up 

the battleground were now imbued with new 

																																																							 11. John George, "Stones River: Creating a Battlefield Park, 

1863-1932," dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University, 

2013, 158-59.

12. "Frequently Asked Questions," National Park Service, 

http://www.nps.gov/stri/faqs.htm (accessed June 9, 2015).

13. Ann Wilson Willett, "A History of Stones River National 

Military Park," master's thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

College, 1958, 52; Elizabeth Goetsch, "‘All Could Not Help 

But Feel It’: A Cultural Landscape Approach to History at 

Stones River National Battlefield," master's thesis, Middle 

Tennessee State University, 2011, 17-18.
Chapter One

National Park Service 8

meaning to those who had survived the 

devastation.14

Figure 1 Hazen Brigade Monument. This is the earliest 

known picture, taken sometime between 1863 and 1869. 

Source: Library of Congress. 

The armies moved on before many survivors could 

process what they encountered, but the impulse to 

memorialize their fallen comrades came swiftly as 

soldiers sought meaning in the deep chasm that 

comes from violent, sudden, complete loss. Not 

long after the battle, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. 

Shepherd proposed raising funds for a monument 

dedicated to the U.S. Regulars who fought at 

Stones River, which was followed by a broader 

(unsuccessful) effort to honor the entire Army of 

the Cumberland.15 George points out that the 

Battle of Stones River was unusual in that a 

number of Union soldiers did not move forward 

with the rest of the Army of Tennessee but 

remained to help construct Fortress Rosecrans, 

and consequently had time to build a physical 

monument to those they had lost. In fact, Captain 

Amasa Johnson of the Ninth Indiana Infantry 

selected the Round Forest area as the final resting 

place for members of Hazen's Brigade—the group 

that fought on Hell's Half-Acre. A limestone 

monument in the middle of these gravesites, 

completed in 1863, is the oldest Civil War 

																																																							 14. George, "Stones River," 16.

15. For more on these commemorative efforts to honor the 

Army of the Cumberland, see Ibid., 17-20.

battlefield monument that remains in its original 

location (see Fig. 1).

16

In an effort to address mounting public concern 

for the mass casualties from the first year of the 

war, Congress authorized, in 1862, fourteen 

national cemeteries for the Union deceased.17 In 

March 1864, General George H. Thomas, then 

Commander of the Army of the Cumberland, 

ordered General Horatio Van Cleve to establish 

another national cemetery at Stones River.18

Van Cleve, commander of nearby Fortress 

Rosecrans, elected Captain John A. Means of the 

115th Ohio to select and lay out the site of the new 

cemetery. Means was suited for this duty because 

he was a civil engineer and had already spent 

considerable time surveying Murfreesboro's 

topography for the army. He selected a site near the 

Hazen’s Brigade monument on a hillock between 

the Nashville Pike and the Nashville and 

Chattanooga Railroad. He likely chose the spot 

because of the proximity of the railroad and the 

road, but also because the U.S. Regulars were 

already buried there. Means oversaw the 

preparation of the cemetery until his unit was 

mustered out at the end of the war. Chaplain 

William Earnshaw continued Means's work.19

																																																							 16. For more on Hazen's Brigade Monument, see Ibid., 22-

28.

17. Richard West Sellars wrote that Congress authorized 

twelve national cemeteries in 1862, but the National 

Cemetery Administration lists fourteen. These cemeteries 

included: Alexandria National Cemetery, Alexandria, VA, 

Annapolis National Cemetery, Annapolis, MD, Antietam 

National Cemetery, Sharpsburg, MD, Camp Butler National 

Cemetery, Springfield, IL, Cypress Hills National Cemetery, 

Brooklyn, NY, Danville National Cemetery, Danville, KY, Fort 

Leavenworth National Cemetery, Fort Leavenworth, KS, Fort 

Scott National Cemetery, Fort Scott, KS, Keokuk National 

Cemetery, Keokuk, IA, Loudon Park National Cemetery, 

Baltimore, MD, Mill Springs National Cemetery, Nancy, KY, 

New Albany National Cemetery, New Albany, IN, 

Philadelphia National Cemetery, Philadelphia, PA, Soldier's 

Home National Cemetery, Washington, DC. Richard West 

Sellars, "Pilgrim Places: Civil War Battlefields, Historic 

Preservation, and America's First National Military Parks, 

1863-1900," Common Ground (Winter 2005): 32; "History 

and Development of the National Cemetery 

Administration," U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, 

January 2014, 

http://www.cem.va.gov/docs/factsheets/history.pdf, accessed 

June 11, 2015.

18. George, "Stones River," 28-29.

19. Ibid., 29.
9 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Members of the 111th USCT undertook the 

gruesome task of preparing the ground, identifying 

Union graves, and exhuming, moving, and 

reinterring the badly decomposed bodies. When 

Earnshaw arrived to take up his new assignment in 

June 1865, the reburial program had been 

suspended until early October because of the effect 

of the summer heat on the bodies.20 The fact that 

this ghastly task was left to African American 

soldiers is enormously significant. Most of these 

men were likely freshly emancipated from slavery 

and experiencing freedom for the first time. 

Having such employment was a way for them to 

demonstrate their political assertiveness and show 

gratitude and respect toward the Union fallen.21

Emancipation in Middle 

Tennessee 

The institution of slavery dissolved around the 

Union army in Tennessee as enslaved African 

Americans fled to Union lines seeking refuge and 

freedom. After Confederate forces retreated to 

Shelbyville, a large number of African American 

refugees decamped outside Murfreesboro.22 The 

Union Army referred to them as "contraband" 

because they still considered these people to be the 

enemy's "property." In August 1862, General 

Ulysses S. Grant had ordered his troops to provide 

tents and whatever other supplies they could spare 

to the huddling masses of refugee slaves that met 

his men in western Tennessee. They formed the 

first contraband camp in Grand Junction, 

Tennessee. Similar camps cropped up around the 

state and elsewhere in the South, following the 

protection of the Union army.23

The timing of the Union victory at Stones River 

was critical for upholding northern morale and 

ensuring support for President Abraham Lincoln's 

controversial Emancipation Proclamation. This 

document freed enslaved individuals in rebelling 

states, although Tennessee’s 270,000 slaves were 

																																																							 20. Ibid., 30.

21. Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering: Death and 

the American Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), 

226-7.

22. Cimprich, Slavery's End in Tennessee, 3, 50.

23. Bobby Lovett, "Contraband Camps," Tennessee 

Encyclopedia of History and Culture, December 25, 2009, 

http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=305

(accessed May 29, 2015).

excluded from this policy because Union forces 

occupied most of the state.

24 Lincoln issued the 

proclamation on September 22, 1862, but it went 

into effect on January 1, 1863, as the Union and 

Confederate armies fought it out along the Stones 

River. The proclamation affected three million 

slaves in the areas in which it applied, confirming 

Lincoln's goal was to both secure the Union and 

destroy the institution of slavery.25 However, not all 

Unionists' motives were purely moral; military 

commanders used emancipation as a tool of war 

because they knew it would destroy the southern 

economy.

26 Indeed, the proclamation ushered forth 

a tremendous social, demographic, economic, and 

political upheaval that would take generations to 

reconcile, but the Union victory at Stones River 

helped secure the edict's effectiveness in the days 

after it became official. However, there is a certain 

degree of irony that this battle was fought in 

Tennessee, where the proclamation did not apply. 

Military governor Andrew Johnson was unable to 

end slavery in Tennessee until February 1865, but 

that did not prevent slaves from escaping their 

owners before then.27 In Middle Tennessee, 

refugee slaves made their way to Murfreesboro, 

																																																							 24. Jerry Daniel, Battle of Stones River: The Forgotten 

Conflict between the Confederate Army of Tennessee and 

the Union Army of the Cumberland (Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press, 2013); Cimprich, Slavery's 

End in Tennessee, 17; Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial: Abraham 

Lincoln and American Slavery (New York: W.W. Norton & 

Company, 2010), 239-242.

25. Foner, The Fiery Trial, 240-242.

26. Initially, Lincoln, Congress, and the War Department did 

not intend to interrupt slavery in the South. However, they 

rethought their position when slaves began escaping to 

federal lines. Congress passed the First Confiscation Act, 

which allowed the army to impress slaves for military labor. 

Then, the government passed an article of war that 

prevented the return of fugitive slaves in case their sale 

would benefit the Confederacy. Military field commanders 

also initially refused to take in fugitive slaves, but the need 

for labor and the influx of refugees made them change 

their mind, ultimately undermining the government's 

exclusion of Tennessee from the Emancipation 

Proclamation. Cimprich, Slavery's End in Tennessee, 33-35.

27. Johnson was unable to hold elections about the 

abolition of slavery, because the state still did not have a 

functioning civilian government. Instead of holding 

elections, he endorsed a convention of self-appointed 

Unionists, which adopted a constitutional amendment 

abolishing slavery in the state. Only voters that met 

Johnson’s guidelines were able to vote on the amendment. 

They approved the measure in February 1865. Foner, The 

Fiery Trial, 280. 
Chapter One

National Park Service 10

where Union forces afforded a measure of 

protection. Rutherford County, the sixth largest 

slave-owning county in Tennessee before the war, 

already had a large African American population. 

There were 12,984 slaves living in Rutherford 

County, Tennessee in 1860, slightly less than half of 

the total population. However, the 1870 census 

enumerated a total of 16,478 free African 

Americans in the county, indicating a large inmigration during and after the war.28 Lodl infers 

that this noticeable uptick in the African American 

population was due to the Union presence in 

Murfreesboro, particularly the national cemetery 

and Fortress Rosecrans. He also interprets the data 

to show that many of the African Americans within 

the county moved from rural areas into the city, 

indicating that plantation slaves moved into 

Murfreesboro where they outnumbered whites in 

1870.29 In the battle's aftermath, these refugees 

took up residence in any available shelter, including 

the former city jail, a Presbyterian church, and the 

campus of Union University. The contraband camp 

in Murfreesboro, located near Fortress Rosecrans, 

grew to about 2,000 people in the winter of 1864.30

The Union Army employed a number of refugees 

to build the massive earthworks at Fortress 

Rosecrans and repair the railroad. 

White Murfreesboro resident and Confederate 

sympathizer John Spence recorded Rutherford 

County's slaves’ flight to freedom during the war in 

his personal diary. He blamed Union soldiers for 

"poisoning the minds of the negros," and wearily 

watched as newly emancipated people tested the 

limits of their newfound freedom. He commented 

that they were becoming increasing "impudent," 

"lazy," "slow," and "contrary." He also remarked 

how the Union army was taking advantage of 

African Americans by paying them below market 

wages.

31 Spence's observations reflect the anger 

that many white southerners felt toward the Union 

army, not only for freeing their slaves but also for 

destroying their homes, businesses, and way of 

life.32

																																																							 28. Lodl, "Building Viable Black Communities," Table 1, 27; 

Janet Hudson, "A Profile of Black Landownership in 

Rutherford County," honor’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

University, 1989, 9.

29. Lodl, "Building Viable Black Communities," 32.

30. Cimprich, Slavery's End in Tennessee, Table 4, 53.

31. John Spence, A Diary of the Civil War (Nashville: 

Williams Printing Company, 1993), 21, 72.

32. Cimprich, Slavery's End in Tennessee, 27-32.

Finding protection behind Union lines was but one 

way African Americans sought freedom during the 

war, but historian Antoinette Van Zelm reminds us 

"there was no single emancipation experience.”33

For example, some enslaved people chose not to 

leave the plantation because they heard about the 

uncertainties and harsh conditions of contraband 

camps. Others did leave plantations to camp 

behind Union lines only to find that some Union 

commanders were turning asylum-seekers away. 

For those that did cast their luck with contraband 

camps, they discovered that Union commanders 

pressed many men and some women into work, 

such as Brigadier General James St. C. Morton, 

who put men to work building Fortress Rosecrans 

and repairing the railroad.34 A number of former 

slaves also mustered into the newly formed USCT

and pursued freedom through military service.35

Recovering the Dead 

Members of the 111th USCT provided the 

workforce for reinterring bodies at Stones River 

National Cemetery from 1865 to 1866. According 

to historian Michael Gavin, the 110th and 111th

USCT were originally formed at Pulaski, 

Tennessee, between late November 1863 and midJanuary 1864, and were known as the 2nd and 3rd

Alabama Infantry Volunteers (African Descent). 

However, the U.S. reorganized its African 

American troops and renamed the regiments as the 

110th and 111th on June 25, 1864. Many of these 

men had escaped plantations in northern Alabama 

and Mississippi and were recruited from 

contraband camps. They received rations, 

																																																							 33. Antoinette van Zelm, "Hope Within A Wilderness of 

Suffering: The Transition from Slavery to Freedom During 

the Civil War and Reconstruction in Tennessee," Tennessee 

Civil War Heritage Area, 2, 

http://www.tn4me.org/pdf/TransitionfromSlaverytoFreedom

.pdf (accessed May 29, 2015).

34. Mabel Pittard, “Daniel C. Miller: A Yankee in 

Rutherford County,” Rutherford County Historical Society

26 (Winter 1986): 33; Spence, A Diary of the Civil War, 73; 

John Fitch, Annals of the Army of the Cumberland

(Philadelphia, PA: J. P. Lippincott & Co., 1863), 190, 

http://tnmap.tn.gov/linked_docs/Fitch1863p190.pdf

(accessed August 4, 2015); Lodl, “Building Viable Black 

Communities,” 30-31.

35. Cimprich, Slavery's End in Tennessee, 81-97, states that 

Congress allowed blacks to serve in the military in 1862. 

Union forces raised the 13th and 17th USCT regiments in 

Murfreesboro in the summer and early fall of 1863. See 

Michael Gavin, “Rutherford County’s African American 

Soldiers during the Civil War: The 13th and 17th Regiments, 

USCT,” Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area (May 2007), 1, 5. 
11 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

uniforms, and pay after they committed to serve for 

three years. However, they were not received very 

well and had a long way to go to prove to white 

Union soldiers that they were trustworthy and 

valuable as soldiers. Men of the 111th did see action 

in Georgia and Alabama, and Confederate forces 

captured a number of them.36 In November 1864, 

they marched to Tennessee's state capital and took 

part in the Battle of Nashville. From January 1865 

through the spring, the 111th guarded bridges along 

the Nashville and Northwestern Railroad. In July 

1865, the regiment was assigned to Stones River 

National Cemetery. The men remained there until 

they were mustered out of service on April 30, 

1866.37

National cemetery supervisor William Earnshaw 

and his laborers first had to account for the Union 

dead scattered across the countryside (see Fig. 2).

38 

Starting with one hundred men, Earnshaw directed 

the USCT to disinter and then reinter nearly 3,000 

bodies that had been buried in the immediate 

vicinity of the national cemetery, including the 

adjacent battlefield, Murfreesboro City Cemetery, 

and various points around Murfreesboro. Next, 

Earnshaw sent detachments to retrace the route 

taken by the Army of the Cumberland during the 

Tullahoma campaign, stopping at Hoover’s Gap, 

Liberty Gap, and Guy’s Gap, to find and recover 

the remains of soldiers who fell and were buried 

there. They then went north of Stones River, 

following the railroad to the towns of Florence, 

Stewart’s Creek, Smyrna, and La Vergne, which 

were located along the army’s route towards 

Murfreesboro on the eve of battle. The cemetery 

team also went south to northern Alabama and 

																																																							 36. William Holland, a former slave and veteran of the 

111th, worked as a day laborer for the national cemetery. 

He later purchased a farm adjacent to the Hazen Brigade 

Monument. His family buried him right outside of the wall 

that encloses the cemetery and Hazen Brigade Monument. 

Jason Perkins, “William Holland: Fighting for his Freedom,” 

Stones River National Battlefield, 

http://www.nps.gov/stri/learn/historyculture/holland.htm

(accessed August 5, 2015); Fraley, “The Politics of Memory,” 

89-90. 

37. Michael Gavin, "A History of the 110th and 111th 

Regiments United States Colored Troops (USCT)," Tennessee 

Civil War Heritage Area, October 2004, 1-5.

38. This “accounting,” according to Faust, This Republic of 

Suffering, 61, 218-9, 221, was essential to finding the 

humanity that was lost during the battle and demonstrate 

the federal government's willingness to be accountable to 

the rights of its citizens who answered the call to defend to 

the nation and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

northeast to the Kentucky border. Earnshaw's 

force grew to as many as three hundred men to 

finish the reburials, which amounted to nearly 

6,000.39

Figure 2 “Map of Cemeterial District showing section of 

country from which the Union Dead have been disinterred 

and removed to the ‘Stones River’ National Cemetery near 

Murfreesboro, Rutherford Co. Tenn.” 

George notes that the cemetery work was 

"gruesome...but also exacting." Earnshaw and his 

men scoured the many rural roads where soldiers 

could have travelled, looking for bodies, sometimes 

encountering hostile locals. Once they recovered a 

body, they placed it in a substantial coffin and 

wrote whatever identifying information they found 

with or near the body on the lid and then the 

wooden grave marker. This information also was 

recorded in a book, which was checked before the 

coffin was placed in the ground. Faust believes this

emphasis on identifying remains was due in part to 

the war's upheaval of grieving norms that 

emphasized a "Good Death," a death where one 

died at home, among family—a clear reflection of 

the life they lived. Therefore, it was deeply 

upsetting for families to have their husbands, 

brothers, and sons die far from home, and part of 

their coping was ensuring that their loved one's 

remains were properly identified and cared for.40

Despite meticulous procedures, workers could not 

identify 40 percent of the remains they found. 

However, once committed to the national 

																																																							 39. George, "Stones River," 31.

40. Faust, This Republic of Suffering, 6-9.
Chapter One

National Park Service 12

cemetery, the dead were no longer individual 

soldiers but part of a collective community known 

as "the Union dead.”41 Ironically, the carnage 

wrought by mass-produced weaponry in the first 

modern war, which killed indiscriminately, also 

required personnel to employ systematic 

procedures for mass burial after the conflict was 

over. 

Earnshaw's efforts at Stones River National 

Cemetery contributed to fashioning federal policy 

for the Union dead after the war. During the 

summer of 1865, the federal government still had 

not made a solid commitment to dealing with 

deceased Union soldiers, and officers individually 

responded to conditions in the field. According to 

Faust, only gradually in the years following the war 

did the federal government firm up its commitment 

to the dead. Earnshaw himself was present at a 

Congressional committee meeting that convened in 

Memphis after the May 1866 riots targeting the 

African American community. Congressmen were 

concerned about how to control southern white 

defiance, and from this conversation came related 

concerns about the possible desecration of graves 

of Union soldiers buried in the South. Faust 

believes this meeting led to the passage of the 

National Cemetery Act in 1867 and helped 

broaden the scope of the reinterment program.42

Cemetery Community 

Some members of the 111th USCT remained in 

Murfreesboro after their time in the service was 

over. A few even settled on the old battlefield near 

the national cemetery in a community that became 

known as "Cemetery." Other Union soldiers also 

remained in the area after the war, including a 

number of colored troops from the 8th, 13th, 17th, 

18th, and 75th USCT. Lydia Simpson, who took a 

detailed look at the USCT in the Rutherford 

County's Ninth District (the district in which that 

national cemetery and the Cemetery community 

were located) after the war, found that one-third of 

the African American landowners in the district in 

1878 were former servicemen, but she also infers 

that many most likely had pre-war connections to 

the area because these regiments mostly originated 

in Middle Tennessee and Nashville. She also found 

																																																							 41. George, "Stones River," 32; Faust, This Republic of 

Suffering, 82-3.

42. Faust, This Republic of Suffering, 224.

that a number of these men were hired to work at 

the national cemetery as late as the 1890s, and this 

shared military and job experience combined with 

proximity to work created the foundation for a 

community.43 

Landownership was a critical step for African 

Americans in making the tenuous transition from 

slavery to post-emancipation life, and USCT 

veterans were not the only African Americans 

buying ground on the former battlefield in the 

Ninth District. A close examination of property 

ownership, c. 1865-1930, in an area of the 

Cemetery community known as the Cedars, 

located within the present-day boundaries of 

Stones River National Battlefield, revealed a mix of 

white and black landowners. White landowners 

generally held larger, and more productive, tracts 

of land, but the pattern of African American 

property ownership clearly delineated a cluster 

settlement. Additionally, the surnames of some 

African American property owners correlated with 

those of slaveholding plantation owners in the 

Ninth District before the war, indicating that many 

formerly enslaved people either chose to remain in 

the area or found it difficult to leave.44

The pattern of white and black land ownership that 

prevailed on the tract of land that would become 

Stones River National Battlefield complicates our 

understanding of post-emancipation communities. 

African American communities are typically 

characterized as segregated from or on the 

periphery of white society. Indeed, African 

Americans tended to group together to form 

communities and protect one another from 

intimidation and racial violence, a common threat 

in the South after the war. Lydia Simpson and 

Elizabeth Goetsch have both pointed out that the 

national cemetery, coupled with the devastated 

battlefield landscape, meant that African 

Americans may have been drawn to the area 

because it was on the margins of town and the 

federal presence in the person of a cemetery 

superintendent provided some measure of 

																																																							 43. Simpson, "Settling In," 15.

44. Rebecca Conard, Historic Cemetery Community: The 

Cedars, Stones River National Battlefield, Rutherford 

County, Tennessee (Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee 

State University, prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, May 2016), ii. Jennifer Hudson also reached this 

conclusion in "A Profile of Black Landownership in 

Rutherford County," iii.
13 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

protection as well as employment.45 However, 

more recent land-use studies indicate that many of 

these people living in this area, both black and 

white, had pre-war connections to this land. With a 

fresh look at land deeds and other records, 

researchers have been able to reconceptualize the 

way in which blacks and whites resettled the 

former battlefield after the war. In this rural area, 

which includes a large portion of District Nine of 

Rutherford County, groups of African Americans 

gravitated to distinct settlement nodes within a 

larger area of farms owned by both whites and 

blacks. Within the larger Cemetery community, 

which refers to an African American community 

that included both cluster settlements and outlying 

farms, there were two specific places known as the 

"Cedars" and the "Bottom." The Cedars was 

located southwest of Old Nashville Pike along Van 

Cleve Lane. Northwest of the Cedars, the Bottom 

was closer to the intersection of Old Nashville Pike 

and Asbury Road. It was called the Bottom because 

the area flooded frequently.46 So, while whites and 

blacks both occupied the former battlefield, 

African Americans did tend to cluster together. 

Both settlements had access to the railroad, which 

ran adjacent to the national cemetery. 

Churches and schools were the anchors for black 

residents in the Cedars and the Bottom, and for the 

Cemetery community as a whole. Both institutions 

represent African Americans efforts to exercise 

their newfound freedom and build their own 

communities during Reconstruction.47 Even during 

the war, newly emancipated African Americans in 

Middle Tennessee organized independent 

churches and schools for themselves. John Spence 

wrote in November 1863 that contraband camp 

dwellers organized a school in the basement of a 

Methodist church in Murfreesboro, and 130 

"schollars, of all ages, colours and sexes, some 

young as eight years"48 attended the first day. 

Residents of the Cemetery community also 

established a school, which was located in the 

Bottom near Asbury Road. Stones River Methodist 

Church was also located in this area and Mt. Olivet 

Missionary Baptist Church and Ebeneezer 

																																																							 45. Simpson, "Settling In," 29; Goetsch, "’All Could Not Help 

But Feel It,’" 39.

46. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 17, 31.

47. Foner, Reconstruction, 88-102; Lodl, "Building Viable 

Black Communities," 51-61.

48. Spence, A Diary of the Civil War, 110-1.

Primitive Baptist Church were located in the 

Cedars.49 The Tennessee Manual Labor University 

served the greater Cemetery community for a very 

short period of time, from 1866 to the early 1870s. 

Peter Lowery, born a slave but later purchased by 

his Cherokee wife, founded the school along with 

his son, Samuel. They obtained a charter from the 

General Assembly of the State of Tennessee on 

December 10, 1866. This school focused on 

teaching African Americans practical skills in 

literature, science, mechanics, and agriculture. 

Students could work on the school’s farm in 

exchange for tuition. Historians do not know the 

exact reason why the school closed, but it might 

have been because of poor financial management 

or because the Ku Klux Klan managed to shut it 

down through intimidation or other means. 

Despite the school’s short tenure, its goal to 

educate newly emancipated African Americans 

through a work-study program and the challenges 

the administrators faced are instructive as to how 

African Americans used education to form their 

identities during Reconstruction.50

Freedmen’s Bureau, Civil Rights, 

and End of Reconstruction 

Local whites reeled from the dissolution of slavery 

and the loss of the war, and, as a result, "bristled at 

every assertion of black independence,"51 which 

included everything from voting to landownership, 

education, employment, and even 

commemoration. In 1865, Congress created the 

U.S. Bureau for Refugees, Freedmen, and 

Abandoned Lands, known as the Freedmen's 

Bureau, to help African Americans and poor 

southern whites in the aftermath of the war. The 

bureau established an office in Murfreesboro in 

1865 to maintain a federal presence in the area 

while helping local blacks, where it remained until 

1872. Along with northern benevolent aid 

organizations, the bureau assisted local blacks with 

employment contracts, legal matters, school 

organization, and investigated instances of racial 

violence in the area.52

																																																							 49. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, iii.

50. Simpson, “Settling In,” 54-66. 

51. Ash, Middle Tennessee Society Transformed, 193.

52. Selected reports include, J.K. Nelson, “Correspondence,” 

October 7, 1867, Selected Records of the Tennessee Field 

Office of the Bureau of Refugees, Freemen, and Abandoned 
Chapter One

National Park Service 14

The Freedmen’s Bureau in Murfreesboro reported 

fourteen instances of white violence towards 

blacks from April 15, 1865 to January 15, 1866. 

These cases ranged from intimidation to brutal 

violence to sexual assault. In one case, Bee 

Whitney (African American) accused Isaac Rucker 

(white) of beating his wife when Rucker told Bee 

and his wife to leave his farm. Rucker had hired the 

couple to work his farm in exchange for a third of 

the crop, but ordered them to leave in June, before 

the harvest. Whitney said, “he beat my wife in the 

head side & body with a piece of board, the last 

blow knocked her down. This was 6 days before 

she had a child.” Rucker had to be brought to the 

Freedmen’s Bureau by military force, where he 

confessed to beating Mrs. Whitney.53 In another 

case, an African American man named Anthony 

accused a white man named Bill Murray for beating 

Anthony’s wife and child with a stick “for singing a 

Union song.” The officer sent an order for Murray 

to appear, but he “was taken with the appoplexy & 

it is said died of mortal fear of being put in the 

Bureau.”54 The incidences in the report do not 

specify location, so it is unknown if any happened 

in the Cemetery community, but it is known that 

the white vigilante group, the Ku Klux Klan, was 

active along the Old Nashville Pike and intimidated 

black residents in the Cemetery community and 

sometimes resorted to violence.55 These two 

incidences provide some idea of the tensions 

																																																																																						 Lands, 1865-1872, Roll 84, Series T142, Record Group 105,

National Archives; “Indentures of Apprenticeships Dec. 

1865-Feb. 1868, Contracts: Jan. 1, 1865- Jan. 1, 1868,” and 

“Reports of Outrages, Riots, and Murders, Jan.15, 1866-Aug. 

12, 1868,” both Records of the Assistant Commissioner for 

the State of Tennessee, Bureau of Refugees, Freemen, and 

Abandoned Lands, 1865-1872, Roll 20, Series M999, Record 

Group 109, National Archives. For related scholarship on the 

Freedmen’s Bureau, see W.E.B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s 

Bureau,” Atlantic Monthly 87 (1901): 354-65; Ash, Middle 

Tennessee Society Transformed, 207-9. 

53. J. T. Alden, “Freedmen’s Bureau Report of Outrages in 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” January 1866, “Reports of 

Outrages, Riots and Murders, January 15, 1865 to August 

12, 1868,” Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the 

State of Tennessee, Bureau of Refugees, Freemen, and 

Abandoned Lands, 1865-1872, Roll 20, Series M999, Record 

Group 109, National Archives.

54. Ibid. 

55. Avery [single name only], “The Battlefield of Stone 

River,” Cincinnati Commercial Tribune 30, no. 27 

(September 27, 1869); J.K. Nelson, “Monthly Report of 

Freedmen’s Affairs in the Nashville Sub Districts for the 

Month of June, 1868,” June 1868, Selected Records of the 

Tennessee Field Office of the Bureau of Refugees, Freemen, 

and Abandoned Lands, 1865-1872, Roll 84, Series T142, 

Record Group 105, National Archives.

between whites and blacks in Murfreesboro 

immediately after the Civil War. Both Rucker and 

Murray feared the authority of the Freedmen’s 

Bureau, which indicates that it provided a 

reassuring presence to newly emancipated African 

Americans.

The government intended the Freedmen’s Bureau 

to be a temporary measure, but Republicans were 

dismayed when President Andrew Johnson vetoed 

renewing the agency in 1866. He believed it was 

unconstitutional. Republicans were already 

displeased with how Johnson was handling 

Reconstruction and his lack of interest in 

providing suffrage for African Americans. Violent 

outbreaks in the South, including the 1866 

Memphis riots, which occurred when southern 

whites sought retribution against African 

Americans, and the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, 

moved Congress towards a more radical approach 

to Reconstruction that ensured civil rights for 

African Americans56 Radical Republicans wanted 

the government to use the government’s military 

power to enforce these laws and provide some 

amount of protection to African Americans.

Congress overrode Johnson’s veto and passed the 

Freedmen’s Bureau Bill. In order to pass civil rights 

legislation, Radical Republicans in Congress

needed to remove President Johnson. In 1868,

Congress impeached Johnson when he removed 

Secretary of War Stanton, but Johnson was 

acquitted. His acquittal weakened the influence of 

Radicals within the Republican Party and 

essentially secured the nomination for Ulysses S. 

Grant. Grant was more conservative, but Congress 

was able to secure African American rights in the 

form of the Civil Rights Acts of 1870, 1871, and 

1875.57

The presidential election of 1876 precipitated the 

formal end to Reconstruction. Republicans were 

struggling to hang on to the presidency with stories 

of political corruption and an economic depression

threatening their stronghold. Protecting African 

American rights became a secondary concern and 

many Republicans questioned if their strategy for 

the south had been the right course of action. 

Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden won the 

popular vote, but neither he, nor Rutherford B. 

Hayes, the Republican candidate, had enough 

																																																							 56. Faust, This Republic of Suffering, 224.

57. Foner, Reconstruction, 247, 333-37. 
15 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

electoral votes to win the presidency due to voter 

disputes in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana. 

After some backroom negotiations, Democrats 

conceded the presidency to Republicans; in 

exchange, Hayes ordered troops stationed outside 

the statehouses of South Carolina and Louisiana 

back to their barracks. This gesture signified that 

the military would not interfere with political 

matters.58 Foner asserts that 1877 “marked a 

decisive retreat from the idea, born during the Civil 

War, of a powerful nation state protecting the 

fundamental rights of Americans.”59 Foner added 

that the federal government did not abandon that 

idea completely, just those matters concerning 

African Americans.60

Memorial Day 

Despite intimidation, African Americans in 

Murfreesboro celebrated their newfound freedom 

publicly and with exuberance. Spence recorded

that on May 4, 1864, local African Americans 

celebrated their one-year anniversary of freedom 

with a procession outside of town followed by 

speeches from white supporters, including 

Chaplain Earnshaw, along with black orators, 

congratulating the crowd on a year of freedom.61

Fraley interprets this event as evidence that African 

American and Union commemoration converged 

in the face of hostile Southern whites.62 This 

tradition would continue for decades after the war 

as both African Americans and Union veterans 

honored the Union dead at Stones River National 

Cemetery. 

African Americans in Rutherford County and as far 

away as Nashville came for Memorial Day 

celebrations at Stones River National Cemetery in 

the late-nineteenth century to early 1930s.63 There 

																																																							 58. Ibid., 568-69; 575-76, 582. 

 

59. Ibid., 582. 

60. Ibid., 582-83. 

61. Spence, A Diary of the Civil War, 157.

62. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 64-5.

63. The federal holiday known as Memorial Day supplanted 

Decoration Day, which according to Blight, originated in 

Charleston, South Carolina, when emancipated African 

Americans and their white Abolitionist allies held a 

ceremony for the Union dead that included a parade and 

the adornment of Union graves with spring flowers. 

General John Logan, commander-in-chief of the Grand 

were even special trains that brought African 

Americans from Nashville directly to the national 

cemetery, mostly because African Americans were 

prohibited in joining the observances at Nashville 

National Cemetery, which was reserved for whites. 

White Northern migrants, curious local whites 

(whose Confederate Memorial Day celebrations 

were held on a different day), and cemetery staff 

joined African American observers at Stones River 

National Cemetery for Memorial Day activities. 

There were tensions among these groups, 

particularly because African Americans saw the 

holiday as a time of celebration, which they 

expressed by holding large picnics and selling 

refreshments in areas outside of the national 

cemetery. These activities likely irritated the Grand 

Army of the Republic chapter that was responsible 

for the day’s program and preferred a more formal, 

somber show of mourning. National cemetery staff 

were left to navigate between the two groups and 

had to ensure that the cemetery was properly 

maintained during the day’s events. Fraley 

indicates that local whites associated Memorial 

Day activities with African American Civil War 

commemoration activities in Middle Tennessee, 

but their antagonism to these celebrations grew as 

race relations worsened, particularly in the 1890s. 

This placed pressure on national cemetery staff to 

maintain racial order at Memorial Day events in 

the ensuing decades by imposing certain rules and 

regulations, such as prohibiting picnickers from 

eating in the cemetery.64

Confederate veterans and sympathizers largely 

stayed away from Stones River National Cemetery. 

The federal government prohibited burials of 

Confederate soldiers in the national cemetery, so 

southerners chose to commemorate the 

Confederate dead in other parts of town. Women 

were at the heart of these observances and largely 

responsible for raising the necessary funds to find 

and reinter Confederate dead. They soon 

established the Murfreesboro Memorial 

Association, perhaps as early as 1865, to relocate 

																																																																																						 Army of the Republic, called for Union veterans to honor 

their fallen comrades in a national day of observance on 

May 30, 1868. Blight, Race and Reunion, 64-69, 71. 

64. Miranda Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, 2002 Draft, Chapter Three, 3-6; Fraley, "The 

Politics of Memory," 87-109.
Chapter One

National Park Service 16

Confederate dead to their own cemetery close to 

the town square near the Shelbyville and 

Murfreesboro Turnpike and the railroad.

65 Faust 

asserts that these actions were sectional in attitude 

and that women wished to continue to devote 

themselves to the Confederacy by memorializing 

the loved ones they had lost.66 Local whites also 

held separate Confederate Memorial Day 

observances in Evergreen Cemetery to remember 

those Confederate veterans that died during the 

war and had passed away that year. Their 

ceremonies were subdued, much in line with the 

culture of mourning, since for many the wounds of 

the war were still present, and took place at a 

location entirely separate from Stones River 

National Cemetery.67

Developing Stones River National 

Cemetery 

Stones River National Cemetery thus remained the 

focus of Union commemorative efforts after the 

war and continued to undergo changes in the 

following decades. Earnshaw and the USCT 

laborers working at the cemetery finished the task 

of burying the bodies in 1867 (see Fig. 3). John A. 

Means, Earnshaw's predecessor, laid out the 

cemetery to include a central square with a flagstaff 

(called Lincoln Square), two drives named after 

Union generals killed in the battle, and equally 

sized graves to emphasize the individuality of the 

soldiers resting there in addition to their collective 

sacrifice.68 The layout remained the same, but the 

USCT replaced a wooden picket fence with a 

limestone wall enclosure in 1865. Resident laborers 

finished the wall when the USCT mustered out of 

service in 1866.69 In 1867, the State of Tennessee 

ceded jurisdiction over the national cemetery to 

the federal government, after the Quartermaster 

General, Attorney General, and Congress belatedly 

determined that the federal government had to 

request permission from states to place national 

cemeteries within their borders. A year later, in 

1868, the federal government finally purchased the 

twenty acres they essentially seized for the national 

																																																							 65. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 116-9.

66. Faust, This Republic of Suffering, 247.

67. Fraley, “The Politics of Memory,” 128-30. 

68. Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Chapter One, 9.

69. Ibid., Chapter One, 5-7.

cemetery during the war from James M. Tompkins 

and “Richard Wasson et. al.” 70 However, the 

government was unable to take ownership of the 

Hazen Brigade memorial and cemetery until 1875, 

when Cemetery Superintendent Doolittle 

purchased the property at auction for two hundred 

dollars after Nelson Cowan, an African American 

resident and former slave to the Cowan family, 

failed to pay a note for his property.71 Sometime in 

or shortly before 1871, the government purchased 

four additional acres from Tompkins for the 

superintendent's lodge, a stone structure built in 

1871 that provided on-site living space for the 

cemetery administrator, thus creating a permanent 

federal presence at the cemetery at all times.72 Also 

during 1870s, the Quartermaster decided to 

replace the wooden headboards with headstones, 

since the wood was beginning to rot. DeWitt C. 

Sage received the contract for headstones for the 

graves of unknown soldiers on December 31, 1873, 

and Thomas P. Morgan won the contract 

headstones to mark the graves of identified soldiers 

a few weeks later in January 1874. Civil engineer T. 

M. Robbins supervised the installation of both sets 

in 1876.73 Robbins noticed that nearly 4,000 of the 

graves were sinking, revealing decayed bodies and 

crushed coffins, which prompted cemetery staff to 

take on major grading projects to fill the graves, 

grade low lying areas, and top dress the avenues.74

Cemetery laborers also worked to make the 

cemetery into a park-like setting by maintaining a 

nice lawn and planting trees, bushes, and flowers.75

																																																							 70. Ibid., Chapter One, 4; George, “Stones River,” 35.

71. Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Chapter One, 4; George, “Stones River,” 

36.

72. There was one lodge previous to the one built in 1871. 

The first was a wooden structure located across Old 

Nashville Pike, built on private lands in 1867. Fraley, Stones 

River National Cemetery Cultural Landscape Report,

Chapter One, 8-9; Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., John 

Milner Associates, Inc., and Liz Sargent HLA, Stones River 

National Cemetery Cultural Landscape Report, Prepared for 

Stones River National Battlefield, November 2015, 25.

73. Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Chapter One, 7-8.

74. Ibid., Chapter Two, 1-2.

75. Ibid., Chapter Two, 5.
17 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 3 Earliest known photograph of Stones River 

National Cemetery, circa 1866. Source: National Archives.

Rise of Veterans’ Organizations 

In 1882, the government issued a contract for a 

rostrum to be constructed in the cemetery. 

Composed of brick pillars supporting a lattice roof, 

officials intended the rostrum to be used by 

speakers during Memorial Day activities (see Fig. 

4).

76 The need for a rostrum raises questions about 

changing commemorative practices during the 

1880s and the rising popularity of veterans’ 

organizations. Blight says that while veterans’ 

activities were not completely in "hibernation" 

during the 1870s, there did indeed seem to be a 

"revival" in the 1880s. He cited the economic 

depression, political differences over 

Reconstruction (which officially ended in 1877), 

and a general desire to forget the war as reasons 

why veteran activities remained low in the 1870s, 

only to be followed by a great wave of fraternalism 

that swept across the country in the 1880s. 

Membership in the Union veteran organization, 

the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), for 

example, exploded from 40,000 in 1880 to 400,000 

in 1890.77 Blight asserts that the "unheroic Gilded 

Age" prompted veterans to relive the glories of 

battle by holding Civil War roundtables, publishing 

their battle accounts, and erecting memorials to 

themselves.78 Confederate veterans, specifically, 

took over commemorative efforts, previously 

dominated by women, and promoted the "Lost 

Cause" mythology—a view of the war that 

celebrated the Confederacy as a heroic, but illfated cause. Both the United Confederate Veterans 

(UCV) and United Daughters of the Confederacy 

(UDC) emerged during this time period to reclaim 

																																																							 76. Ibid., Chapter Two, 7-8.

77. Blight, Race and Reunion, 171.

78. Ibid., 182, 188.

Civil War spaces and associate Lost Cause 

mythology with commemoration of the 

Confederate dead.

79 In 1888, a mix of elite and 

non-elite Confederate veterans came together and 

organized a Murfreesboro chapter of the UCV.80

The rostrum at Stones River National Cemetery 

would be used by these groups to further parse 

Civil War memory and politics. 

Figure 4 Rostrum in Stones River National Cemetery. 

Photographed by Oswald E. Camp, circa 1933-1939. 

Courtesy of STRI.

Union and Confederate veterans groups undertook 

separate commemorative activities in Rutherford 

County during the 1880s and 1890s. In 1883, 

twenty years after the battle, a group of Union 

veterans led by Major F. L. Guenther raised funds 

for a monument to be placed at Stones River 

National Cemetery to honor the soldiers and 

officers from the U.S. Regulars in the Army of the 

Cumberland that died at Stones River. The 

monument consists of an inscribed sandstone 

pillar resting on a granite base and surmounted by 

a bronze eagle (see Fig. 5).

81

																																																							 79. Ibid., 158, 258.

80. The national UCV was organized in 1889. 

81. Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Chapter Two, 8-9.
Chapter One

National Park Service 18

Figure 5 U.S. Regulars Monument in Stones River National 

Cemetery. Photographed by Oswald E. Camp, circa 1933-

1939. Courtesy of STRI.

The first major effort of the Murfreesboro UCV 

was to relocate the Confederate dead to Evergreen 

Cemetery, a predominately white cemetery, where 

they were placed in a mass grave called the 

"Confederate Circle." This project simultaneously 

plucked the responsibility of the Confederate dead 

from the local women and placed it under the 

purview of the city of Murfreesboro.82 The UCV 

also held its own separate Memorial Day 

celebrations from the 1880s to 1910s in Evergreen 

Cemetery.83 In 1899, the UCV, with help from local 

women in the UDC, selected a site in the town 

square adjacent to the courthouse for a monument 

to the Confederate dead, which was officially 

dedicated in 1901.84 The placement of a 

Confederate monument near the seat of county 

power and its dichotomous relationship to the 

memorialization of Union dead at the national 

cemetery demonstrated that while the Union may 

have won the war, former Confederates regained 

local power after Reconstruction was over (see Fig. 

6).

85

																																																							 82. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 121-4.

83. Ibid., 128-30.

84. Ibid., 132-43.

85. Blight, Race and Reunion, 264.

Figure 6 Confederate Monument in Murfreesboro, TN. 

Photographed by Albert Kern, date unknown. Source: 

MTSU Walker Library. 

Golden Age of Battlefield 

Preservation 

Sectional differences were set aside in the 1890s 

when battlefield preservation dominated Civil War 

commemoration. Indeed, the 1890s are known as 

the "Golden Age for Battlefield Preservation" 

during which time Congress established five 

military parks: Gettysburg, Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga, Vicksburg, Shiloh, and Antietam. 

This unprecedented federal commitment to 

historic preservation of battlefield landscapes came 

about because many Civil War veterans served in 

Congress and state legislatures, thereby providing 

the necessary political support for these endeavors. 

Furthermore, many veterans were still able and 

willing to visit these battlefields and mark where 

major events occurred. Blight writes that these 

veterans were the first "Civil War buffs," because of 

their intense focus on the war's military minutiae, 

but conveniently did not discuss slavery as a cause 

of the war or emancipation as its legacy.86

Interestingly, when Congress established these 

parks, it provided the funds to tell both sides of the 

battle. According to historian Timothy Smith this 

both exemplified reconciliation and set an 

important precedent for how these sites are 

interpreted today, and helps to explain, at least in 

part, why introducing slavery to the story has been 

difficult.87

																																																							 86. Ibid., 182; Sellars, “Pilgrims Places,” 36-40.

87. Timothy Smith, A Chickamauga Memorial: The 

Establishment of America's First Civil War National Military 

Park (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2009), 65; 

Sellars, "Pilgrim Places," 31.
19 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Murfreesboro residents were certainly aware of the 

tourism potential of these former battlefields as 

crowds made their way to the dedication of 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 

Park in September 1895. Not coincidentally, H.R. 

1996, the first bill for a military park at Stones 

River, was introduced a few months later in 

December. James Daniel Richardson, a 

Confederate veteran, prominent Murfreesboro 

resident, and Congressman representing 

Tennessee's Fifth District, introduced the bill, 

which contained very similar language to 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 

Park's legislation and even mistakenly left the 

words “Chickamauga and Chattanooga” in the 

document. The bill called for the purchase of 1,000 

acres for "preserving and suitably marking for 

historical and professional military study the fields 

of some of the most remarkable maneuvers and 

most brilliant fighting in the war of the rebellion."88

The 1,000 acres were supposed to contain "all the 

grounds occupied by the Union and Confederate 

armies," but that was really only a fourth of the 

actual battlefield. Like Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga, Richardson's bill called for a threeman commission that included two Civil War 

veterans appointed by the Secretary of War and an 

active duty officer. Unlike other military parks at 

the time, the Stones River bill did not stipulate that 

a Union and Confederate veteran both had to be 

appointed to the commission.89 To appease local 

landowners, the new park would incorporate 

Nashville Pike, Wilkinson Pike, and Franklin Road 

for a distance of four miles from Murfreesboro, but 

they would be held open as public roads to be 

maintained by the federal government. 

Furthermore, landowners could retain their 

holdings so long as they maintained the buildings, 

fields, and forests and helped take care of all tablets 

and memorials that might be installed around the 

park.90 The bill instructed the commission to install 

tablets marking the lines of U.S. Regular troops and 

raise monuments dedicated to them. The 

commission would be allowed to hire an assistant 

to help with this historical research. The 

appropriation for the proposed park was the same 

as Chickamauga and Chattanooga, $125,000, even 

though Stones River would be much smaller.91

																																																							 88. H.R. 1996, 54th Cong., 1st sess., 6.

89. George, "Stones River," 64.

90. Ibid., 65.

91. Ibid., 66.

Richardson's H.R. 1996 did not move forward 

because the House Committee on Military Affairs 

did not take up the measure. George surmises that 

Richardson acted hastily in the excitement of 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga Military Park's 

dedication, and did not make a solid case for 

Stones River National Battlefield's creation. 

Indeed, after the financial depression of 1893, 

Congress was reluctant to create additional 

battlefield parks on the scale of Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga, which was over 6,000 acres. Instead 

of discouraging Stones River veterans and local 

residents, Richardson's initial efforts sparked 

enthusiasm for a battlefield project the following 

year.

92

Unlike the military parks successfully created 

during this time, Stones River did not have a 

dedicated organization focused on the battlefield's 

preservation when Richardson introduced H.R. 

1996. However, on April 28, 1896, the State of 

Tennessee incorporated the Stones River National 

Battlefield and Memorial Association. At its 

beginnings, the organization had about twenty-five 

members. The officers were Union and 

Confederate veterans, these positions almost split 

evenly between the former foes, which fits the 

trend of battlefield preservation groups being 

reconciliatory in nature at this time. While there 

were not any nationally known individuals 

involved, this group did contain some of the most 

prominent men in Murfreesboro and Rutherford 

County, including lawyers, politicians, clergymen, 

and bankers. The group sought support from 

national organizations, namely the GAR and UCV, 

and began a campaign of asking these groups to 

send signed petitions to Richardson supporting a 

battlefield park at Stones River. One hundred GAR 

posts and 62 UCV camps representing members of 

twenty-five states and the District of Columbia 

answered their call. The leading officers for both 

organizations visited the battlefield, first GAR 

commander-in-chief, Thaddeus S. Clarkson, in 

1897, followed by UCV commander-in-chief, John 

B. Gordon in 1898. Both lent their support for the 

battlefield project.93 In addition to raising national 

support, the association also sought to secure 

options on the land where the most significant 

events of the battle occurred so that it might in turn 

be deeded to the federal government for a 

																																																							 92. Ibid., 66-72.

93. Ibid., 72-86
Chapter One

National Park Service 20

battlefield park. Since options are not legally 

binding agreements, none of these are recorded in 

public records. Association records, however, 

indicate that this task was complete within a year, 

but do not mention a total acreage or sum of 

money.

94 The group also erected large painted 

wooden markers on wood posts to mark significant 

battlefield places. Cemetery Superintendent Edwin 

P. Barrett approved one marker, which was placed 

within the cemetery near the main entrance to 

protect it from vandalism.95

Richardson hoped the Republican gains made 

during the 1896 election might provide a suitable 

political climate for the passage of the Stones River 

bill. With the support of the Tennessee state 

legislature behind him, which passed a joint 

resolution supporting the Stones River battlefield 

park, Richardson introduced H.R. 1647, a nearly 

identical bill to his first, on March 20, 1897. This 

bill also called for 1,000 acres and an appropriation 

of $125,000. Again, opinions in Washington about 

additional military parks and their expense were 

not favorable. The bill languished in the House 

Committee for Military Affairs, but this time the 

committee made plans to visit the battlefield in 

April 1898. Unfortunately, the outbreak of the 

Spanish-American War caused the committee to 

cancel its visit; Congress took no further action on 

the Stones River project during that session.96

Continued Efforts to Create a 

National Battlefield 

When the Spanish American ended, Richardson 

tried again. This time, members of the association 

traveled to Washington to provide testimony for 

H.R. 3363 on February 17, 1900. The reaction of 

the committee was promising, and the battlefield 

project seemed to have better footing than the 

previous two bills. The association members 

presented a map that was professionally surveyed 

by Oscar Jones, a thirty-year old surveyor from 

Murfreesboro, which showed battle lines and 

contemporary land ownership.97 The association 

members assured the committee that the land for 

																																																							 94. Ibid., 86-88.

95. Ibid., 88-91.

96. Ibid., 91-93.

97. Ibid., 104-6.

the park could be acquired at or below market 

value. They also argued for the battle's significance 

to prove that it was worthy of designation, and 

described the markers the association had already 

placed there. The committee recommended that 

the land be increased from 1,000 acres to 3,100, or 

3,700 maximum, to be more in line with Jones's 

survey and the actual area on which the battle had 

been fought. With this amendment, the committee 

recommended that the bill be passed immediately. 

Despite this success, the House never voted on the 

bill. There were many Civil War battlefield bills also 

being introduced that time and Congress members 

were ever conscious of their great expense.98

Conclusion 

As the nineteenth century drew to a close, the 

landscape of Civil War memory shifted at Stones 

River. The national cemetery remained the focus of 

Union and African American commemoration. 

African Americans from the surrounding area still 

continued to have vibrant celebrations there every 

year with picnics, speeches, and yard games. 

However, tensions mounted as local whites 

increasingly viewed these displays as vulgar. 

Having abandoned the battlefield for over two 

decades, Confederate veterans decided to reclaim 

space on the former fighting ground to validate the 

cause that they lost. However, emancipated slaves 

and their families now occupied much of that land, 

where many had settled, or resettled, after the war. 

Park designation would threaten the very 

community that benefited from the Union's victory 

there forty years ago. While Richardson's initial 

efforts at a park bill might have failed, the Stones 

River project was a cause he was bound not to lose. 

																																																							 98. Ibid., 110-115.
21 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Chapter Two

Establishing Stones River National Military Park, 

1900-1932 

Initial efforts may have failed to designate a 

battlefield park at Stones River during the "Golden 

Age of Battlefield Preservation," but supporters 

did lay important groundwork for the second 

swell of Congressional support for such projects. 

By the time this second wave crested, the Civil War 

generation was quickly fading from the scene, 

signaling a shift in preservation advocacy. 

Additionally, development and agriculture 

threatened many of these hallowed landscapes’

integrity, oftentimes irrevocably, underscoring the 

need for state or federal protection. Support for a 

battlefield project at Stones River remained strong 

among veterans’ groups, and they finally achieved 

their goal on March 3, 1927, when Congress 

authorized Stones River National Military Park. 

Residents of the Cemetery community paid for the 

cost of this victory, however, since their homes 

and livelihoods lay at the center of the new 

battlefield park. 

Continued and New Support for a 

Battlefield Park 

Local, state, and national, support remained for 

the Stones River battlefield project, but the people 

involved in these efforts shifted as time went on. 

The Stones River National Battlefield and 

Memorial Association continued to meet after 

Representative Richardson's failed legislation, but 

their numbers started to decline as members 

passed away.

1 Richardson himself continued to 

sponsor legislation until he retired in 1905, but 

																																																							 1. John George, "Stones River: Creating a Battlefield Park, 

1863-1932," dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University, 

2013, 115-7.

always with the same result.2 Another veterans' 

organization formed in the late-1890s in Indiana 

called the Association of the Survivors of Stones 

River also supported the battlefield's preservation, 

although there is not a clear connection to the 

Stones River National Battlefield Association.3 The 

influx of new personalities involved in the project 

meant different strategies to advocate for and 

preserve the battlefield. 

Politicians working to preserve Stones River 

battlefield adjusted their tactics since Congress 

was still reluctant to designate national battlefields 

due to their high expense. Congress only 

authorized five between 1900 and 1925. Stones 

River supporters had to shift their efforts from an 

"all or nothing" approach like Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga National Military Park, which 

included all the lands occupied by both armies 

during the conflict, to other strategies much 

smaller in scope, oftentimes borrowing upon 

successful strategies executed by other 

organizations at different battlefield sites. For 

example, Antietam was the last military park 

designated during the first wave of battlefield 

preservation. By that time, Congress realized how 

expensive these parks could be, and so 

preservationists at Antietam purchased small tracts 

of land along battle lines, which could be acquired 

for reasonable sums, instead of trying to purchase 

the entire battlefield. Their "Antietam Plan,” as it 

became to be called, also relied upon adjacent 

landowners to maintain the rural character of the 

area as well as the markers and monuments 

																																																							 2. Ibid., 142.

3. Ibid., 143-4.
Chapter Two

National Park Service 22

erected to illustrate the battle's story.4 On January 

25, 1913, Representative Houston proposed a bill 

to erect markers at Stones River by commissioners 

at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 

Military Park. The commissioners opposed the 

proposal, insinuating that the battlefield's integrity 

had diminished and there was nothing left to 

mark. Besides, the government did not own any 

property there.5 Tennessee Senator Luke Lea tried 

another approach in August 1914 by proposing a 

bill that would allow the Secretary of War to 

accept deeds of gift of Stones River battlefield land 

from the State of Tennessee, local counties, or any 

citizens. This attempt failed and so did a second 

one in 1915. In 1917, Congress set a precedent 

when it accepted land from the Kennesaw 

Mountain Battlefield Association, which 

purchased sixty acres of the battlefield for a 

monument in 1914, but deeded it to the federal 

government in 1917 when the organization’s 

members realized they could not afford the 

monument’s maintenance. Lea reintroduced his 

Stones River bill merely days after Congress 

accepted the Kennesaw land, but ultimately Lea's 

bill was not approved.6 Despite their lack of 

success, Stones River preservationists were 

constantly looking at other battlefield projects for 

a creative solution suitable to their own local 

project. 

The battlefield project received a measure of 

private support from the Nashville, Chattanooga, 

and St. Louis Railway (NC&StL), which was 

interested in developing the tourism potential of 

Civil War sites along its route to Atlanta.7 The man 

																																																							 4. Ibid., 141-2; Ronald Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the 

National Military Park Idea (Washington, DC: National Park 

Service, 1973), under "Antietam Plan," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/history_milita

ry/nmpidea6a.htm (accessed June 20, 2015).

5. George, "Stones River," 147-52.

6. Ibid., 152-4.

7. Incorporated in 1845, the Nashville & Chattanooga was 

the first railroad completed in Tennessee. It connected 

Murfreesboro with Nashville and Chattanooga, and was a 

strategic transportation route during the Civil War. The 

NC&StL was formed after the war in 1872 when the 

Nashville & Chattanooga merged with the Nashville & 

Northwestern. The Louisville & Nashville absorbed NC&StL 

in 1880, but NC&StL retained its name until the two were 

officially merged in 1957. In 1983, CSX Transportation 

absorbed L&N and operates the railway adjacent to the 

National Cemetery today. Styles, Stones River National 

Battlefield Historic Resource Study, 28; Edward A. Johnson, 

“Railroads,” Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, 

December 25, 2009, 

behind these efforts was John W. Thomas, who 

was the stationmaster in Murfreesboro during the 

war. Thomas, once a Confederate supporter, was 

named company president in 1884, partly because 

of his efforts during the war to protect company 

property. Thomas used his position to direct 

company resources to erect historical markers 

along the railway for passengers' benefit, and the 

railroad gave discounts to veterans traveling on 

NC&StL trains. Thomas supported the park 

project. He had plans for an artillery monument at 

McFaddens Ford, but that effort was completed 

posthumously in 1906 (see Fig. 7). Under 

Thomas’s initiative, the NC&StL also purchased 

Redoubt Brannan in 1904 to protect it from 

development, since much of Fortress Rosecrans 

had been obliterated by erosion or human activity 

by that time. This is one of the first instances of 

preservation by private initiative in relationship to 

Stones River battlefield.8

Figure 7 Artillery Monument, sculpted using Portland 

cement with a granite dust finish. Photographed by Oswald 

E. Camp, circa 1933-1939. Courtesy of STRI.

The interwar period brought a new technological 

advancement that spurred interest in battlefields 

and historic sites across the country, including 

																																																																																						 http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=1104

(accessed June 15, 2016). 

8. George, "Stones River," 128-37; "The John W. Thomas 

Memorial," Confederate Veteran 16, no. 2 (February 1908): 

55.
23 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Stones River. The automobile became widely 

available to middle class Americans, which 

prompted boosters to advocate for better roads. In 

Tennessee, boosters were determined that their 

communities should connect to regional and 

national networks of highways, particularly a route 

stretching from Michigan to Florida called the 

"Dixie Highway."9 There were two branches of 

the Dixie Highway in Tennessee; the western 

route took drivers through Nashville, 

Murfreesboro, Tullahoma, and Chattanooga, 

converging with the eastern route in Chattanooga 

that connected to Knoxville and Cumberland Gap. 

Local boosters in Middle Tennessee promoted the 

Nashville to Chattanooga route, touting the 

various historic sites along the way, including 

Stones River National Cemetery and adjacent 

battlefield. This route included the Nashville Pike, 

a state highway that ran through the battlefield 

area and passed the national cemetery. Rutherford 

County completed a major portion of this road 

improvement by 1920, and shortly thereafter 

Floyd Overall established a tourist camp called the 

Winter Garden Filling Station to serve visitors 

traveling the Dixie Highway. This camp was 

located near a new underpass, which took the 

highway under the railroad, close to the location 

of General Bragg's headquarters. Boosters used 

Stones River battlefield and the national cemetery 

to help sell the Dixie Highway on locating its route 

through Murfreesboro in order to help increase 

tourist interest in these sites.10 The accessibility 

afforded by good roads increased the likelihood 

that some portion of the battlefield would later be 

developed as a national military park.11

																																																							 9. Howard Preston, Dirt Roads to Dixie: Accessibility and 

Modernization in the South, 1885-1935 (Knoxville: 

University of Tennessee Press, 1991); Leslie Sharp, “Down 

South to Dixie: The Development of the Dixie Highway from 

Nashville to Chattanooga, 1915-1940,” master’s thesis, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 1993, 16-20, 32-42; 

Megan Akerstrom, “Dixie Highway in Murfreesboro: 

Transportation and Change in an Early Twentieth-Century 

Southern Town,” master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

University, 2010, 28, 36,

10. George, "Stones River," 154-7; Ackerman, “Dixie 

Highway in Murfreesboro,” 43-45, 66-67. It appears that 

park boosters and Good Roads advocates benefitted from 

both battlefield preservation and the routing of the Dixie 

Highway along the Nashville Pike, but historians writing 

about both efforts do not indicate if these boosters worked 

together to advocate both projects. A good starting point 

for future research might be to look at both groups to see if 

there were any connections. 

11. Zada Law argued that automotobility-related factors 

influenced the establishment and development of ten 

national military parks in the interwar period, including 

Stones River National Military Park. The Dixie Highway 

Second Wave of Battlefield 

Preservation 

The 1920s ushered in new opportunities for 

battlefield preservation. Victory in World War I 

unleashed a surge of patriotism. After the newly 

established American Battle Monuments 

Commission conducted its work overseas to 

survey battlefields and create cemeteries in the 

wake of the Great War, Americans increasingly 

venerated historic landscapes at home. This 

renewed the effort to preserve domestic 

battlefields as Americans reaffirmed traditional 

cultural values that appeared to be threatened by 

modernization and social change.12 At the same 

time, widespread economic growth in the 1920s 

brought greater access to modern conveniences, 

especially automobiles, and increased leisure time. 

More Americans had the time and money to travel, 

particularly to sites located along popular 

automobile highways. Business-oriented booster 

organizations, such as the Kiwanis Club and local 

Chambers of Commerce, augmented or replaced 

Civil War veterans’ groups, which were declining 

as members passed away. Business organizations 

supported battlefield park projects in their 

communities to capture the revenue of those 

frequent automobile tourists. The combination of 

these developments—a sustained effort to secure 

congressional legislation, a strong wave of 

patriotism generated by American participation in 

World War I, post-war economic growth, and 

increasing affordability of automobiles—provided 

the basis for a new wave of battlefield preservation 

in the interwar period.13

Despite Congress's reticence to authorize 

battlefield parks, the House Committee for 

Military Affairs was still being inundated by bills 

requesting exactly such action. In 1926, the 

committee reported that it had fourteen battlefield 

preservation bills pending with approximately 

																																																																																						 converged with the Jackson and Southern National 

highways near the battlefield in Murfreesboro. Zada Law, 

"The Role of Automobility in the Creation of National 

Military Parks between World War I and World War II," 

unpublished paper, Middle Tennessee State University, 

2011, 1-4, 26.

12. Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the National Military 

Park Idea, under "The 1926 Act for the Study and 

Investigation of Battlefields," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/history_milita

ry/nmpidea6c.htm (accessed June 20, 2015).

13. George, "Stones River," 161.
Chapter Two

National Park Service 24

$6,000,000 in requested appropriations. Nearly 

fourteen other bills dealt with marking battlefields 

or evaluating them for possible future 

designation.14 The committee agreed that a general 

study of battlefields was needed to develop some 

sort of broad preservation policy, instead of the 

piecemeal approach Congress had been taking for 

decades. Initially, the committee proposed a bill 

that borrowed from a previous idea to create a 

central national military park commission.15

However, Secretary of War Dwight F. Davis 

thought such a committee would be expensive and 

unnecessary and countered that the War 

Department make a suitable study and then submit 

a commemoration plan to Congress. Davis drafted 

H.R. 1163, which provided for the War 

Department study. Congress passed the bill and 

President Coolidge signed it into law in June 

1926.16 This piece of legislation was not only 

important for preserving battlefields, but, 

according to NPS historian and preservationpioneer Ronald Lee, it was the first federal historic 

sites survey.17

As it so happened, the War Department had 

already begun classifying battlefields the year 

before, in 1925. This effort was led by Lieutenant 

Colonel C.A. Bach in the Historical Division of the 

Army War College. Bach and his staff reviewed 

fifty years of battlefield legislation and constructed 

a system of classification based on level of 

																																																							 14. Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the National Military 

Park Idea, under "The 1926 Act for the Study and 

Investigation of Battlefields," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/history_milita

ry/nmpidea6b.htm (accessed June 20, 2015).

15. In 1902, the House Military Affairs Committee and the 

War Department drafted H.R. 14351, which would merge all 

the military park commissions into a single commission. It 

also advocated for focused preservation efforts as 

exemplified by the Antietam Plan. However, the bill was 

strongly opposed by present commission members, who 

exerted considerable influence in Congress and the bill 

failed. George, "Stones River," 137-42; Lee, The Origin and 

Evolution of the National Military Park Idea, under 

"Proposal for a National Military Park Commission," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/history_milita

ry/nmpidea6b.htm (accessed June 20, 2015).

16. Lary Dilsaver, ed., "Study and Investigation of Battle 

Fields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes," 

in America's National Park System: The Critical Documents 

(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994), 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_2d.

htm (accessed June 30, 2015).

17. George, "Stones River," 161-4; Lee, The Origin and 

Evolution of the National Military Park Idea, under 

"Proposal for a National Military Park Commission."

significance, which provided a rationale for future 

preservation action. The study found that 

Congress commemorated battles in three different 

ways: first, by establishing military parks; second, 

by highlighting important locations with markers 

and monuments; and, third, by erecting a single 

monument. Next, Bach and his team organized 

battles into two different classes. Class I included 

highly significant battles and required preservation 

of large areas of ground in the form of military 

parks. Only Saratoga, Yorktown, Gettysburg, 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga, and Vicksburg were 

placed in Class I. Class II included slightly less 

significant engagements that still had an important 

impact, but were recommended to be designated 

as national monuments with significantly less land. 

This class was still further divided into Class IIa 

and Class IIb, with Class IIa recommended for 

receiving more markers and monuments 

delineating battle lines and Class IIb 

recommended for receiving just a single tablet, 

marker, or memorial to mark a battlefield. Stones 

River was placed in Class IIa, along with fifteen 

other Civil War battlefields. Bach's preliminary 

work provided the basis for H.R. 11613, passed in 

1926, which called for the Secretary of War to take 

on additional surveys and prepare a general plan 

for commemoration. No lands could be purchased 

for government military park purposes unless a 

report had been completed by the Secretary of 

War and submitted through the President to 

Congress. Between 1926 and 1932, the Historical 

Section of the Army War College continued to 

undertake historical studies of battlefields, 

followed by preliminary field investigations 

carried out by the Corps of Engineers. Once 

Congress authorized a military park, the 

Quartermaster General assumed responsibility for 

commemorating the new park.18

Tennessee Congressman Ewin Lamar Davis 

continued Richardson’s efforts and submitted 

another Stones River battlefield park bill on 

December 21, 1925. This bill shared similarities 

with his predecessors' proposals, including a 

three-person commission comprised of a Union 

veteran, Confederate veteran, and an officer from 

the Army Corps of Engineers. Davis’s bill, 

however, did not specify a particular amount of 

land. Instead, it stipulated that the commission to 

undertake a historical study of the battlefield area 

																																																							 18. George, "Stones River," 164-6; Lee, The Origin and 

Evolution of the National Military Park Idea, under 

"Proposal for a National Military Park Commission."
25 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

and the movement of troops thereon and identify 

portions of land that could be purchased at 

reasonable market rates—an approach far more in 

line with the Antietam Plan than previous efforts. 

The commission would make maps of the battle 

and recommend locations for markers. The new 

park was to include the national cemetery and 

Hazen Brigade Monument, but everything was 

contingent on an appropriation of $100,000 in a 

clear effort to keep costs low. Davis received 

support from General Benjamin Cheatham, 

commander of the Quartermaster Corps, whose 

father fought at Stones River. Congressman Davis 

also received the support of Secretary of War 

Davis, who was in the process of shepherding the 

Battlefield Study bill. Secretary Davis passed the 

Stones River bill on to the Director of the Budget, 

who initially opposed the project saying it was too 

expensive. Congressman Davis pointed out that 

his predecessors' plans had included 3,100 acres 

and $125,000 in initial appropriations. He also 

cited all the veterans' organizations that supported 

earlier legislative efforts, utilizing all the 

groundwork that had been laid before him, and 

touted the tourism potential of the site. His 

arguments were echoed by local editorials 

supporting the project. The House and Senate 

approved H.R. 6246 in February 1927, and 

President Calvin Coolidge signed the bill into law 

on March 3.19

Stones River Battlefield 

Commission 

Congressman Davis was anxious for the Secretary 

of War to select a commission so it could begin its 

work without delay. When congressional 

appropriations in 1927 did not include funds for 

the commission's work, Davis cited the precedent 

established at Petersburg the year before, which 

allowed that commission to proceed without 

funds but was compensated by the government at 

a later date. He also suggested that local 

organizations pay for the commission's work to 

also be refunded by the War Department. 20 

																																																							 19. George, "Stones River," 167-74; An Act: To Establish a 

National-Military Park at the Battle Field of Stones River, 

Tennessee, Public Law 69-777, 69th Cong., 1st sess. (March 

3, 1927).

20. Benjamin Cheatham to Colonel Hampton, 

memorandum, March 15, 1927, and Ewin Davis to Dwight 

Davis, letter, May 9, 1927, both 1926-1927 Folder, Box 1, 

7462 War Department Files, Park Archive.

Secretary of War Davis dismissed the 

congressman's requests and reaffirmed that he 

must wait until Congress made the appropriation 

for him to select the Stones River commission.21

The appropriation came the next year and 

Secretary Davis made his selections. The 

requirement for both a Union and Confederate 

veteran "familiar with the terrain of the battle 

field...and the historical events associated 

therewith" replicated provisions set forth by the 

first military parks established in the 1890s in the 

spirit of reconciliation. However, Congressman 

Davis realized that not very many veterans were 

left in 1927, so his legislation included the phrase 

"as far as practicable."22 There were several 

candidates for the Confederate veteran, but 

Secretary Davis selected Sam Mitchell of 

Murfreesboro after receiving many letters from 

local residents on his behalf. Mitchell was born in 

1843, and served in the Forty-fifth Tennessee 

Infantry during the war. His family's farm was 

close to McFadden's Ford, and he lived there until 

1900, when he sold the property and moved into 

Murfreesboro. Therefore, he was very familiar 

with the area but had divested himself of any 

property interest many years prior.23 A Union 

veteran was a bit harder to find, but Secretary 

Davis selected John D. Hanson of Shelbyville, who 

was quickly endorsed by prominent local 

residents. Hanson immigrated to the United States

from Denmark in 1858 at the age of fourteen and 

enlisted in the Union Fifth Tennessee Cavalry in 

Nashville. He served the remainder of the war in 

Tennessee and worked as a postmaster and 

bookkeeper in Shelbyville after the war.24 Major 

John French Conklin, Military Assistant of the 

District Office of the Corps of Engineers in 

Nashville, was selected to serve as the War 

Department's representative.25

																																																							 21. Dwight Davis to L. D. Tyson, letter, May 28, 1927, 1928-

1929 Folder, Box 1 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

22. George, "Stones River," 168; H.R. 6246, 69th Cong., 1st 

sess., 1-2.

23. George, "Stones River," 175-7; Select letters include J.N 

Bagwell to Ewin Davis, letter, March 21, 1927, S.F. Houston 

to Ewin Davis, letter; Howard Henderson to Ewin Davis, 

April 1, 1927; Adjutant General to Ewin Davis, April 11, 

1927, all 1926-1927 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department 

Files, Park Archive.

24. George, "Stones River," 177.

25. Ibid., 180-1.
Chapter Two

National Park Service 26

The commission first met at the First National 

Bank in Murfreesboro on March 16, 1928, and 

elected John Hanson as chairman. The three men 

visited the battlefield many times between March 

16 and July 17, when they submitted a preliminary 

report to the Secretary of War. Their report 

included historical findings, attitude of residents, 

maps, recommendations of land to be acquired, 

roads, tablets and monuments, estimate of cost, 

superintendent, and plans for expansion. They 

summed up their report with a list of four 

recommendations pertaining to land acquisition, 

locations to be marked by tablets, roads to be built 

and maintained, and a note on future 

commemorative monuments. The report not only 

provides a useful sketch of the commission's views 

of the battlefield at the time, but also opens a 

window into their decision making process. Their 

recommendations inevitably left an indelible 

legacy on the establishment and development of 

the battlefield and cemetery for years to come.26

The commissioners first surveyed any existing 

historic sites on the battlefield. After a "careful 

inspection," they wrote, "the Stones River Battle 

Field shows no evidence of earthworks, trenches 

or other remaining evidence of the battle."27 They 

did note four monuments that commemorated the 

battle, including the Hazen Brigade Monument, 

“Old Union Fort” (referring to the earthen 

remnants of Fortress Rosecrans), Artillery 

Monument, and the national cemetery. Their 

survey indicates that much of the landscape had 

lost features of the battle, but the monuments 

created in its wake could serve as focal points for 

the new battlefield park.

Probably the commission’s most important 

consideration was selecting tracts of land to be 

acquired by the government. Unlike initial park 

bills, which called for upwards of 3,100 acres for 

the proposed park, the commission was driven by 

the spirit of economy and looked for a section of 

the battlefield that could be acquired for a 

reasonable sum while still conveying the 

importance of the battle. They focused their 

efforts on a 325-acre section, approximately ten 

percent of the whole battlefield (see Appendices C 

																																																							 26. John Hanson, Sam Mitchell, and John Conklin, "Report 

on Inspection of Battlefield of Stones River, Tennessee," 

July 17, 1928, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

27. Ibid., 4.

and D). This particular section was located in the 

vicinity of the intersection of Old Nashville Pike 

and Van Cleve Lane. This was the place of the 

most intense fighting on December 31, 1862, when 

Confederate forces attempted to envelop the 

Union in a pivot maneuver. There were other 

practical reasons for choosing this area. It was 

located along the main thoroughfare and was near 

the national cemetery and Hazen Brigade 

monument. The commissioners wrote that the 

land north of Stones River, where the battle 

occurred on January 2, 1863, was nearly 

"inaccessible" with no bridges to cross the river 

and only "poor country roads."28 Furthermore, 

they expected the land along Old Nashville Pike to 

be cheap because most of it was not suitable for 

agriculture. They wrote, "The central portion of 

this tract is rocky, slightly rolling land covered 

with cedar trees. It is considered that the open 

land, combined with the rocky, cedar covered land 

is ideal for Park purposes."29 The commissioners 

also recommended that the government acquire 

smaller parcels to mark General Rosecrans’s and 

General Bragg's respective headquarters. The 

federal government already owned the land for the 

national cemetery and Hazen Brigade monument. 

The NC&StL Railway deeded the Artillery 

Monument and Redoubt Brannan lots to the 

federal government earlier that year without 

monetary compensation strictly for “park 

purposes.”30

The commission's initial recommendations were 

fairly straightforward to ensure that the battlefield 

project stayed within the $100,000 appropriation. 

They believed the necessary land acquisition could 

be accomplished with $48,975. They also called for 

thirty-five markers within the park, including two 

on former railroad property that had been 

conveyed to the United States at McFadden's Ford 

and at the intersection of Old Nashville Pike and 

the river. They also asked for ten pointers to be 

installed within the park and an additional ten on 

private property "where necessary." To 

acknowledge both Union and Confederate 

military forces, they also requested that two 

monuments be erected marking headquarters for 

Union General William S. Rosecrans and 

Confederate General Braxton Bragg. To improve 

park infrastructure, the commission 

																																																							 28. Ibid., 7.

29. Ibid., 8.

30. Ibid., 5-6.
27 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

recommended that Van Cleve Lane, which they 

described as being in a "poor state of repair," be 

expanded to an 18-foot wide gravel road and 

joined to a new 18-foot wide gravel road to wind 

down the center of the park (see Appendix E). 

They concluded the report by suggesting that park 

administrators should reach out to states whose 

soldiers were involved in the battle to erect 

monuments within the park sometime in the 

future. Other than roads and markers, the 

commission did not propose a sizable 

development plan.31

The commission was also conservative in 

projecting the number of staff positions required 

for the new battlefield park, accounting for the 

positions of superintendent, clerk, and laborers in 

estimated annual maintenance expenses.32 Section 

7 of the legislation stipulated that the 

superintendent of the national cemetery should 

also become administrator of the battlefield park 

as a cost-saving measure. Initially, when the bill 

was in Congress, an unnamed subordinate officer 

of the Quartermaster General opposed any 

combination of the two positions, arguing that 

national cemeteries required constant attention 

and that a person administering battlefield parks

should have a different set of skills. At the time, a 

special statute for national cemeteries 

recommended that superintendents should be 

honorably discharged veterans who had been 

wounded in action. The person wrote, "Park 

[superintendents] should be able-bodied men with 

at least sufficient engineering ability [to] supervise 

construction and repair of roads and 

monuments."33 However, the legislation included 

the language for a combined position, and the War 

Department informed Melroe Tarter in 1930 that 

he was now responsible for the battlefield park in 

addition to the national cemetery.

34

Major Conklin himself was busy with his regular 

duties at the Nashville engineering office and 

considered his work on the Stones River 

																																																							 31. Ibid., 10, 16-18.

32. Ibid., 14.

33. Memorandum, February 1, 1926, 1926-1927 Folder, Box 

1, 7462 War Department Files, Park Archive.

34. Miranda Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, 2002 Draft, Chapter Four, 1.

Commission to be secondary.35 He noted that the 

veteran commissioners were not much help since 

they were both over eighty years old.36 He 

suggested that the Stones River project deserved 

the full-time attention of an officer, and the War 

Department agreed. However, the War 

Department could not find a suitable replacement 

and so he had to make do. He was further 

rewarded by the Secretary of War who added him 

to the Fort Donelson National Military Park 

Commission the next year.37

Conklin was not working alone, though. His 

historian counterpart was Lieutenant Colonel 

Howard Landers, who was undertaking a study of 

Stones River battlefield for the Historical Section 

of the Army War College.38 Landers's findings 

were naturally of interest to the commission since 

the Historical Section had to include sites of 

historical interest in their report. In February 1928, 

Landers sent Conklin a preliminary report for the 

commission to use.39

Landers was working on multiple surveys of 

battlefields while he was assigned to the Stones 

River project, but he did visit the area to make 

sketches and prepare a series of maps.40 He found 

the map commissioned by the Stones River 

Battlefield Association, completed by local 

engineer Oscar Jones in 1899, to be very accurate 

																																																							 35. W.R. Gibson to Quartermaster General, memorandum, 

October 12, 1928, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

36. John Conklin to Howard Landers, letter, June 15, 1928, 

1932-1933 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

37. Howard Landers to John Conklin, letter, July 26, 1928, 

1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

38. R.C. Moore to John Conklin, memorandum,

"Nomination as Member of Stones River National Military 

Park Commission," January 16, 1928, and K.J. Hampton to 

Quartermaster General, memorandum, March 15, 1928, 

both 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, 

Park Archive.

39. Landers’s report is not included in the park’s War 

Department files, but his draft is referenced several times in 

correspondence. It may have never been completed. 

Howard Landers to Conklin, letter, March 28, 1928, Howard 

Landers to John Conklin, letter, April 16, 1928, Secretary of 

War to Ewin Davis, letter, May 15, 1929, all 1928-1929 

Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park Archive. 

40. Landers to Conklin, letter, March 28, 1928.
Chapter Two

National Park Service 28

and used it as the base for the troop movement 

maps he made for the commission.41 During his 

work, the question arose about the exact location 

of General Bragg's headquarters. Sixty-seven years 

had passed since the battle, and many of the 

people with first-hand knowledge had passed 

away. The few that remained were very advanced 

in age or had second-hand knowledge from 

relatives. Apparently, "old timers" disagreed with 

the two locations marked as Bragg's headquarters 

in a volume titled Battles and Leaders of the Civil 

War, which also matched the maps drawn by 

engineers after the battle.42 Landers was left to 

ponder the landscape, sixty-seven years after the 

battle, as well as the memories of old veterans who 

did not quite agree on the original, authentic 

locations of Bragg's headquarters. Pointing out 

that Bragg moved frequently up and down the Old 

Nashville Pike during the battle, Landers decided 

to keep the originally marked locations, thereby 

asserting an official narrative over a vernacular 

version of the battle.

The commission submitted its report on July 17, 

1928, and received favorable support shortly 

thereafter. Assistant Secretary of War C.B. 

Robbins wrote to the Quartermaster General on 

August 15 and informed him the Stones River plan 

was "approved in principle." He prescribed that 

the gravel roads proposed for the project should 

be placed in the middle of a "boulevard with strips 

of land twenty-one feet on each side. These strips 

[were] to be beautified by planting grass seeds, 

shrubs and trees where the boulevard passes 

through open land, and clearing out underbrush 

and doing other forestration where it passes 

through woods." He also dictated that the 

commission should do further study on the design 

of the two headquarters monuments.43 Aside from 

those requests, Robbins indicated that the 

commission could continue with the 

establishment of the park immediately.

																																																							 41. Landers to Conklin, letter, April 16, 1928. For more on 

the Oscar Jones map, see George, “Stones River,” 102-6.

42. Howard Landers, memorandum, "Headquarters of 

Bragg and Rosecrans at the Battle of Stones River," 

[December 1929], 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

43. C.B. Robbins to Quartermaster General, memorandum, 

August 15, 1928, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

Land Acquisition and Cemetery 

Community 

Land acquisition became the commission's next 

priority, although several important changes 

altered the commission's role in the process. 

Conklin again was assigned to the task despite his 

heavy workload. He was at first unsure if the 

commission was responsible for actual 

establishment activities, and the Quartermaster 

General verified that it was the commission's 

responsibility and they should proceed right away. 

Conklin then asked the Quartermaster General's 

office to allow him to assign one of the staff from 

his office in Nashville to work on the project. He 

proposed to raise this person's salary, the 

remainder of which would be compensated by the 

Stones River Commission. The Quartermaster's 

office denied his request, and Conklin was left to 

supervise acquisition activities.44 Conklin thus 

continued these activities and secured a number of 

tracts before he resigned from the commission in 

April 1929 to take a teaching position at West 

Point.45

Conklin's departure came on the heels of several 

important changes that affected the commission. 

The month before, the Judge Advocate General 

had ruled that it was the Quartermaster Corps not 

the commission that was responsible for 

establishing the park; submitting its report mostly 

fulfilled the commission’s role.

46 Therefore, the 

commission became more of an advisory board, 

and the Quartermaster General assigned an 

"Officer in Charge" to oversee activities at Stones 

River. John Hanson also died the same week that 

Conklin resigned. The Secretary of War never 

replaced Hanson. Major Frank Besson took 

Conklin's spot on the commission in 1929, but did 

																																																							 44. George, "Stones River," 190-1; John Conklin to 

Quartermaster General, letter, August 25, 1928, and W.R. 

Gibson to John Conklin, letter, September 4, 1928, 1928-

1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

45. R.D. Valiant to John Conklin, letter, April 13, 1929, 1928-

1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

46. Benjamin Cheatham to Assistant Secretary of War, 

memorandum, "Establishment of National Military Park at 

the Battlefield of Fort Donelson, Tennessee," April 2, 1929, 

and Benjamin Cheatham to John Hanson, memorandum,

"Stones River National Military Park," April 24, 1929, both 

1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.
29 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

not contribute much to the park project. The 

Quartermaster General named Captain George 

Moseley Chandler as the new Officer in Charge. 

Chandler arrived in Murfreesboro in June 1929 

and opened an office at the First Union Bank.47

Conklin divined that land acquisition would be a 

slow process, while others, including Landers, felt

it could be done much quicker. Landers had been 

involved in several land acquisition projects for 

battlefield parks, including Petersburg and 

Fredericksburg, and was well aware of the 

common problems. He suggested mobilizing 

community support to publicize the government's 

commitment to the project, arouse local 

sentiments, and essentially apply peer pressure to 

encourage landowners to sell at a reasonable 

price.48 The commission, accompanied by 

Landers, met with prominent community 

members to seek their help in the process to 

ensure that the land could be acquired for 

reasonable cost. Congressman Davis, Conklin, and 

Landers spoke at a joint meeting of the local 

Rotary and Kiwanis organizations on October 4, 

who both agreed to help the commission get fair 

prices for the land in the proposed park project.49

From these meetings, the commission was able to 

enlist James R. Jetton of Union Commerce Bank in 

Murfreesboro to negotiate with landowners. 

Conklin felt that having a local representative 

involved in the negotiations would help the 

government achieve fair prices for the land in 

question.50 However, there is no indication that 

they sought the counsel or help from leaders in the 

African American community. 

Landers's sentiments were likely genuine, but he 

neglected the inherent biases of the commission 

and park supporters against the landowners, 

particularly the African American residents who 

																																																							 47. George, "Stones River, 194-6.

48. Howard Landers to John Conklin, letter, July 26, 1928, 

1928-1929 Folder, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

49. Howard Landers to Colonel Gibson, memorandum,

"Conference with the Stones River National Military 

Commission," October 12, 1928, 1928-1929 Folder, 1928-

1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

50. John Conklin to James Jetton, letter, November 12, 

1928, 1928-1929 Folder, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

owned 51 percent of the purchase area (excluding 

the tracts conveyed to the government by the 

railroad). In their July 1928 report, for example, 

the commission conveyed to the War Department 

that the land could be reasonably acquired 

because much of it was not prime farmland. In 

fact, they pointed out, "many tracts have located 

upon them negro shacks in a miserable state of 

repair."51 They believed that the land would be 

best used as a park, ignoring the residents that had 

lived there for at least two to three generations. 

Furthermore, the commissioners displayed a 

paternalistic attitude toward these residents by 

adding that the government would pay more than 

the appraised value just to make sure property 

owners could afford a suitable new home. This 

bias continued as the government sorted out the 

land records, made offers, negotiated with 

property owners, and initiated condemnation 

proceedings. Conklin reported to the 

Quartermaster General that activities were moving 

slowly because "36 out of the 45 parcels to be 

acquired are owned by illiterate and uneducated 

colored people."52 African Americans in the 

community may have lacked advanced reading, 

writing, and math skills and lived on poor land, but 

the commission's comments neglected larger 

institutional biases against African Americans 

during the Jim Crow era that made obtaining good 

land and a quality education difficult. 

Furthermore, the presence of Cemetery school, 

which African American residents organized 

shortly after emancipation, is evidence that 

education was important to the community.53

These biases in the commission report raise 

questions about equity in the land acquisition 

process that historians have sought to answer, first 

by analyzing the land ownership patterns between 

whites and blacks in the proposed park area and 

then how they were evaluated and the legal 

mechanisms the government used to acquire the 

																																																							 51. Hanson et al., "Report on Inspection of Battlefield of 

Stones River, Tennessee," 10.

52. Conklin quoted in B.F. Cheatham to Ewin Davis, letter, 

May 20, 1929, 1928-1929 Folder, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 

7462 War Department Files, Park Archive.

53. Leonora Washington, "A Black Perspective of the 

History of the Area as Compiled during the Tennessee 

Homecoming Celebration in 1986 by a Local Resident,"

1928-1929 Folder, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.
Chapter Two

National Park Service 30

land.54 Of the total acreage owned by white 

property owners, the commission categorized 69 

percent as "tillable," meaning suitable for 

agriculture, and the remaining 31 percent as 

"rough," indicating it had little agricultural value. 

In comparison, the commission categorized 54 

percent of the land owned by blacks as "tillable" 

and 46 percent as "rough."55 These figures give no 

indication if the appraisers exhibited any biases in 

determining which land was tillable or rough, 

since such a determination may be subjective. 

Nevertheless, based on arability, black-owned 

property was considered less valuable than that of 

their white neighbors, which perhaps explains why 

the center of the proposed park project at the 

intersection of Van Cleve Lane and Old Nashville 

Pike also correlated with a high concentration of 

African American residents (see Appendix). 

Despite the poor quality of the soil in this area, 

residents were able to eke out a living if they had 

some tillable land, which is supported by the 

presence of various fruit trees, blackberry and 

grape vines, and myriad agricultural 

outbuildings.56 White-owned property tended to 

be on the periphery of the park project area, which 

meant that the government was less likely to 

condemn their land if they were unwilling to sell. 

Land negotiations and condemnation cases can 

sometimes reveal power dynamics at play. 

Chandler, the officer in charge who replaced 

Conklin in 1929, commented, "In many instances 

the assessed valuations bear little relation to the 

true values. The land may not have changed hands 

or been revalued for years. The owners' valuations 

bear slight relation to what his property would 

bring were he to sell it to a neighbor. The 

Commission was an able one and yet sometimes I 

wonder how they valuations were reached, and 

behind it all is the personal equation of the 

owner."57 Historians analyzing this process point 

out that the Earthmans, a prominent white family, 

asked for a price that far exceeded what their 

																																																							 54. See Rebecca Conard, Historic Cemetery Community: The 

Cedars, Stones River National Battlefield, Rutherford 

County, Tennessee (Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee 

State University, prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, May 2016); George, "Stones River," 192-205.

55. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 18.

56. Ibid.

57. George Chandler to Quartermaster General, 

memorandum, "Purchase of Land," October 22, 1929, 5, 

1928-1929 Folder, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

property was worth. Their property, Tract 8, had 

no improvements and was susceptible to flooding. 

Yet, they asked for $2,000 when Chandler 

determined it was not worth more than $1,000. 

This posed a problem since the Earthmans were a 

leading local family, and Chandler wanted to avoid 

condemnation if it meant maintaining good will. 

However, he could not avoid condemnation in this 

case, and the court awarded the Earthmans $1,500 

for their property, more than Chandler believed it 

to be worth.58

In comparison, the Minters, an African American 

family, sought a higher price for their property 

when they learned that the War Department 

agreed to pay a higher amount to a nearby 

neighbor, Homer Gannon, a white man. The 

Minters's 11-acre property, Tract 10, had seven 

tillable acres, a four-room house, a barn and 

smokehouse, sheds, and fruit trees. Rowena 

Minter valued the property at $3,000, but the 

commission assessed it at $1,350.59 In comparison, 

Gannon received $3,000 for Tract 3, which only 

contained five tillable acres and a three-room 

house. Tract 3 did abut the Hazen Brigade 

Monument parcel and the Old Nashville Highway, 

which may explain its higher value. Minter's land 

only shared a corner to the highway. Nevertheless, 

upon hearing of Gannon's offer, Rowena Minter 

went through condemnation proceedings, at the 

close of which she and the other heirs were 

awarded $2,393.47.60

African Americans property owners were far more 

likely to go through condemnation lawsuits. 

Twenty-two out of the forty-four black-owned 

properties were condemned, while the only whiteowned property the federal government 

condemned was the Earthman tract. Most of these 

condemnation cases stemmed from a need to clear 

land titles and locate heirs, rather than price.61 The 

difficulties in ascertaining clear titles to the land 

																																																							 58. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 20-21; George, 

"Stones River," 200-4.

59. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 20-21; George, 

"Stones River, 202.

60. John George, "Stones River," 203, reports that the final 

amount was $2,200, according to a letter from George 

Chandler, but Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 48,

uses the figure $2,393.47, which she obtained from a 

Rutherford County deed book.

61. George, "Stones River," 201-2, 204.
31 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

likely stemmed from informal land-transfer 

practices involving African Americans, since 

several landowners did not have deeds.62 In the 

case of the Minter family, though, they did use 

condemnation as a way to seek a better price for 

their land. 

John George found that the real determining 

factor for land value at Stones River was proximity 

to the highway or sites of historical interest. Most 

notably, all twelve tracts along Old Nashville Pike 

(excluding the location of Rosecrans 

headquarters) sold for an average of $237.72 an 

acre. White landowners received $234.61 on 

average per acre, and African Americans were paid 

$241.63 per acre. In comparison, land not adjacent 

to the highway sold for an average of $131.97 per 

acre. Overall, African Americans received an 

average of $178.24 per acre, or $177.96 if their 

property had been condemned—a very 

inconsequential difference. White landowners 

were paid an average $155.60 per acre.63 These 

numbers indicate that African Americans received 

an equitable price for their land, and perhaps even 

better than some white landowners. 

Both Conard and George seem to agree that the 

War Department was fair in its dealings with 

African American landowners, but that alone does 

not diminish the experience of those African 

Americans who had to move from their homes, 

some of which may have been in the family for 

several generations.64 The exact number of those 

displaced is not known, but they left "seventeen 

houses, three cabins, eight barns, one smokehouse, 

one chicken shed, eleven miscellaneous sheds, 

four wells, 730 fruit trees (identified as peach or 

pear in some instances), 1000 blackberry vines, 200 

grape vines, two churches, and one store" behind, 

which gives readers a sense of the impact of this 

dislocation. The perceived injustices of the War 

Department’s handling of various land acquisition 

cases, such as with the Minter and Gannon 

																																																							 62. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 18, 27, explains 

that many African Americans received receipts for land 

purchases, but the deeds were not recorded to legalize the 

transaction. Therefore, the U.S. Government needed to 

clear title before purchasing the land, which often required 

condemnation proceedings.

63. George, "Stones River," 203-4.

64. Conard, Historic Cemetery Community, 18; George, 

"Stones River," 204-5.

properties, caused bitterness among families that 

has lasted for generations.65 Oral tradition 

indicates that a number of Cemetery residents 

moved to other parts of the district, particularly 

along nearby Asbury Lane.66 Others moved out of 

the county and state, matching the outmigration 

trend for African Americans in Rutherford 

County, whose population had been steadily 

decreasing since 1880.67 As John George points 

out, that while the national cemetery encouraged 

the establishment of the Cemetery community, it 

also spelled its demise with the creation of the 

national battlefield.68

Constructing the Park 

During Chandler's thirteen-month tenure, he and 

his clerk, George Williamson, made significant 

progress towards land acquisition, acquiring 

fourteen tracts by Chandler's departure in 1930. 

His replacement, Captain Henry J. Conner, would 

devote much of his time to constructing the park, 

while land acquisition continued.69 The previous 

year, the Judge Advocate General ruled that Stones 

River's original legislation did not allow for actual 

construction of a park. Congressman Davis 

promptly introduced an amendment to the 

legislation, which passed in 1930, authorizing the 

War Department to construct "roads and walks 

and for the restoration and care of grounds and 

the planting of trees and shrubs," as recommended 

in the commission's July 1929 report.70 Conner 

asked the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville if the 

War Department was allowed to proceed with 

work on tracts in the process of being condemned. 

The attorney said he did have the authority, but 

advised that he get permission from landowners 

																																																							 65. Washington, "A Black Perspective of the History of the 

Area as Compiled during the Tennessee Homecoming 

Celebration in 1986 by a Local Resident."

66. Ibid.

67. Hudson, "A Profile of Black Landownership in 

Rutherford County during Reconstruction," 9; Miranda 

Fraley, "The Politics of Memory: Remembering the Civil War 

in Rutherford County, Tennessee," dissertation, Indiana 

University, 2004, 163-4.

68. George, "Stones River," 204-5.

69. George, "Stones River, 205.

70. George, "Stones River," 194. The amendment was H.R. 

2825, 71st Cong., 2nd sess. (April 1930). 
Chapter Two

National Park Service 32

first.71 Conner next requested an engineer to plan 

and supervise construction work, and three weeks 

later, Jacob Blanton, a civil engineer, arrived in 

Murfreesboro.72

With almost half of the land for the battlefield 

purchased, Conner contracted with the ForcumJones Company of Dyersburg, Tennessee, in 

December 1930, to construct the main park road 

and enlarge Van Cleve Lane.73 The contract 

provided for 11,400 feet of "macadam" roads, 

eighteen feet wide, as requested by the War 

Department. The War Department allowed the 

contractor to use rock from stone fences in the 

park to crush and use for the road. The War 

Department also resurfaced the gravel avenues in 

the national cemetery. In 1931, Conner also hired 

Herbert Smith, a local African American 

stonemason, and his two assistants to build the 

entrance gate at the northern end of the park. This 

gate consisted of two limestone columns four feet 

square and eleven feet tall. Conner ordered that 

the columns be topped with cannonball pyramids 

and faced with bronze tablets reading "Stones 

River National Military Park." Smith also laid two 

more columns at the south entrance of Van Cleve 

Lane. Work crews installed a wire fence around 

the entire park boundary and Redoubt Brannan. 

Crews also removed underbrush for 150 yards on 

either side of Nashville Pike and the new park 

road, and planted over 1,000 trees and shrubs to 

create a boulevard aesthetic.74

The construction work proceeded quickly, but 

Conner and his staff paused briefly during the 

construction for an informal ceremony to raise the 

American flag on the new flagpole placed near the 

north entrance, surrounded by three cannons. 

Commissioner Sam Mitchell was present and to 

																																																							 71. A.V. McClane to Henry Conner, letter, August 20, 1930, 

1930-1931 Folder, 1928-1929 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

72. George, "Stones River, 205.

73. Henry Conner to General Accounting Office, letter, 

December 4, 1930, 1932-1933 Folder, Folder, Box 1, 7462 

War Department Files, Park Archive.

74. George, "Stones River," 207-9; Fraley, Stones River 

National Cemetery Cultural Landscape Report, Chapter 

Four, 4; C.A. Bach to Inspector General, memorandum,

"Inspection of Stones River National Military Park, 

Murfreesboro, Tenn. FY 1932," November 2, 1931, 1932-

1933 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park 

Archive.

provided a few words. Calling attention to his 

Confederate veteran status, he remarked, 

"Imagine an old rebel out here pulling up this 

union flag...I used to want to tear down that flag 

when it was going up...but now its different."75

This short exchange is highly illustrative of how 

Confederates could reconcile with nonsoutherners to achieve desired goals. At the same 

moment as the flag raising, the government was in 

the process of condemning African American 

residences for the battlefield park. 

Reporters took notice of the improvements being 

made in the park, and were effusive over the 

progress that was being made.76 One reporter was 

amazed by Van Cleve Lane's rehabilitation. The 

person also noted with pleasure how "The scores 

of dense underbrush, ramshackle negro cottages 

and a winding lane have been transformed 

overnight into a spot of unusual beauty."77 The 

reporter apparently saw the removal of an eyesore, 

rather than a community. Continuing, the person 

declared, "There is no north, and no south, as far 

as the park, itself, is concerned for monuments 

depicting the heroic deeds of the Southland are 

just as welcome as tablets commemorating gallant 

work of Union armies." In a few short sentences, 

the author sums up how the park facilitated the 

transformation of the landscape from an African 

American community to a reconciliatory 

landscape, devoid of the ramifications of slavery 

and emancipation. 

The next major project was the installation of

historical markers in the new park. The War 

Department was compulsive about installing 

markers at Civil War battlefield sites to mark 

locations of troops, encampments, and dates of 

engagements with a specified color and typology 

scheme. At Shiloh National Military Park alone, 

the War Department installed 208 markers by 

1901.78 At Stones River, the commission 

																																																							 75. Quoted in George, "Stones River," 211; "Aged 'Rebel' 

Unfurls First Flag over Battleground Site since Civil War," 

Daily News Journal (Murfreesboro, TN), October 27, 1931.

76. George, "Stones River, 212.

77. "An Achievement," [Daily News Journal], [October 1, 

1931], newspaper clipping, 1932-1933 Folder, Box 1, 7462 

War Department Files, Park Archive.

78. Charles Shedd, Jr., A History of Shiloh National Military 

Park, Tennessee, (National Park Service, 1954), 40, 

http://www.nps.gov/shil/learn/management/upload/Adminis

trative.pdf (accessed February 22, 2016).
33 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

recommended at least fifty markers to be placed 

on the battlefield. Landers took several months to 

review the markers' text before the park's 

scheduled dedication in July 1932. He finished his 

work in April 1932 and also provided Conner a list 

of markers that should be prioritized in case not 

enough funding was available for all 68.79 The 

specifications included three-foot by four-foot 

cast-metal markers mounted on metal standards. 

Conner was able to purchase forty-five markers in 

time for the park's dedication.80

Stones River National Cemetery 

Operations at Stones River National Cemetery 

remained constant while boosters, politicians, and 

government officials were busy establishing the 

national military park. The quartermaster general 

still administered the national cemetery, including 

overseeing interments and maintaining 

headstones, monuments, and grounds, with all 

activities supervised on-site by the cemetery 

superintendent. The quartermaster general even 

allowed for the national cemetery to modernize in 

the interwar period, with the addition of a 

telephone in July 1925, the first motorized lawn 

mower in August 1929, a new seventy-five foot 

well in November 1929, a new restroom facility 

with flush toilets, a new wooden lodge for the 

superintendent, completed in 1926, and a new 

125-foot drive from Old Nashville Highway to the 

housing and maintenance area. The well-kept 

national cemetery was a major point of appeal for 

establishing the new battlefield park, and its 

inclusion was an important part of the project.81

The absorption of the national cemetery into the 

new Stones River National Military Park cast 

uncertainty about the cemetery's role, which was 

previously to honor the Union dead. The new park 

commemorated both sides of the conflict and 

interpreted the battle's events to the public. The 

national cemetery thus was no longer the 

centerpiece or primary focus of Union 

																																																							 79. Howard Landers to Colonel Laubach, memorandum, 

"Historical Data for Markers at Stones River National Park," 

April 2, 1932, and Henry Conner to W.D. Smith, letter, April 

27, 1932, both 1932-1933 Folder, Box 1, 7462 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

80. George, "Stones River," 213.

81. Fraley, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Report, Chapter Four, 3.

commemoration. It would be left to future park 

administrators to further define the cemetery's 

new role in the national military park.82

The transfer of the national cemetery under the 

broader umbrella of the national military park 

posed important administrative issues in the first 

few years. The legislation authorizing the national 

military park specified that the cemetery 

superintendent would become superintendent for 

both the national cemetery and battlefield park. 

Melroe Tarter took on the combined 

responsibility in 1930. While Tarter answered to 

the quartermaster general about things regarding 

the national cemetery, he was supposed to answer 

to the officer in charge for the national military 

park project while it was being established. 

Chandler, the second officer in charge, wrote to 

Tarter saying that he preferred to have Tarter 

continue to answer to the quartermaster general. 

However, Major John T. Harris informed 

Chandler that he was responsible for the cemetery 

funds, since the cemetery was now under 

jurisdiction of the national military park. Effective 

on July 30, 1930, the officer in charge was 

responsible for both the national cemetery and 

national military park, even though Tarter had 

been named superintendent.83 Although this 

relationship seems confusing, there is no 

indication that it affected park management in any 

significant way. 

Dedication of Stones River 

National Military Park 

Conner had no extra funds for the park's 

dedication ceremony, which occurred on July 15, 

1932. The event was much smaller and very much 

a local exercise compared to the pageantry of 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 

Park's dedication nearly forty years prior. There 

were no national dignitaries, no scores of Civil 

War veterans in old uniforms. Instead, Conner and 

his staff relied upon local organizations to help 

carry out the event. Chandler, Conner's 

predecessor, had done much to initiate 

relationships between the community and the War 

Department. Conner capitalized on these 

relationships and reached out to local chapters of 

																																																							 82. Ibid., Chapter Four, 1.

83. Ibid., Chapter Four, 2.
Chapter Two

National Park Service 34

the United Daughters of the Confederacy, 

Daughters of the American Revolution, American 

Legion and Auxiliary, Murfreesboro Woman's 

Club, Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis 

Club, and Boy Scouts. John C. Mitchell, the 

Murfreesboro Superintendent of Schools, served 

as chairman of the dedication committee.84

The day's activities took place at the rostrum in the 

national cemetery. The first speaker was Frank 

Cheatham, who had left the quartermaster general 

position by that time, but had been a supporter for 

the battlefield when the legislation was passed. 

Cheatham read a brief statement about the battle's 

history, probably prepared by Howard Landers. 

Major General Edward King followed Cheatham 

because he was supposed to take charge of the 

park after the dedication. Conner then described 

the physical development of the site and thanked 

local residents for their support. Congressman 

Ewin Davis gave an address about the legislative 

history of the park, underscoring the long road to 

create a national military park that begun in the 

1890s.85

Conclusion 

On May 13, 1932, the Quartermaster General 

James Laubuch considered the establishment of 

Stones River National Military Park "complete" 

and terminated the commission, the two survivors 

of which were Sam Mitchell and Major Besson.86

On July 15, Laubuch transferred responsibility to 

the Commanding General of the Fourth Corps. 

This declaration, culminating with the park's 

dedication in July, represented the fulfillment of 

veteran commemorative efforts that had begun 

over thirty years before. 

Creation of the national military park marked an 

important transformation of Stones River's 

commemorative landscape. Commemoration 

shifted from honoring the Union dead at the 

national cemetery to providing space where 

Confederate veterans and their descendants could 

nurture the Lost Cause memory by emphasizing 

																																																							 84. George, "Stones River," 218-9.

85. George, "Stones River," 220; "Stones River Park is 

Dedicated with Fitting Ceremony," Daily News Journal, July 

16, 1932.

86. Laubuch to Personnel Branch, memorandum,

"Termination of Commission," May 13, 1932, 1932-1933 

Folder, Box 1, 7462 War Department Files, Park Archive.

the heroism and sacrifice of Confederate soldiers. 

By claiming equal space on the battlefield, local 

Confederates and their descendants could 

diminish the symbolic power of the Union dead in 

the national cemetery. After the park's 

establishment, the federal government became the 

purveyor of "official" narratives of the war, which 

meant navigating more “vernacular” versions of 

the events at Stones River. Nonetheless, the 

government’s recognition of Confederate veterans 

and their actions, while also omitting the centrality 

of slavery and emancipation from the park’s 

narrative, lent credibility to Lost Cause 

interpretation of the war. Furthermore, the federal 

government alienated the community that

perpetuated Union memory and celebrated 

emancipation at the national cemetery for so long 

after the war when the War Department removed 

African American residents to create the national 

military park.87 

The tenure of the War Department at Stones River 

National Military Park was short-lived, however. 

The National Park Service took over 

administration in 1933. With a different mission 

and approach to land management and 

interpretation, the NPS would have to reevaluate 

the commemorative purposes and strategies at the 

new national military park.

																																																							 87. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 151-2.
35 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Chapter Three

National Park Service Administration, 1933-1956

A year passed by with Stones River National 

Military Park under the purview of the War 

Department. In the late summer of 1933, the 

federal government abruptly transferred 

management of the battlefield park and national 

cemetery from the War Department to the 

Department of Interior. On August 10, President 

Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6166, 

which shifted authority of eleven national military

parks and national cemeteries from the War 

Department to the National Park Service, 

including Stones River. This move was not only 

important in the history of Stones River National 

Military Park, but ushered in an era of 

unprecedented growth of the national park 

system, fueled by New Deal funding and 

manpower.

1 While well-established battlefield 

parks such as Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

prospered under the NPS during the New Deal, 

Stones River did not receive the same attention. 

Subtle adjustments made by the NPS during this 

period, however, refocused the park's 

management from commemorating a sacred 

landscape to educating visitors. 

The National Park Service brought its own mission 

and management style to the administration of 

these battlefields, which differed from the War 

Department's way of doing things. The War 

Department was concerned with preserving these 

historic fields, creating a memorial to the soldiers 

																																																							 1. For more on the National Park Service during the New 

Deal, see Harlan Unrau and G. Frank Williss, Expansion of 

the National Park Service in the 1930s: Administrative 

History (Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, September 

1983), http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/unrauwilliss/adhi.htm (accessed July 22, 2015).

that fought there, and maintaining these 

landscapes for military study and maneuvers.2 The 

National Park Service, established by Congress in 

1916, less than twenty years prior to Executive 

Order 6166, brought a new mandate in the form of 

the Organic Act, which stipulated that the agency 

protect the natural and historic resources within 

its lands for present and future enjoyment of 

visitors. In the case of the Civil War battlefields, 

many of the veterans who had first hand 

knowledge of these places and pushed for their 

establishment were no longer around to voice 

their opinions about management. With the loss of 

veteran oversight, the NPS was perhaps more free 

to concentrate on increasing visitor services, 

including historical interpretation. Of course, this 

transition was not without its critics. Colonel 

Howard Landers, a historian with the Army War 

College who had investigated many battlefields for 

preservation in the 1920s, including Stones River, 

vigorously fought the transfer, believing that the 

War Department was far better equipped to 

manage these sites than the Department of 

Interior. He sent a memorandum to Roosevelt 

after the president signed the order for the 

transfer, but his note went unheeded.3 The 

transfer went through, ushering in a new era of 

management for these battlefield parks. 

																																																							 2. Jennifer Murray, "'Far Above Our Poor Power to Add or 

Detract': National Park Service Administration of the 

Gettysburg Battlefield, 1933-1938," Civil War History 55, no. 

1 (March 2009): 61.

3. Unrau and Williss, Expansion of the National Park Service 

in the 1930s, under "Reorganization of 1933," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/unrauwilliss/adhi2c.htm (accessed July 22, 2015).
Chapter Three

National Park Service 36

The NPS's new History Branch bolstered 

emphasis on historical interpretation of National 

Park Service sites. Before 1933, NPS Director 

Horace Albright envisioned the young agency, 

then consisting mostly of western, scenic parks, to 

include historic sites in the eastern United States. 

In 1931, Albright hired Verne Chatelain, who had 

experience as a university professor and assistant 

superintendent of the Minnesota Historical 

Society, as Chief of the History Division under 

Harold C. Bryant’s Branch for Research and 

Education. Chatelain shared the same vision as 

Albright, which was a system of parks and 

monuments that reflected larger patterns of 

American history. He further emphasized the 

importance of using university-trained historians 

to research these sites, assist in park development, 

and interpret these resources to the public. He 

tested out this new approach with a limited 

number of university-trained field historians who 

helped with park projects at Colonial National 

Monument and Morristown National Historical 

Park. Chatelain’s responsibilities expanded in 1933 

when the NPS named him the acting assistant 

director of the new Branch for Historic Sites, 

which NPS Director Arno Cammerer created to 

oversee the agency’s increased history activities 

triggered by Executive Order 6166 and the influx 

of New Deal funding and projects. Chatelain 

brought in additional university-trained historians 

to research historic sites, direct preservation 

activities, and develop public programs. These 

historical technicians, as the agency called them, 

helped former War Department sites, like Stones 

River, bring in new interpretive techniques and 

strategies to educate visitors. The agency’s 

expansion east of the Mississippi during this time 

and subsequent foray into preserving, managing, 

and interpreting historic sites made the NPS the 

federal leader in historic preservation. This new 

leadership role was codified by the Historic Sites 

Act of 1935, which among many things, called for a 

national survey of historic sites.4

																																																							 4. Charles Hosmer, "Verne E. Chatelain and the 

Development of the Branch of History of the National Park 

Service," Public Historian 16, no. 1 (Winter 1994): 28-38; 

Harlan Unrau and G. Frank Williss, “To Preserve the Nation’s 

Past: The Growth of Historic Preservation during the 1930s,” 

Public Historian 9, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 20-27; Frederick Rath, 

Jr., “Reflections on Historic Preservation and the National 

Park Service: The Early Years,” CRM Supplement 14, no. 4 

(1991): 3-4. 

Administration 

On August 12, 1933, just one day after Roosevelt 

signed Executive Order 6166, Melroe Tarter 

received a note from NPS Acting Director Arthur 

Demaray, informing him that he was to retain 

charge of Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery.5 Tarter had been superintendent at 

Stones River National Cemetery since 1924, and 

became the de facto superintendent of the 

battlefield park when Congress authorized it in 

1927. However, he always answered to an officer 

in charge appointed by the War Department. The 

transfer of the park to the NPS did not give Tarter 

autonomy; in fact, he found a new "officer in 

charge" in the form Richard Randolph, 

superintendent at Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park. 

When all the battlefields and cemeteries were 

transferred to the NPS, several superintendents at 

larger parks became responsible for additional, 

smaller sites. Richard Randolph, Superintendent 

of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 

Military Park, became coordinating 

superintendent for Chattanooga National 

Cemetery, New Echota Marker, Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Site, King's 

Mountain National Military Park, Cowpens 

Battlefield Site, Castle Pinckney National 

Monument, Fort Pulaski National Monument, 

Fort Marion National Monument, Fort Matanzas 

National Monument, and Stones River National 

Military Park.6 The Battle for Stones River was 

part of the same campaign that included 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga during the war, so it 

made some sense that the NPS would keep these 

two parks under the same supervision. However, 

the practicality of such an arrangement became 

inefficient because the coordinating 

superintendent was responsible for so many sites 

that were geographically dispersed; thus, day-to-

																																																							 5. Arthur Demaray to Melroe Tarter, letter, August 12, 1933, 

Folder Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd

Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the National 

Park Service (NPS), Record Group (RG) 79, National Archives, 

College Park, MD (NACP). 

6. Randolph remained superintendent of Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga National Military Park until 1937. John Paige 

and Jerome Greene, Administrative History of Chickamauga 

and Chattanooga National Military Park (Denver, CO: 

Denver Service Center, National Park Service, 1983), under 

"National Park Service Administration," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/chch/adhi3.ht

m (accessed July 22, 2015).
37 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

day management fell to a park administrator or 

custodian who lacked the same kind of decisive 

authority. 

Tarter served as the day-to-day administrator until 

his retirement in 1942.7 Randolph and his 

successor, Charles Dunn, only travelled to Stones 

River intermittently, relying mostly on Tarter's 

reports to keep them informed about park issues.8

Randolph, and later Dunn, entrusted Tarter to 

convey their orders to park staff at Stones River. 

Verne Chatelain, as Acting Assistant NPS Director, 

indicated that he was not pleased with this 

arrangement in a 1935 memorandum, which 

appears to have been written as a response to the 

suggestion that a superintendent's position be 

allocated at Stones River instead of falling under 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga.9 Tarter seemed more 

focused on the cemetery than the park, or was 

better suited to run the cemetery than the park. 

Chatelain recommended separating the 

superintendency of the cemetery from the park. 

He stated explicitly, "The park superintendent 

should be someone other than Tarter and should 

have general jurisdiction over the cemetery as well 

as the park."10 It may be that Chatelain was 

interested in making park superintendents more 

professional and adept at managing historic sites. 

Chatelain's memorandum went unheeded, 

however, because Tarter remained in his position 

until his retirement in 1942, when he received full 

disability, suggesting that he may not have been 

physically capable of carrying out all park 

management duties. However, regional staff 

gradually eroded the duties of the Stones River 

																																																							 7. Tarter took 122 days leave without pay from November 1, 

1941 to February 28, 1942. Hillory A. Tollson, 

"Memorandum for Appointment, Records and Statistics 

Unit," April 8, 1942, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] 

0-31 Military Parks, 1933-1948, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACO.

8. Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park has an 

almost complete set of superintendent's reports. These 

reports note instances when Randolph or Dunn travelled to 

Stones River. The records from 1933 to 1956 indicate that 

there were long periods of several months when no one 

visited Stones River. See "Superintendent's Narrative 

Reports," Folders 1-52 and 160-175, Boxes 1-3 and 11, 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park Archive 

(hereafter CHCH Archive), Fort Oglethorpe, GA.

9. The other letter was not included in the files. Verne 

Chatelain, memorandum, September 12, 1935, Folder 

Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd Subseries, 

Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

10. Chatelain, memorandum, September 12, 1935.

National Military Park superintendent position, 

reducing it to more like a caretaker position. 

Figure 8 Melroe Tarter talks with Regional Historian Roy 

Appleman in 1938 at the park checking station. Source: 

National Archives.

There were few paid employees at Stones River 

other than the superintendent. They were mostly 

day laborers that focused on cemetery 

maintenance. Melroe Tarter's son, Dennis, was 

among them, and sometimes represented his 

father on official park business when his father 

was otherwise unavailable.11 The park, however, 

did utilize subject matter experts from 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park 

and the region to make up for its small staff. For 

example, historical technicians Oswald E. Camp, 

George S. Emery, and H.C. Landru, who worked 

out of Chickamauga-Chattanooga National 

Military Park, intermittently worked at Stones 

River researching the battle's history, developing 

interpretive materials, and documenting park 

projects.12 Landscape architects, foresters, 

																																																							 11. Richard Randolph to Arno Cammerer, Inspection Report, 

October 13, 1933, Folder 1932-1933, Box 1, 7476 War 

Department Files, Park Archive.

12. For example, Oswald E. Camp photographed PWA 

projects at Stones River National Battlefield and cemetery in 

1934. He left Chickamauga-Chattanooga in 1935 to become 

superintendent of the Statue of Liberty National 

Monument. George Emery worked on several projects, 

including a trailside marker project, an artillery plan, and a 

restoration plan for Redoubt Brannan. Herschel Landru 

coordinated the guide service at Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park, but his name appears in 

correspondence relating to Stones River. Oswald Camp, 

“Stones River National Park,” July 16, 1934, Folder [Stones 

River National Military Park] 618 Public Works 

Administration, 1933-36, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified 

Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP; Harold Danz, 

Historic Listing of National Park Service Officials, rev. ed. 

(Denver: National Park Service, 2000), under “Park 
Chapter Three

National Park Service 38

engineers, and soil experts also lent their expertise 

to park administration and projects, including revegetation and road improvements.13 These staff 

members were instrumental in communicating onthe-ground issues to park and regional 

administrators. Their expertise was also integral to 

larger planning efforts. 

Cemetery Community 

The NPS did not undertake any land acquisition at 

Stones River National Military Park in the 

immediate years after the transfer, but it did 

oversee the final chapter in the removal of the 

Cemetery community. The Attorney General 

returned the decrees for the final twelve 

condemnation suits to Secretary of Interior 

Harold Ickes in May 1934.14 This marked the end 

																																																																																						 Superintendents,” 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/tolson/histlist.

htm (accessed August 18, 2015); Paige and Greene, 

Administrative History of Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park, under “Park Interpretation,” 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/chch/adhi5a.h

tm (accessed August 18, 2015); George Emery, "Exhibit Plan 

for Trail-Side Exhibits Stones River National Military Park," 

[March 12, 1937], Folder Stones River National Military Park, 

1933-48, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of 

the NPS, RG 79, NACP; George Emery, memorandum, 

"Artillery Needs, Stones River National Military Park," 

January 6, 1941, and George Emery, memorandum, 

"Proposed Restoration of Redoubt Brannan, Stones River 

National Military Park," January 14, 1941, both Folder 

[Stones River National Cemetery] General, 1936-47, 2nd

Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

13. Evidence of these interactions are scattered throughout 

the park’s files from this period, but a few examples are 

illustrative of the types of professionals the park consulted 

during this period and the projects they worked on. 

Forester A. Robert Thompson submitted a report on CWA 

work in 1934 that provided an update on woods cleanup, 

while also making several minor recommendations for 

forestry practices at the battlefield. Melroe Tarter consulted 

landscape architect Robert Frost about boxwood issues in 

the national cemetery. Assistant engineer A.D. Curradi 

oversaw road improvements in the national cemetery. A. 

Robert Thompson, Report, January 30, 1934, Folder [Stones 

River National Military Park] 619 Civil Works Administration,

2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 

79, NACP; Robert Frost to Melroe Tarter, memorandum, 

May 13, 1940, and A.D. Curradi to John Cross, “SemiMonthly Report of Activities—Oct. 1 to Oct. 15,” October

16, 1937, both Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] 

General, 1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

14. J. Crawford Briggs to Harold Ickes, letter, May 4, 1934, 

Folder [Stones River National Military Park] 601 Lands, 

General, 1933-45, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

of the land acquisition program that had begun 

under the War Department in 1927. 

The NPS did not mention the loss of the 

community or mark the residents' final departure 

in its files from that period. The Minters were the 

last residents to leave the area in 1933. They and 

the other Cemetery community residents took the 

money awarded to them by the courts and found 

new homes elsewhere. The Cemetery community 

did not cease to exist; rather its boundaries shifted 

as families moved to other parts of the district.15

Figure 9 Log cabin taken over by UDC for Confederate 

museum. Courtesy of STRI.

The departure of Cemetery residents opened a 

rather peculiar issue with the local chapter of the 

United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). The 

UDC petitioned the War Department in 1931 to 

use and remodel an abandoned cabin, most likely a 

former home of an African American resident, for

some kind of museum or shrine (see Fig. 9). The 

ladies of the UDC sought government support for 

their project, agreeing to pay for the preservation 

and upkeep of the museum, and the War 

Department eventually agreed to the proposal. 

The museum project remained unimplemented 

when the NPS took over administration of the 

battlefield. While the UDC waited, other 

organizations became involved in the project.16 

The Shawnee chapter of the Daughters of the 

American Revolution (DAR) planted a Japanese 

cherry tree by the cabin.17 The UDC began 

																																																							 15. Leonora Washington, "A Black Perspective of the Area 

as Compiled during the Tennessee Homecoming 

Celebration in 1986 by a Local Resident," N.D., 2-3, Folder 

1928-1929, 7476 War Department Records, Park Archive.

16. Miranda Fraley, "The Politics of Memory: Remembering 

the Civil War in Rutherford County, Tennessee," 

dissertation, Indiana University, 2004, 173-79. 

17. A newspaper clipping with date, paper, and page 

unknown, showing the tree dedication at the UDC cabin 
39 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

restoring the cabin in 1934, indicating that the NPS 

did not thwart the group's efforts to present a 

Confederate history of the battle.18 Nor did the 

NPS dissuade the idea to install an "Uncle 

Albert"19 in the cabin to provide interpretation for 

visitors. Albert Averitt was a well-known African 

American man in Rutherford County that had 

been evicted from his home with his wife and sent 

to live on the county poor farm. For reasons 

unknown, Averitt presented himself as a black 

Confederate veteran, which fit into local whites' 

romanticized views of the war, and prompted 

some local citizens to propose using him as an 

interpreter in the UDC cabin. However, a severe 

storm, which likely included a tornado, swept 

across the battlefield on March 25, 1935, 

destroying the cabin and effectively ending the 

UDC's attempt for a Confederate shrine (see Fig. 

10).

20

Figure 10 UDC cabin after the storm. Source: National 

Archives.

While the storm may have ended this peculiar 

project, the very attempt raises important 

questions about how local whites sympathetic to 

the Confederate cause sought to remake the 

battlefield.21 Historian Miranda Fraley articulated 

this well when she wrote,

																																																																																						 can be found in the Folder 85 H30 Historic Structures, Series 

1, Park Archive. See also Fraley, “The Politics of Memory,” 

179, 186. 

18. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory,”173-79. 

19. This “Uncle Albert” character was likely inspired by 

“Uncle Alfred” at the Hermitage, a former slave turned 

interpreter who is buried in the Jackson family cemetery 

adjacent to the main house. 

20. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

March 1935," April 8, 1935, Folder 8, Box 1, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

21. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory,” 173-79.

The idea that the UDC would actually take one 

of the homes formerly occupied by an African 

American family and transform it into a 

museum of sorts is a very bizarre and graphic 

example of how agents of the Lost Cause 

successfully infiltrated the national battlefield 

with the disruption of the local community 

caused by the development of the park.22

While the NPS certainly did not encourage this 

project, the agency did not discourage it either. In 

fact, the UDC chapter decided not to rebuild the 

cabin with the hope of having their own room in 

the park's new visitor center, which both they and 

the NPS hoped would be built soon.23 This 

perhaps left an opening for the UDC and other 

pro-Confederate groups to assert their authority in 

the park's interpretation in years to come. 

New Deal Work Programs 

New Deal funding provided a momentous 

opportunity for the National Park Service to grow 

its system and implement a wide range of projects 

at existing parks. The agency took advantage of a 

myriad of government programs, including the 

Civil Works Administration (a short-lived job 

creation program during the especially hard winter 

of 1933 to 1934), Public Works Administration 

(large-scale public works program created by the 

National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933), Works 

Progress Administration (another public works 

program that put people on relief to work on 

public projects), Civilian Conservation Corps 

(program designed to put young men to work on 

public lands doing conservation work), and 

National Youth Administration (program that 

provided work and education opportunities for 

youth between the ages of 16 and 25). These 

programs were a great boon to parks like 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military 

Park, which had four Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) camps between 1933 and 1941 that together 

accommodated up to 700 men at a time.24 In 

comparison, the projects completed by New Deal 

workers at Stones River were relatively small. 

Nevertheless, they indicate the general concern 

the NPS had for the site and parks in general 

																																																							 22. Ibid., 169.

23. Ibid., 179.

24. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

December 1934," January 8, 1935, Folder 4, Box 1, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.
Chapter Three

National Park Service 40

during this period, including modernizing for 

automobile touring, "naturalizing" the landscape, 

developing the recreational potential, and 

implementing a historical education program. 

The Civil Works Administration (CWA) was the 

first New Deal program to arrive at Stones River. 

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration 

created the CWA during the winter of 1933 and 

1934 to provide temporary employment until the 

spring construction season began. The CWA 

provided laborers at Stones River in late 1933 and 

early 1934 to remove the last remaining traces of 

the Cemetery community. The program was 

supervised by the NPS Southeastern Field Office 

of the Branch of Plans and Design. Junior 

Landscape Architect Harvey Benson was sent 

from Chickamauga-Chattanooga National 

Military Park by Richard Randolph to monitor 

progress.

25 The CWA workers moved isolated 

rock piles to one central pile to be crushed later 

for use in road construction. They removed and 

disposed of refuse. They burned brush piles, 

removed dead trees and stumps, and removed old 

fences. NPS forester A. Robert Thompson 

reported on the work: "A large part of the area was 

occupied by tenants until the land was purchased a 

few years ago. Their use of the land resulted in the 

piling up of rocks or sprawls, the establishment of 

fence lines and accumulation of rubbish."26 This is 

a rare NPS remark acknowledging the presence of 

the Cemetery community, and is evidence of the 

CWA's role in erasing this occupation layer from 

the landscape as the final condemnation suits were 

being settled. 

Soon after the CWA program ended, the Public 

Works Administration (PWA) hired laborers to 

work at Stones River. The National Industrial 

Recovery Act created the PWA in 1933 to provide 

temporary employment through large-scale public 

works projects. The PWA completed two projects 

from March 28 to May 24, 1934, including erosion 

control and planting. Staff at ChickamaugaChattanooga coordinated the projects. Karl 

Murton of Chattanooga, who had experience in 

landscaping and forestry, was appointed as 

																																																							 25. Harvey P. Benson, "CWA Program at Stones River 

National Military Park," December 22, 1933, Folder [Stones 

River National Military Park] 619 Civil Works Administration, 

2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 

79, NACP.

26. A. Robert Thompson, Report, January 30, 1934. 

foreman. Two men, James Garland and A.R. King, 

worked as the project foreman and were 

considered skilled labor. According to the "Final 

Progress Report" by Benson, the unskilled force 

fluctuated from a high of forty men to a low of 

nine men, the average being approximately 

twenty-five men.27 These men were presumably 

local unskilled workers. 

The Erosion Control Project (Federal Project 479) 

focused on grading and reseeding both sides of 

Old Nashville Pike, otherwise known as the Dixie 

Highway. The cut slopes were graded to an ogee 

curve, fertilized, and sprigged with Bermuda grass. 

The PWA crews also worked on the worst twenty 

of the seventy-five acres of eroded meadowlands 

in the park. The meadowlands were fertilized, 

harrowed, seeded, and rolled. They graded, 

fertilized, and seeded all wagon trails that ran 

through the woods. The crew also worked on the 

north entrance to the national cemetery where 

they installed a culvert, and filled and graveled an 

area fifty feet long on each side of the gateway 

between the wall and highway.28

Figure 11 PWA workers on project to widen northern gate 

of the national cemetery. Source: National Archives.

The Planting Project (Federal Project 481) 

consisted of removing exotic material scattered 

around the park and along roadsides and planting 

native stock purchased from local nurseries. The 

NPS purchased the nursery stock because it was 

"better developed and more economical," but not 

necessarily part of the historical ecology of the 

Civil War period. In general, the planting projects 

																																																							 27. Harvey Benson, "Final Progress Report," August 14, 

1934, Folder [Stones River National Military Park] 618 Public

Works Administration, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

28. Ibid.
41 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

undertaken at Stones River were to give the 

battlefield landscape a more "natural" aesthetic. 

The PWA crew also broke up the rigid line of 

existing plant material parallel to the park drives 

by planting additional nursery stock into existing

groups.

29 Thompson reported earlier in January 

(while working with the CWA) that 150 feet on 

either side of the park roads had been kept 

mowed, which produced a definite line of 

demarcation that needed to blend better with the 

natural growth.30 Workers also planted several 

hundred dogwoods, red bud, moss locust, and 

coralberry in informal masses in the southern 

section of the park where most of the low and 

intermediate plant material was removed. Crew 

members also placed several groups of maple, 

sourwood, sweet gum, and sour gum trees in the 

open meadows east and west of Old Nashville Pike 

to relieve the open expanse of the field and to add 

variety in mass and height. They removed and 

transplanted the formal avenue of maples along 

the highway to serve as a screen between the 

railroad tracks and the cemetery. Workers 

removed all exotic material along park drives, but 

left some near the two main park entrances. They 

planted screens to obscure a store near the north 

entrance (see Fig. 12) and a barnyard south of 

Hazen's Brigade Memorial. In all, Benson 

estimated that about 2,000 exotic plants were 

removed and approximately 4,250 native shrubs 

and trees were purchased from local nurseries.31

Figure 12 PWA workers used plants to screen out store

adjacent to the park. Source: National Archives.

																																																							 29. Ibid.

30. A. Robert Thompson, report, January 30, 1934, Folder 

619 Civil Works Administration, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

31. Benson, "Final Progress Report”; National Park Service, 

"Screen Planting near North Park," April 1, 1934, Drawing 

1002, E-TIC Catalog, Denver Service Center.

PWA funds for Stones River projects were 

expended in 1934. However, the NPS developed a 

proposal for additional projects in 1935. None of 

these projects were funded, but the project 

proposals and their accompanying justifications 

reflect the NPS's interest in developing the 

recreational and historical aspects for visitors. 

First, the NPS proposed a contact station to 

capitalize on the motorists traveling on Highway 

41. It is unclear why the park needed a new 

contact station because in September 1934 

Superintendent Randolph had CCC corpsmen 

relocate to Stones River a small building first built 

by the CWA to be used at Point Park at 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park

(see Fig. 8).

32 Perhaps that particular building was 

inadequate because the person arguing for a new 

facility wrote, "A contact station is particularly 

vital at Stones River because of the fact that a 

straight paved modern highway runs through the 

area, and the tendency is for travelers to race by 

the park without knowing it is there."33 NPS staff 

also proposed several visitor amenities to support 

recreational activities, including bringing water 

into the park, building comfort stations (for "white 

and colored"), and installing tables, benches, and 

fireplaces or grills. 

The area has certain parts which are scenically 

attractive, and could be readily used as a 

recreational area to serve the people of 

Murfreesboro. This would enable them also to 

benefit from the park's historical-educational 

program, and generally stimulate stronger 

interest in the history of the area.34

A central feature of this "historical-educational" 

program was a museum, which was the last item in 

the proposed projects list. Planners felt that such a 

building was "badly needed" to display a 

collection of objects relating to the Civil War and 

the Battle of Stones River and also to serve as a 

base for education work at the park. At the time, 

the few artifacts held at the park were 

unsatisfactorily displayed in the caretaker's office. 

The NPS also requested a large contour map to 

show the relationship of the Battle of Stones River 

																																																							 32. H.C. Landru to Verne Chatelain, letter, September 15, 

1934, Folder 1934-1935, Box 1, 7476 War Department Files,

Park Archive.

33. "Justifications for PWA Projects at Stones River," 

December 10, 1935, Folder [Stones River National Military 

Park] 618 Public Works Administration, 2nd Subseries, 

Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

34. Ibid.
Chapter Three

National Park Service 42

to the whole western campaign. Staff intended this 

map to be housed in the museum.35 Despite the 

persuasiveness of the justifications, none of these 

projects were funded during this time.

Figure 13 1937 roadwork project map. Source: National 

Archives. 

The last major project undertaken by the NPS 

during the New Deal was modernizing the existing 

park road system in 1937 to support automobile 

traffic (see Appendix E). The War Department had 

constructed the original roads in the cemetery 

shortly after its creation in 1865 and, after the park 

was established, added a park loop road in 1932. 

These roads basically consisted of a few inches of 

crushed stone that was replenished periodically.36

When the NPS took over park administration in 

1933, it was only appropriated fifty dollars a year 

for road maintenance. Thus, no major repairs were 

made, and deferred maintenance continued until 

1937. That year the park was appropriated $4,250 

from Roads and Trails funds to repair the roads. 

Overseen by the Branch of Engineering the project 

began September 14, 1937, and was completed 

																																																							 35. Ibid.

36. National Park Service, "The General Repair of Existing 

Roads," January 1938, Folder [Stones River National Military 

Park] 630 Roads, 1938-49, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified 

Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP

October 21, 1937 (see Fig. 13). These new NPS 

roads had a six-inch water-bound macadam base 

with a bituminous surface treatment, which were 

more substantial than those roads constructed by 

the War Department.

The north and south cemetery drives were 

widened to accommodate automobile traffic and 

eliminate the dangerous narrow entrances to the 

national cemetery from Nashville Pike (see Fig. 

11). North Cemetery Drive was widened from 

nine feet eleven inches to twelve feet. South 

Cemetery Drive was widened from eleven feet 

nine inches to sixteen feet from the entrance to the 

turn around. Road improvements also eliminated 

the square edges of the turnaround and widened 

the roadway to eighteen feet. Both roads were 

macadamized and finished with a bituminous 

surface treatment. To accommodate the newly 

widened roads, it was necessary to widen the 

cemetery entrances and install new gates. It was 

proposed that the South Cemetery Entrance be 

reconstructed into the shape of a hemicycle (i.e. 

half circle) and moved back approximately thirty 

feet, but insufficient funds prohibited actual 

construction. Van Cleve Lane was also widened to 

sixteen feet. All the other park roads were 

thoroughly cleaned and received a bituminous 

surface treatment.37

The CCC did not allocate a camp to Stones River, 

namely because the park was too small.

38

However, Superintendent Randolph did submit an 

application in February 1941 for a project to 

expand Stones River National Cemetery's burial 

ground. Landscape architect Robert Frost 

anticipated as early as 1938 that a new addition 

would be needed upon the completion of the new 

veterans hospital, less than five miles away, and it 

would be necessary to preserve the historic 

character of the original cemetery.39 Perhaps 

Randolph was motivated by the hospital's 

																																																							 37. National Park Service, "The General Repair of Existing 

Roads," January 1938, Folder [Stones River National Military 

Park] 630 Roads, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP

38. Arno Cammerer to J.R. Mitchell, letter, May 14, 1935, 

Folder 1934 to 1935, Box 1, 7476 War Department Files, 

Park Archive.

39. Robert Frost to Regional Director, letter, December 7, 

1938, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] General, 

1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of 

the NPS, RG 79, NACP.
43 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

completion to submit the project proposal. This 

project intended to use corpsmen from a nearby 

Soil Conservation Service CCC camp located 

about a mile away from the cemetery. The work 

plan for these corpsmen included grading 

nineteen additional acres and adjusting the grades 

of the original cemetery to match the new portion 

and eliminate the problem of standing water in 

certain portions (see Fig. 14). The plan for the new 

area would extend the cemetery from the southern 

boundary wall to the southern portion of the 

Hazen Brigade Monument.40 Although NPS 

officials signed an agreement with Soil 

Conservation Service representatives, the national 

cemetery was never expanded.41 The project was 

suspended when the Nashville, Chattanooga, and 

St. Louis Railroad objected to the extension, 

arguing that the wall would be within the 

company’s right-of-way. After some investigation 

and deliberation, the NPS decided not to extend 

the cemetery. In an abrupt turnaround, NPS 

officials thought it best to place the cemetery in 

inactive status once the available gravesites were 

taken.42

Figure 14 Flooding in national cemetery, circa 1930s. 

Courtesy of STRI. 

																																																							 40. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

February 1941," March 10, 1941, National Park Service, 1933 

to Present, 1938-1941 Bound Volume, CHCH Archive.

41. "Memorandum of Agreement By and Between the 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, and the

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture," 

January 7, 1941, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery]

General, 1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

42. Ann Wilson Willett, “A History of Stones River National 

Military Park,” master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

College, 1958, 99-100. 

Research and Interpretation 

The new History Branch hired historical 

technicians to work at the battlefield parks after 

their transfer to the NPS in 1933. ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park quickly 

accumulated personnel to undertake a vigorous 

research and education program.43 Oftentimes, 

these historical technicians travelled to sites that 

were coordinated by the park. Stones River

National Military Park did not have any historical 

technicians on staff, but frequently relied upon the 

services of Oswald E. Camp, George Emery, and 

Herschel C. Landru,44 all stationed at 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga, to complete baseline 

research and create a brand new interpretive 

program that was more in line with NPS standards 

and expectations. Not only did they report back to 

Superintendent Randolph, but frequently 

communicated with Verne Chatelain, the first 

head of the History Branch. Chatelain himself 

visited Stones River one or two times.45 During 

their time at the park, Chatelain and his 

technicians became aware of some of the park's 

challenges in research and interpretation. 

																																																							 43. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

February 1934," March 20, 1934, Folder 1, Box 1, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

44. Paige and Greene indicate that these men had a college 

education, presumably in history. Both Camp and Emery 

rose through the ranks quite quickly to become 

superintendents. Camp became superintendent at Statue of 

Liberty National Monument (1935-1937) and then Kings 

Mountain National Military Park (1937-1942). Emery left 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park to 

become superintendent at Andrew Johnson National 

Historical Site in 1942, but was soon furloughed to serve in 

World War II. After the war, he served as superintendent of 

Petersburg National Military Park (1946-1952) and later 

Gettysburg National Military Park (1966-1970). Paige and 

Greene, Administrative History of ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park, under “Park 

Interpretation,” 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/chch/adhi5a.h

tm; Danz, Historic Listing of National Park Service Officials, 

under “Park Superintendents.” 

45. Chatelain wrote a letter to Tarter in September 1933, 

shortly after the park's transfer, in which he tells Tarter that 

he will visit him and the park soon to discuss specifically the 

challenges of "public contact work involved in the Historical 

Service." However, there is no report from this trip to 

ascertain what was discussed. Chatelain also visited the park 

with Oswald Camp sometime in or before October 1935. 

See Verne Chatelain to Melroe Tarter, letter, September 6, 

1933, and Owald E. Camp to Verne Chatelain, 

memorandum, October 29, 1935, both Folder Stones River 

National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.
Chapter Three

National Park Service 44

Perhaps the first (and perennial) issue that came to 

light was the need to have a historian on-site for 

research and to provide the park's free guide 

service. There was no permanent historian 

position for the park, and the History Branch 

realized they needed someone present at the park 

to answer visitor questions and lead tours around 

the battlefield. Camp, Emery, and Landru would 

sometimes spend prolonged periods of time at the 

park conducting research and providing 

interpretive services, but their obligations at 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga forced the park to rely 

on a variety of seasonal positions during the 

1930s.46 For example, the History Branch hired 

five "college men" through the CWA who worked 

as “historians” at Stones River in 1934, which 

likely meant they were used as guides, although it 

is unclear what exactly their duties were and what 

they accomplished.47 It is also unknown what their 

qualifications were and if they received any 

training.48 The CWA program was short-lived, and 

there is no indication that any of these young men 

remained at the park after February 1934. In 1936, 

the History Branch utilized the National Youth 

Administration to hire ten students from Middle 

Tennessee State Teacher's College (now Middle 

Tennessee State University) to provide free guide 

service to visitors. In October of 1936, these NYA 

guides gave tours to 301 visitors.49 However, the 

number of NYA guides fell in subsequent months 

with only one guide working between July and 

November 1937.50 Five NYA guides reportedly 

																																																							 46. Ronald F. Lee to George Emery, letter, September 8, 

1934, H.C. Landru to Verne Chatelain, letter, September 17, 

1934, and Oswald E. Camp to Verne Chatelain, 

memorandum, October 29, 1935, all Folder Stones River 

National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

47. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

February 1934," March 20, 1934, Folder 1, Box 1, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

48. Benson's report show that two semi-skilled "historians" 

worked for seventy cents per hour. Two "skilled historians" 

were hired at one dollar per hour. Another "historian" 

served as foreman for $39.66 a week. There is little 

indication as to who these "historians" were, what their 

qualifications were, and what projects they were assigned 

to. Harvey P. Benson, "CWA Program at Stones River 

National Military Park," December 22, 1933, Folder [Stones 

River National Military Park] 619 Civil Works Administration, 

1933-34, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of 

the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

49. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

October 1936," [November 1936], Folder 34, Box 2, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

50. See Superintendent's Narrative Reports between 

October 1936 and November 1937, Folders 34-37 and 157-

worked in December 1937, the increased number 

perhaps reflecting winter break in school and the 

battle's anniversary at the end of the month.51 Only 

one NYA worker was present from January to 

April 1938.52 When CWA and NYA guides were 

not available, all park interpretation fell on Tarter, 

who exhibited only minimal interaction with 

visitors in his office at the national cemetery. In the 

summer of 1941, the park was able to use its own 

funds to hire Richard Owen Snodderly as a junior 

historical aide for two and half months. Snodderly 

greeted visitors and took them on guided tours, 

and, consequently, visitor contacts increased 

dramatically during his temporary appointment.53

Snodderly was the last guide whose position was 

solely interpretation at Stones River until well after 

World War II. 

George Emery realized the new battlefield park 

posed some problems for "field education," or onsite interpretation, which prompted him to devise 

a new approach centered on self-guided 

interpretation. This problem stemmed from 

several different factors: lack of an on-site 

historian, no park museum, the small nature of the 

park, and the incomplete marker system set in 

place by the War Department. When he visited 

Stones River in 1934, Emery reported back to 

Superintendent Randolph that the War 

Department had not finished the marker program. 

Randolph submitted a request to finish the 

remaining markers, but two years later Emery 

asked Chatelain to stop the project; he had a new 

idea.54 Emery realized that, even if the NPS 

																																																																																						 174, Boxes 2 and 11, National Park Service, 1933 to Present, 

CHCH Archive.

51. The guides are identified as being from the Works

Progress Administration (WPA), rather than the NYA in this 

report, but the NYA was a division of the WPA. Richard 

Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, December 

1937," [January 1938], Folder 175, Box 11, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

52. See Superintendent's Narrative Reports between 

January and April 1938, Folders 176-179, Box 12, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

53. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, June 

1941" July 12, 1941, and "Superintendent's Narrative 

Report, July 1941," August 13, 1941, both Superintendent's 

Reports 1938-1941 Bound Volume, National Park Service, 

1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

54. George Emery to Verne Chatelain, letter, August 19, 

1936, Folder Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 

2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 

79, NACP.
45 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

installed the remaining markers, this would not 

help interpretation at the battlefield. The 

additional tablets would only confuse visitors 

because the small size of the park, compared to the 

actual, much larger size of the battlefield, meant 

that these tablets could not be placed where the 

events directly occurred. Furthermore, he and his 

colleagues found that these markers exceeded the 

learning capacity of visitors and what they could 

actually absorb during a visit. Ultimately, the 

markers were a hindrance to telling the narrative 

of the battle. Emery recommended that the funds 

allocated for finishing the War Department's 

marker series be used to create four new trailside 

markers. He probably recognized that the NPS 

would neither appoint a full-time historian to 

Stones River nor construct a new museum anytime 

in the foreseeable future. 

These markers (see Fig. 15), complete with maps 

and limited text and placed in areas readily 

accessible, reduced the interpretation to four focal 

points. Exhibit 1, located at the Hazen Brigade 

Monument, depicted the battle lines of the two 

armies on the eve of battle in December 1862. 

Exhibit 2, at the intersection of Van Cleve Lane 

and park road, described the Confederate attack 

and the successful flanking maneuver pushing the 

Union line back. Further down the park road, near 

the flagpole in the park, Exhibit 3 told the story of 

the battle from eleven o’clock in the morning 

through the evening of December 31, 1862, during 

which time General Rosecrans formed a new 

position and repulsed the Confederate attack. 

Exhibit 4 concluded the story of the battle on 

January 2, 1863 in the national cemetery with the 

Artillery Monument in view to the visitor. Emery 

wrote the exhibits’ narrative solely in military 

terms and did not discuss the social, political, or 

economic causes or consequences of the battle.55

The NPS Director approved this plan on May 17, 

1937, and Emery supervised installation of the 

markers in August.56

																																																							 55. George Emery, "Exhibit Plan for Trail-Side Exhibits 

Stones River National Military Park," [March 12, 1937], 

Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd Subseries, 

Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

56. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

May 1937," [June 1937], Folder 164, Box 11, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive; "Superintendent's 

Narrative Report, August 1937," September 15, 1937, Folder 

170, Box 11, National Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH 

Archive. 

Figure 15 Design for new trailside marker. Courtesy of 

STRI. 

Regional Director Carl Russell lauded Emery's 

project, writing "Mr. Emery's approach to the 

problem of marking a battlefield area and making 

it intelligible to the average visitor appeals to this 

office." He continued that he would like to see this 

approach to marking a historic site possibly 

replicated at other parks in the region, concluding: 

"We believe that Mr. Emery's experiment in 

trailside exhibits at Stones River is a distinctly 

important and valuable contribution to the effort 

that is being made to evolve the best possible type 

of marker for battlefield areas."57 Russell's letter 

indicates that historical technicians were making 

advances in interpretation at Stones River 

National Military Park despite the park's limited 

resources, although it is unclear to what extent 

Emery's approach was employed at other NPS 

units. 

The trailside exhibits complemented the already 

existing tour road to create a complete self-guided 

interpretive experience. The self-guided tour took 

visitors first to the Hazen Brigade Monument, 

then to the junction of Van Cleve Lane and Park 

Road, then to the flagpole near Nashville Pike, and 

ended at the national cemetery. A 1941 pamphlet 

gives a brief history of the battle, tells visitors how 

to get to the park, and maps the self-guided tour

(see Fig. 16 and Appendix E). In the language of 

the time, the pamphlet presents the Confederates 

as "gallant" men who fought with "untiring 

energy," and the Unionists as soldiers of "cool 

resolution." There is no mention of slavery; rather, 

																																																							 57. Carl Russell to Acting Superintendent ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park, letter, December 20, 

1937, Folder Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 

2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 

79, NACP.
Chapter Three

National Park Service 46

it proclaims that both sides sacrificed many lives 

for the principles on which the nation was 

founded. Photographs of the artillery monument, 

park entrance, and cemetery indicated to readers 

that the park was easily accessible to the 

automobile tourist.58

Emery realized that beyond the guided tour there 

were very few developed historical places within 

the park, and so he submitted two reports in 

January 1941 that he thought might help guide 

future development. He wrote a report on artillery 

used at Stones River during the battle, 

recommending that replica guns be placed at a 

central point in the park since some of the original 

locations for the batteries were outside the park.59

He also wrote a report recommending the 

preservation of Redoubt Brannan, which was 

relatively intact and located within park 

boundaries, as compared to the rest of Fortress 

Rosecrans.60 However, reviewers in the History 

Branch wrote that his restoration plans were not 

entirely clear and required some additional 

research.61 None of Emery's recommendations 

were implemented during this time, but would 

become important for management considerations 

in years to come. 

																																																							 58. National Park Service, "Stones River National Military 

Park," 1941, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] 

General, 1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

59. George Emery, memorandum, "Artillery Needs, Stones 

River National Military Park," January 6, 1941, Folder 

[Stones River National Cemetery] General, 1936-47, 2nd

Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

60. George Emery, memorandum, "Proposed Restoration of 

Redoubt Brannan, Stones River National Military Park," 

January 14, 1941, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] 

General, 1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

61. E.M. Lisle to Charles Dunn, memorandum, January 22, 

1941, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] General, 

1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of 

the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

Figure 16 Tour map with exhibit marker locations included 

in the 1941 park pamphlet. Source: National Archives. 

Despite these efforts, NPS educational outreach 

was sparse at Stones River National Military Park 

unless there was a historical technician or 

temporary worker present. Based on information 

Superintendent Tarter provided on a 1938 

questionnaire concerning interpretive facilities at 

Stones River, he and his son apparently spent 

approximately three hours a day on interpretation. 

Visitors were usually contacted at the 

superintendent's office, where they registered and 

were given park literature and general directions 

on how to reach different points of interest. The 

NPS did not provide interpretive training to the 

Tarters or the park’s maintenance workers. Tarter 

reported that there were no "interpretive 

facilities," revealing that he did not consider the 

War Department historical markers and NPS 

waysides to be in this category, but he did keep a 

few maps, pictures, and "relics" in his office. The 

only special event listed was Memorial Day.62 This 

appears to have been how most visitors 

experienced Stones River National Military Park 

during the 1930s. 

																																																							 62. Melroe Tarter, "A Survey of Interpretive Facilities and 

Services Available in Historic and Archeologic Areas," June 

6, 1938, File 207 Reports General, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.
47 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Planning 

The War Department largely considered Stones 

River National Military Park complete at the time 

of its dedication in 1932, but the NPS saw potential 

for further development. The NPS Branch of Plans 

and Design was responsible for ensuring cohesive 

landscape design and utilized an important tool 

called the park master plan, a hallmark feature 

developed by NPS landscape architects in the 

1920s and widely implemented during the New 

Deal.63 Thomas Vint headed the Branch of Plans 

and Design, the main office of which had been 

relocated from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. 

in 1933. There was a Southeast Regional Office for 

the Branch of Plans and Designs located in 

Chattanooga, but Vint brought these staff 

members to his Washington, D.C. office in 

February 1935.64 The main office communicated 

with landscape architects working in the field at 

various parks to develop a series of plans for each 

unit, which administrators used to guide 

recreational development in such a way to 

enhance natural and historical areas. Harvey 

Benson recommended that a landscape architect 

be stationed at Stones River National Military Park 

during the 1930s because he believed ninety 

percent of the work to be done there was of a 

"landscape nature," but a position was never 

allocated.65 Despite not having a landscape 

architect on hand, staff from Stones River, 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga, the Southeast regional 

(then located in Richmond, VA), and Washington, 

D.C. offices worked to create a master plan for 

Stones River in 1938 and 1939, and a general 

development plan in 1941. Neither of these plans 

were finished.

The primary reason why these plans were not 

completed was because they lacked an adequate 

historical base map. Before any project could 

proceed at a historic site like a battlefield, the 

History Branch insisted that a historical base map 

																																																							 63. Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National Parks: 

Historic Landscape Design and Construction (Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 4.

64. Richard Randolph, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

February 1935," March 8, 1935, Folder 6, Box 1, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

65. Harvey P. Benson, "CWA Program at Stones River 

National Military Park," December 22, 1933, Folder 619 Civil 

Works Administration, 1933-34, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

be undertaken in order to best understand the 

site's historical features. Historical technicians 

were responsible for this work, but apparently 

they did not have enough time to devote to 

creating a base map for Stones River, which 

consequently impeded the rest of the planning 

process. Assistant Research Technician Joseph 

Hills Hanson states the case pretty explicitly in a 

letter that accompanied the 1939 edition of Stones 

River's Master Plan: 

From the historical standpoint this master plan 

is still so far from complete that there is little as 

yet on which to base specific comment. As is 

frankly stated in the text accompanying the 

General Development Plan, information was 

not available for the preparation for the 

historical base map. Such a map will be 

necessary, of course, as a preliminary to any 

sound development of historic roads or other 

historic features, and a General Development 

Plan should hardly be considered final until the 

historical base map has been prepared. Such a 

map would also be highly desirable for use in 

the preparation and location of a certain 

number of historical markers on the field.66

Hanson's statement makes it clear that without 

sufficient historical research, additional planning 

could not proceed. Historical technicians did not 

make much progress on the historical base map 

between 1939 and 1941, when NPS planners 

started the second plan, with the exception of 

Emery's research and recommendations on 

placing interpretive artillery in the park and 

restoring Redoubt Brannan.67

The outbreak of World War II in December 1941 

cast most NPS projects into uncertainty. So 

without a historical base map to inform a suitable 

master plan, or additional funding to complete the 

planning process, the NPS left Stones River 

National Military Park in survival mode. The most 

the small park staff could do was maintain the 

status quo, which meant focusing on the national 

																																																							 66. Joseph Hills Hanson, "Master Plan 1939 Edition, Stones 

River National Military Park," September 8, 1939, Folder 

[Stones River National Cemetery] General, 1936-47, 2nd

Subseries, Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

67. "Memorandum for the Regional Director, Region One," 

September 29, 1941, and E.M. Lisle, "Memorandum for the 

Superintendent, Chickamauga-Chattanooga National 

Military Park," January 22, 1941,both Folder [Stones River 

National Cemetery] General, 1936-47, 2nd Subseries, Central 

Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.
Chapter Three

National Park Service 48

cemetery until planning efforts could be taken up 

again after World War II. 

World War II 

World War II certainly tested the NPS's assurance 

to the War Department in 1933 that it would be 

able to use the battlefields for military study and 

troop training during wartime. At the outset of the 

war, the military took over several abandoned 

CCC camps in battlefield parks for troop training 

and prisoner of war camps. The War Department 

placed a Women's Auxiliary Air Corps training 

center at Chickamauga-Chattanooga National 

Military Park, and, according to Superintendent 

Charles Dunn, these women did less damage to the 

park than the CCC or other military groups before 

them.68 Stones River National Military Park was 

too small to host these kinds of military activities, 

but it was certainly affected by the war in both 

expected and unexpected ways. 

John F. Steffey, former superintendent of 

Vicksburg National Cemetery, replaced Melroe 

Tarter as Stones River superintendent in 1942. 

Steffey almost did not receive the appointment, 

because the superintendent of Vicksburg National 

Military Park tried to obstruct Steffey's

promotion. By 1941, the cemetery and park at 

Vicksburg had two separate administrators. 

Superintendent McCorryline, in a confidential 

memorandum to NPS Acting Director Arthur 

Damaray, wrote that although Steffey was suited 

for general cemetery maintenance work, he was 

not suited to manage personnel or to interact with 

the public. McCorryline expressed particular 

frustration that Steffey interfered with his 

interpretive staff and often told visitors incorrect 

information. This memorandum was not only an 

attack on Steffey's personal demeanor; it also is 

indicative of the general expectations that 

McCorryline had for superintendents at 

battlefields and historic sites. He emphasized 

professionalism and the ability to communicate 

important historical matters to the public.69

Disregarding McCorryline's scurrilous two-page 

memorandum, the NPS transferred Steffey to 

																																																							 68. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, December 1944, January 11, 1945, Folder 40, Box 3, 

National Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

69. James McCorryline, memorandum, July 14, 1941, Folder 

Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd Subseries, 

Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

Stones River, where he administered both the 

cemetery and the park until 1947, still under the 

supervision of Charles Dunn at ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park. 

The war diverted both funding and staff away 

from the National Park Service, forcing the agency 

to sustain minimum maintenance levels at all units. 

This was certainly the case at Stones River as well. 

Staff focused most of their efforts on maintaining 

the national cemetery, which was still an active 

cemetery and accepted burials of those killed in 

the conflict. While parks were losing staff to 

military service, Stones River actually hired 

additional laborers to help with the national

cemetery.70

Since the focus was on interments in the national 

cemetery, the NPS took measures to reduce 

maintenance burdens whenever and wherever it 

could. Acting NPS Director Arthur Demaray 

directed in January 1941 that all rostrums be 

removed in national cemeteries saying that they 

were no longer useful.71 Park staff at Stones River 

removed the one in the national cemetery and 

when they finished razing the structure in October 

1942, they sent some of the bricks to be used in a 

military hospital being built at Fort Oglethorpe 

adjacent to Chickamauga-Chattanooga National 

Military Park.72 Park staff also decided to sell the 

hay in the battlefield area to the highest bidder to 

reduce the need for mowing.73

Superintendent Steffey did not institute a formal 

guide program, but instead continued to make 

most of the visitor contacts himself. 

Superintendent's reports indicate that Steffey was 

far more active than his predecessor. He gave 

orientation talks and guided tours around the 

																																																							 70. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, April 

1942," May 11, 1942, and "Superintendent's Narrative 

Report, May 1942," June 11, 1942, both Folder 38, Box 2,

National Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

71. Stones River National Cemetery Cultural Landscape 

Report, Chapter Four, 7.

72. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

October 1942," November 10, 1942, Folder 38, Box 2,

National Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

73. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, July 

1942," August 10, 1942, Folder 38, Box 2, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present CHCH Archive.
49 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

battlefield. While gasoline rationing meant that 

visitation numbers dropped precipitously at 

national parks during the war, these numbers 

actually increased at Stones River National 

Military Park thanks to large numbers of 

servicemen that came to visit the park.74 A number 

of these servicemen came from Camp Forrest, one 

of the largest U.S. Army training centers in the 

country during World War II, located in 

Tullahoma, Tennessee.75 It is not clear why 

servicemen visited the park—if they came out of 

their own volition or if they were required for 

training purposes. However, their numbers during 

this period indicate that Stones River and other 

Civil War battlefields were important to active 

service members. Beyond park visitors, Steffey also 

reached out to the local community, and, in 1945, 

was elected as the first president of the Rutherford 

County Historical Society.76

Postwar Management 

In 1947, Roy Appleman, then NPS Region One 

Historian, visited Stones River National Battlefield 

and Cemetery. He reported the cemetery to be in 

"excellent condition," and noted that park 

laborers were busy that day burying three soldiers 

killed in the War in the Pacific. His report of the 

battlefield park, on the other hand, comprised a 

list of deferred maintenance and noted that there 

were "practically no interpretive facilities available 

to the visitor, other than the War Department iron 

markers." Nor could he find any mark indicating 

that this was indeed a National Park Service area. 

He wrote that visitors, if they could even find the 

park, were unlikely to have contact with an NPS 

staff person.77 A week or so later, Appleman 

composed a confidential memo to the Regional 

																																																							 74. In June 1942, for example, an estimated 1,500 

servicemen visited the park, compared to 138 total visitors 

that month a year before. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's 

Narrative Report, June 1942," July 9, 1942, Folder 38, Box 2,

National Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

75. Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, June 1942;” 

Michael Bradley, “Camp Forrest,” Tennessee Encyclopedia 

for History and Culture, 

https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=178 

(accessed August 21, 2015). 

76. "County Historical Society is Formed; Steffey President," 

Rutherford Courier, October 26, 1945.

77. Roy Appleman, "Historian’s Report," October 17, 1947, 

Folder [Stones River National Military Park] 207-03 

Historian's Report, 1947-48, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified 

Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

Director. He recommended that Stones River 

National Military be withdrawn from the 

coordinating superintendency of ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park, stating, "I 

know of no area in Region One that is more in 

need of better guidance."78 He wished that Stones 

River be placed under the supervision of Shiloh 

National Military Park. From Appleman's 

perspective, things were not looking very good at 

Stones River. Years of low funding and inattention 

had plainly taken their toll. 

Appleman demanded new leadership, but actually 

Stones River had received a new superintendent 

just a few months prior. Victor Shipley took over 

Steffey's position on March 3, 1947. Shipley had 

been considered for the job when Tarter retired, 

but management hired Steffey instead, perhaps for 

his cemetery maintenance experience. Shipley 

either stayed on upper management’s radar or 

simply maintained an interest in the Stones River 

job, or both. He accepted the position while he 

was a custodian of Santa Rosa National 

Monument in California.

79 Charles Dunn 

responded to Appleman's report saying that 

Shipley was new and would take care of 

Appleman's concerns. He also admitted that he 

and his staff did not devote much time to Stones 

River because work at Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park kept them busy.80 Regional 

Director Thomas Allen responded to Appleman's 

call to put Stones River under the guidance of 

Shiloh National Military Park, saying that Dunn 

seemed confident in Shipley and that it was up to 

Dunn to make sure improvements at Stones River 

progressed in a satisfactory manner. He continued 

that it was up to the regional office to provide 

Dunn necessary guidance and asked Appleman 

hold off on the criticism until he or his staff could 

visit these areas more frequently. In a handwritten 

note attached to the memo, someone else opined 

that personality issues were not grounds to change 

structural organization, although the origins of 

																																																							 78. Roy Appleman to Regional Director, memorandum, 

October 31, 1947, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery]

0-31, Military Parks, General, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified 

Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

79. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

March 1947," April 9, 1947, Folder 43, Box 3, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

80. Charles Dunn to Regional Director, memorandum, 

November 24, 1947, Folder 1940, 1947-1948, Box 1, 

7476.War Department Files, Park Archive.
Chapter Three

National Park Service 50

these personality issues were not mentioned.81

Allen concluded that the regional and Washington 

offices should give Shipley some more time to 

improve conditions at the park. However, these 

exchanges demonstrate that the arrangement of 

Stones River National Military Park under a 

coordinating superintendency was not ideal, and 

both the regional office and ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park considered 

the superintendent's position at Stones River only 

a custodial role that focused more on maintaining 

the park and cemetery's present condition instead 

of thinking of ways to improve the area and 

connect to visitors and the local community. 

Appleman visited Stones River again seven months 

later on May 24, 1948, but found no significant 

improvements. He met with Shipley, who 

expressed his concerns over the need for adequate 

water supply near the superintendent's house and 

a tractor mower. Appleman noted that weeds 

along the park road were as high as the car 

window. He wrote that the park needed a 

complete sign program, but noted that, since his 

last visit, Shipley and his crew had at least erected 

several name signs that had been in storage. 

However, Appleman still considered these signs 

inadequate for attracting visitors. In his previous 

visit, in 1947, he noted that a few of Emery’s 

experimental trailside exhibits remained in decent 

condition, despite ten years deferred maintenance, 

but did not mention them in his 1948 report. He 

did note that no interpretive markers had been 

installed since his last visit, and he saw that the 

War Department markers and the few gun 

carriages and their mounts needed painting. These 

guns were located near the park entrance, near a 

flagpole that remained flagless. Shipley said the 

park did not have enough funds to purchase a flag 

or the personnel to raise and lower the flag daily. 

Appleman also called attention to farm equipment 

sitting idly on park property and a burned out car 

in a dump not far from the park road, indicating 

that adjacent residents were regularly intruding on 

parkland. He once again found the national 

cemetery and the Hazen Brigade Monument to be 

in excellent condition, further evidence that these 

areas were the primary focus of park staff. 

However, much less attention had been given to 

the Artillery Monument, which Appleman 

																																																							 81. Thomas Allen to Roy Appleman, memorandum, 

December 12, 1947, Folder [Stones River National Cemetery] 

0-31, Military Parks, General, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified 

Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

recommended needed significant vista clearing. 

Livestock were also getting into this area. He 

found the Rosecrans and Bragg headquarters to be 

in good condition, although the Bragg monument 

was missing a few cannonballs. Again, he found no 

interpretive services being offered to visitors and 

recommended that the NPS allocate a historical 

aide position for the park. The registration book 

kept in Shipley's office showed only 31 visitors 

since November 1947. Appleman wrote,

I doubt whether any other area in the Park 

Service will show as low a number of 

registration for seven-month period. For an 

area that lies astride one the main U.S. 

Highways, such a register of visiting tells its 

own story concerning lack of proper 

development and facilities.82

Appleman saw something else on his visit that 

caused him concern. He observed work crews 

clearing an area north of the park for the new 

Highway 41, a larger road to replace the Old 

Nashville Pike. Appleman feared that this new 

highway would negatively impact the already 

suffering park (see Fig. 17).

																																																							 82. Roy Appleman to Regional Director, memorandum, June 

24, 1948, Folder [Stones River National Military Park] 207-03 

Historian's Report, 1947-48, 2nd Subseries, Central Classified 

Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.
51 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 17 Proposed plan of new Highway 41 drawn in 1946 

(shown in green) by Tennessee Highway Department. 

Source: National Archives. 

Freshly elected to his first of fifteen terms as a U.S. 

Congressman, Joe L. Evins visited Stones River 

National Military Park in 1948, and was just as 

unimpressed with Shipley's leadership as Roy 

Appleman. He wrote to NPS Director Newton 

Drury recommending that Shipley be replaced. 

Acting Director Hillory Tolson responded to 

Evins letting him know that he had informed 

Regional Director Thomas Allen of his concerns 

and assured him that a swift investigation would 

be made into the matter.83 Shipley remained at 

Stones River for nine more years, but Evins's letter 

indicates that the substandard conditions at the 

park did not escape members of the local 

community. 

Despite the bleak picture painted by Appleman, 

administration at Stones River remained much the 

same until Shipley's departure in 1956. Only small 

improvements were made during this time, 

including a tractor mower, which the park finally 

																																																							 83. Hillory Tolson to Joe Evins, letter, August 4, 1948, Folder 

Stones River National Military Park, 1933-48, 2nd Subseries, 

Central Classified Files, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

received in 1950.84 Shipley and his crew continued 

to focus primarily on the national cemetery. 

Occasionally Dunn or a regional staff member 

visited the park and reported that maintenance 

was much the same or not progressing in a 

satisfactory manner.85 There were small projects to 

repoint the Hazen Brigade Monument in 1950 and 

rehabilitate the Artillery Monument at the end of 

1953.86 Park maintenance staff intermittently 

worked on Rosecrans and Bragg headquarters.

87

They also worked on Redoubt Brannan in fits and 

starts over a few years time.88 Probably the biggest 

project undertaken during this period was the 

installation of a new well at the superintendent's 

house in 1952. However, it took several months to 

finish this project because the park lacked the 

necessary funds for a pump once the well was 

drilled.89 In addition to purchasing a new lawn 

tractor, the park reduced some of its maintenance 

burden by leasing some of the battlefield land to 

local farmer Marvin Short in 1952, who planted 

corn, grain, and hay.90 As part of this arrangement, 

Short agreed to undertake grounds maintenance in 

the battlefield area with the exception of roadside 

cleanup, which was left to park staff. 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park 

historians completed a Historical Base Map in 

1952, which they based on those maps completed 

																																																							 84. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, July 

1950," August 9, 1950, Folder 46, Box 3, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

85. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

March 1950," April 11, 1950, Folder 46, Box 3, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

86. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

September 1950," October 11, 1950, and "Superintendent's 

Narrative Report, December 1953," January 8, 1954, both 

Folders 46 and 49, Box 3, National Park Service, 1933 to 

Present, CHCH Archive.

87. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, June 

1952," July 11, 1952, Folder 48, Box 3, National Park Service, 

1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

88. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

January 1950," February 8, 1950, Folder 46, Box 3, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

89. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

March 1952," April 9, 1952, and "Superintendent's 

Narrative Report, June 1952," July 11, 1952, both Folder 48, 

Box 3, National Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

90. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

February 1952," March 11, 1952, Folder 48, Box 3, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive
Chapter Three

National Park Service 52

by Howard Landers for the War Department.91 In 

1953, the new highway opened, diverting potential 

tourists away from the site.92 While it is unclear 

whether this had a significant impact to park 

visitation, a report on Memorial Day activities in 

1952 suggests that the national cemetery was 

declining in importance for community-organized 

commemoration activities.93 That year Memorial 

Day celebrations took place in Murfreesboro 

rather than at the national cemetery, although 

some citizens still visited the cemetery that day. 

Lackluster interpretation and the relocation of the 

Dixie Highway coincided with decreases in 

visitation and community participation during the 

1950s. 

Conclusion

The New Deal ushered in an important 

transitional period for Stones River National 

Military Park. The park was no longer under the 

auspices of the War Department, which was 

concerned about preserving the fields for 

commemorative purposes and military study. In 

1933, the National Park Service came in as new 

management, bringing in a cadre of experts, 

including landscape architects, historians, 

foresters, and geologists, who were concerned 

with developing the recreational potential while 

also balancing historic preservation and landscape 

management. Only a limited number of projects 

were completed using CWA and PWA labor, while 

other proposals sat on the back burner. While 

other, larger parks received a significant amount of 

funding during this time, Stones River, a new park, 

received only a modest amount. The few changes 

that were made, primarily the introduction of 

																																																							 91. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, 

January 1952," February 8, 1952, Folder 48, Box 3, National 

Park Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive; Willett, “A 

History of Stones River National Military Park,” 110.

92. Dunn indicated in his May 1952 report that the new 

highway decreased visitation at Stones River National 

Military Park’s, but his April 1954 report showed the park’s 

visitation was steadily increasing two years later. It should 

be noted that the numbers listed in these reports are not 

consistent and appear to be very general approximations. 

Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, May 

1952," June 11, 1952, Folder 48, Box 3, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive; Charles Dunn, 

“Superintendent’s Narrative Report, April 1954,” May 11, 

1954, Folder 50, Box 3, National Park Service, 1933 to 

Present, CHCH Archive.

93. Charles Dunn, "Superintendent's Narrative Report, May 

1952," June 11, 1952, Folder 48, Box 3, National Park 

Service, 1933 to Present, CHCH Archive.

trailside markers, a tour pamphlet, a contact 

station, and road modernization, helped reorient 

the focus of the park from purely commemoration 

to a more complex visitor experience that 

included interpretation and education, although 

these were poorly executed. 

While the NPS imparted a new management 

direction for its battlefield parks, administrators 

did not successfully implement their ideas at 

Stones River National Military park during the 

New Deal or the dozen or so years afterward. The 

management arrangement with the superintendent 

of Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military 

Park acting as coordinating superintendent of 

Stones River was not effective. The coordinating 

superintendent and his staff were far too busy to 

give Stones River the attention it needed. 

Furthermore, NPS upper management eroded the 

position of the superintendent at Stones River to 

the point that it was primarily a custodial position 

for the national cemetery. Melroe Tarter, John 

Steffey, and Victor Shipley had enough funding 

and staff to keep the national cemetery maintained 

and little more, so that is what they did—and they 

did it exceptionally well. But even after periodic, 

detailed reports of Stones River's challenges, 

regional office and Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park staff did not improve 

conditions at Stones River. It would take a new, 

national development program, called Mission 66, 

to bring attention and funding to Stones River 

National Military Park again. 

The NPS had a hard time finding an audience 

during this period. The War Department 

essentially marginalized the African American 

community who used the national cemetery as the 

center to their commemorative activities for 

decades after the Civil War by forcing them to 

relocate to make the battlefield park. Residents of 

the Cemetery community extended their 

resentment to the NPS, which took over the land 

just as the last condemnation suits were 

concluded. After World War II, NPS lost visitors 

as it struggled with funding, staff shortages, and 

lack of substantial leadership. The park remained 

much the same as it did when dedicated in 1932. 

Meanwhile, the town of Murfreesboro and 

surrounding area changed during and after World 

War II.
53 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Chapter Four

Mission 66 and Civil War Centennial, 1956-1971

The city of Murfreesboro continued to grow 

around Stones River National Military Park in the 

mid-1950s, but visiting the park was like stepping 

back into the 1930s. If a visitor wanted 

information about the battle, they had to go to the 

custodian's office, a room in his home, located in 

the national cemetery. They could follow the same 

tour loop and read the signs placed by the War 

Department and the few exhibits installed by the 

NPS in the 1930s. It is with little wonder then, that, 

in 1955, less than one-fourth of visitors received 

interpretive services. That is, if a visitor could find 

the park. New Highway 41 opened in 1953, 

replaced Old Nashville Highway as the main artery 

connecting Murfreesboro with Nashville. 

Consequently, traffic through the park dwindled. 

There were multiple entrances to the park, causing 

confusion among travelers. A NPS official, 

presumably Victor Shipley, wrote that the park 

seemed "antiquated" and needed new facilities for 

"management of Park affairs, protection and 

interpretation of Park values, and visitor comfort 

and experience."1 Stones River NMP desperately 

needed new improvements. 

The year 1956 marked the beginning of a 

transformative period for Stones River NMP. 

Mission 66, a system-wide development campaign 

from 1956 to 1966, gave the park a much-needed 

facelift. That same year, the agency separated 

Stones River from Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park and expanded the roles and 

responsibilities of the superintendent at Stones 

																																																							 1. [Victor Shipley], "Mission 66 for Stones River National 

Military Park," [July 1955], Folder A98 Conservation and 

Preservation of Area: Mission 66, Series 1, Park Archive. 

River NMP. John T. Willett replaced Victor 

Shipley (1947-1957). Willett (1957-1960) saw the 

park through the bulk of the Mission 66 planning 

process and a key legislative change. Lawrence 

Quist (1960-1965) followed Willett and 

implemented Mission 66's various construction 

projects at the park, including a new visitor center, 

tour road, maintenance area, and three new staff 

residences. Sherman Perry (1965-1971) wrapped 

up the final construction tasks and organized 

several commemorative events during his tenure, 

showcasing the park's new facilities to local and 

national audiences. The fact that the park hosted 

four superintendents in fourteen years indicates 

that there were many hands involved in shaping 

Stones River NMP during this period, each 

individual with his own viewpoint and agenda 

indelibly shaping the park as we know it today. 

Mission 66 was important to Stones River not only 

for upgrading park facilities; it was a testament to 

1960s America. The program introduced modern 

design influenced by Cold War culture, 

embodying ideas about patriotism, anxiety over 

nuclear annihilation, and containment of 

communism. Furthermore, these facility upgrades 

coincided with the battle's centenary in 1962. 

National Civil War centennial celebrations initially 

began as an exercise in Cold War patriotism, but 

soon revealed tears in the American fabric as the 

Civil Rights Movement exposed the centennial's 

hypocrisies. Once again, contests over who would 

control Civil War memory in Rutherford County 

continued as the Civil War centennial gained 

national attention.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 54

Mission 66 Overview 

Stones River NMP was not alone in seeming 

antiquated or out-of-date; parks across the 

country were suffering from crumbling 

infrastructure, staffing shortages, and austere 

budgets, all made worse by increasing numbers of 

tourists that exceeded prewar levels. Free of their 

wartime constraints, Americans visited national 

parks in droves. Subsequently, visitation exploded 

from 17 million in 1940 to 56 million in 1955.2

Articles in various popular publications 

highlighted the poor condition of the national 

parks. Notably, conservationist and historian 

Bernard DeVoto, penned an article for Harper's 

Magazine, called "Let's Close the National Parks," 

arguing that the parks should be closed until 

Congress provided adequate funding.3 DeVoto 

hoped his shocking headline would draw attention 

to the plight of the ever-popular national parks 

and spark positive action.4 NPS Director Conrad 

Wirth, a long-time landscape architect and 

manager for the agency, and who had been 

instrumental in the agency's New Deal programs, 

was well aware of these issues and was engineering 

a plan to modernize the parks.5

Wirth conceived a national plan that emphasized 

modernizing visitor services at parks because he 

believed that parks were for the people and should 

engender their support. He presented his plan to 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and convinced 

him to support a multi-year program to improve 

park infrastructure, borrowing upon the Federal 

Highway Administration's development of the 

interstate highway system at that same time. Wirth 

called this program "Mission 66," because it was 

slated to culminate with the NPS's fiftieth 

anniversary. Congress supported the measure and 

agreed to fund Wirth’s request for $700 million 

																																																							 2. Ethan Carr, Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park 

Dilemma (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007), 

4; Ethan Carr, Elaine Jackson-Redondo, Len Warner, and 

Collaborative Inc., National Park Service Mission 66 Era 

Resources Multi-Property Nomination, August 14, 2015, E-2.

3. Bernard DeVoto, "Let's Close the National Parks," 

Harper's Magazine, October 1953, 49-52.

4. Lary Dilsaver, ed., America's National Parks: The Critical 

Documents (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994), 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_4.h

tm (January 11, 2015).

5. Gilbert Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield: The 

National Park Service and Mission 66 at Stones River," 

master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 2005, 51-

53.

over a ten-year period by increasing the agency’s 

budget annually.6

In preparation for a national construction 

program, Wirth reorganized the agency's design 

offices a year before Congress approved Mission 

66. The few postwar construction projects that 

had been undertaken in national parks were 

funded and designed out of regional offices. In 

1954, Wirth consolidated regional design offices 

into two centralized offices in Philadelphia and 

San Francisco. These two new offices, referred to 

as the Eastern Office of Design and Construction 

(EODC) and Western Office of Design and 

Construction (WODC), brought regional 

architects, engineers, landscape architects, and 

project administrators together. NPS 

administrators, including Wirth himself, had direct 

oversight over both offices, which helped generate 

park prospectuses, master plans, project 

specifications, plans, and drawings. In fact, he 

issued seven memoranda, written with input from 

the Mission 66 steering committee, to all field 

offices to articulate the philoabout Mission 66 

planning. This consolidation ensured that many 

projects would follow similar design plans and 

style.7

Mission 66 marked an important change in park 

design as planners moved away from the "rustic" 

style to embrace postwar modernism, creating a 

style known as "Park Modern." Architectural 

historians have explained that modern design was 

not revolutionary for the time, but it was for

national parks.

8 The rustic style was the standard 

choice for park structures in the 1920s and 1930s 

because it emphasized naturalistic design 

principles that let the structure conform, or even 

enhance, its natural surroundings. However, 

wartime shortages of construction materials and 

labor prompted park officials to embrace modern 

design, which used cheaper materials and more 

efficient construction techniques. Advancements 

in modern design and increasing numbers of 

visitors also gave way to new building types, most 

notably the visitor center, which centralized 

administrative, educational, and visitor amenities 

in one easily accessible building.9 

																																																							 6. Carr, Mission 66, 10. 

7. Ibid., 63. 

8. Carr et al., National Park Service Mission 66 Era Resources 

Multi-Property Nomination, E-2.
55 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Mission 66 had a tremendous impact on the 

national park system. Between 1956 and 1966, the 

government spent $1 billion on land acquisition, 

new staff, general operations, and new 

construction projects. The system grew by 70 units 

between 1956 and 1966, signaling Wirth's desire to 

"complete" the system. The NPS constructed or 

repaired 2,700 miles of roads and over 900 miles of 

trails. Some parks received electricity and sewer 

systems for the first time. The NPS constructed 

over one hundred new visitor centers and 

hundreds of staff residences. To meet these 

expanded operations, the NPS hired additional 

personnel and established the Albright and 

Mather training centers, named after the agency's 

first two directors.10

Mission 66 was the agency's largest construction 

campaign, but it was not without controversy. 

Scientists criticized the agency for not 

incorporating ecologically informed practices into 

park management. This was highlighted in a 1963 

report undertaken by the Special Board on 

Wildlife Management called the “Leopold 

Report,” after board chair and principal author A. 

Starker Leopold, which looked at the immediate 

and long-term management issues of managing 

wildlife in national parks. The Special Board 

recommended that the NPS manage natural 

resource ecosystems and park visitors using 

unified principles. The NPS received criticism not 

only from the scientific community, but also the 

general public. Public criticism mounted as the 

modern environmental movement gained traction, 

and more Americans were becoming aware of the 

harmful effects of pollution, development, and 

population increases on the environment and their 

own quality of life. They saw some of these 

Mission 66 construction projects as 

encroachments on natural areas that they felt 

should be free of human intervention. This 

groundswell of support led to the passage of key 

environmental laws, including the Wilderness Act 

in 1964. Conrad Wirth defended Mission 66 and 

the agency's treatment of resources, but Secretary 

of Interior Udall replaced him with George 

Hartzog Jr. in 1964, just two years shy of the 

agency's fiftieth anniversary.11

																																																																																						 9. Ibid., E-2-4, 12.

10. Carr, Mission 66, 10.

11. Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National 

Parks: A History (1997; repr. New Haven, CT: Yale University 

Press, 2008), 215; Carr, Mission 66, 13-15, 46, 309; Carr et al., 

Hartzog had his own plans for the NPS. He 

focused his efforts in completing the system, 

bringing in minorities to the workforce, and 

developing urban recreation areas. While Mission 

66 formally ended in 1966, many projects 

remained incomplete. These efforts continued 

under a new "Parkscape U.S.A" program, which 

was set to end in 1972, the one hundredth 

anniversary of Yellowstone National Park.12 The 

continuation of Mission 66 under the Parkscape 

U.S.A. Program has prompted NPS historians to 

extend Mission 66's period of significance until 

1973.13

Mission 66 Prospectus 

The first step parks had to take before receiving 

Mission 66 funding was to develop a prospectus.14

The purpose of this prospectus was to identify 

park problems and needs, which would then be 

reviewed by the regional office, EODC or WODC, 

and the director. The prospectus would then 

inform a new park master plan and various project 

proposals and funding schedules. Victor Shipley 

started the prospectus for Stones River National 

Military Park in July 1955, although he requested 

in April 1956 that the regional office prepare the 

final copy.15

																																																																																						 National Park Service Mission 66 Era Resources MultiProperty Nomination, E-4.

12. Carr et al., National Park Service Mission 66 Era 

Resources Multi-Property Nomination, E-4-5; Kathy Mengak, 

Reshaping Our National Parks and Their Guardians: The 

Legacy of George B. Hartzog Jr. (Albuquerque: University of 

New Mexico Press, 2012), 55, 129-31.

13. Carr et al. cite three distinct phases in regard to 

identifying Mission 66 structures in national parks. The first 

is "Pre-Mission 66" (1945 to 1955). The second is "Mission 

66" (1955-1966). The third is "Parkscape U.S.A." (1967-

1973). Carr et al., National Park Service Mission 66 Era 

Resources Multi-Property Nomination, E-1.

14. Wirth outlined directions for these prospectuses in a 

document called "Memorandum No. 3," issued on June 27, 

1955. Roy Appleman, "A History of the National Park 

Service Mission 66 Program," unpublished report for 

National Park Service, 1958, 47-48, 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSHistory/mission66

.pdf (accessed January 11, 2015).

15. Victor Shipley to Acting Regional Director, 

memorandum, "Mission 66," July 18, 1955, Folder 415 A-98 

Conservation and Preservation of Area: Mission 66, Series 1, 

Park Archive; E.M. Lisle to Conrad Wirth, memorandum, 

"Mission 66-Final Prospectus, Stones River National Military 

Park," Folder 40 D18 Master Plan Study, Series 1, Park 

Archive.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 56

Like other units, Stones River went through 

several iterations of the park prospectus until it 

was approved. One of the first versions, written in 

July 1955, called for a new "front door" for the 

park. Park administrators called for acquisition of 

land between the railroad and new Highway 41 to 

provide better access to park visitors and "halt 

intrusion of very undesirable private 

development."16 Evidently, Highway 41 was 

already attracting a number of businesses that 

threatened the battlefield's agricultural setting. 

The prospectus also called for a new 

administrative building to house staff offices, a 

museum, and visitor services, with a new, 

circuitous tour route. Additionally, the park would 

have residences for staff to live onsite. 

Gib Backlund, Chief of Operations at STRI, argued 

in his 2005 master's thesis that the Stones River 

National Battlefield's Mission 66 construction 

program was indicative of Cold War 

"containment" culture. American anxiety over the 

spread of communism and possibility of nuclear 

annihilation influenced park architecture during 

this time, thereby shaping how visitors 

experienced the park. The new visitor center and 

tour road, for example, would control visitor 

circulation, promote patriotism through new 

museum exhibits and interpretation, and reinforce 

the federal government's presence in the local 

community. Additionally, the new staff residences 

reflected the Cold War impulse to preserve and 

promote the nuclear family. Backlund asserts that 

these new homes promoted domesticity and 

reinforced gender roles, thereby supporting a 

"male-dominated culture [that] could not only 

defend against communism but also maintain 

hegemony at home."17

Van Cleve Lane Dispute 

To rectify the issue of having too many entrances 

to the park, the park moved forward on closing the 

southern portion of Van Cleve Lane to through 

traffic in the spring of 1956, before the park’s 

prospectus had officially been accepted. The NPS 

felt the road was unnecessary, confused park 

visitors, and enticed criminal behavior. Earlier that 

																																																							 16. National Park Service, "Mission 66: Tentative 1966 

Prospectus for Stones River National Military Park," July 22, 

1955, Folder 415 A98 Conservation and Preservation of 

Area: Mission 66, Series 1, Park Archive.

17. Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield," 49.

year, the NPS asked contractors for bids to 

obliterate this section of road, causing a firestorm 

among locals, who felt that the NPS was infringing 

on their rights to use the road.18 These local 

citizens contacted all of their congressional 

representatives to intervene in this matter, asking 

that the road be kept open.19 M.R. Harding, who 

sold a portion of this land to the NPS, described 

the area in question to Director Wirth: “The last 

ten years the South half [of Van Cleve Lane] has 

been left to grow in briers, grass, weeds, and 

bushes, creating a fire hazard, eye sore, harbor for 

wild dogs, rabid foxes, parked cars, and

garbage.”20 Resident Ben Hall McFarlin submitted 

a petition on behalf of 160 residents in the 4th, 6th, 

12th, and 13th Districts to protest the road’s 

closure.21 McFarlin claimed that "half" of 

Rutherford County would be "deprived" of "a 

good black top road that they and their ancestors 

used before the Civil War."22 Acting 

Superintendent Shipley likely did not help matters 

when, in an attempt to get the community on 

board for Mission 66 development, he was quoted 

in the local newspaper that the road closing only 

affected four families.23 The regional office sent 

A.C. Stratton, the Regional Chief of Operations, to 

investigate the matter.24

																																																							 18. Elbert Cox to Conrad Wirth, memorandum, "Closing of 

Van Cleve Lane—Stones River NMP," March 16, 1956, D30 

Roads and Trails, Stones River National Battlefield, 1952-

1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records 

of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

19. Correspondence with Congressional representatives 

include: Joe Evins to Conrad Wirth, letter, March 7, 1956, 

Carroll Reece to Conrad Wirth, letter, March 13, 1956, Estes 

Kefauver to Conrad Wirth, March 23, 1956, and Conrad 

Wirth to Albert Gore, letter, March 30, 1956, D30 Roads and 

Trails, Stones River National Battlefield, 1952-1956, 1st 

Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records of the 

NPS, RG 79, NACP.

20. M.R. Harding to Conrad Wirth, letter, April 23, 1956, 

D30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National Battlefield, 

1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

21. Ben Hall McFarlin to Conrad Wirth, letter and petition, 

March 10, 1956, D30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1971, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

22. Ben Hall McFarlin to Sherman Adams, letter, April 6, 

1956, D30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1971, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

23. Douglas Sparks, "US Plans $250,000 Improvement at

Stones River Park Here," Daily News Journal, April 18, 1956.

24. Elbert Cox to Conrad Wirth, memorandum, "Closing of 

Van Cleve Land in Stones River NMP," April 6, 1956, D30 

Roads and Trails, Stones River National Battlefield, 1952-
57 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Stratton visited the park in April 1956. He 

interviewed a number of local residents and 

counted traffic along the road. He found that 

about 55 cars drove through the park daily, with 

high traffic occurring during rush hour in the 

morning and afternoon. One school bus used the 

road and one milkman made deliveries to the 

Smotherman farm along Van Cleve Lane. Stratton 

also noted three unauthorized access entrances 

used by residents along the road.25 More 

importantly, Stratton found that while most of the 

complaints were over-exaggerated, the park's 

community relations were quite bad. Overall, he 

found that the campaign to keep Van Cleve open 

was very much a political one waged by Judge 

Edwards, who was losing political power, and Ben 

Hall McFarlin.26 Local politics aside, Stratton also 

discovered that some residents strongly disliked 

Acting Superintendent Shipley. He reported, 

Everyone I talked with complained to some 

degree about the present Acting 

Superintendent. All stated that public relations 

between the park and the community were 

practically nil and that the Superintendent was 

overbearing, dictatorial and, in most cases, 

uncooperative....Several expressed a feeling 

that the present Acting Superintendent is 

advocating the closing of Van Cleve Lane 

because of spite.27

Not only were residents hostile to the 

superintendent, but generally unsupportive of the 

park or the proposed Mission 66 program. 

Representatives from the Blackman community 

called the park a "disgra[c]e...not worthy of 

bearing the name National Military Park."28 In his 

interviews with residents, Stratton noted that one 

																																																																																						 1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records 

of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

25. A. C. Stratton to Regional Director, memorandum, "Van 

Cleve Lane Closing in Stones River NMP," April 25, 1956, 

D30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National Battlefield, 

1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

26. A. C. Stratton to Regional Director, memorandum, “Van 

Cleve Lane Closing in Stones River NMP," April 26, 1956, 

D30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National Battlefield, 

1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

27. Stratton to Regional Director, memorandum, "Van Cleve 

Lane Closing in Stones River NMP," April 25, 1956.

28. Mr. and Mrs. W.K. Riggs, Jr. to Conrad Wirth, letter, 

April 5, 1956, D30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1971, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

neighbor preferred that the Mission 66 program 

be scrapped and the park build a swimming pool 

and picnic area for local citizens' use instead.29

Although Stratton recommended that the NPS 

continue with its plan to close Van Cleve Lane, 

Regional Director Elbert Cox decided that the 

NPS needed to fix its community relations issues 

before moving forward.30

A New Kind of Superintendent 

The Van Cleve Lane debacle made it very clear to 

Regional Director Elbert Cox that leadership 

needed to change at Stones River NMP. He wrote 

to Director Wirth, 

We have been aware of Shipley's shortcomings 

and have discussed them from time to time 

with your office. It is my feeling that as soon as 

we can fund the position we should set up a 

GS-9 Superintendent for Stones River who 

would be able to do a better job in handling our 

local public relations and in planning for the 

development of the area. This will be a 

necessary action before we undertake the 

MISSION 66 program for the area. In the 

meantime, we will endeavor to assist Mr. 

Shipley with matters which involve local public 

relations such as those arising from current 

plans to close the south end of Van Cleve 

Lane.31

Shipley's position had already gone through some 

important changes. The custodian position was 

abolished in 1954 by Public Law 763, which 

reclassified the position from the Crafts, 

Protective, and Custodial (CPC) Schedule to the 

General Schedule as Cemetery Superintendent.32

This position changed again in April 1956, to 

Acting Superintendent, when Stones River became 

an independent unit, no longer under the 

authority of Chickamauga-Chattanooga NMP. 

The Superintendent was one of three permanent, 

																																																							 29. Stratton to Regional Director, memorandum, "Van Cleve 

Lane Closing in Stones River NMP," April 25, 1956.

30. Elbert Cox to Conrad Wirth, memorandum, "Closing of 

Van Cleve Lane in Stones River National Military Park," April 

26, 1956, D-30 Roads and Trails, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1952-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1971, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

31. Cox to Wirth, memorandum, "Closing of Van Cleve 

Lane, Stones River National Military Park." 

32. Ann Wilson Willett, "A History of Stones River National 

Military Park," master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

College, 1958, 120.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 58

full-time administrative positions included in the 

prospectus, along with an administrative aid and 

historian. Two full-time maintenance workers 

were also slated for the park.33 Shipley was named 

Acting Superintendent in recognition of the 

additional responsibilities he now had, such as 

Mission 66 planning, even though it was clear the 

regional office wanted someone else in the 

position. 

NPS administrators transferred Shipley back to 

Vicksburg NMP in November 1957 and hired 

John T. Willett as the first full-time superintendent 

of Stones River NMP.34 Willett, was a seven-year 

NPS employee. He had a master's degree in history 

from the University of Arkansas and had advanced 

to doctoral candidate at American University, 

although it is unknown if he finished his degree. 

He worked at the NPS museum lab in Washington, 

D.C. and later took positions at Fort Sumter, 

Kennesaw Mountain, and Natchez Trace Parkway 

before becoming Chief Supervisory Ranger, the 

first employee, of Harpers Ferry National 

Historical Park, in 1954.35 At Stones River, he and 

his family moved into the old superintendent's 

house in the national cemetery. The Willetts 

welcomed a son in July 1959 and appeared to be

doing their part setting an example of a Cold War 

American family living at the national cemetery.36

More importantly, Cox’s selection of Willett to the 

superintendency at Stones River NMP indicates 

that historians held a degree of power in regional 

																																																							 33. National Park Service, "Mission 66 Prospectus: Stones 

River National Military Park, Tennessee," April 1956, Folder 

415 A98 Conservation and Preservation of Area: Mission 66, 

Series 1, Park Archive.

34. John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, November 1957," December 5, 1957, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

35. Teresa Moyer, Kim Wallace, and Paul Shackel, “To 

Preserve the Evidences of the Noble Past”: Administrative 

History of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park" (Frederick, 

MD: Catoctin Center for Regional Studies Frederick 

Community College and Center for Heritage Resource 

Studies Department of Anthropology University of 

Maryland, 2004), 110-11.

36. Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

November 1957"; John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly 

Narrative Report, August 1959," August 4, 1959, Folder 

A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones 

River National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

administration, since Cox himself was also a 

reputable NPS historian. 

Willett and his wife, Ann, helped professionalize 

the history program at Stones River. John was 

naturally interested in developing the history 

program at the park and was the first universitytrained historian to work there full-time. Ann also 

contributed to park scholarship in a very 

important way. She was finishing her master's 

degree in history at Middle Tennessee State 

College when she decided to write her thesis on 

the history of the battlefield park. In 1951, the NPS 

started recommending that parks write 

administrative histories on individual units.37 Ann 

tracked down some of the early records of the 

park and wrote a narrative that covered the area's 

early settlement, the Battle of Stones River, the 

formation of the national cemetery and battlefield 

park, early NPS administration, and a bit about the 

then-current Mission 66 program. Finished in 

1958, "An Administrative History of Stones River 

National Military Park" has served as the park's 

official administrative history for over forty years. 

John also hired a seasonal historian for the park in 

1958. Initially, he hired Dr. Bob Womack, a 

professor at Middle Tennessee State College, but 

Womack's teaching schedule changed 

unexpectedly and he was no longer available to 

work at the battlefield. Womack recommended 

Randolph Parks, a graduate student at Vanderbilt 

University, and Willett hired Parks. Parks did not 

remain at the park long, however. He left to pursue 

a doctoral degree at Harvard.38 The presence of 

three university-trained, resident historians at the 

battlefield was a remarkable improvement for 

Stones River National Military Park. 

Stones River NMP had the additional assistance of 

prodigious Civil War historian Edwin Bearss 

during this time as well. Bearss formerly had 

worked for the Army Historical Division before 

becoming the historian at Vicksburg NMP in 1955. 

																																																							 37. Raymond Mulvany to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Short Histories of National Park System Areas," June 30, 

1955, Folder 82 H14 History, Series 1, Park Archive.

38. John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, May 1958," June 7, 1958, John Willett, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, July 1958," 

August 5, 1958, and John Willett, "Superintendent's 

Monthly Narrative Report, June 1959," July 1, 1959, all 

Folder A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, 

Stones River National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.
59 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

He worked as a research historian from 1958 to 

1966, during which time he was based at Vicksburg 

but reported to the Region Five (or Mid-Atlantic)

office in Philadelphia.39 This arrangement allowed 

him to do research on southern battlefields, 

including Stones River. Stones River NMP still 

lacked a historical base map, which was essential 

to the park master plan. Bearss started researching 

cavalry, artillery, and troop positions, and visited 

the park in January 1959. He completed a 

preliminary troop movement map in April, and 

another version in August 1960. That same year, he 

completed reports on "Morgan's Attack at 

Hartsville," 'The Rebels Concentrate at Stones 

River," and a history of Fortress Rosecrans.40 In 

March 1962, Bearss submitted Stones River’s 

“Fence and Ground Cover Map," drawn by J.C. 

Killian, an exhaustive study that shows the full 

extent of the battlefield and the composition of the 

landscape just before the battle occurred. The park 

continues to use this map today.41

The Willetts were very involved with local heritage 

groups. John was a founding member of the 

Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War Round Table 

(NBFCWRT) organized in 1958. This group 

consisted of professors from Middle Tennessee 

State College and middle-class, white men from 

Murfreesboro and Rutherford County that met at 

Forrest Hall, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC) building on campus. The primary reason 

for the group was "entertainment," but members 

also listed sharing research materials among 

																																																							 39. National Park Service, "Edwin C. Bearss (1981-1994)," 

Chief Historians of the National Park Service, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20130602195958/http://www.n

ps.gov/history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/chiefhistorians.htm 

(accessed January 13, 2016).

40. John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative

Report, January 1959," February 1, 1959, John Willett, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, April 1959," 

May 3, 1959, John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly 

Narrative Report, February 1960," March 3, 1960, Lawrence 

Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, August 

1960," September 7, 1960, and Lawrence Quist, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, March 1962," 

April 5, 1962, all Folder A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly 

Narrative Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1956-

1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records 

of the NPS, RG 79, NACP; Elbert Cox to Conrad Wirth, 

memorandum, "Research Report—Stones River," Folder 82 

H14 History, Series 1, Park Archive; Edwin Bearss, "A History 

of Fortress Rosecrans" (Murfreesboro, TN: National Park 

Service, 1960).

41. Edwin C. Bearss and J.C. Killian, Historical Fence and 

Ground Cover Plan, Part of the Master Plan (Washington, 

DC: National Park Service, 1961).

participants, improving research facilities at the 

college, and "assisting in the promotion of Stones 

River Military Park," among the organization's 

goals.42 Edwin Bearss, who was also a noted 

battlefield guide, gave talks and tours for the group, 

including the keynote address for the group's 

annual banquet in April 1963.43 Fraley notes that it 

was mostly an informal group that exhibited a 

"lighthearted tone," which can be seen in the 

group's intermittent, official publication (called 

Gaus' Bugle). Fraley found the publication to be 

chocked full of jokes that reveal anxieties about 

economic and social changes, such as the city's 

expansion and civil rights.44 John Willett's 

involvement in the group indicates his desire to 

keep the battlefield at the forefront of this 

influential group's activities as both a place where 

they could carry out sanctioned activities, but also 

be a recipient of their support. Women were 

excluded from the group except during events 

where spouses were invited to join. While John 

focused his activities with this and other local 

professional organizations, Ann gave lectures to 

local women's heritage groups, including the 

United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC).

45 By 

giving these lectures, she was exhibiting her own 

historical expertise and authority in the female 

sphere. 

The Willetts’ involvement in separate, gendered 

groups is indicative of local Civil War 

commemoration during this period as described by 

Miranda Fraley. Fraley asserts that the local UDC 

chapter was the most active group in upholding 

Confederate memory, but it was episodically 

																																																							 42. Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War Roundtable, The Best 

of Gaus' Bugle: Selections from the Official Publication of 

the Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War Roundtable 

(Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee State University, 

1978), 4.

43. John Willett, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative 

Report March 1959,” April 5, 1959, and Quist, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, April 1963, 

May 13, 1963, both Folder A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly 

Narrative Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1956-

1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records 

of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

44. Fraley, "Politics of Memory," 212.

45. Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

April 1959"; John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly 

Narrative Report, March 1960," April 3, 1960, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 60

marginalized by male-dominated groups at times 

that coincided with economic and social changes in 

the community. The NBFCWR was organized 

during a time of great expansion in Murfreesboro 

and Rutherford County, spurred by new highways, 

industries, and urban renewal.46 The Civil Rights 

Movement was also gaining traction nationally, and 

Rutherford County residents felt the effects. For 

instance, the public schools were desegregated by 

1968, when Holloway High School, the African 

American high school, closed. Integration was not 

entirely smooth; on April 21, 1971, two hundred 

students at Central High School staged a sit-in at 

the school’s lobby as an expression of their 

frustrations.47 The NBFCWR usurped the UDC's 

control during this time and played a major role in 

organizing local Civil War centennial events, 

including those at Stones River National 

Battlefield. The UDC continued to assist these 

endeavors in a way deemed suitable for women and 

that supported white, male dominance. The NPS at 

Stones River National Military Park supported 

these divisions by inviting them to use the 

battlefield for their various initiatives. In his 

monthly reports and the publication of Gaus' 

Bugle, it is clear that John T. Willett was an active 

participant, not just a federal administrator. He was 

a founding member, attended the annual banquets, 

solicited other NPS historians to speak to the 

organization, and organized field trips.48

1960 Legislation 

In preparation for the prospectus in 1956, the 

regional office asked park superintendents to 

submit a wish list for desired land to be added to 

parks. Shipley immediately responded that the park 

																																																							 46. For a case study about urban renewal in Murfreesboro 

during this period, see Dallas Hanbury, "The Effects of 

Urban Renewal and Modern Urban Planning on Working 

Class Neighborhoods: Murfreesboro, Tennessee and the 

Transformation of Its First Industrial Suburb, Westvue," 

master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 2012.

47. Dallas Hanbury, “The Black Freedom Movement in 

Murfreesboro, TN,” unpublished paper, Middle Tennessee 

State University, 2013, 1, 12. 

48. Nathan Bedford Forest Civil War Round Table, The Best 

of Gaus’ Bugle, 4; Willett, “Superintendent’s Monthly 

Narrative Report March 1959”; John Willett, 

“Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, February 

1959, March 1, 1959, and John Willett, “Superintendent’s 

Monthly Narrative Report, April 1960,” May 3, 1960, both 

Folder A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, 

Stones River National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

should acquire a portion of the Henderson Estate 

between the railroad and Highway 41 directly 

across from the national cemetery. Shipley 

reasoned that the park needed a better, safer 

entrance that directly connected visitors from 

Highway 41, while also halting development near 

the park. He wrote that the General Electric 

Corporation was erecting a new plant nearby, the 

new water and sewer lines extending to the plant 

from the city were attracting businesses to the 

highway. Initially, the regional office felt that the 

cost for this land outweighed the benefits, but they 

included it in a land acquisition map submitted to 

Wirth, which also included tracts owned by Sam 

(Bud) Manson, Robert Murry, Suzie Orr, Edward 

White (including store), and Miles Jackson (see Fig. 

18). However, the EODC decided that the 

Henderson tract should be sufficient enough for a 

new park entrance. The final prospectus approved 

January 7, 1957, included only the Henderson 

parcel.49

																																																							 49. E. M. Lisle to Region One Superintendents, 

memorandum, "Ten-Year Program for Acquiring Private 

Land," March 15, 1955, Victor Shipley to Acting Regional 

Director, memorandum, "Ten-Year Program for Acquiring 

Private Land," March 22, 1955, Elbert Cox to Victor Shipley, 

memorandum, "Mission 66 Prospectus Draft—Stones River 

National Military Park," August 4, 1955, National Park 

Service Region One, Map, April 30, 1956, E.M. Lisle to 

Conrad Wirth, memorandum, "Mission 66 Land Acquisition 

Proposals—Stones River National Military Park," May 17, 

1956, Edward S. Zimmer to Conrad Wirth, memorandum, 

"Final Mission 66 Prospectus, Stones River National Military 

Park," November 19, 1956, and E.T. Scoyen to Regional 

Director, memorandum, "Approval of Stones River National 

Military Park Prospectus," January 7, 1957, all Folder 415 A98 Conservation and Preservation of Area: Mission 66, Series 

1, Park Archive.
61 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 18 Drawing of proposed land acquisition with 

tracing of possible new entrance. April 30, 1956. Courtesy of 

STRI.

Although the final prospectus had been approved 

before his arrival, John Willet had his own ideas 

about where the new visitor center should be 

placed. He recommended that it be located 

between the national cemetery and Hazen Brigade 

Monument because he considered the national 

cemetery to have “no outstanding historical 

significance.”50 He felt that the Hazen Brigade 

Monument and Artillery Monument were far more 

significant and that the visitor center should orient 

visitors to the “most vital historic actual part of the 

battlefield that the park owns.” He also thought 

that Bragg’s and Rosecrans's headquarters were 

“really secondary to the story to be told in the area” 

as well.51 In Willett’s opinion, if the visitor center 

were located south of the national cemetery, the 

NPS would no longer need to acquire land north 

of the park for staff residences. They could be 

located within the national cemetery on the north 

end. Willett argued that, "If the residences are 

situated on the proposed acquisition they will be 

surrounded by a very undesirable neighborhood 

																																																							 50. John Willett to Regional Director, letter, August 24, 

1958, Folder 415 A98 Conservation and Preservation of 

Area: Mission 66, Series 1, Park Archive.

51. Ibid.

and will have to pay more than they are worth since 

they are residential."52 The "undesirable 

neighborhood" he was referring to was the African 

American Cemetery community, specifically the 

area known as the "Bottom." 

Development plans unraveled once more when 

NPS officials learned that the new interstate, I-24, 

would pass approximately one half mile from the 

southeastern corner of the park boundary (see Fig. 

19). Highway 41 would no longer be the main 

thoroughfare through the area. On September 20, 

1958, staff from the regional office and EODC met 

with Willett for a planning conference at the park 

to come up with adjustments in light of this new 

development. They all agreed that the new visitor 

center should be located across Old Nashville 

Highway from the national cemetery. They thought 

this site might be better for "lecture purposes" 

since the Hazen Brigade Monument was within 

eyesight.53 The visitor center could be accessed 

from either Highway 41 via Van Cleve Lane or the 

new interstate. The group also agreed with Willett's 

recommendation that the residences be built 

within the national cemetery. The distance of the 

tour road remained mostly the same, but they 

planned the new park entrance to be located on 

Manson Pike in the southwest corner of the park 

once the new interstate was constructed.54

Backlund aptly points out that planners anticipated 

a much more direct access to I-24 than actually 

materialized.55

																																																							 52. Ibid.

53. John Willett to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Planning Conference—Mission 66—Stones River National 

Military Park," October 11, 1958, Folder 415 A98 

Conservation and Preservation of Area: Mission 66, Series 1, 

Park Archive.

54. Ibid.

55. Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield," 58.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 62

Figure 19 “Proposed Interstate HWY in vicinity of Stones 

River National Mil. Park,” September 8, 1958. Courtesy of 

STRI.

Figure 20 “Sketch Showing Proposed Boundary 

Adjustments at Union Artillery Site,” October 21, 1957. 

Courtesy of STRI.

The prospectus changed again as the NPS moved 

forward on land acquisition. The agency had to get 

cost estimates for the land and put forward 

boundary expansion legislation. In 1957, the NPS 

added an area between the Artillery Monument 

and Stones River on the list of property to be 

acquired.56 This change may have occurred at 

Willett's insistence, since he believed it was one of 

the most significant sites in the park, although there 

is no correspondence confirming this. 

NPS officials wrote to the Henderson family to 

ascertain a price for their property. Initially, they 

thought they could acquire the land for about 

$1,000 an acre, but the Henderson family wanted 

$48,000 for 16 acres, or $3,000 an acre. The NPS 

decided to suspend negotiations because the price 

was too expensive. In 1959, they also deleted the 

Murry, Manson, and Orr tracts, because they were 

also too costly, leaving only the Smith tract near the 

Artillery Monument, a seven-acre parcel the NPS 

estimated in 1957 was worth $1,500.57 This 

property was owned by an African American 

family (see Fig. 20).

As Congressional representatives drafted 

legislation to authorize this boundary adjustment, 

local politicians and community members shared 

their feelings about what land should be acquired. 

Homer Pittard—a history professor at Middle 

Tennessee State College, founder of the local 

historical society, official Rutherford County 

historian, and overall respected community 

member—had been trying to preserve Lunette 

Granger, one of the outer earthworks associated 

with Fortress Rosecrans (see Fig. 21). Located near 

the intersection of Highways 41 & 70S and 

Battleground Avenue, new development 

threatened the earthwork. Pittard argued that 

Lunette Granger was significant for its association 

with Fortress Rosecrans and tried to convince the 

city to purchase the area. When the city refused, 

the governor promised to fund the project, but it 

never came through. It seems that the federal 

government was his last hope. He wrote to 

Congressman Albert Gore, Sr., who in turn 

approached the NPS about including the tract with 

																																																							 56. E. M. Lisle to Superintendent, memorandum, "Boundary 

Status Report, Stones River National Military Park," 

September 27, 1957, Folder 111 L1417 Boundaries, Series 1, 

Park Archive.

57. E. M. Lisle to Superintendent, memorandum, "Boundary 

Status Report, Stones River National Military Park," October 

23, 1957; John Willett to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Proposed Acquisition of Lands at Stones River National 

Military Park," July 23, 1958, Ben H. Thompson to Regional 

Director, memorandum, "Boundary Recommendations, 

Stones River National Military Park," February 13, 1959, and 

Elbert Cox to Director, memorandum, "Boundary 

Recommendations, Stones River National Military Park," 

February 18, 1959, all Folder 111 L1417 Boundaries, Series 1, 

Park Archive.
63 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

the boundary expansion legislation. Unfortunately 

for Pittard and Lunette Granger, the NPS did not 

find the earthwork to be significant because it was 

built after the battle. Pittard was perturbed that the 

NPS did not invite him to their survey of the 

property and complained to NPS Director Wirth 

and Secretary of Interior Roger Ernst. On April 22, 

1960, Willett reported that the earthworks had 

been bulldozed, putting the matter to rest.58 This 

episode is indicative of the NPS's attitude at the 

time that interpreting the area before or after the 

battle was of secondary importance to the battle 

itself. It also reveals the contradictions of Civil War 

interpretation considering that Willett and other 

NPS officials believed the Hazen Brigade 

Monument to be of primary importance to the 

park visitor, and that the monument was 

constructed at the same time as the earthworks.

Figure 21 “Plan showing 1) Site of Lunette Gordon 

Granger as surveyed by E. S. Voorhies, July 31, 1959, being 

part of land owned by John Tarver 2) Types of development 

bordering lunette site,” September 1959. Courtesy of STRI.

Local residents did support the NPS purchasing 

land near the Artillery Monument area because of 

its proximity to Confederate lines. Willett reported:

There is a thought locally, which is true, that the 

park does not own any land over which the 

																																																							 58. Albert Gore to Conrad Wirth, letter, August 19, 1959, 

Conrad Wirth to Albert Gore, letter, September 1, 1959, 

James R. McConaghie to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Report on 'Lunette Gordon Granger' proposed as an 

addition to Stones River National Military Park," September 

16, 1959, E. M. Lisle to Wirth, memorandum, "Suggested 

Addition of 'Lunette Gordon Granger,' Stones River 

National Military Park," September 21, 1959, E .T. Scoyen to 

Gore, letter, October 27, 1959, Homer Pittard to Conrad 

Wirth, letter, January 13, 1969, Homer Pittard to Roger 

Ernst, letter, January 19, 1960; Roger Ernst to Homer 

Pittard, letter, February 4, 1960, and John Willett to 

Regional Director, memorandum, "Suggested Addition of 

'Lunette Gordon Granger,'" April 22, 1960, all Folder 111 

L1417 Boundaries, Series 1, Park Archive. 

Confederate forces extended their battle lines. 

The land we own is all original federal 

positions. I think the local people interested in 

the park would like to have additional land 

acquired contigious [sic] to the Hazen Brigade 

and the Artillery Monument sites.59

What Willett did not mention to the regional 

director is that this area had been the focus of 

Confederate memorial efforts for much of the 

decade. Fraley states that the UDC targeted the 

Artillery Monument in the early 1950s as a 

problem area and "exerted an intriguing claim of 

ownership to this federal property based on their 

contention that the obelisk at this site was a 

Confederate memorial to the southern soldiers that 

died in a doomed assault against a Union artillery 

position here on January 2, 1863."

60 She indicates 

that this project had several phases. First, the UDC 

requested the state to improve Van Cleve Lane and 

install a historical marker. They then requested the 

railroad to repair the monument, even though it 

was owned by the federal government. They next 

asked the NPS to improve the entrance to the 

monument and stop interpreting the obelisk as a 

Union memorial.61 Mrs. J. Bernard Alderson wrote 

to the NPS in 1952 specifically asking the park to 

change the Artillery Monument's photo caption in 

the publication that was given to visitors.62 The 

NPS was reluctant to change its interpretation of 

the obelisk as a celebratory monument to that of a 

Confederate memorial, but NPS historians made 

an honest effort to research the matter.63 Assistant 

Regional Director Daniel Tobin suggested the 

																																																							 59. John Willett to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Boundary Recommendations, Stones River National 

Military Park," May 20, 1959, Folder 111 L1417 Boundaries, 

Series 1, Park Archive.

60. Fraley, "Politics of Memory," 205.

61. Ibid., 206.

62. Mrs. J. Bernard Alderson to J. A. Krug, letter, April 17, 

1952, Box 1553, Folder K3819 Publications, Service, Free 

Informational Literature, Stones River National Battlefield, 

1949-1956, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP. Alderson addresses her 

letter to the Secretary of Agriculture, but the letter was 

forwarded to NPS officials.

63. John Littleton, historian at Chickamauga-Chattanooga 

National Military Park researched the matter. For the 

report, see John Littleton to Superintendent ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park, memorandum, "Report 

on Mendenhall Tract, Stones River NMP," June 30, 1952, 

Folder K3819 Publications, Service, Free Informational 

Literature, Stones River National Battlefield, 1949-1956, 1st 

Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records of the 

NPS, RG 79, NACP.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 64

neutral phrase, "Monument to the Last Charge at 

Stones River."64 This position was politically astute, 

since visitors could interpret the monument as 

being a Union or Confederate monument that 

recognized the martial heroism of both sides.65

Willett may or may not have known about the 

UDC's past efforts, but his work to include land 

near the Artillery Monument very much aided the 

UDC's desire to improve this area of the park as 

their own Confederate shrine on federal land in a 

manner similar to when they tried to open a UDC 

museum on the battlefield during the 1930s. 

To acquire this land, the NPS needed 

Congressional action. Senator Estes Kefauver 

introduced Senate Bill 26280 on September 10, 

1959, calling for the park's name to be changed 

from Stones River National Military Park to Stones 

River National Battlefield (STRI).

66 The legislation 

also called for a boundary expansion that included 

seven acres near the artillery monument. 

Kefauver's legislation did not pass, but 

Congressman Joe Evins introduced H.R. 9543 in 

the House of Representatives on January 12, 1960. 

With the help of Senator Albert Gore, Sr., the bill 

passed both House and Senate in March. President 

Eisenhower signed Public Law 86-443 on April 22, 

1960, officially changing the park's name to Stones 

River National Battlefield (see Appendix C).

67

																																																							 64. Daniel Tobin to Director, memorandum, "Monument on 

Mendenhall Tract, Stones River NMP," July 7, 1952, Folder 

K3819 Publications, Service, Free Informational Literature, 

Stones River National Battlefield, 1949-1956, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

65. Fraley, "Politics of Memory," 209.

66. Park files do not indicate why a name change was 

desired. Land acquisition seemed to be the top priority. 

Hereafter, the park will be referred to as STRI, which is the 

four letter code used by the NPS. 

67. John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, September 1959," October 6, 1959, John Willett, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, January 

1960," February 5, 1960, Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly

Narrative Report, March 1960," and Willett, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, April 1960," 

all Folder A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative 

Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st 

Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the 

NPS, RG 79, NACP; An Act to Revise the Boundaries and 

Change the Name of Stones River National Military Park, 

Tennessee, and for Other Purposes of 1960, Public Law 86-

443, 86th Cong., 2nd sess. (April 22, 1960).

Park Master Plan and Mission 66 

Development 

The same month that the bill passed both houses 

of Congress, Willett submitted a final draft of the 

park's master plan to the regional office for 

review.68 This master plan contained three 

volumes and was an expanded version of the 

prospectus. Here, Willett had the opportunity to 

flesh out the park's origin, the battle's historical 

significance, the park’s current appearance and 

operations, and visitation patterns, all of which 

were used to inform the agency's design plans and 

operations recommendations.69

NPS officials put forth a number of specific 

policies that the park's development program 

should follow. Among these recommendations, 

NPS officials stated that the number of entrances 

for the park would be reduced. The Civil War 

would be adopted as the major theme, with natural 

history as a secondary theme, "only as it 

contributes to the historical scene." A small parcel 

of land near the Artillery Monument would be 

acquired because it was the most "climatic (sic) 

phase of the battle" and because it had frontage of 

Stones River. Interpretation would be mostly selfguided and visitors would be oriented at the visitor 

center. Woodland, pasture, and open fields would 

be established and maintained "to the extent 

necessary for proper interpretation."70

Willett did not remain at Stones River NB to see 

Mission 66 development through. He was 

promoted to Superintendent of Pea Ridge National 

Military Park in July 1960. Lawrence Quist 

replaced Willett as superintendent on August 24.71 

Quist brought his family with him and they moved 

into the superintendent's lodge. His eldest child 

enrolled in the first grade at a local school. During 

																																																							 68. Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

March 1960."

69. National Park Service, Master Plan for the Preservation 

and Use of Stones River National Military Park: Mission 66 

Edition (Murfreesboro, TN: Stones River National Military 

Park and National Park Service, April 9, 1960), Folder 40 D18 

Master Plan Study, Series 1, Park Archive.

70. National Park Service, "Volume 1—Chapter 1, Objectives 

and Policies," Master Plan for the Preservation and Use of 

Stones River National Military Park, April 9, 1960, 8-9, Folder 

40 D18 Master Plan Study, Series 1, Park Archive.

71. Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

August 1960." 
65 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

his first week, he held an informal staff meeting 

over a Coca-Cola, which was followed by a sewage 

stoppage and water system failure—an indication 

that the park desperately needed some upgrades.72

Quist was the park biologist at Zion National Park 

when he was selected for the superintendency at 

Stones River. Staff at that park were just 

completing the new visitor center that year, the 

planning and construction of which must have 

been useful experience for Quist, who would be 

largely responsible for overseeing the Mission 66 

development at Stones River NB during his 

tenure.73 Quist inherited from Willett the park's 

master plan, which was a full draft but was still 

being adjusted as design and construction moved 

forward, including deliberations about the NorthSouth Memorial. He also arrived in Murfreesboro 

as local and state Civil War centennial planning was 

in full swing. Despite his training as a biologist, he 

was thrust into Civil War centennial planning 

efforts that were happening agency-wide. 

Like Willett, Quist was active with the local 

community. He immediately joined the 

Murfreesboro Lions Club and Chamber of 

Commerce. Quist also attended local Civil War 

roundtable meetings, although it does not appear 

that he was as active with the Nathan Bedford 

Forrest Civil War Roundtable as his predecessor.74

Quist stepped into the continued negotiations with 

the Smith heirs in acquiring the seven-acre tract 

near the Artillery Monument. This was an 

important tract for the NPS's Mission 66 

development plan. Quist remarked that the farm 

buildings on the property "present a most 

																																																							 72. Ibid.

73. Sarah Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History

of a Building Type (Washington DC: National Park Service, 

2000), under "Zion Visitor Center," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/allaback/vc6f.

htm (accessed January 12, 2015).

74. Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, October 1960," November 2, 1960, Lawrence Quist, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, January 

1961," February 7, 1961, and Lawrence Quist, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, January 

1962," February 7, 1962, all Folder A2823 Superintendents’ 

Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

undesirable view to the park visitor," but the NPS 

was only interested in acquiring a portion of 

unimproved land.75 The NPS hoped to acquire the 

property for $1,500, but a 1961 appraisal placed the 

market value at $2,100.76 Quist offered Mary 

Vaughter, the representative of the Ellis Smith 

heirs, $2,000, but the family declined. He remarked 

that the family would not accept less than twice the 

offered amount.77 The regional office decided to 

move forward with condemnation proceedings.78

On February 28, 1964, the court awarded the Smith 

family $7,500, to be paid by the National Park 

Service.79

Initially, the NPS hoped that the new development 

at Stones River National Battlefield would be 

completed in time for the battle's centennial in 

1962, but that timeline quickly unraveled. The year 

1961 was spent putting together project 

construction proposals and architects, engineers, 

and landscape architects from the regional office 

and EODC conducted site visits and surveys. In 

May 1962, Martindale Brothers Construction 

																																																							 75. Lawrence Quist to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Overlay for Master Plan Drawing, Artillery Monument 

Development Scheme," November 8, 1961, Folder D18 

Planning Program, including Development Outline and 

Master Plan: Stones River National Military Park, 1957-1961, 

Records Concerning Master Plans and Construction 

Programs, 1957-1961, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

76. E. M. Lisle to Director, memorandum, "Proposed 

Acquisition of Seven Acres of Land for Addition to Stones 

River National Battlefield," March 31, 1961, Folder L1425 

Acquisition and Disposal of Lands, Holdings other than 

Federal, Stones River National Battlefield, 1958-1963, 1st 

Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records of the 

NPS, RG 79, NACP.

77. Lawrence Quist to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Proposed Acquisition of Land—Smith (Heirs) Property—

Stones River National Battlefield," May 17, 1961, Folder 

L1425 Acquisition and Disposal of Lands, Holdings other 

than Federal, Stones River National Battlefield, 1958-1963, 

1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records of 

the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

78. H. Reese Smith to Lawrence Quist, memorandum, 

"Proposed Acquisition of Smith Heirs Property, Stones River 

National Battlefield," June 6, 1961, Folder L1425 Acquisition 

and Disposal of Lands, Holdings other than Federal, Stones 

River National Battlefield, 1958-1963, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1971, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

79. Lawrence Quist, “Superintendent’s Narrative Monthly 

Narrative Report, February 1964,” March 11, 1964, Folder 

A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones 

River National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 66

Company had the lowest bid on the visitor center 

and residences. Work commenced on the visitor 

center and tour road the next month. The tour 

road was completed in September and two 

residences were completed in November. The 

visitor center took a bit longer. It was opened to the 

public in May 1963. Construction for a third 

residence commenced in June and was completed 

in November. The visitor center was not formally 

dedicated until April 11, 1964.80

The NPS settled on a teardrop-shaped tour route 

completely contained within the park boundary. 

There was some discussion about the route 

direction. Should it be clockwise, in order to tell 

the story of the battle chronologically? Or 

counterclockwise, to avoid traffic crossings? NPS 

officials selected the counterclockwise route. Their 

reasoning was that the park was so small that it did 

not matter if the route was chronological.81

The Mission 66 program not only addressed visitor 

facility needs but staff housing issues as well. Many 

parks lacked housing and were often located in 

remote areas without towns or cities nearby. The 

housing that did exist often lacked modern 

amenities. As the country experienced the 

beginning of the baby boom, Wirth asked a group 

of employees' wives to look at the issue and 

provide recommendations. In fact, in November 

1959, Ann Willett submitted a questionnaire on 

housing conditions at Stones River when the 

Willett family was living in the old superintendent's 

house.82 The Martindale Company constructed 

																																																							 80. Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, April 1962," May 8, 1962, Lawrence Quist, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, October 

1962," November 7, 1962, Lawrence Quist, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, May 1963, 

June 6, 1963, David Daniels (Acting Superintendent), 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, June 1963," 

July 11, 1963, Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly 

Narrative Report, November 1963," December 12, 1963; 

Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, April 1964," May 14, 1964, all Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries,

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP; Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield,"66-67. 

81. Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield," 62-63.

82. James Sanders (Acting Superintendent), 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, November 

1959," December 4, 1959, Folder A2823 Superintendents’ 

Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

three staff residences, all of which were one-story 

modern ranch homes (see Fig. 22). They were 

tucked in the northern end of the cemetery, within 

the cemetery's perimeter wall, near the 

superintendent's lodge. Backlund argues that these 

"sheltered" and "contained" homes mirrored not 

only American suburban living so popular at the 

time, but also reflected Cold War culture by 

emphasizing containment, American values, and 

the importance of the nuclear family.83 The 

cemetery wall also segregated the white park 

employees from their African American neighbors. 

The Willett family never got to enjoy the new 

house, but Superintendent Quist and his family 

moved into one of the new residences. They were 

soon joined by two other park employees and their 

families who occupied the other residences. Quist 

commented, “This makes for quite a community of 

Service personnel living in the area, and marks the 

first time that adequate, full-time, surveillance and 

protection for the area can be achieved.”84 By 

having park employees living close to one another, 

this fortified Quist's desire that park staff work and 

act like a family while simultaneously ensuring 

security for themselves and park resources. Former 

park employee James Brown purchased and 

removed the superintendent's lodge in 1963.85

Figure 22 Staff Quarters. Photographed by Angela Sirna, 

February 2016.

The new visitor center was located across Highway 

41, near the Chicago Board of Trade Battery site

(see Fig. 23). The purpose of the building was to 

																																																							 83. Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield," 64.

84. Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

November 1963." 

85. Daniels, "Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, 

June 1963."
67 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

orient visitors to the park, teach them "proper use" 

of the park, and provide a brief history of the battle 

through a museum exhibit and audiovisual 

presentation.86 The building itself consisted of 

three main wings. Visitors entered a lobby, where a 

park ranger presumably greeted them. They could 

continue on to the museum exhibit space beyond 

the lobby or go to an auditorium to watch a slide 

presentation. The other wing held administrative 

offices and restrooms. The basement doubled as a 

fall-out shelter (see Fig. 24). Made from reinforced 

concrete the basement/fallout shelter could hold 

up to one hundred people. This feature certainly 

was indicative of Cold War culture.87

Figure 23 Visitor Center at Stones River National 

Battlefield, April 1965. Source: Tennessee Department of 

Conservation Photograph Collection, Tennessee State 

Library and Archives. 

Figure 24 “As Built Drawings Basement & Foundation and 

Other Details, Visitor Center, Headquarters Area, Stones 

River National Battlefield,” Drawing 3004 E, by Lukens,

EODC, National Park Service, July 25, 1963. Courtesy of ETIC. 

																																																							 86. Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield," 61.

87. Ibid.

A team at Harpers Ferry Center for the visitor 

center completed the museum exhibits and Bearss 

assisted with research.88 Quist was happy with the 

exhibits, commenting, "The story was humanized 

and made more meaningful to a layman."89 In his 

study on interpretation at Stones River NB, 

historian Jeff Sellers found that Mission 66 

interpretation was "characterized by a narrow 

battle-only scope with courage, honor, and 

sacrifice as the emphasized ideals," and was very 

much a product of Cold War culture.90 These 

themes were reflected in the museum exhibits, 

which included panels on Confederate commander 

Braxton Bragg and Union commander William 

Rosecrans, loneliness and homesickness felt by 

soldiers during the Christmas of 1862, and the 

"Battle of the Bands," when musicians of both 

armies allegedly played "Home Sweet Home" 

together. Texts about Confederate loss were 

tempered by statements pointing out its cavalry's 

skill and capability. Individual sacrifice and valor 

were highlighted in a dramatic and poignant 

display of one of the medals of honor earned 

during the battle. Exhibit panels were 

supplemented by an audio-visual slide presentation 

that did little to explain the battle’s causes or 

consequences. Again, the themes of bravery, 

sacrifice, and valor were evoked. The show ended 

with a slide of a white family enjoying the 

battlefield, highlighting the importance of the 

nuclear family in Cold War America.91

Civil War Centennial 

Centennial observances for the battle for Stones 

River New Year's Eve 1962 to January 2, 1963 were 

understated in comparison to national 

commemorative activities. A group of fifty people 

attended a brief ceremony in the national 

cemetery, sponsored by the NBFWCRT, on New 

																																																							 88. Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

April 1962."

89. Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, June 1961," July 7, 1961, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

90. Jeffrey Sellers, "Battle for the High Ground: The 

Challenge of Expanding the Interpretation at Stones River 

National Battlefield," master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee 

State University, 2010, 37.

91. Ibid., 40-43.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 68

Year's Day 1963.92 This relatively small ceremony 

was much more subdued than the events that 

occurred at other NPS sites, like the pageantry at 

Fort Sumter or the "sham battle" at Manassas. The 

low-key programming at Stones River National 

Battlefield can be easily attributed to winter 

weather or—a more likely reason—preoccupation 

with development plans. However, Robert Cook's 

Troubled Commemoration: The American Civil War

Centennial, 1961-1965 indicates that there may 

have been additional reasons that can best be 

understood in a national context. 

Planning for national observances began 

enthusiastically in the 1950s, drawing in both 

amateur historians and scholars. NPS Director 

Conrad Wirth suggested a national body be 

organized to coordinate events and work closely 

with NPS Civil War sites. President Eisenhower 

signed a joint congressional resolution in 

September 1957, creating an official U.S. Civil War 

Centennial Committee (CWCC), headed by 

Ulysses S. Grant's grandson, Ulysses S. Grant III. 

The NPS was assigned to help the CWCC 

undertake its centennial plans. Many states also set 

up commissions and encouraged local 

communities to follow suit. Although there was a 

national body providing leadership, centennial 

activities were largely decentralized, which allowed 

for both official and vernacular expressions of Civil 

War commemoration.93 

With Grant as chair, the CWCC's conservative 

approach to the centennial was an exercise in Cold 

War nationalism that emphasized consensus, 

dignity, and pageantry to promote patriotism and 

ease sectional tensions.94 The commission also left 

space for Lost Cause observances of the war so as 

not to antagonize southern states. Historian 

Michael Kammen asserted that these centennial 

observances fit within a larger pattern in American 

history and culture, which he called “heritage 

syndrome,” a “predictable...impulse to remember 

what is attractive or flattering and ignore all the 

																																																							 92. Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, January 1963," February 9, 1963, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

93. Robert Cook, Troubled Commemoration: The American 

Civil War Centennial, 1961-1965 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana 

State University, 2007), 15, 24-26, 30-35.

94. Ibid., 31, 37.

rest.”95 Furthermore, Cold War patriotism 

propelled Americans to make “pilgrimages” to Civil 

War sites as part of their civic duty, which were 

made easier by the automobile.96

Local citizens in Rutherford County had similar 

enthusiasm and desires in 1959, which 

Superintendent Willett attempted to manage. A 

contingent of local residents met with him and 

suggested reenacting the Battle of Stones River for 

the one hundredth anniversary. He countered that 

a permanent memorial might be a better idea. The 

group proposed a "North-South Memorial" to 

honor the twenty-one states that had soldiers in 

the battle. The regional office suggested 

incorporating this memorial into the visitor 

center.97 NPS designers came up with the idea for 

a North-South Memorial Room with a Hall of 

Flags. They developed two different designs that 

incorporated this space into the visitor center. The 

first included the flags around the perimeter of a

rectangular-shaped lobby.

98 The second placed 

each flag in a niche in a circular “Memorial Room” 

situated between the museum and lobby (see Fig.

25). An overhead light shone down on each flag in 

this design. NPS reviewers in the Interpretation 

Division were not in favor of the flag concept. One 

reviewer commented that a flag on display “will 

not make a good showing in a limp, furled position 

around the staff. In order to demand dignity and 

have the design seen, a flag must be unfurled.”99 To 

																																																							 95. Michael Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory: The 

Transformation of Tradition in American Culture (New 

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), 626.

96. Ibid., 547-48. 

97. John Willett to Regional Director, memorandum, "Dwg. 

No. NMP-3004 A, North-South Memorial, Stones River 

National Military Park," November 20, 1959, Folder D18 

Planning Program, including Development Outline and 

Master Plan: Stones River National Military Park, 1957-1961, 

Records Concerning Master Plans and Construction 

Programs, 1957-1961, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

98. This design was found at the National Archives at 

College Park, MD. Unfortunately, the drawing was too large 

to photograph and could not be found in E-TIC. Project 

Historian Angela Sirna was able to photograph portions of 

the drawing, which are included in her notes. “Drawing No. 

NMP: SR 3004, North-South Memorial, Stones River National 

Military Park,” EODC, National Park Service, July, 27, 1959, 

Folder D18 Planning Program, including Development 

Outline and Master Plan: Stones River National Military 

Park, 1957-1961, Records Concerning Master Plans and 

Construction Programs, 1957-1961, Records of the NPS, RG 

79, NACP.

99. E. D. Merrill, note, November 9, 1959, Folder D18 

Planning Program, including Development Outline and 
69 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

others, the flags lacked interpretive purpose if just 

left alone in the stand. NPS Chief Historian Ronald 

Lee suggested incorporating this feature into 

something more functional, such as an auditorium 

with special audio-visual equipment.100 After 

receiving these unfavorable comments and 

noticing that the group had not raised substantial 

funds up to that point, the Washington Office 

decided to develop another design that separated 

the Memorial Room from the visitor center and 

placed it adjacent to the facility (see Fig. 26). That 

way, construction of the visitor center could move 

forward and the North-South Memorial could be 

built once the funds were raised. This design came 

at a higher price tag of $31,000, as compared to the 

$21,000 estimate for the previous designs. The 

Washington Office certainly did not make it easier 

for the group to raise funds.101

Centennial planning efforts by members of the 

NBFCWRT boosted local enthusiasm for the 

North-South Memorial.102 Tennessee Governor 

Buford Ellington promised $10,000 toward the 

project with the idea that the twenty-one states to 

be represented in the memorial would each donate 

$500 to the cause, but then the NPS raised the 

																																																																																						 Master Plan: Stones River National Military Park, 1957-1961,

Records Concerning Master Plans and Construction 

Programs, 1957-1961, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

100. E. M. Lisle to John Willett, memorandum, “North-South 

Memorial,” October 15, 1959, Folder D18 Planning Program, 

including Development Outline and Master Plan: Stones 

River National Military Park, 1957-1961, Records Concerning 

Master Plans and Construction Programs, 1957-1961, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

101. Merel Sager to Acting Chief of Design and 

Construction, memorandum, “Drawing No. 3004-A, NorthSouth Memorial, Stones River,” January 12, 1960, Folder 

D18 Planning Program, including Development Outline and 

Master Plan: Stones River National Military Park, 1957-1961, 

Records Concerning Master Plans and Construction 

Programs, 1957-1961, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

102. Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

August 1959"; John Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly 

Narrative Report, October 1959," November 3, 1959, John 

Willett, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

December 1959," January 4, 1960, John Willett, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, May 1960," 

June 4, 1960, and James Sanders (Acting Superintendent), 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, July 1960," 

August 9, 1960, all Folder A2823 Superintendents’ Monthly 

Narrative Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1956-

1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records 

of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

price to $21,000 and again to $31,000.103

Momentum for the project slowed, particularly 

when John Willett was promoted to 

Superintendent of Pea Ridge National 

Battlefield.104 It does not appear that the group 

made any significant headway in raising funds for 

the project. When Lawrence Quist became 

superintendent, he reported, “None of the local 

interested parties, those who originated the idea,

have contacted me about the Memorial.”105 He 

asked the Regional Director, “Is it best to ‘let a 

sleeping dog lie’?” He offered, “My feelings on the 

Memorial are middle ground, except on this point: 

I would not want to try to get this project off the 

ground again and possibly impede the progress, 

design and construction, of the visitor center here 

at Stones River.” Quist must have let sleeping dogs 

lie, because the North-South Memorial never made 

it past the design stage. However, the entire project 

conception is indicative of how local groups sought 

to memorialize the Civil War during the centennial 

by focusing on valor, patriotism, and sectional 

reconciliation, and how the NPS sought to mediate 

that memorialization by marrying design with 

interpretation. 

																																																							 103. John Willett to Regional Director, memorandum, 

“Dwg. No. NMP-3004 A, North-South Memorial, Stones 

River National Military Park,” November 20, 1959. 

104. Willett was assigned to Pea Ridge National Military 

Park in Arkansas, a new Civil War park created thanks to 

public interest in the centennial. He remained there until 

August 1963, when he was assigned the superintendency of 

Petersburg National Military Park. He remained there until 

1968. Harold Danz, Historic Listing of National Park Service 

Officials, rev. ed. (Denver: National Park Service, 2000), 

under “Park Superintendents,” 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/tolson/histlist.

htm (accessed August 1, 2016). Cook, Troubled 

Commemoration, 264.

105. Lawrence Quist to Regional Director, memorandum, 

“North-South Memorial,” October 17, 1960, Folder D18 

Planning Program, including Development Outline and 

Master Plan: Stones River National Military Park, 1957-1961, 

Records Concerning Master Plans and Construction 

Programs, 1957-1961, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP. 
Chapter Four

National Park Service 70

Figure 25 “North-South Memorial” Drawing, EODC, No. 

3004 A. Courtesy of E-TIC.

Figure 26 Visitor Center Plan, EODC, 1961. Courtesy of ETIC.

National centennial activities also hit a snag with 

intense southern resistance to integration. The 

CWCC could not escape the issue of segregation 

when planning its assembly in Charleston, South 

Carolina, for the one hundredth anniversary of the 

bombardment on Fort Sumter in April 1961. Some 

northern state commissions had a handful of 

African American members, including Madaline 

Williams who was part of the New Jersey Civil War 

Commission. The New Jersey commission refused 

to attend the assembly in Charleston if Mrs. 

Williams could not be accommodated at the 

official hotel, the whites-only Francis Marion 

Hotel. Other northern commissions followed suit 

when the CWCC made no change. With the help of 

the Kennedy administration, the assembly was 

moved to an integrated U.S. Naval base in 

Charleston so that all could attend. But the damage 

had been done, according to Cook. The CWCC 

was never able to regain the momentum it lost in 

Charleston.106

Interest in the centennial waned in the South the 

last three years of the centennial, due to a number 

of factors. Funding for centennial activities fell, and 

some state commissions like Tennessee operated 

with few funds. Cook asserted that it was tough for 

commissions to keep the public interested in 

activities that were scheduled to take place over the 

course of four years. Some planners seemed 

inclined to rest on the success of the 1961 events, 

like the popular reenactments at Manassas. Lastly, 

Confederate memory only had limited utility 

among southern segregationists who saw 

themselves as loyal Americans. Despite the decline 

in interest, observances of important military 

engagements in the South, like the Battle of Stones 

River, occurred, but usually on a much smaller 

scale.107

Individuals and organizations formed the 

Rutherford County Civil War Centennial 

Committee sometime in 1959 to carry out local 

observances, while NPS administrators focused 

their energy on improving park infrastructure. 

Homer Pittard served on this committee and also 

was appointed to the state commission. Pittard's 

papers indicate that before 1962, the park was the 

center for county commemoration plans, as 

demonstrated by the plans for the North-South 

Memorial. According to Pittard, Lawrence Quist 

seemed reluctant to cooperate because of ongoing 

construction at the park. But perhaps the 

committee's interest in the battlefield declined 

when progress on the North-South Memorial 

stalled and national interest in centennial events 

declined after 1962.108

Many of the cooperating organizations that did 

support centennial activities in Rutherford County 

had a Confederate focus, which certainly shaped 

local programming. Member organizations 

included the NBFCWRT, Oaklands Association, 

UDC, Dixie Muzzle-Loading Association, Sam 

Davis Association, and Association for 

Preservation of Tennessee Antiquities. The county 

committee planned a series of events that centered 

																																																							 106. Cook, Troubled Commemoration, 59-62, 88-121.

107. Ibid., 201-11.

108. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 221-22.
71 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

around the one hundredth anniversary of Forrest's 

Raid on Murfreesboro on July 13, 1862. They also 

held a book exhibit, costume luncheon, memorial 

service for Confederates, parade, costume ball, 

musket-firing contest, and Sam Davis Pageant. 

Fraley points out that memorializing Union dead 

was not among the listed events, indicating that 

Confederate memory was prevalent in the 

centennial activities and the African American view 

of the war was virtually ignored. She also notes that 

women were relegated to supportive roles that 

reinforced gender norms.

109 

Quist was not altogether absent from local 

observances and did utilize his local network of 

business leaders and professionals, many of whom 

were members of these cooperating organizations, 

to help plan the dedication for the visitor center. 

The dedication ceremony itself, held on April 11, 

1964, was sponsored by the NPS, NBFCWRT, and 

Rutherford Chamber of Commerce.110 NPS 

leadership encouraged these types of partnerships, 

but cautioned Quist that it was important to "hold 

the reins" on the event to ensure it met NPS 

standards.111 Tennessee Governor Frank Clement 

gave the keynote address (see Fig. 27). New NPS 

Director George Hartzog Jr., Conrad Wirth's 

successor, attended the ceremony and dedicated 

the park's new improvements. Local women 

helped coordinate refreshments for the dignitaries 

and attendees (see Fig. 28). Local coverage of the 

event was underwhelming although three hundred 

people attended.112 

																																																							 109. Ibid. 221-24.

110. Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

April 1963"; Daniels, "Superintendent's Monthly, June 

1963."

111. Quoted in Backlund, "Patriotism on the Battlefield," 

67.

112. Ibid., 67; Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 227.

Figure 27 “Tennessee Governor Frank G. Clement 

Addressing Spectators at the Dedication Ceremony,” April 

11, 1964. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

Figure 28 Eleven women standing behind refreshment 

table at visitor center dedication ceremony, April 11, 1964. 

Photographer unknown. This photo reinforces Fraley’s 

argument that women were relegated to subordinate roles 

during Civil War centennial commemorative activities in 

Rutherford County. Courtesy of STRI. 

On October 24, 1965, Quist was promoted to be 

the first Superintendent of Herbert Hoover 

Birthplace in West Branch, Iowa.113 Sherman Perry, 

supervisory historian for Kings Mountain National 

Battlefield in North Carolina, entered duty as 

superintendent on December 4, 1965.114 The 

																																																							 113. Quist remained superintendent at Herbert Hoover 

National Historic Site until 1969. He then became head of 

public relations at Yosemite National Park from 1969 to 

1971. He finished the rest of his 33-year tenure with the NPS 

in the Western Regional Office, where he continued to 

work in public relations. Franklyn Hambly (Acting 

Superintendent), “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative 

Report, October 1965,” November 3, 1965, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP; Cong. Rec. 106th Cong., 2d sees., 2000, 146, pt.84, 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CREC-2000-06-28/CREC2000-06-28-pt1-PgE1133-3 (accessed January 10, 2016); 

Danz, Historic Listing of NPS Officials, under “Park 

Superintendents.”

114. Perry began his NPS career as a clerk at Morristown 

National Historical Park and moved on to be an 

administrative assistant at George Washington Birthplace. 

He was supervisory historian at Kings Mountain National 

Military Park when he was selected for the superintendency 

of Stones River National Battlefield. Ron Cockrell, Grand 

Portage National Monument: An Administrative History
Chapter Four

National Park Service 72

transfer of Quist signaled that the construction 

period of Mission 66 was close to an end and so 

was the Civil War centennial.

The Great Society: Civil Rights 

and Antipoverty Programs 

The year 1964 brought some important changes for 

the National Park Service and Stones River 

National Battlefield. Secretary of Interior Stewart 

Udall and NPS Director George Hartzog were 

responsible for implementing a broad social and 

economic agenda set forth by President Lyndon B. 

Johnson, who took office in November 1963 after 

the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Johnson's 

administration proposed legislation that focused 

on civil rights and equalizing economic 

opportunity among all Americans, collectively 

referred to as the "Great Society." Parks like Stones 

River National Battlefield played a role in 

implementing those policies. 

As Jim Crow segregation deepened in the South, 

cemetery and park superintendents followed 

southern conventions and Washington 

administrators looked the other way. The Civil 

Rights Movement brought pressure to park 

administrators to desegregate the national 

cemetery in particular. Other national cemeteries, 

including Arlington National Cemetery, had 

desegregated in 1948, after President Harry S. 

Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which 

ordered the integration of the Armed Forces.

115

Other national cemeteries located in the South did 

not comply so readily. For example, in 1961, the 

NPS decided to close Vicksburg National 

Cemetery, which was near capacity, to future 

interments even though 80 acres were available 

outside the cemetery’s boundaries. Local veterans’ 

																																																																																						 (1982; Omaha, NE: National Park Service, Midwest Regional 

Office, 1983), under "Appendix E: List of National Park 

Service Personnel at Grand Portage National Monument, 

Minnesota," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/grpo/adhiae.h

tm (accessed January 5, 2016); Sherman Perry, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, December 

1965," January 10, 1966, Folder A2823 Superintendents’ 

Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

115. “Black History at Arlington National Cemetery,” U.S. 

Army, http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore/NotableGraves/Minorities/Black-History-at-ANC, accessed July 11, 

2016. 

organizations did not protest the closure at 

Vicksburg, because they were informed that future 

burials would be integrated. Richard Meyers, who 

wrote an administrative history of Vicksburg 

National Cemetery in 1968, alluded that white 

locals preferred to close the national cemetery, 

rather than be buried next to an African 

American.116 This mirrored other occasions during 

this period when white Americans chose to close 

public spaces instead of integrating, such as 

swimming pools. 

Relations between the NPS and African American 

relatives of veterans buried at Stones River 

National Cemetery were strained in the 1960s due 

to segregation policies. The cemetery was prone to 

flooding in some areas, but Section Q, the African 

American section, was more susceptible to 

flooding than Section P, an area reserved for 

whites. In 1964, the national cemetery allowed 

burials in Section P, but not Q because it was so 

badly flooded, causing much anger from African 

Americans who felt the sharp sting of segregation. 

The regional office instructed the park to 

desegregate the national cemetery pursuant to the 

Civil Rights Act of 1965. Flooding remained a 

problem in the national cemetery, but 

desegregating the national cemetery was a step 

forward.117

The NPS had a pretty dismal record of hiring 

African Americans, women, or other minorities, 

but in the 1960s and 1970s Secretary Udall and 

Director Hartzog focused on correcting these 

issues. In 1962, Secretary of Interior Udall tried to 

improve these conditions by sending recruiters to 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCUs) to find seasonal employees to work in 

parks across the country that summer. About half 

of those appointed had second thoughts and did 

not show up for their assignment. It was likely an

overwhelming prospect of probably being the first 

and only black person working at a national park. 

Udall ran these initial efforts from his own office, 

but Director Wirth neither helped nor hindered his 

initiatives. Udall expected Director Hartzog to lead 

a much more concerted effort, which he did of his 

own volition. Hartzog placed pressure on his 

																																																							 116. Richard Meyers, The Vicksburg National Cemetery: 

Vicksburg National Military Park, An Administrative History 

(Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, National Park Service, 1968), 197-99.

117. Fraley, "The Politics of Memory," 226-27.
73 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

subordinates to do the same.118 In May 1965, 

before he left for Herbert Hoover Birthplace, 

Superintendent Quist accompanied a personnel 

specialist to Fisk University, a HBCU in Nashville, 

to recruit students to work for the NPS.119 Sherman 

Perry also met with Fisk personnel during his first 

year on the job.120 It does not appear these students 

were hired to work at Stones River National 

Battlefield, but their actions indicate that they were 

trying to meet Hartzog’s vision for a diverse NPS 

workforce and commitment to Johnson’s equal 

rights agenda. 

President Johnson made ending poverty a key 

component to his 1964 legislative program. 

Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act 

(EOA) of 1964, which created a number of 

programs to be organized under the new Office of 

Economic Opportunity (OEO). Johnson called 

upon federal agencies to help implement these 

programs when possible. The NPS was already 

involved in planning the Job Corps program, a 

residential job-training program for low-income 

young men modeled after the New Deal Civilian 

Conservation Corps, as the bill moved through 

Congress. Luis Gastellum, the agency's Job Corps 

Conservation Center Officer, saw a great deal of 

possibility in other programs created by the EOA, 

particularly as they related to Johnson's special 

message to Congress on "Conservation and 

Restoration of Natural Beauty."121 Gastellum wrote 

to Hartzog: 

																																																							 118. Mengak, Reshaping Our National Parks and Their 

Guardians, 74; William Everhart and Janet McDonnell, Oral 

History Interview with George B. Hartzog, Jr., Director, 

National Park Service 1964-1972 (Washington, DC: National 

Park Service, 2007), 14-16. 

119. Lawrence Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, May 1965," June 10, 1965, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

120. Sherman Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, November 1966," December 7, 1966, Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

121. For that message, see "Special Message to the Congress 

on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty," Public 

Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. 

Johnson, 1965 (Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office, 1966): 1:155-65, 

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches

.hom/650208.asp (accessed January 8, 2016).

The fact that the President's message on 

Natural Beauty followed so closely after the 

launching of the Anti-Poverty Program leads 

me to believe that a very strong argument can 

be made that we can accomplish a great deal in 

conservation of our natural resources while at 

the same time conserving or rehabilitating our 

human resources.122

Gastellum believed the NPS was in a "strategic" 

position to provide aid for the War on Poverty 

because its work in environmental conservation 

and recreational development was ripe with 

possibilities for public projects for disadvantaged 

youth. 

Beginning in 1965, Stones River National 

Battlefield participated in two antipoverty 

programs, the Youth Opportunity Campaign 

(YOC) and Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC). 

President Johnson announced the YOC (also 

called the President's Youth Opportunity "Back-toSchool Drive") in June 1965, the purpose of which 

was to help unemployed youth between the ages of 

16 and 21 find summer jobs so that they might 

return to school.123 Johnson and liberal 

policymakers attributed lack of education to be a 

root cause of poverty, so giving youth the financial 

stability to return to school was a primary goal. 

Johnson urged federal agencies to do their part and 

create summer positions. That month, Stones River 

National Battlefield hired two YOC workers who 

helped with park maintenance throughout the 

summer. Quist commented that the exit interviews 

with these workers indicated that the program did 

help them. He hoped that the program would be 

renewed the next summer.124 It was renewed, and 

																																																							 122. Luis Gastellum to Director, memorandum, "Service 

Participation in Various Programs of the Economic 

Opportunity Act of 1964," March 8, 1965, Folder A98 

Neighborhood Youth Corps, Administrative Files of the Job 

Corps Program, 1964-71, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

123. Lyndon Johnson, "Remarks on the Youth Opportunity 

Campaign," June 3, 1965, online by Gerhard Peters and 

John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27016 (accessed 

January 5, 2016); Department of Interior Office of the 

Secretary, "Personnel Management Bulletin No. 66-59 

(300)," May 2, 1966, Folder A98 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 

Administrative Files of the Job Corps Program, 1964-71, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

124. Sherman Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, June 1966," July 12, 1966, and Sherman Perry, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, August 1966," 

September 8, 1966, both Folder A2615 Monthly Reports, 

Stones River National Battlefield, 1966-67, 1st Subseries, 
Chapter Four

National Park Service 74

although Quist was no longer at the park, Sherman 

Perry continued hosting the program and hired an 

additional four YOC workers. Perry commented, 

"This program has been a big help to the Park, as 

well as giving the boys a work experience."125 This 

began the park's participation in antipoverty 

programming. 

The NYC program was created by the EOA in 1964 

and administered by the OEO. ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park was the first 

park in the NPS to utilize this program by bringing 

in participants from the Chattanooga NYC to work 

in the park in 1965, and the NPS was very pleased 

with the results.126 Secretary of Interior Udall 

reportedly read the report on the Chattanooga 

NYC and wrote a note saying, “Excellent, let’s do 

this everywhere we can.”127 In May 1966, the 

Washington Office requested regional offices to 

review park projects and put together a list of parks 

suitable to the NYC program; Stones River was 

identified as being able to support ten NYC 

workers.128 That same month, Superintendent 

Perry and Historian Dutcher visited ChickamaugaChattanooga NMP to discuss the program with 

park management. The NYC was similar to the 

YOC because it targeted youth between the ages of 

16 and 21 with the intention of providing work 

experience and training. While the YOC was paid 

for by the host agency, 90 percent of funding for a 

NYC worker came from the OEO and the other 10 

																																																																																						 Administrative Files, 1949-71, Records of the NPS, RG 79, 

NACP.

125. Sherman Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, May 1966," June 7, 1966, Folder A2615 Monthly 

Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1966-67, 1st 

Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-71, Records of the NPS, 

RG 79, NACP.

126. John O. Cook to Dalton Roberts, memorandum, 

“Evaluation of the NYC,” June 24, 1965, Folder A98 

Neighborhood Youth Corps, Administrative Files of the Job 

Corps Program, 1964-71, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

127. Luis Gastellum, “Special Report to the Director,” June 

23, 1965, Folder A98 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 

Administrative Files of the Job Corps Program, 1964-71, 

Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

128. A. C. Stratton to All Regional Directors, memorandum, 

“Service Participation in the Neighborhood Youth Corps,” 

May 27, 1966, and National Park Service, “Areas Where 

Neighborhood Youth Corps Can be Effectively Utilized by 

the National Park Service,” May 1966, Folder A98 

Neighborhood Youth Corps, Administrative Files of the Job 

Corps Program, 1964-71, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

percent from the sponsor organization.129 As the 

Washington Office explained, “Essentially, this 

program can furnish a very usable work force for 

little more than the cost of supervision.”130 NYC 

workers came from nearby communities and lived 

at home, which meant is was better suited for parks 

that had nearby towns or cities.

In November 1966, Stones River received its first 

group of NYC workers. Immediately, Perry noticed 

that this group was different from the YOC 

workers. 

The first of the NYC group of boys arrived for 

work at Stones River. The number of boys has 

varied all the way up to fourteen on the payroll. 

The Department of Labor pays the salaries. All 

Stones River has to do is supply a place to work, 

the tools to work with, and the supervision. We 

are not dealing with inanimate objects, but with 

disadvantaged youth which has presented some 

serious problems. However, as we begin to 

communicate through the torturous task of 

learning about these boys' feelings, we believe 

we cannot only add to the conservation 

movement of the National Park Service, but of 

a larger conservation movement of possibly 

aiding these boys to be a credit to the United 

States.131

Two months later, Perry reported on the NYC's 

progress: 

The NYC boys have been with us nearly two 

months now. Absenteeism is pretty high, 

especially after pay day. Because these boys are 

special cases, we have not released them but 

have tried to counsel them as to proper work 

habits. Although frustrating at times, we may be 

doing some good as two of the original 

enrollees now have permanent positions in 

private industry.132

Perry's comments indicate that the NPS was illequipped to handle the challenges of working with 

disadvantaged youth, but the park did see a 

measure of improvement. 

																																																							 129. Department of Interior Office of the Secretary, 

"Personnel Management Bulletin No. 66-59 (300)."

130. Stratton to All Regional Directors, memorandum, 

“Service Participation in the Neighborhood Youth Corps.”

131. Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

November 1966."

132. Sherman Perry, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative 

Report, December 1966,” January 5, 1967, Folder A2615 

Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1966-67, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-71, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.
75 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

In contrast, Perry commented that the "Back to 

School" boys were a "wonderful help to the park." 

They seemed easier to manage than the NYC 

workers. Perry enthusiastically reported that one 

YOC worker, who had been at the park for more 

than a year as a Student Aid, won an eight-week 

scholarship for training and a scholarship to Fisk 

University.133 Perry complained that the NYC 

program was "at times most frustrating"134 due to 

absenteeism and discipline issues.

135 However, 

some NYC participants did go back to school or 

find permanent jobs, indicating that the program 

was meeting Johnson's goal. The park did hire one 

of the YOC workers, James Dattilo, who was a 

disabled college student.136 Perry’s comments and 

characterizations of both programs raise questions 

about the selection process between the two 

programs. Why did the park have better success 

with the YOC than the NYC? 

NPS involvement in key Great Society antipoverty 

programs declined as the Johnson administration 

fell out of favor due to domestic unrest at home 

over foreign intervention, racial violence, and its 

inability to solve poverty issues. President Richard 

Nixon reduced several programs, including the Job 

Corps. His administration closed all but three of 

the NPS Job Corps Centers.137 It is likely that 

																																																							 133. Sherman Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, May 1967," June 7, 1966, Folder A2615 Monthly 

Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1966-67, 1st 

Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-71, Records of the NPS, 

RG 79, NACP.

134. Sherman Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative 

Report, January 1967," February 11, 1967, Folder A2615 

Monthly Reports, Stones River National Battlefield, 1966-67, 

1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 1949-71, Records of the 

NPS, RG 79, NACP.

135. One incident occurred on June 26, 1967, when one 

NYC boy was part of a group arrested for throwing 

firecrackers at "minority race members." The judge warned 

the group that such actions could spark a riot, which is 

evidence of the anxiety Americans felt towards the 

consequences of racial unrest. Perry, "Superintendent's 

Monthly Narrative Report, December 1966"; Sherman Perry, 

"Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, June 1967," 

July 7, 1967, Folder A2615 Monthly Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1966-67, 1st Subseries, Administrative 

Files, 1949-71, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP.

136. Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

June 1967."

137. Irwin Unger, The Best of Intentions: The Triumphs and 

Failures of the Great Society Under Kennedy, Johnson, and 

Nixon (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 200, 203, 22, 284; Allen 

Matusow, The Unraveling of America: A History of 

Liberalism in the 1960s (New York: Harper & Row 

Nixon discontinued the YOC program, but he did 

keep the NYC. Despite its challenges, Stones River 

staff continued to utilize the NYC program until 

1973. Park administrators requested workers for 

1974, but none were sent for reasons unknown. 

The program was discontinued in 1975.138

End of Mission 66 and Centennial 

Observances 

The last centennial event at Stones River National 

Battlefield coincided with the agency's fiftieth 

anniversary in August 1966. The Michigan Civil 

War Centennial Observance Commission led an 

effort to place a monument at Stones River 

National Battlefield to honor the state's volunteers 

that fought there. Michigan was the first and only 

state to place a monument at the battlefield, in 

stark contrast to other Civil War battlefields that 

are liberally marked with state monuments. The 

commission negotiated the location, design, and 

text for the monument with the NPS and then 

acquired funding from the state legislature. Fraley 

points out that the park used this marker's 

dedication on July 1, 1966, not only to honor the 

sacrifice of Michigan soldiers that fought at the 

battle, but also the agency's preservation efforts 

over the previous fifty years to save places from the 

"ravages of time" and "thoughtless waste."139

Unfortunately, rain forced dedication activities to 

be moved from the marker site to a nearby school. 

Attendees enjoyed music from the 101st Army 

Airborne Division Band and an address from NPS 

Assistant Regional Director Charles Marshall.140 A

reception followed (see Fig. 29). The park marked 

the agency’s fiftieth anniversary a month later by 

offering refreshments at the visitor center (see Fig. 

30).

																																																																																						 Publishers, 1984), 171; "News Release from Department of 

Labor: Plans Announced for Closing of Centers," Gap 

Gazette, May 1969, 21, Folder 10, Box 2, Subseries 1, Series 

7, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Archive, 

Middlesboro, KY. 

138. James Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on 

Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1974,”

February 21, 1975, and James Sanders, “Superintendent’s 

Annual Report on Stones River National Battlefield for 

Calendar Year 1975,” February 17, 1976, both 

“Superintendent’s Annual Reports” binder, Park 

Administrative Files.

139. Fraley, "Politics of Memory," 228.

140. Ibid., 228-29.
Chapter Four

National Park Service 76

Figure 29 Superintendent Sherman Perry, Mrs. Perry, and 

Tennessee Secretary of State Joe C. Carr talk during 

reception following Michigan Marker dedication, July 1, 

1966. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI.

Figure 30 Refreshment table in visitor center for the NPS’s 

fiftieth anniversary, August 25, 1966. Card says “National 

Park Service 1916-1966.” Photographer unknown. Courtesy 

of STRI. 

Park Staffing 

When John T. Willett arrived to assume the 

superintendency in 1957, he had the assistance of a 

two permanent laborers and a clerk. He hired 

Parks Randolph, a graduate student, as a seasonal 

“Ranger-Historian,” who provided intermittent 

interpretive services. The Laborer positions were 

reclassified to “Caretaker” in 1960.141

Under Lawrence Quist’s tenure, the NPS was able 

to hire additional staff. The park reclassified the 

GS-4 Clerk position to a GS-5 Administrative Aid, 

which was filled by David J. Daniels in 1961. The 

Administrative Aid position was upgraded again in 

1963, to a GS-7. In 1962, Quist hired a full-time 

historian, Donald Mawson, who came to the park 

in November 1962 from Tumacacori National 

																																																							 141. Willett, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, 

April 1960.”

Monument. Richard Denny was named to the 

Caretaker position in May 1963, and was promoted 

to the position of “Maintenanceman” in February 

1964. In March 1964, Quist hired Frances McPeak 

as a GS-3 temporary Clerk (Typist). A month later, 

Quist hired Shirley Keathley, daughter-in-law to 

Dr. Belt Keathley at MTSC, as a seasonal historian. 

She began researching and developing an 

interpretive program on Civil War music.142

Several important personnel changes occurred 

after the visitor center dedication in April 1964. 

Historian Donald Mawson transferred to Joliet 

Arsenal in Illinois in August 1964 and was replaced 

by Barbara Sorrill, a student-trainee at Colonial 

National Park. Sherman Perry replaced Lawrence 

Quist as superintendent in December 1965. Sorrill 

remained at the park less than a year before 

transferring to Fort Leavenworth in May 1965. 

Historian David Dutcher from ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park transferred to 

Stones River in June 1965. That same month, 

Administrative Assistant David Daniels transferred 

to Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military 

Park.143

Historian Dutcher may have been the first STRI 

staff person to attend the brand new Horace 

Albright Training Center at Grand Canyon 

National Park. The center was first established in 

1957 at Yosemite National Park, before moving to 

the Grand Canyon in 1963. There, permanent NPS 

employees could receive specialized training and 

learn about the agency and its mission. Dutcher 

spent eleven weeks there. However, he only 

																																																							 142. Lawrence Quist, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative 

Report, March 1961,” April 3, 1961, Lawrence Quist, 

“Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, November 

1962,” December 11, 1962, Lawrence Quist, 

“Superintendent’s Narrative Monthly Narrative Report, 

March 1964,” April 9, 1964, all Folder A2823 

Superintendents’ Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River 

National Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, 

Administrative Files, 1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79,

NACP; Quist, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

May 1963”; Quist, “Superintendent’s Narrative Monthly 

Narrative Report, February 1964”; Quist, "Superintendent's 

Monthly Narrative Report, April 1964." 

143. Lawrence Quist, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative 

Report, August 1964,” September 9, 1964, and Lawrence 

Quist, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, June 

1965,” July 12, 1965, both Folder A2823 Superintendents’ 

Monthly Narrative Reports, Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1956-1965, 1st Subseries, Administrative Files, 

1949-1969, Records of the NPS, RG 79, NACP; Quist,

“Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, May 1965.”
77 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

remained at STRI until December 1966, when he 

left for a position at Castillo San Marcos National 

Monument. Shirley Keathley was appointed to the 

historian position in June 1967.144

Unfortunately, there is a gap in the 

superintendent’s reports between 1967 and 1972, 

so it is unknown what personnel changes occurred 

during this time. But between Willett’s tenure and 

the first few years of Perry’s administration, the 

park saw the addition of a ranger-historian and 

upgrades to the administrative and maintenance 

positions. 

Conclusion 

Perry and his family suffered a devastating loss on 

January 14, 1967, when Benjamin Elliott Perry, his 

six-year old son, was struck and killed by a vehicle 

87 feet north of the park boundary on Old 

Nashville Highway.145 The Perry family remained at 

Stones River National Battlefield until 1971, when 

Sherman was promoted to superintendent of 

Grand Portage National Monument.146 Perry was 

the last of four superintendents involved in 

planning and executing the Mission 66 program 

and centennial events at Stones River National 

Battlefield. His departure marked the end of that 

era. 

Park staff at Stones River National Battlefield were 

largely inward looking, concentrating on the 

physical development of the Mission 66 program at 

the park. As Backlund has pointed out, these 

efforts very much invoked Cold War culture and 

themes of patriotism, Cold War "containment," 

and nurturing the nuclear family. However, the 

agency's preoccupation with itself during Mission 

66 meant that staff were not looking outward for 

the Civil War centennial activities. Instead, 

dominant community members, who were white, 

male, and often sympathetic to Lost Cause 

ideology, set the tone for Rutherford County's Civil 

War centennial observances, as demonstrated so 

																																																							 144. Perry, “Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Report, 

December 1965”; Perry, “Superintendent’s Monthly 

Narrative Report, December 1966”; Perry, “Superintendent’s 

Monthly Narrative Report, June 1967.”

145. Perry, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, 

January 1967." 

146. Cockrell, Grand Portage National Monument: An 

Administrative History, "Appendix E."

well by Fraley's research. The NPS did not let these 

groups, most notably the NBFCWRT, completely 

usurp centennial planning, but the agency did not 

incorporate black counter-memories in the 

observances either. In the end, centennial 

observances at the battlefield were mostly about 

Cold War patriotism, Mission 66, and new 

development, not about the legacies of the war. 

By 1964, larger forces in American society 

outpaced the NPS. The burgeoning Civil Rights 

Movement derailed centennial observances, 

exposed the agency's lack of diversity among its 

ranks, and shone light on the agency's 

discriminatory policies. The growing 

environmental movement provided a strong 

critique to the Mission 66 program. 

Environmentalists believed the NPS was 

overdeveloping national parks and threatening the 

very resources the agency purported to protect. 

The NPS also found itself involved in antipoverty 

programming, much like it had been during the 

New Deal, but ill-equipped to deal with the social 

complexities of systemic poverty. 

Despite these shortcomings, the Mission 66 period 

was truly transformative for Stones River National 

Battlefield in the physical sense. It essentially 

became a new park with a brand new visitor center, 

tour road, staff houses, and additional land at the 

artillery monument. When Superintendent Jim 

Sanders reported for duty several years later, in 

1974, he felt as though he had inherited a brand 

new park.147

																																																							 147. James Sanders Interview by Angela Sirna, Phone 

Interview, October 20, 2015.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 78

Chapter Five

Preserving the Greater Battlefield, 1971-1980

If Cold War patriotism was driving park 

interpretation and development during the 1950s 

and 1960s, Stones River National Battlefield took a 

left hand turn in the 1970s, to follow the modern 

environmental movement. Park staff embraced 

environmental education as a way to connect new 

audiences to the park's resources. This new 

approach stemmed partly from larger changes in 

the agency spurred by environmentalists' critiques 

of the Mission 66 program and new environmental 

policies enacted by Congress. But the park's focus 

on environmental education also reflected local 

concerns as the park faced ever increasing urban 

pressures that threatened the rural quality of the 

area. 

The 1970s ushered in a decade of more 

participatory visitor engagement—a significant 

departure from the civic pilgrimages that defined 

the Mission 66 years at the battlefield. Park staff 

organized youth and volunteer programs. They 

expanded the park's living history program, which 

allowed volunteers to participate in various Civil 

War programs. They also saw visitors using the 

park more for recreational pursuits, such as hiking, 

camping, running, walking, and biking. 

Mission 66 did much to update park facilities, but 

it failed to address some key issues. Park planners 

never resolved the entrance issue, which was made 

worse by the opening of I-24 in 1970. The NPS 

closed Stones River National Cemetery to further 

interments, but flooding remained a major 

concern. Urban development continued to 

encroach upon the park and diminished the 

battlefield's viewshed. In 1974, the NPS funded a 

new General Management Plan (GMP) for Stones 

River National Battlefield, which it hoped would 

address some of these issues, including urban 

encroachment. An aggressive land acquisition 

program reveals the park's concern for the 

"greater battlefield" and efforts toward landscape 

preservation. 

Environmental Education 

Despite being a conservation agency, the NPS was 

slow to take up the growing environmental 

movement that gained traction in the 1960s. 

Because the NPS had a strong association with the 

profession of landscape architecture, park 

managers came to accept façadism, or maintaining 

the appearance of nature, rather than ecological 

integrity.1 Conrad Wirth, like NPS directors 

Mather and Albright before him, believed that 

parks must have modern visitor conveniences to 

ensure their preservation. National parks 

desperately needed Mission 66’s facility upgrades, 

but environmentalists grew concerned that the 

NPS was overdeveloping these places.2 The 

modern environmental movement was gaining 

grassroots support from Americans who were 

becoming increasingly concerned for the dangers 

of pollution, urbanization, overpopulation, and 

diminishing natural areas. Public criticism was 

compounded by two reports published in 1963 by 

the Special Board to the Secretary of the Interior 

on Wildlife Management and the National 

Academy of the Sciences. More commonly known 

as the "Leopold Report," after principal author A. 

Starker Leopold, the Special Board on Wildlife 

Management found that the NPS needed to do a 

																																																							 1. Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National 

Parks: A History (1997; repr., New Haven, CT: Yale University 

Press, 2008), 69-82.

2. Ibid.,185-191.
79 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

much better job in recognizing the diverse 

biological communities within parks and base 

management practices on scientific research. The 

NAS similarly found that the NPS needed to 

incorporate ecological thinking into its 

management practices.3 Congress followed public 

concern and recommendations from the science 

community by passing an impressive amount of 

environmental legislation from 1964 to 1973, 

including the National Wilderness Protection Act 

(1964), Land and Water Conservation Act (1964), 

Endangered Species Protection Act (1966; 

amended 1969; superseded 1973), Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act (1968), National Trail Systems Act 

(1968), National Environmental Policy Act (1969), 

Clean Air Act (1967; amended 1970), Clean Water 

Act (1970; amended 1972), Environmental 

Pesticide Control Act (1972), and Endangered 

Species Act (1973). These laws held federal 

agencies, like the NPS, to higher standards in 

managing ecosystems, protecting endangered 

species, and ensuring clean air and water on park 

lands, while also opening agency decisions to 

public comment.4

George Hartzog, Wirth's successor, shared 

Secretary of Interior Udall’s sensitivity to 

environmental concerns. Udall’s 1963 book The 

Quiet Crisis was part of a body of literature that 

helped mobilize environmental activists in the 

1960s and 1970s. Hartzog had a close relationship 

with Udall, who remained Secretary of the Interior 

until 1969. Hartzog gradually made changes during 

his nine-year tenure, which was marked by his 

interest in developing urban parks, reaching new 

audiences, and bringing minorities into the 

agency's workforce. Under his direction, NPS 

managers had to implement new natural and 

cultural resource policies brought by the barrage 

of environmental legislation and the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966.5

During Hartzog’s tenure, NPS officials began 

categorizing national park units based on their 

natural, historical, or recreational qualities. In 

1968, the NPS produced manuals for each 

																																																							 3. Ibid., 214-17.

4. Kathy Mengak, Reshaping Our National Parks and Their 

Guardians: The Legacy of George B. Hartzog Jr.

(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2012), 1-2.

5. Ibid., x-xi.

management category. However, Congress grew 

concerned that the NPS would neglect natural 

resources in historical parks and vice versa. 

Congress amended the Organic Act of 1916 with 

the General Authorities Act in 1970, which 

required the NPS to treat all park units as part of 

the same system, meaning the agency could not 

selectively choose policies to apply at some parks 

and not others. Congress reaffirmed the “singlesystem” principle in the Redwoods Amendment of 

1978.6 Staff at STRI would have to show as much 

concern about natural resources as they would 

cultural resources. 

The agency's concern for environmentalism and 

environmental education was in full swing in 1971

when John D. Hunter arrived at Stones River 

National Battlefield to replace Sherman Perry as 

superintendent. Perry was promoted to 

superintendent of Grand Portage National 

Monument in Minnesota.7 Hunter had begun his 

NPS career as a seasonal ranger at Badlands 

National Monument. His first full-time 

appointment came in 1963 when he was hired as a 

park ranger at Franklin Delano Roosevelt National 

Historic Site. Three years later he became the 

district ranger at Assateague Island National 

Seashore and was promoted to chief ranger in 

1971, right before taking the superintendency at 

Stones River.8 Hunter and his staff implemented a 

year's worth of activities for the NPS's "Centennial 

Year" in 1972—the intended capstone for 

																																																							 6. Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, 244-46; 

Robert Keiter, “Revisiting the Organic Act: Can it Meet the 

Next Century’s Conservation Challenges?,” George Wright 

Forum 28, no. 3 (2011): 242; Lary Dilsaver, America’s 

National Park System: The Critical Documents (Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield, 1994), under “Transformation and 

Expansion, 1970-1980,” 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_7.

htm (accessed June 21, 2016). 

7. Perry remained at Grand Portage National Monument 

until 1975. He then worked at the Chicago Field Office 

before retiring from the Midwest Regional Office. Ron 

Cockrell, Grand Portage National Monument: An 

Administrative History (1983; Omaha, NE: Midwest Regional 

Office, National Park Service, 1992), under "Appendix E: List 

of National Park Service Personnel at Grand Portage 

National Monument, Minnesota," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/grpo/adhiae.h

tm (accessed February 2, 2016).

8. W. Dwayne Jones, Padre Island National Seashore: An 

Administrative History (Corpus Christi, TX: San Padre Island 

National Seashore, 1999), under "Appendix B: Personnel," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/pais/adhiab.h

tm (accessed February 2, 2016).
Chapter Five

National Park Service 80

Hartzog's "Parkscape U.S.A." initiative—which 

celebrated the one hundredth anniversary of the 

"National Park Idea," the creation of Yellowstone 

National Park.9

While Mission 66 celebrations at Stones River 

National Battlefield tended to focus on the 

agency's accomplishments, the centennial 

programming was more outward looking and 

focused on environmental education. Park staff 

held a community seminar during Earth Week to 

raise environmental awareness among the local 

population.10 The park also ran a day camp called 

"Summer Fun in the Parks."11 These programs all 

focused on bringing in members of the local 

community, particularly youth, using the park's 

natural resources to talk about environmental 

issues. This reflects a larger agency trend in the 

1970s in which NPS interpreters broke away from 

merely "cataloging" natural phenomenon and 

turned to explaining ecological relationships, 

raising awareness about environmental 

degradation, and hopefully inspiring visitors to 

action. In 1968, the agency began working with 

Mario Menesini, head of Educational Consulting 

Service, to develop National Environmental 

Education Development (NEED) materials for 

schools. As part of the NEED program, parks were 

encouraged to develop Environmental Study 

Areas (ESAs) and supplemental material so that 

school groups could use parks as outdoor 

classrooms or laboratories.12 The park hired staff 

to specifically work on developing environmental 

education programs. After Barbara Brooks left in 

																																																							 9. John Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1972," 

June 12, 1973, Folder 82 H14 History, Series 1, Park Archive.

10. The first Earth Day was held April 22, 1970. The idea was 

proposed by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, who called 

for a national teach-in about environmentalism. A “teachin” was a method made popular by anti-Vietnam War 

activists. Approximately twenty million Americans 

participated in the first Earth Day, signaling the arrival of 

the modern environmental movement that brought new 

modes of thinking and the power to shape public policy. 

Earth Day continues to be held on April 22nd every year, but 

some communities have extended the one-day celebration 

to an entire week. Thomas Robertson, Malthusian Moment:

Global Population Growth and the Birth of American

Environmentalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 

2012), 152, 168-71.

11. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1972."

12. Barry Mackintosh, Interpretation in the National Park 

Service: A Historical Perspective (Washington, DC: National 

Park Service, 1986), under "Environmental Education," 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mackintosh3/

directions_environmental.htm (accessed January 22, 2016).

1972, Bettie Cook, now Park Technician, worked 

on environmental education programs.13 

Superintendent Hunter enthusiastically supported 

a new youth environmental education program 

called STEP, or Students Towards Environmental 

Participation. This program began in 1971, when 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield sent 

thirty-five students to attend the Fifteenth 

Conference on Environmental Education 

sponsored by United Nations Educational 

Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 

Atlanta, Georgia. There, the students developed a 

program that would encourage their peers to 

become environmental advocates in their own 

communities. They would receive training from 

the NPS and form clubs at their high schools. They 

could organize field trips and workshops at ESAs 

in national parks all over the country.14 UNESCO 

and NPS were ready sponsors for this innovative 

program. Hunter quickly brought the program to 

Stones River National Battlefield and began 

working with area high school students. That first 

summer, he brought in students from three 

Rutherford County high schools as part of the 

centennial celebrations. He also began working 

with Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. 

When Tennessee state education officials saw the 

success Nashville schools were having with 

environmental education, they brought Hunter 

into discussions about implementing a statewide 

program.

15 In the fall of 1973, Bettie Cook, 

Superintendent Hunter, STEP members, and 

representatives from Metro Nashville Schools and 

the Tennessee Department of Education began 

planning a statewide STEP conference, which was 

held at Opryland in Nashville in April 1974. Three 

hundred students and teachers from twenty-nine 

Tennessee communities attended the three-day 

seminar. Other parks in the region, including 

Great Smoky Mountains, Shiloh, ChickamaugaChattanooga, Fort Donelson, and Natchez Trace 

																																																							 13. John Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1973," 

January 18, 1974, Folder 82 H14 History, Series 1, Park 

Archive.

14. Southeast Regional Director to NPS Director, 

memorandum, "Environmental Education—A Giant 'STEP,'" 

March 7, 1972, Folder 38 A-98 STEP, Series 1, Park Archive.

15. John Hunter to State Coordinator, memorandum, 

"Attendance at Meeting in Nashville Concerning S.T.E.P. 

and Environmental Education," October 30, 1972, and 

Vincent Ellis to Superintendent Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park, memorandum, "STEP and Environmental 

Education in the Nashville area," November 17, 1972, both 

Folder 38 A98 STEP, Series 1, Park Archive.
81 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Parkway, provided services to the program, but 

personnel at Stones River National Battlefield 

helped consolidate the statewide STEP program.16

On April 21, 1972, the NPS dedicated the Cedar 

Glades ESA, marking an important change in 

managing the park's natural resources (see Fig. 

31). Cedar glades are clearings in the forest 

characterized by patches of thin, gravelly soil 

enclosed by cedar trees (Juniperus virginiana) on 

the periphery. These cedar glades are primarily 

found in Middle Tennessee and a few locations in 

the southeast United States. To the casual 

observer, these glades look barren, and for many 

years, people thought of them as wasteland, 

because they are poor for agriculture. However,

biologists found that they were extremely fragile 

habitats that supported several endemic plant 

species. Dr. Elsie Quarterman, a plant biologist 

and ecologist at Vanderbilt University, began 

studying cedar glades in the late-1940s as part of 

her doctoral research at Duke University and 

found that Rutherford County had an unusually

high number of cedar glades.

17 Urban 

development was a major threat to cedar glades in 

Middle Tennessee and Quarterman spent most of 

her career advocating for their protection. 

Quarterman is also credited for discovering the 

Tennessee coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis), a 

species that biologists had thought was extinct, 

with her student Dr. Barbara Turner in 1969.18 Her 

student, Dr. Thomas Hemmerly, who taught in the 

Biology Department at MTSU, studied the 

Tennessee coneflower for his doctoral research and 

may have planted experimental seeds in the cedar 

glades at Stones River National Battlefield 

sometime in the 1970s.19 When the NPS was 

looking to develop ESAs, Stones River National 

Battlefield decided to create one for the cedar 

																																																							 16. "A Brief Summary of the S.T.E.P. Program at Stones 

River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro," [1974], Folder 38 

A98 STEP, Series 1, Park Archive.

17. Elsie Quarterman, “Plant Communities of Cedar Glades 

in Middle Tennessee,” Elsie Quarterman, doctoral thesis, 

Duke University, 1948; "Major Plant Communities of 

Tennessee Cedar Glades," Ecology 31, no. 2 (April 1950): 

234-254.

18. Carol C. Baskin and Jerry Baskin, “In Memorial: Dr. Elsie 

Quarterman (1910-1914),” Castanea 80, no. 2 (June 2015): 

74-76. 

19. Thomas Hemmerly passed away in February 2016. He 

taught ecology at MTSU for sixty-one years and brought his 

students to the park to study the cedar glades. He was also 

a world-renown expert in mistletoe. 

glades. Elsie Quarterman was the keynote speaker 

for the dedication.20 Superintendent Hunter 

commented at the time of the dedication that

"...there is a long way to go to build an 

environmental ethic in our society."21 The 

dedication of the ESA was an important first step 

for the park in bringing in an environmental ethic 

into its own management. 

Quarterman and the GMP contractors completed a 

report on the cedar glade in Stones River National 

Battlefield in 1976, presumably to help inform the 

GMP. This report includes a general description of 

these areas and recommendations for 

management.22 This report may have alerted park 

staff that they were using a fragile plant community 

as a "bone yard," or a place where staff stored 

material that might be used in the future. Once they 

realized what it was, they moved that material back 

to the maintenance area and fenced in the cedar 

glade area for restoration. Staff were surprised that 

the area came back "miraculously fast."23

Figure 31 Environmental education workshop at Cedar 

Glades National Environmental Study Area. Photographed 

in July 1979. Courtesy of STRI.

																																																							 20. National Park Service, "Dedication Program for Cedar 

Glades National Environmental Study Area Trail," April 21, 

1972, Folder 34 A8215 Centennial Events, Series 1, Park 

Archive.

21. John Hunter to Theodore C. Bigger, letter, April 26, 

1972, Folder 34 A8215 Centennial Events, Series 1, Park 

Archive.

22. Miller, Wihlry, and Lee, Inc., and Elsie Quarterman, 

Stones River National Battlefield Cedar Glades Report

(Nashville, TN: Denver Service Center, National Park Service, 

1976).

23. James Sanders Interview by Angela Sirna, Phone 

Interview, October 20, 2015, 16-17.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 82

While park records do not contain comprehensive 

records of visitor statistics for the environmental 

education programs during this period, the park’s 

1973 annual report provides a sketch of the 

number of programs offered that year, an 

approximate number of students contacted, and 

range of programs offered. For example, 18 school 

groups with 662 students used the Cedar Glades 

ESA. These groups varied from kindergarten to the 

sixth grade. Seven special groups numbering 162 

young people used the Cedar Glades Trail. Staff 

presented multiple programs to school groups and 

assisted teachers with their own lesson plans. The 

park welcomed not only school groups, but 

students from MTSU, scouting organizations, 

churches, and the state youth correctional facility. 

Park staff were involved in eight environmental 

workshops, five of which were held off-site. The 

park sponsored a Film Festival during Earth Week, 

which was attended by 19 people. Staff continued 

to coordinate with the STEP program.24

Landscape Management 

The NPS's interest in developing an environmental 

ethic in the Rutherford County community stood 

in stark contrast to the rapid pace of development 

that was overwhelming the battlefield. Sherman 

Perry noted in 1969 that a number of industrial 

plants were built along Highway 41 northwest of 

the park, including International Paper, Cummings 

Sign Company, and an $11,000,000 expansion to 

the General Electric Plant.25 Interstate 24, opened 

in 1970, came within 2,000 yards of the park's 

southwest corner.26 Superintendent Hunter, at the 

beginning of his tenure, likewise noted the 

prevalence of sprawl and industrial development 

near the park.

27

Commercial development was also affecting other 

Civil War battlefields during this period, stirring up 

a debate between economic interests and scenic 

																																																							 24. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1973." 

25. Sherman Perry to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Interstate 24 Interchange," May 29, 1969, Folder 56 D30 

Roads and Trails, Series 1, Park Archive.

26. J. Leonard Volz to Southeast Regional Director, 

memorandum, "Interstate at Stones River National 

Battlefield," Park Archive, Folder 56 D-30 Roads and Trails.

27. Bruce W. Black and John Hunter, "Management 

Objectives Stones River National Battlefield," March 22, 

1972, Folder 43 D-18 Management Objectives, Series 1, Park 

Archive.

preservation. In 1970, there was public outrage 

when Thomas Ottenstein, a Maryland attorney and 

developer, proposed a 307-foot tower near 

Gettysburg. Preservationists decried Gettysburg 

National Tower, because it was taller than any 

monument on the battlefield and diminished the 

battlefield’s scenic integrity. The local government 

and business interests supported the tower because 

of its promise to bring in thousands of visitors to 

the area. Without any zoning restrictions, the NPS 

could not stop the tower from being built.28

Similarly, in 1973, Manassas National Battlefield 

faced outside development pressures when 

Marriott announced a Great American theme park 

adjacent to the battlefield on land that was 

significant to the Second Battle of Manassas. While 

the NPS remained neutral to the proposal, 

preservation groups protested the theme park, 

which had the backing of local government. 

Marriott backed away from its plan when the 

Federal Highway Administration required the 

company to complete an Environmental Impact 

Statement for an essential interchange to serve the 

new theme park. While remaining neutral served 

the NPS in the short-term from preventing it in 

taking a controversial stand, it did not resolve the 

issue of when the NPS should get involved in 

adjacent land development, which would continue 

to embroil staff at Manassas for another fifteen 

years.

29 These events at Gettysburg and Manassas 

indicate that “scenic integrity” at battlefield sites 

was increasingly threatened by development in 

areas that were once predominately rural. 

Urban development remained a challenge for 

Superintendent James Sanders when he replaced 

Hunter in 1974. Hunter was promoted to 

superintendent of Bandelier National 

Monument.30After serving in the U.S. Navy,

Sanders earned his bachelor's degree in park 

																																																							 28. Jennifer Murray, On a Great Battlefield: The Making, 

Management, and Memory of Gettysburg National Military 

Park, 1933-2013 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 

2014), 123-24. 

29. Joan Zenzen, Battling for Manassas: The Fifty-Year 

Preservation Struggle at Manassas National Battlefield Park

(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998),

85-98.

30. Hunter was superintendent of Bandelier National 

Monument from 1974 to 1988. He then served as 

superintendent of Padre Island National Seashore from 

1988 to 1991. He worked in the Southwest Regional Office 

shortly before retiring to the Corpus Christi area in Texas. 

Jones, Padre Island National Seashore, "Appendix B."
83 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

management, planning, and interpretation at 

Colorado State University. He worked as a seasonal 

ranger at Badlands National Monument before 

being hired as an intake ranger at Yosemite 

National Park in 1969. He spent a year in the 

National Capital Region assisting the liaison to the 

White House and the deputy director for the 

National Capital Region. His first supervisory

assignment was at Everglades National Park. He 

served as acting superintendent of Fort Frederica 

National Monument in southeast Georgia before 

accepting the position of superintendent at Stones 

River National Battlefield in 1974.31 When he 

arrived, Sanders noticed that an industrial zone 

surrounded the Artillery Monument area. There 

were no trees screening these developments and 

from the visitor center you could see concrete 

batch towers adjacent to the Hazen Brigade 

Monument.32 These developments were not only 

making it difficult for visitors to find the park, but 

were destroying the battlefield. 

Sanders found Edwin Bearss's and J.C. Killian’s 

1962 Fence and Ground Cover Map and realized 

how much of the original battlefield was being lost 

to development. Sanders was also inspired by a 

project being undertaken by ChickamaugaChattanooga NMP to restore an apple orchard that 

was present at the time of the battle. He realized 

that the mowed fields and cleared trees gave the 

park a memorial appearance, rather than an 

accurate representation of the landscape during 

the time of the battle. He and park staff used the 

Fence and Ground Cover Map as the guiding 

document to restore some the battlefield's 

features.33

The move to restore landscape features followed 

the rise of cultural landscape studies and its 

incorporation into historic preservation practice in 

the NPS. Cultural landscapes as an academic field 

of inquiry originated with the work of geographer 

Carl Sauer on “The Morphology of Landscape” in 

1925, which is concerned with the relationships of 

humans and their environment. Cultural 

geographers and folklorists continued to build 

upon his work for the next several decades. In the 

1950s, J.B. Jackson, who did not align himself with 

any particular academic discipline, began to make 

																																																							 31. Sanders Interview, 1-4.

32. Ibid., 8, 17.

33. Ibid., 12-13.

the term “cultural landscape” a familiar term in the 

design field. Jackson published the journal 

Landscape from 1951 and 1968, which influenced 

preservationists interested in historic districts and 

rural landscapes.34 The NPS, too, became involved

in identifying and preserving cultural landscapes. 

In 1978, Ebey’s Landing on Whidbey Island,

Washington, was declared a “National Historical 

Reserve,” one of the first designated cultural 

landscapes in the NPS.35 In 1980, the NPS hired its 

first cultural landscape staff and started to develop 

standards for identifying, treating, and preserving 

cultural landscapes.36 Cultural landscapes were still 

a nebulous concept when Jim Sanders came to 

STRI. The NPS was just then developing standards 

for practice, but that did not deter him from 

reestablishing some landscape features at the park. 

NPS funding during Sanders's administration was 

very conservative, so he had to be creative about 

finding ways to restore these features for little to no 

cost. He issued special use permits to local 

residents to cut trees for firewood in areas where 

the park wanted to reestablish the tree line back at 

its 1862 location. The park borrowed a tree 

transplanter from Natchez Trace Parkway to 

remove trees from historically open fields to areas 

that were forested during the battle, namely the

Round Forest near Hazen Brigade Monument. The 

park even bargained with local residents who had 

chestnut rail fencing to replace theirs with modern 

fencing so the park could have chestnut rail fencing 

in the park. The park also had an agreement with 

nurseries in McMinnville, TN, that gave the park 

balled, burlaped trees in exchange for clippings of 

trees in the national cemetery, which contained a

pure strand of a particular species that they wanted 

to grow in their nurseries.37 These small gestures 

																																																							 34. For more on the influence of cultural geographers on 

cultural landscape studies and practice, see Julie 

Riesenweber, “Landscape Preservation and Cultural 

Geography,” in Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and 

Heritage in Preservation Practice, ed. Richard Longstreth 

(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 23-34.

35. For more on Ebey’s Landing, see Nancy Rottle, “A 

Continuum and Process Framework for Rural Historic 

Landscape Preservation: Revisiting Ebey’s Landing on 

Whidby Island, Washington,” in Cultural Landscapes, 129-

49.

36. Robert Melnick, “Preserving Cultural and Historic 

Landscapes: Developing Standards,” CRM Bulletin 3, no. 1 

(March 1980): 1-2. 

37. Sanders Interview, 8.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 84

added up, enabling the park to manipulate the 

landscape closer to its 1862 appearance. 

While park staff looked for creative solutions to 

restore features on park land, they also were 

looking outside park boundaries to see if the 

agency could acquire additional land that was 

rapidly being developed (see Fig. 32). When 

Sanders arrived in 1974, the NPS funded the park 

to undertake a GMP. This new planning document 

supplanted the traditional park master plan. NPS 

planners incorporated new policies managing 

natural and cultural resources so that parks could 

determine potential impacts. These documents 

were also opened to public comment to ensure 

public participation in the process. The NPS 

contracted with a firm, Miller, Lee, and Wihry, to 

complete the park’s GMP. Meanwhile, NPS staff, 

feeling that land acquisition was a "now or never 

situation," began developing a list of land 

acquisition alternatives.38

Figure 32 Auction sign adjoining Artillery Monument land. 

Photographed by Teresa (Bratcher) Watson, December 5, 

1980. Courtesy of STRI.

Park staff and the contractors focused on several 

different areas for land acquisition (see Fig. 33). 

They recommended areas around the Artillery 

Monument, including a strip of land on the other 

side of Stones River to maintain the vista and 

integrity of McFadden's Ford. They also wanted 

some acreage between the Artillery Monument site 

and Highway 41, primarily for a new park entrance. 

On the west and north sides of the park they

included several residential tracts, because park 

																																																							 38. David D. Thompson, Jr. to John T. Bragg, letter, 

November 24, 1975, Folder 46 D18 Master Plan, Series 1, 

Park Archive.

officials were concerned that this area could be 

subsumed by commercial development. The 

western area also contained the defensive trenches 

of the Pioneer Brigade, which NPS staff hoped to 

preserve. This area abutted Asbury Lane, where 

several African American property owners

associated with the Cemetery community still lived. 

Park staff learned about the historic Blanton House 

site, located southwest of the park, so included it in 

its alternatives as well. Park staff and the 

contractors also recommended a strip of land 

along the southeast portion of Van Cleve Lane to 

provide a buffer for the historic road. They also 

recommended acquiring a long strip of land 

between the railroad and Highway 41 near the 

Hazen Brigade Monument to provide a buffer 

between the memorial and the industrial 

development on the other side. Finally, park staff 

and the contractors recommended purchasing land 

around Redoubt Brannan, a remnant earthwork 

located south of the park’s core.

39 This acquisition 

scheme focused on expanding existing park areas, 

and concentrating on places threatened by 

commercial development. 

Figure 33 Land Acquisition Plan from 1980 GMP. 

																																																							 39. John Hunter to Associate Regional Director of 

Professional Services, memorandum, "Stones River Master 

Plan, Proposed Land Acquisition," February 28, 1975, Folder 

111. L1417 Boundaries, Series 1, Park Archive; National Park 

Service, Stones River National Battlefield General 

Management Plan/General Design Concept (Murfreesboro, 

TN: National Park Service), 79-89.
85 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Living History Interpretation 

The first Civil War battlefield reenactment at a 

national park occurred at Gettysburg in 1959. The 

popularity of the activity aroused interest for 

additional reenactments to commemorate the Civil 

War centennial in an extraordinary show of 

American Cold War pageantry. A group of Civil 

War enthusiasts formed a nonprofit organization, 

the First Manassas Corporation, to plan a major 

reenactment at Manassas National Battlefield to 

mark the one hundredth anniversary of the First 

Battle of Manassas in July 1961 and entered into an 

agreement with the NPS. The First Manassas 

Corporation experienced serious administrative, 

organization, and financial problems leading up to 

the reenactment, but the event went forward. 

Reviews of the event were divided: some spectators 

were enthralled by the pageantry, while others 

criticized the NPS for allowing such a vulgar 

display. The event also cost the NPS a significant 

amount in staff support and operations. 

Reenactors damaged some of the park’s historic 

resources and administrators were concerned 

about liability issues. For these reasons, Director 

Wirth put forth a policy prohibiting reenactments 

on parklands.40

This policy, however, did not quell Civil War 

enthusiasts’ desire to act out the past, or the 

agency’s desire to present a more human element 

to the Civil War. As a way to channel both of these 

needs, the NPS began incorporating living history 

demonstrations into interpretive programs at parks 

all across the country in the mid-1960s through 

living history farms, domestic and craft programs, 

and weapons demonstrations. ChickamaugaChattanooga National Military Park was the first 

Civil War park to incorporate historic firearms 

demonstrations in 1961, which soon spread to 

other military parks, including Stones River 

National Battlefield, although it’s unknown when 

the park first began offering this program.41

The preponderance of living history programs in 

the 1960s and 1970s caused a number of NPS 

																																																							 40. Murray, On a Great Battlefield, 91, 106-07; Zenzen, 

Battling for Manassas, 65-71.

41. Mackintosh, Interpretation in the National Park Service,

under “Living History,” 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mackintosh3/

directions_living_history.htm (accessed February 25, 2016). 

employees to clamor for professionalization and 

standards to ensure that interpreters were 

presenting accurate and authentic depictions of the 

past.42 In 1970, the NPS published William Kennon 

Kay’s handbook for living history interpretation 

called Keep it Alive as part of its Visitor Services 

Training Series.

Following national trends, park staff in the 1970s 

began using living history programs as a key 

interpretive tool to educate visitors about the war 

and also engage volunteers (see Figs. 34-36). They 

expanded the program beyond just firearm 

demonstrations to include cavalry and artillery

programs, which were very popular among visitors. 

Volunteers In Parks, or VIPS as they were called, 

were instrumental in implementing these 

programs. For example, the cavalry demonstrations 

were conducted primarily by volunteers. Four 

volunteers restored a cannon carriage and gave the 

park’s first artillery demonstration on September 1, 

1973. Some volunteers camped at the battlefield for 

a few days throughout the year to demonstrate 

camp life to visitors. They would make minie balls 

to give to visitors.43 Living history programs were a

way for the park to offer new, interactive programs 

for visitors, while also providing a participatory 

activity for community members. 

																																																							 42. Interpretive park rangers interested in 

professionalization could join one of two organizations at 

the time. The Association of Interpretive Naturalists formed 

in 1954, while the Western Interpreters Association (WIA) 

was established in 1965. Both groups came together in 1988 

to form the National Association of Interpreters. “What is 

NAI?,” National Association of Interpreters, 

http://www.interpnet.com/NAI/interp/About/About_NAI/nai/

_About/Who_We_Are.aspx?hkey=4be98c16-d970-4064-

bdbc-e63a3984cab3, accessed June 27, 2016.

43. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1972," and 

Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1973." 
Chapter Five

National Park Service 86

Figure 34 Living history program at STRI, circa 1960s or 

1970s. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

Figure 35 Individual identified as Tony Zeibel, wearing a 

period costume, is shown running across the area between 

the visitor center and national cemetery. Photographed in 

Courtesy of STRI. 

Figure 36 Cavalry living history demonstration, June 15, 

1987, photographed by Don Magee. Cavalry programs 

began nearly a decade earlier. Courtesy of STRI. 

A year after Jim Sanders arrived at the park, the 

park increased its living history programs and 

attendance increased by 88 percent, while general 

park attendance was 120,876, up 12 percent from 

1974. The park had a new Chief of Interpretation 

and Resource Management, Ron Gibbs, who 

replaced Greg Batista when Batista took at job at 

Gateway National Recreation Area. These new 

programs had interpretive messages, but were 

intended to entertain the entire family. For 

example, the park held hayrides through the park 

“to bring back traditions and fun of the 1860 

farming period” in the fall, complete with a 

marshmallow roast half way through the tour (see 

Fig. 37).

44 Park staff gave programs on Civil War 

meal preparations and held Civil War song sing 

alongs. In December 1975, the First Brigade Band 

of Milwaukee, Wisconsin came to the park for a 

reenactment of the time before the battle when

Union and Confederate bands played loud enough 

for the other to hear. The park replicated this event 

the following June, during the nation’s bicentennial 

year, and had seven hundred visitors at the evening 

performance.45

																																																							 44. James Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on 

Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1975,”

February 17, 1976, “Superintendent’s Annual Reports” 

binder, Park Administrative Files.

45. Ibid; James Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report 

on Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 

1976,” January 5, 1977, “Superintendent’s Annual Reports” 

binder, Park Administrative Files. 
87 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 37 Hayride in the fall of 1975. Photographer 

unknown. Courtesy of STRI.

According to Sanders, 1976—the two hundredth 

anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—

was the height of the living history interpretive 

programs during the 1970s; attendance fell off in 

subsequent years as people lost interest and the 

cost of gasoline increased. In 1977, some of the 

park’s VIPs found other interests and Sanders felt 

that the park needed a strong seasonal contingent 

to make up the difference. In 1980, the park was 

able to hire six interpreters for the summer 

season.

46 The park was able to hire a cadre of 

seasonal interpreters throughout the 1980s. 

Preservation and Archeology 

NPS administrators expanded their view of 

historic preservation during the 1970s. Planners 

and NPS administrators working in the previous 

decade quite clearly believed that their focus on 

historic preservation and interpretation should be 

limited to the three days the battle took place: 

December 31, 1862 to January 2, 1863. For 

example, Superintendent Willett was reluctant to 

work with Homer Pittard in preserving Lunette 

Granger because the earthwork postdated the 

battle. Superintendent Quist even proposed 

deleting Redoubt Brannan from the park’s 

																																																							 46. James Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on 

Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1977,” 

January 3, 1978, James Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual 

Report on Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar 

Year 1978,” 1979, and James Sanders, “Superintendent’s 

Annual Report on Stones River National Battlefield for 

Calendar Year 1979,” March 19, 1980,” all 

“Superintendent’s Annual Reports” binder, Park 

Administrative Files; Don Magee, "Stones River National 

Battlefield 1980 Annual Report," March 11, 1981, Folder 

Stones River National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual 

Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP. 

boundary for the same reason.

47 So it was a 

remarkable change that the NPS supported the city 

of Murfreesboro when it decided it wanted to 

preserve Fortress Rosecrans and develop it into a 

city park with the possibility that the NPS might 

eventually take over.48

This change in attitude coincided with growing 

public support for historic preservation both 

locally and nationally. Local civic organizations and 

national professional organizations were aware that 

urbanization, including suburban sprawl and urban 

renewal, were destroying many historic sites in 

communities across the country. In 1966, Congress 

passed the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), which expanded the federal historic 

preservation program. This new law created the 

National Register for Historic Places and State 

Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). It also 

prompted NPS administrators to take a better look 

at the resources within their own parks that might 

be eligible for the National Register.49 NPS 

archeologist John Cotter reported in 1971 that 

Redoubt Brannan was covered in kudzu, an 

invasive plant, and was being used as a shooting 

range by city police. He recommended that it be 

investigated by archeologists and developed to help 

tell the story of the Civil War at the park.50

In 1973, James Huhta, MTSU professor of history,

nominated Fortress Rosecrans to the National 

																																																							 47. Lawrence Quist to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Deletion of Brannan Redoubt from Stones River National 

Battlefield," February 1, 1962, Folder 111 L-1417 

Boundaries, Series 1, Park Archive.

48. John Hunter to Southeast Region Chief Division of

Lands, memorandum, "Draft of Proposed Transfer of Lands 

by the City of Murfreesboro," September 20, 1973, Folder 

111 L-1417 Boundaries, Series 1, Park Archive.

49. The NPS, as noted by efforts at Stones River National 

Battlefield, was more diligent about complying with the 

1966 NHPA than other federal agencies. Amendments in 

1980 created Section 110, which required federal agencies 

to carry out their own historic preservation programs in 

pursuant to NHPA. 

50. John Cotter to Chief of Eastern Service Center Office of 

History and Historic Architecture, memorandum, "Trip to 

Oklahoma and Arkansas May 5-12, 1971 (plus note on 

Stones River)," May 19, 1971, Folder 82 H-14 History, Series 

1, Park Archive. Park staff think it may have been Lunette 

Thomas that was used as a firing range, but Cotter specified 

Redoubt Brannan. He may have confused the earthworks, 

or maybe officers used Lunette Thomas for target practice 

on another occasion. 
Chapter Five

National Park Service 88

Register of Historic Places.51 The nomination 

argued that Fortress Rosecrans is the largest 

earthwork built by Union forces during the Civil 

War and is significant for its association with the 

Union occupation of Murfreesboro.52 With this 

designation, NPS staff began to see these 

earthworks as worthy of preservation and 

interpretation. In 1976, the City of Murfreesboro 

with matching funds from the NPS commissioned 

Steven J. Fox to complete a preliminary 

archeological investigation of Fortress Rosecrans 

to provide more information about how the 

earthworks were constructed.53

As the park was preparing its General Management 

Plan, archeologist Catherine Blee from the Historic 

Preservation Division of the Denver Service Center 

completed an assessment of cultural resources at 

STRI and listed possible impacts from proposed 

projects. She provided a brief overview of the 

artifacts, structures, cemeteries, and earthworks 

that related to the battle, but noted that a more 

thorough archeological survey was needed.54

Four archeologists from the NPS Southeast 

Archeological Center (SEAC) visited the park in 

September and October 1976 to undertake survey 

work. The surveyed areas on either side of Van 

Cleve Lane and the southeast side of the national 

cemetery in the event that Van Cleve was widened 

or the park built a new entry road. They found no 

evidence of historic or prehistoric occupation at 

those sites. They also did not find anything when 

looking for sites for luncheon areas within the main 

park area or widening existing parking areas. They 

investigated several sites within the park where 

there was historical evidence. They did not find any 

																																																							 51. Huhta’s research specialty was historic preservation. He 

founded the Center for Historic Preservation in 1984 and 

later served on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

from 1994 to 2002. 

52. Jim Huhta, Fortress Rosecrans National Register of 

Historic Places Nomination, September 1, 1973, 

http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/74001926.pdf

(accessed February 2, 2016).

53. Steven J. Fox, Archeology of Fortress Rosecrans: A Civil 

War Garrison in Middle Tennessee, prepared for City of 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee Historical Commission, and 

National Park Service, 1978,19-22. 

54. Catherine Blee, An Assessment of the Cultural Resources 

of Stones River National Battlefield and the Proposed 

Development Impacts on Them (Denver, CO: Historic 

Preservation Division, Denver Service Center, National Park 

Service, January 1976), 1.

evidence for a blockhouse, which was purportedly 

used to defend the railroad. They did find a portion 

of the Nashville Pike Tollhouse, surmising that the 

structure burned after it was hit with artillery 

shells. They did not find evidence of a log house 

located east of Van Cleve Lane between the 

railroad and Old Nashville Highway. They found an 

artifact concentration near the reported site of a 

log farmhouse with a detached kitchen west of Van 

Cleve Lane and south of Old Nashville Highway, 

but found no structural evidence. They also did not 

find evidence of two log cabins west of Van Cleve 

Lane and north of Manson Pike.55

While undertaking their survey work, the SEAC 

archeologists attempted to survey sites that were 

not within the park boundary, but were on 

adjacent lands that were proposed for acquisition. 

The park was especially interested in the Blanton 

House site. This site is located outside the park 

boundary near Wilkinson Pike. The house was no 

longer extant, but it was believed to have been a 

hospital used by both Union and Confederate 

soldiers during the battle. The property also had 

ties to the Revolutionary War because Thomas 

Blanton, a Revolutionary War veteran, was buried 

in the family cemetery on the site. The SEAC team 

obtained permission from the Blanton site 

property owner. They dug five archeological tests 

within the standing foundations, but found no 

definitive mid-nineteenth century artifacts. They 

noted that this did not disprove that a portion of 

the house dated from the Civil War era. They dug a 

trench in the Blanton Cemetery and found three 

graves. The SEAC team requested permission to 

conduct survey work at the McFadden House site 

and cemetery on Van Cleve Lane, an unnamed 

road from Van Cleve Lane to McFadden’s Ford, 

and the Pioneer Brigade earthworks, but property 

owners did not provide access.56

Park staff were eager to use professional 

archeologists to learn more about the battle, but 

they also feared amateur archeologists and relic 

hunters who might plunder the battlefield. The 

Civil War centennial had many shortcomings, 

																																																							 55. John W. Walker, J. Donald Merritt, and Steven J. 

Shephard, Archeological Investigations at Stones River 

National Battlefield, Tennessee (Tallahassee, FL: Southeast 

Archeological Center, 1990), i-ii. 

56. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

General Management Plan/General Design Concept, 85; 

Walker, Merritt, and Shepard, Archeological Investigations 

at Stones River National Battlefield, Tennessee, iii.
89 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

including making relic hunting a popular activity 

among hobbyists with metal detectors.57 Park staff

listed relic hunting as a law enforcement issue in 

1972.58 Their fears were likely not allayed in 1976, 

when Larry Hicklen, an industrial chemist by 

training, purchased the store next to the entrance 

to the park visitor center and opened Yesteryear, a 

Civil War relic store. Hicklen recalled that park 

staff were distrustful of his business at first, afraid 

that it might encourage visitors to do their own 

metal detecting in the park. Over the years, 

however, Hicklen has gained the trust of park staff

because of his expertise in Civil War ordnance and 

military history. His store provides a visitor service

that the park cannot by catering to collectors. 

Hicklen also explicitly discourages visitors from 

looting the battlefield.59

There is also evidence that NPS staff at Stones 

River National Battlefield were interested in 

incorporating African American history into the 

park's preservation and interpretation. In 1973, 

Mrs. Mary Stewart, a student at MTSU, submitted 

a paper to the park called, "Black History at Stones 

River National Battlefield."60 As of the date of this 

administrative history, this paper was missing from 

the park’s library and archive, but it may have 

contained information about William Holland, a 

USCT veteran. He and his grandson, a World War I 

veteran, are buried right outside of the Hazen 

Brigade Cemetery wall on land that he purchased 

in 1875. In any case, sometime in the 1970s park 

staff learned about the story of William Holland. 

They included his gravesite in the proposed land 

acquisition plan with the intention of interpreting 

African American history at the site.61 This is 

another small example of how park staff began to 

broaden the story told at Stones River National 

Battlefield during the 1970s. However, park staff 

would not work to actively work to incorporate 

African American history into the park’s 

interpretation for many more years. 

																																																							 57. Larry Hicklen Interview by Angela Sirna, November 13, 

2015, Murfreesboro, TN, 1.

58. Black and Hunter, "Management Objectives Stones River 

National Battlefield."

59. Hicklen Interview, 6, 9.

60. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1973." 

61. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

General Management Plan/General Design Concept, 72.

Recreational Development 

Preserving satellite historic sites that were not 

contiguous with the battlefield, such as earthworks, 

fit with NPS and community efforts to create 

recreational opportunities using park resources. 

Residential developments were cropping up in 

Rutherford County and residents wanted places to 

hike, walk, camp, and bike. Park staff realized they 

could use park land to capture these audiences and 

meet other management goals, such as historic 

preservation, ecosystem protection, and

environmental education goals.

The same day that the NPS dedicated the new 

Cedar Glades ESA in April 1972, the park also 

dedicated a new historic hiking trail that was 

developed with cooperation from Heart of 

Tennessee Trails, a non-profit group operated by 

adult Boy Scouts interested in promoting outdoor 

recreation and history among young people.62 The 

trail was in two, five, and ten-mile increments. It 

took hikers around the park to see both Civil War 

features and the new Cedar Glades ESA. A map

noted landscape features, like old corn and cotton 

fields, cedar trees, and limestone outcroppings (see 

Fig. 38).

63 This new trail system emphasized 

recreation as a form of education, which was a 

departure from the way park administrators had 

treated the visitor experience as a civic pilgrimage

in the 1950s and 1960s. Furthermore, this new trail 

tied natural and cultural resources together, 

perhaps for the first time. 

																																																							 62. John W. Justice to Park Superintendent, letter, January 

11, 1972, Folder 34 A8215 Centennial Events, Series 1, Park 

Archive.

63. National Park Service and Heart of Tennessee Trails, 

"The Stones River National Battlefield Trails," 1972, Folder 

34 A-8215 Centennial Events, Series 1, Park Archive.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 90

Figure 38 Stones River National Battlefield Trail Map, Heart 

of Tennessee Trails, 1972. Courtesy of STRI.

Figure 39 Boy Scouts salute the American flag in Stones 

River National Cemetery, sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. 

Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

Superintendent Hunter also opened Redoubt 

Brannan for special event group camping. Despite 

the "jungle-like areas of bush and vines," he felt 

that it was an "ideal location" for youth group 

camping and public picnicking, since the 

earthworks offered views of Stones River.64 Two 

hundred and fifty Boy Scouts camped there to 

																																																							 64. John Hunter to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Picnicking and Youth Group Camping," January 5, 1971, 

Folder 34 A8215 Centennial Events, Series 1, Park Archive.

inaugurate the new hiking trail in 1972, despite the 

kudzu growth.65 Park administrators did not intend 

on making the earthworks a permanent campsite, 

but it shows that they were open to this kind of 

activity on the battlefield for special groups like the 

Boy Scouts, an organization geared toward outdoor 

recreation an education (see Fig. 39). 

The nation’s bicentennial stirred public interest in 

history. Locally, the City of Murfreesboro 

responded by seeking to develop some of its 

historic resources for recreation and interpretation. 

Previously, in June 1965, the city had purchased the 

remaining section of Fortress Rosecrans from the 

F.D. Bills family. The city briefly considered using 

this land for a "Pioneer Village" in 1969. Later, in 

1975, the city decided to place "Cannonsburgh 

Village" in a different part of town.

66 In 1972, the 

Heart of Tennessee Trails was interested in 

developing trails at the old fort for recreation 

purposes, but momentum from the nation's 

bicentennial prompted city officials to rethink this 

area and develop it into Old Fort Park, complete 

with various recreational amenities for the 

community. Sanders recalled that people were 

using the earthworks to ride their motorbikes, 

leaving worn trails. The City of Murfreesboro 

developed a golf course and other recreational 

facilities on the west side of the property, but 

worked to preserve the remaining two lunettes and 

curtainwall. The city received $385,017.32 from the 

Land & Water Conservation Fund between 1973 

and 1988 for land acquisition and development 

projects. Section 6(f)(3) of the Land & Water 

Conservation Act stipulates that the city maintain 

the area as some form of public outdoor recreation. 

In other words, in cannot significantly change Old 

Fort Park’s use.67

																																																							 65. John Hunter to Regional Director, memorandum, 

"Inauguration of Stones River Historic Trail May 12, 13, 14, 

1972," May 16, 1972, Folder 34 A8215 Centennial Events, 

Series 1, Park Archive.

66. "Open House at Fortress," Rutherford Courier (Smyrna, 

TN), November 20, 1969; Nancy D. Gennaro, "Cannonsburgh 

Village to Celebrate Pioneer Days," Daily News Journal, 

April 20, 2015.

67. Sanders interview, 21; Leonard E. Brown, "Fortress 

Rosecrans: A History, 1865-1990," Tennessee Historical 

Quarterly 50, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 139-40; “Mapping the Land

Water Conservation Fund,” The Wilderness Society, 

http://wilderness.org/mapping-land-and-waterconservation-fund-lwcf (accessed November 4, 2016); 

National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund 

State Assistance Program Federal Financial Assistance 

Manual, vol. 69 (October 1, 2008), under “Section L: 

Significant Change of Use,” 
91 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Superintendent Sanders noticed that local 

residents enjoyed using the park for walking, 

running, and biking, and he did what he could to 

encourage those activities. The park painted 

mileage markers on the tour loop so visitors could 

keep track of their distance.68 Sanders was also a 

member of the city's Hike and Bike Committee, an

offshoot of the bicentennial activities. It was this 

committee that came up with the idea of 

developing a trail along Stones River that would 

connect various historic sites, including Old Fort 

Park, Redoubt Brannan, the Artillery Monument, 

and the national park.69 This proposal eventually 

made its way into the 1980 GMP and represents 

the first effort to develop what is now known as the 

Murfreesboro Greenway system.70

Youth Programs 

The park's involvement in environmental 

education and recreational development during 

this period indicates that park staff were working 

to engage visitors and community members in a 

variety of ways. The park remained active in youth 

programming, hosting NYC workers, STEP 

participants, Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), 

and Comprehensive Employment and Training 

Assistance (CETA) program. These allowed the 

park to help diversify the park’s workforce by 

welcoming young women and African Americans 

into their ranks. 

In addition to the STEP program, the park also 

engaged youth through work programs, which also 

incorporated environmental education into 

program goals. The NYC was a War on Poverty 

program, first implemented at the park by Sherman 

Perry. Superintendent Hunter also hosted the 

program in 1972 and 1973. These youth were 

primarily put to work on maintenance projects, 

presumably to give them job experience, since the 

program targeted underprivileged youth. Hunter 

did not detail the activities or the number of NYC 

workers, but in 1972 he reported that some NYC 

participants helped seal all the parking lots and the 

																																																																																						 https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf

(accessed November 4, 2016). 

68. Sanders Interview, 16.

69. Ibid., 21.

70. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

General Management Plan/General Design Concept, 75-76.

road leading to staff quarters and the maintenance 

area.

71 In 1973, he reported that the NYC 

supplemented the park maintenance program by 

1,274 man hours, an estimated value of $2,039.60. 

He wrote that, “While the program requires a 

higher degree of supervision, there is no doubt as 

to the value the park receives in return for this 

effort.”72

In 1977, Superintendent Sanders hired local high 

school students through a new program called the 

YCC (see Figs. 40 and 41). This program was 

loosely modeled after the New Deal Civilian 

Conservation Corps and other NPS youth 

programs, but it was nonresidential and welcomed 

young women to join. Sanders recalls that the park 

was able to hire thirty-two youths and leaders to 

help the park with restoration work.73 Work 

accomplishment reports show that this group 

helped the park with trail maintenance, landscape 

restoration, and historic preservation.74 The 

program also had a significant environmental 

awareness component. Three years after the 

program began, Sanders considered it a success, 

writing: 

It was believed by all to be a very successful 

summer for young people of its kind. This is 

due principally to the fact that monies are 

available for proper supervision and because it 

is a cross section of male, female, minorities, 

high income, and lower income families; which 

is a cultural mix and changed racial and 

economic attitudes for the better.75

Sanders attributed the program's success to proper 

funding levels and the diversity of the group. 

																																																							 71. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1972.”

72. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1973."

73. Sanders Interview, 8.

74. [James Sanders], "Completed Projects Youth 

Conservation Corps, Stones River National Battlefield, June 

19 to August 11, 1978," [August 1978], Folder 39 A98 YCC 

(1978-1981), Series 1, Park Archive; [James Sanders], 

"Completed Projects Youth Conservation Corps, Stones 

River National Battlefield, June 18 to August 10, 1979," 

[August 1979; Frances McPeak, "Youth Conservation Corps 

Work Projects, June 16 to August 8, 1980," [August 1980].

75. Jim Sanders, "1979 Report on YCC Camp 7602 Stones 

River National Battlefield," September 6, 1979, Folder 39 

A98 YCC (1978-1981), Series 1, Park Archive.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 92

Figure 40 Male and female YCC members wearing YCC 

jumpsuits working in a field. Date and photographer 

unknown, but appears to be from 1980s. Courtesy of STRI. 

Figure 41 YCC crew members construct a fence. 

Photographed by J. Hesson in 1980. Courtesy of STRI.

Sanders found additional manpower through a 

program called the Comprehensive Employment 

and Training Assistance, or "CETA," which the 

park used to replace the NYC when it was 

discontinued in 1975.76 In 1973, Congress passed a 

law called the "Comprehensive Employment and 

Training Act," which aimed at helping persistently 

unemployed workers or low-income youth during 

the summer months.77 CETA was very much in line 

																																																							 76. Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on Stones 

River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1975.” 

77. Comprehensive Employment and Training Act,

December 28, 1973, Public Law 93-203, 93d Congress, 1st 

Session.

with previous efforts to alleviate poverty through 

job training, like the 1964 Economic Opportunity 

Act. However, this new law was part of President 

Richard Nixon's "New Federalism," which

strengthened ties between the federal government 

and local communities by giving block grants to 

local governments.78 During the summer of 1975, 

Sanders was able to hire twenty to thirty 

individuals, plus the staff to supervise them, using 

CETA funds. At one point that summer, the park 

had as many as forty-six teenagers working at one 

time. The park used these workers for various 

maintenance projects, but park managers were 

becoming increasingly concerned about the 

presence of exotic plants in the park, namely 

Japanese honeysuckle, and used the CETA team to 

clear out large swaths of these plants. Park 

managers did not know how to treat these invasive 

species yet, but the work of the CETA workers 

helped them understand how fast these plants 

grew back. 79

Like the NYA and NYC programs that the park had 

utilized in the past, the CETA program was a 

valuable, but ultimately short-lived program, 

designed to meet the federal government’s goals for 

economic reform. The park hosted this program 

approximately three summers. The last time it was 

mentioned was in the Superintendent’s 1978 

Annual Report. The park had asked for ten 

workers, but only received eight. By the end of the 

summer, all but three CETA workers quit.80 It is 

likely that the park became more involved in the 

YCC and discontinued participating in the CETA 

program. 

National Cemetery Flooding 

Flooding in the national cemetery continued to be 

a major problem in the early 1970s (see Fig. 42). As 

many as 250 graves might be inundated by flooding 

and it would take as long as three to four weeks for 

																																																							 78. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 

The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act: Early 

Readings from a Hybrid Block Grant (Washington, DC: 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, June 

1977), 3-6, 

http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/Reports/policy/A-58.pdf

(accessed January 28, 2016).

79. Sanders interview, 8; Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual 

Report on Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar 

Year 1975.”

80. Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on Stones 

River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1978.”
93 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

the water to recede.81 In 1973, the NPS formally

closed the cemetery to burials because the vacant 

sections were susceptible to flooding. When 

Sanders arrived in 1974, interments were still 

ongoing for those that already had reservations.82

However, public relations were continually 

strained because water was still inundating 

gravesites.

Family members put pressure on the park to stop 

the flooding in the national cemetery. Margaret 

Whitaker of Murfreesboro was particularly 

aggrieved to find her son's grave inundated by 

water. Private First Class Lloyd Rushbrooke “Tim” 

Whitaker, Jr. had died after falling off a 20-foot 

cliff into the Tennessee River at Redstone Arsenal 

Space Center in Hunstville, Alabama, on June 18, 

1973, and was buried at Stones River National 

Cemetery later that month.83 His mother charged 

that no one from the NPS or the funeral home 

warned her family that her son's gravesite was 

subject to seasonal flooding. Mrs. Whitaker wrote 

to the upper echelons of the NPS, the park 

superintendent, congressional representatives, and 

President Nixon. She contacted a law firm and 

asked that her son be moved to a new gravesite.84

Sanders offered two possible locations within the 

national cemetery, but she decided to move her son 

to Nashville National Cemetery.85 Sanders granted 

her permission in November 1974.86 Her efforts 

forced NPS personnel to address the flooding in 

the national cemetery.

																																																							 81. James Sanders, "Notice of Public Meeting," May 30, 

1975, Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 Flood," 

Series 1, Park Archive.

82. Sanders Interview, 4-5.

83. Martha M. Whitaker, "Letter to the Editor: Flooded 

Grave Disturbs Woman," Daily News Journal, January 20, 

1974, Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 Flood," 

Series 1, Park Archive.

84. Martha Whitaker to Frances McPeak, letter, January 29, 

1974, Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 Flood," 

Series 1, Park Archive; Joe Evins to Rogers C.B. Morton, 

letter, July 16, 1974.

85. [James Sanders], "Discussions with Mrs. Whitaker," 

[October 1974], Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 

Flood," Series 1, Park Archive.

86. James Sanders to Martha Whitaker, letter, November 4, 

1974, Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 Flood," 

Series 1, Park Archive.

Figure 42 Flooding in the national cemetery, showing 

graves under water. Photographed by Jack Totty, December 

29, 1972. Courtesy of STRI. 

Frank Nix, an NPS engineer from Everglades 

National Park, examined the national cemetery in 

1972 and said there was little the park could do to 

stop the flooding, but adding drainage wells might 

offer some relief. He advised the regional director 

that the national cemetery be closed for burials.87

Superintendent Hunter went along with Nix's 

recommendations to close the cemetery, but 

Margaret Whitaker's complaints prompted the 

NPS to reexamine the issue. In April 1974, 

engineer James (Marvin) Stump from Natchez 

Trace Parkway visited the site and found a clogged 

sinkhole near the intersection of Old Nashville 

Highway and Van Cleve Lane that was causing 

water to pond. He recommended installing a 

culvert under Old Nashville Highway so that water 

collecting in the national cemetery could be 

directed out onto the battlefield. The park would 

construct a swale in the battlefield to move the 

water out towards Asbury Lane. However, this 

meant coordination from the state and county, who 

were reluctant to get involved. Adjacent 

landowners were not pleased with water coming 

across their property.88 Furthermore, the NPS had 

to undertake Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance to make sure 

the project did not adversely impact the battlefield 

or national cemetery. Upon his departure in 1974, 

John Hunter told his successor that the regional 

office was aware of the potential legal issues, but 

																																																							 87. Frank Nix to Regional Director, memorandum, "Closure 

Stones River National Cemetery, Murfreesboro, Tennessee," 

March 6, 1972, Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 

Flood," Series 1, Park Archive.

88. [John Hunter] to [James Sanders], letter, [1974], Folder 

167 Floods, Storms, and Drains "1973 Flood," Series 1, Park 

Archive.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 94

advised him to move forward "and deal with the 

consequences later."89 Sanders was able to get the 

project through after holding a public meeting and 

submitting the necessary Section 106 

documentation (see Figs. 43 and 44).

90 However, 

after the NPS and Rutherford County Highways 

completed the project in May 1975, adjacent 

landowners complained about flooding on their 

properties years after the project was completed.

91

Figure 43 Construction of swale to alleviate flooding in 

national cemetery in 1975. Courtesy of STRI. 

Figure 44 Installation of culvert under park tour road in 

1975 to help direct water. Courtesy of STRI. 

With the water out of the national cemetery, 

Sanders turned his attention to restoring the 

cemetery back to its 1892 appearance using the 

landscape plan from that year. The plan itself was 

																																																							 89. [Hunter to Sanders].

90. James Sanders, "Notice of Public Meeting," May 30, 

1975; "106 Compliance Statement: Flood Water Channel 

Construction Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery," [1975], Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains 

"1973 Flood," Series 1, Park Archive; Sanders, 

“Superintendent’s Annual Report on Stones River National 

Battlefield for Calendar Year 1975.” 

91. Danny Porter to Frances McPeak, telephone call, 

September 5, 1986, Folder 167 Floods, Storms, and Drains 

"1973 Flood," Series 1, Park Archive.

more like an as-built drawing than a formal 

landscape plan that offers prescriptions for 

planting and lists of vegetation, a distinction that 

complicated landscape management efforts for 

many years later. Nevertheless, research for this 

restoration began in 1975, and the park completed 

the project by June 1976, just in time for the 

nation's bicentennial. That same summer, Sanders 

also reinstituted Memorial Day activities, which 

had fallen to the wayside in recent years. Sanders 

was part of the local bicentennial commission to 

ensure the park's participation, and the park ended 

up hosting the very first event, which occurred on 

Memorial Day. Ceremonies began at the site of the 

historic rostrum and then proceeded to the 

flagpole in the national cemetery.92 Sanders also 

worked with veterans groups, including the 

Disabled Veterans of America, which gave him an 

award for his accomplishments.93

1980 General Management Plan 

Started in 1974, the NPS and the firm Miller, Lee, 

and Wihry completed the General Management 

Plan for Stones River National Battlefield in 1980 

along with an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 required the park to undertake an 

EIS. This new law required the NPS to consider the 

impacts to natural and cultural resources prior to 

development and invites public comment on 

projects on federal land or using federal funds. The 

plan took nearly six years to complete, and 

experienced several set backs. The first delay 

occurred in 1974, when the NPS found that the 

draft submitted by the contractor was incomplete. 

The contractor had not properly considered the 

alternatives and did not do a thorough analysis of 

environmental impacts.94 Once the park 

established better lines of communication with the 

GMP team, they found it difficult to keep up with 

the development surrounding the battlefield.95 But 

when it was completed, the GMP was an important 

document codifying the NPS's commitment to the 

																																																							 92. Sanders Interview, 9.

93. Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on Stones 

River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1975”; Sanders 

Interview, 17-18.

94. James Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on 

Stones River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1974,”

February 21, 1975, “Superintendent’s Annual Reports” 

binder, Park Administrative Files.

95. Ibid.
95 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

"greater battlefield" and restoring the landscape 

back to its 1862 appearance.

The 1980 GMP focused heavily on land acquisition 

for the first time since the War Department created 

the park. NPS staff were clearly concerned with 

encroaching development. They focused the 

acquisition program on nine different areas: the 

Artillery Monument, McFadden's Ford, land 

between the Artillery Monument and Highway 41, 

parcels adjacent to the northwest corner of the 

park, land along the west side of the park, land near 

the southwest corner of the park, land along Van 

Cleve Lane, parcels southeast of Hazen Brigade 

Monument, and a strip of land between Highway 

41 and the railroad. The purpose of these choices 

was to give the park a new entrance off of Highway 

41, create some buffer areas for the park to 

diminish the visual and noise effects of industrial 

encroachments, relocate TVA power lines running 

through the park, and acquire historic sites that 

would enhance interpretation, such as the Blanton 

House Site.96

The land acquisition program would affect African 

American residents living north of the national 

cemetery and those living between the park 

boundary and Asbury Lane, namely along Nickens 

Lane. Some of them may have been affected by the 

War Department's acquisition efforts in the late 

1920s and early 1930s, or knew those who had 

been displaced. Mary Vaughter, the daughter of 

Ellis Smith who had land near the Artillery 

Monument, also had land that the NPS wanted to 

purchase. Seven acres of her family's land had been

condemned for Mission 66 development of the 

Artillery Monument. In an oral history interview, 

Sanders believed that the African American 

community did not openly object to the proposals. 

In his words, 

They were very quite, reserved, respectful, and I 

don't think they would—My era, the era that I 

was there, they would not voice objections. 

They did not. And even when I met with each 

one personally, when we were trying to reroute 

our entrance to come to the north of them, 

wouldn't have bothered them because it was 

vacant land where we wanted to go. But they 

were not objection[able] to that. The only 

individual that had some second thought and 

we were going to actually move him—and I 

don't know if this would have been a second 

																																																							 96. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

General Management Plan/General Design Concept, 79-89.

move for him or if he was already there—but he 

was the one that was [living] on the Chicago 

Board of Trade earthen works. And he used 

those earthworks for his garbage dump.97

Sanders hints that while his personal relationships 

with the park’s African American neighbors were 

excellent, they may have felt uncomfortable vocally 

disagreeing with the federal government.98 Another 

incident indicates that he also understood their 

ingrained reluctance to vocalize any disagreement 

with the federal government. Sanders lived in staff 

quarters in the national cemetery and his children 

played with their African American neighbors 

frequently. His family often invited them to play at 

their house and the maintenance area. He 

remembered feeling uncomfortable when he asked 

Mrs. King to babysit and she arrived wearing an all 

white outfit. 

And I felt when I went there a little bit 

embarrassed because I felt a little bit of the Old 

South still there and them kind of feeling like 

they needed to be in a certain place, you know. 

They kind of knew their place according to the 

old traditions. 

The "old traditions" that Sanders refers were

vestiges of Jim Crow segregation. 

The NPS opened the GMP to public comment in 

1979 and received mostly favorable comments 

supporting the park’s plan to protect and interpret 

the area's history and natural history. However, 

landowners and other area residents did not feel 

the same way. Twenty-five of thirty-seven 

individual landowners affected by the plan 

responded. Fifteen opposed the plan, while ten 

others supported the plan or alternative easements. 

Those writers voicing opposition argued that such 

a plan would stifle economic growth, cost too 

much money, and impinge on the rights of 

property owners.99 The NPS team would have to 

find a way to compromise with these landowners.

The park's congressional delegation informed the 

GMP team that the package was too expensive. 

The NPS needed to find a way to reduce the price 

in order for Congress to expand the park boundary 

																																																							 97. Sanders Interview, 15-16.

98. Ibid., 15.

99. [James Sanders], "Summary of Public Comments on 

GMP/GDC and DES," December 1979, Folder 438 D-18 

General Management Plan, Series 1, Park Archive.
Chapter Five

National Park Service 96

and satisfy local concerns. Sanders and the GMP 

team decided to use easements, a new landscape 

management tool, that would allow them to 

purchase development rights but not the land itself. 

Agricultural land would remain agricultural. They 

could also dictate building heights on commercial 

properties. The GMP team, then, came up with a 

new plan that mixed purchasing land in fee simple 

with purchasing land easements.

100 This new 

package included 185 acres to be purchased and 77 

acres to placed under easement at an estimated 

cost of $4.3 million, reduced from $7.5 million. The

new plan dropped all but two neighboring 

businesses—Larry Hicklen's Yesteryear store and 

Lester Smotherman's mobile home sales park. It 

also meant that four families on the west side of the 

park would be forced to relocate. Seven other 

landowners would be given the option to relocate 

or be granted life estates.101

The NPS approved Stones River NB's GMP and 

EIS, but congressional efforts to expand the park 

boundary failed that year. A bill to expand the park 

passed the House of Representatives, but failed to 

pass the Senate.102 The NPS would have to wait 

until politics were favorable in order to carry the 

land acquisition program forward. 

Park Staffing 

STRI staff underwent important adjustments 

during the 1970s, reflecting larger changes in the 

agency regarding professionalization and the 

hiring of women and minorities. The General 

Authorities Act of 1976 gave the agency authority 

to use law enforcement rangers to protect persons 

and property within national parks. Prior the 

General Authorities Act, agency law enforcement 

policy was vague. This new policy helped the NPS 

professionalize the Park Ranger position.103

Backlund said that this policy change also led the 

Park Ranger position to be divided into two 

different categories in the 1990s: law enforcement 

																																																							 100. Sanders Interview, 22.

101. "Park Plan Altered, Discussed," Daily News Journal, 

March 2, 1980; "Battlefield Park Would Buy Fewer Acres 

under New Plan," Nashville Banner, May 6, 1980.

102. Magee, "Stones River National Battlefield 1980 Annual 

Report."

103. Tony Sisto, “Law Enforcement and the General 

Authorities Act: 20 Years Later,” Ranger 8, no. 2 (Spring 

1997): 2.

and interpretation. Professionalization meant that 

Park Rangers would start to move away from being 

generalists to being more specialized.104

Another occupational series change was the 

creation of the Park Technician series, which, 

according to Backlund, occurred under Hartzog’s 

administration. The original intention of this series 

was to create lower-graded positions in order to 

hire locals, who were more likely to stay at a park 

for a longer period of time, to help create a sense 

of continuity.105 However, in 1978, the Association 

for National Park Rangers (ANPR) brought 

forward a number of problems posed by the series, 

primarily that there was little room for career 

advancement. Park Rangers and Park Technicians 

interested in professionalizing the field and 

building a social network had formed the ANPR 

the previous year. The ANPR membership noted 

that those serving in Park Technician positions 

worked in areas, such as interpretation and 

resource management, often lacked necessary 

academic credentials. Despite these grievances, the 

Park Technician series remained in use until the 

1990s.106 Several employees at STRI were under 

this series. 

In his first year at Stones River National 

Battlefield, Hunter had the assistance of 

Administrative Clerk Frances McPeak, 

Interpretive Specialist and Historian Don F. 

Adams, Park Aid Bettie Cook (part-time 

appointment), Park Technician Barbara Brooks 

(temporary appointment), Maintenance Foreman 

Richard Denny, and Maintenance Worker August 

King in addition to several seasonal maintenance 

and interpretive staff. Don Adams was promoted 

and transferred to Virgin Island National Park and 

was replaced by Gregorio Battista in October 1972, 

who served as both the Law Enforcement Ranger 

																																																							 104. Gilbert Backlund Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, June 8, 2016, Part Three. Angela Sirna sat 

down for a third oral history session with Backlund, but the 

recording equipment malfunctioned before the audio file 

could be saved. Sirna took notes during the interview and 

wrote a summary immediately after. 

105. Ibid.

106. Rick Smith and Jim Brady, “History,” Association of 

National Park Rangers, 

https://aonpr29.wildapricot.org/History, accessed June 21, 

2016; “ANPR Position Paper: Park Technician and Park 

Ranger,” Association for National Park Rangers Newsletter 

1, no. 2 (June 1979): 1-2. 
97 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

and Park Historian. Barbara Brooks worked on the 

park’s environmental programming during her 

nine-month appointment in 1972. After Brooks 

left in 1972, Bettie Cook, now Park Technician, 

worked on environmental education programs.

107 

When Jim Sanders arrived, he filled a few more key 

positions. In 1978, he hired Teresa Watson as a 

Clerk-Typist. He also hired Bobby Simerly as the 

Park Maintenance Foreman. Both became

longtime employees. 

As previously mentioned, Sanders worked to 

diversify the park’s workforce through youth 

programs and seasonal positions. In 1975, Sanders 

reached out to Fisk University and Tennessee State 

University, both historically black universities, 

about seasonal positions for students in both 

interpretation and maintenance.108 Teresa Watson

recalled that a few young kids from the 

neighboring African American community were 

hired through the YCC program, which was an 

important way to getting this group involved in the 

park. Watson recalled one instance when he hired 

a young African American woman named Dawna 

Jones for a seasonal position, but Jones was not 

from Murfreesboro and was concerned about 

finding a place to live. Sanders reached out to the 

African American community along Asbury Lane 

and found a place for Jones to stay that summer.109

Conclusion 

Superintendent Sanders was promoted while 

Congress discussed the park's boundary expansion 

bill. He became Superintendent of Biscayne 

National Park in Florida, where he remained for 

thirteen years.110 In his six years at the park, he 

																																																							 107. Hunter, "Superintendent's Annual Report 1973." 

108. Sanders, “Superintendent’s Annual Report on Stones 

River National Battlefield for Calendar Year 1975.”

109. Teresa Watson Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, February 18, 2016.

110. Sanders was at Biscayne National Park when Hurricane 

Andrew, a category five storm, ravaged the park, which was 

emotionally and physically draining for him. He asked for a 

transfer and elected to go to Voyageurs National Park in 

Minnesota, where he remained for almost six years. He then 

became superintendent of Harry S. Truman National 

Historic Site in Missouri. Sanders retired after forty-four 

years of public service on January 1, 2010, from his post as 

accomplished a great deal, oftentimes picking up 

projects begun by his predecessor, John Hunter. 

Park staff developed a more outward focus, 

concentrating their efforts on environmental 

education, living history, volunteers, and youth 

programs. Visitors also became more active 

participants, using the park for recreational 

pursuits in greater numbers. The battlefield and 

national cemetery were no longer places only for 

civic pilgrims. Visitors started to realize that the 

park was a refuge from the area's growing 

urbanization. 

Urbanization brought people into the park and

also pushed NPS staff to plan to expand the park's 

boundaries in an effort more aggressive than any 

previous period since the park was established. The

land acquisition plan looked at expanding all 

corners of the battlefield to better protect the 

historic scene and natural resources. This 

expansion reveals a new understanding of the 

"greater battlefield," a better appreciation for the 

natural and cultural resources within, and a desire 

to restore the landscape back to its historic 

appearance. Park staff were able to implement new 

landscape management measures, despite no 

additional funds. 

The failure of the park boundary expansion bill to 

pass the Senate in 1980 was another reminder that 

conditions in Congress had to be right, just like the 

conditions that finally prompted Congress to 

create the park in 1927. The park needed a 

congressional ally who could make the NPS's 

vision his or her own. 

																																																																																						 superintendent of Lincoln Home National Historic Site in 

Springfield, Illinois. Sanders Interview, 18-19.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 98

Chapter Six 

Expanding Stones River National Battlefield, 

1980-2000

The 1980 General Management Plan 

demonstrated that despite the National Park 

Service's best laid plans, the park needed a 

Congressional ally for any land acquisition to 

move forward. Park staff and community 

supporters could only wait until Congress passed 

boundary expansion legislation, while watching 

more and more of the greater battlefield succumb 

to development.

While they waited, park staff, under the direction 

of Superintendent Don Magee, focused on the 

park's resources. They undertook a number of 

important preservation projects, including 

restoring the U.S. Regulars Monument in the 

national cemetery, which had been vandalized a 

number of years prior. They continued the 

environmental programs begun in the 1970s, but 

also refocused the park's energies on researching 

and presenting military history. Park staff forged 

new relationships with military groups, including 

the MTSU Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC) program, and invited active troops to 

study the battlefield. However, budget cuts made it 

difficult for park staff to maintain this momentum.

In 1986, people of Tennessee’s 6th District elected 

Democrat Bart Gordon to Congress. He decided 

to make Stones River National Battlefield a 

priority during his term. In 1987, he sponsored 

successful legislation to expand the battlefield by 

approximately 50 acres. He did so again in 1991 by 

an additional 300 acres. This second boundary 

expansion also called for the park to write a new 

GMP. 

Mary Ann Peckham brought new leadership to the 

park in 1989. She had a daunting task of carrying 

out the new land acquisition program and 

developing a new GMP. She was interested in 

bringing in new audiences, and supported the new 

Friends of Stones River National Battlefield, a 

non-profit group formed in 1989 to help the park 

in its efforts. However, the park and its supporters 

were racing against the clock to acquire land 

before it was purchased for development. 

Historic Preservation and 

Archeology 

Stones River National Battlefield experienced a 

change in leadership as the boundary expansion 

proposal went before Congress in 1980. Don 

Magee replaced James Sanders when Sanders was 

promoted to superintendent of Biscayne National 

Park. Magee had served in the Navy before 

studying forestry at the University of 

Massachusetts. He worked for the U.S. Forest 

Service and New Jersey State Parks before starting 

his career with the National Park Service. He 

attended Mather Training Center in the Grand 

Canyon in 1966 before being sent to Bryce Canyon 

National Park to work as a park ranger. He next 

went to Sunset Crater National Monument where 

he was essentially the area manager. While in 

Flagstaff, Arizona, Magee took courses in business 

management, which likely helped with his next 

assignment in Washington, D.C. as a management 

analyst for the National Capital Region. After a 

number of years in Washington, D.C., he wanted 

to get back to a park with real historical 

significance. He took the job at Stones River 

National Battlefield when it became available.1 

																																																							 1. Donald Magee Interview by Angela Sirna, Phone 

Interview, November 3, 2015, 2-4; Bill Cook, "Bill to Aid 

Murfreesboro Park May be Dead Issue," The Tennessean,

December 30, 1980.
99 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Magee's main priority was historic preservation. 

Land acquisition was the major topic of 

discussion, but the NPS was dealing with a lameduck Congress.2 The NPS would have to wait and 

see if the next Congress would take up the 

boundary expansion measure. Adding to the 

park’s funding woes, the Reagan administration 

reduced federal expenditures. In 1981, Secretary 

of Interior James Watt issued a memorandum to 

NPS Director Russell Dickinson directing parks to 

focus on mission critical activities as outlined in 

the Organic Act of 1916. He wrote, 

I am concerned that in recent years the funding 

and manpower resources of the Service have 

not always been directed to fulfilling its basic 

mission as set forth above. The challenge to the 

Service in the 1980’s, and my charge to you as 

Director, is to assure that the funding and 

staffing available to you in a time of reduced 

Federal expenditures are applied to achieve the 

most benefit for visitors to the most heavily 

visited parks, being always mindful of the 

preservation of park resources. I am 

particularly concerned that you give priority to 

protecting and maintaining the “crown jewels,” 

the internationally known, unique natural 

parks in the system.3

Although there were fewer funds for park 

operations and expansion, there was sufficient 

money for rehabilitation and repair of historic 

structures (despite Watt’s apparent dismissal of 

historic parks in his memo).

4 In the early 1980s, 

Watt did support the Park Restoration and 

Improvement Program, which concentrated on 

maintaining already existing development.5 Magee 

focused much of his tenure on the resources the 

park already had, primarily the U.S. Regulars 

Monument, Hazen Brigade Monument, and 

Artillery Monument. 

																																																							 2. Magee Interview, 12. 

3. James Watts to Director, National Park Service, 

memorandum, “Management of the National Park System,” 

July 6, 1981, reproduced in Dilsaver, America’s National 

Parks, 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_8

a.htm (accessed June 27, 2016). 

4. Rebecca Conard, “All Men and Women Are Created 

Equal”: An Administrative History of Women’s Rights 

National Historical Park (Boston, MA: Northeast Regional 

Office, National Park Service, 2012), 41. 

5. Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National 

Parks: A History (1997; repr. New Haven, CT: Yale University 

Press, 2008), 281.

Figure 45 U.S. Regulars Monument without bronze eagle. 

Photographed by Teresa (Bratcher) Watson, April 1980. 

Courtesy of STRI. 

The bronze eagle that surmounted the U.S. 

Regulars Monument in the national cemetery had 

been stolen about fifteen years earlier (see Fig. 45). 

The Bureau Brothers of Philadelphia cast the 

eagle, which is 37-inches high with a 57-inch 

wingspan. Magee wanted the eagle back for the 

monument’s one hundredth anniversary in 1982. 

He began a well-publicized effort to retrieve the 

eagle, offering a five hundred dollar reward and no 

questions asked upon the return of the bronze 

bird. The eagle was returned by someone in 

Cookeville, Tennessee, lending credence to the 

theory that it was stolen by a Tennessee State 

University "Golden Eagles" fan. Chief of 

Maintenance Bobby Simerly was able to restore 

the eagle and return it to the top of the monument 

by Memorial Day 1982, despite the statue being 

painted brown and having both wings broken. 

Park staff then rededicated the U.S. Regulars 
Chapter Six

National Park Service 100

Monument one hundred years after it was first 

erected.6 

In 1983, the park received $50,000 for special 

maintenance projects funded by the Emergency 

Jobs Appropriation Act. The country was 

experiencing an economic recession and the 

purpose of this law was to put unemployed people 

back to work through public works projects.7 The 

Tennessee Department of Employment Security 

recruited twenty-two individuals who were hired 

on an intermittent basis between July 18 and 

December 30, 1983. Using a crew of five masons 

and laborers hired under this program, park staff 

were able to finish repointing the historic 

cemetery and Hazen Brigade Monument walls, a 

project that began in 1977. The wall project took 

up almost half of the project money, but these 

workers also repaired two miles of split rail fence, 

stained the exterior of the visitor center, painted 

buildings, maintained hiking trails, and repaired 

artillery equipment. That same year, park staff 

repaired the Artillery Monument using cyclical 

maintenance funds.8

The next year, 1984, park staff began researching 

the Hazen Brigade Monument in preparation for 

preservation efforts. Park Historian Daniel A. 

Brown wrote a thorough report on the 

monument’s history, from its initial construction 

until the creation of the battlefield park in 1929.

9

Work began in 1985 to rehabilitate the memorial 

and was completed by January 1987 (see Fig. 46). A 

historical architect and architectural conservator 

from the Southeast Cultural Resources 

Preservation Center assessed the monument. At 

that time, many regional offices, included the one 

in Atlanta, had crews of cultural resource experts 

and historic preservation specialists, called 

“exhibits specialists,” who worked throughout the 

																																																							 6. Magee Interview, 12-13; Michael Tompkins, "Eagle 

Monument Rests Safely at Home," The Morning Press

(Murfreesboro, TN), September 18, 1982.

7. Emergency Jobs Appropriation Act, Public Law 98-8, 98th 

Cong., 1st Sess. (March 24, 1983).

8. Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1983," February 10, 1984, Folder Stones River National 

Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 

1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

9. Daniel A. Brown, Marked for Future Generations: The 

Hazen Brigade Monument 1863-1929, Stones River National 

Battlefield and National Park Service, 1985. 

region on various projects.10 They found that the 

stones in the monument’s upper courses had been 

compromised by rainwater and vibrations from 

nearby locomotives. After removing a capstone for 

inspection, they found that they needed to remove 

the fill in order to reset the stones.11 

Figure 46 NPS staff working on the Hazen Brigade 

Monument in July 1985. Photographer unknown. Courtesy 

of STRI. 

No archeologist was present when park 

maintenance workers and employees from the

Southeast Cultural Resources Preservation Center 

began removing fill from the monument’s interior. 

However, on July 25, 1985, they uncovered about 

nine artifacts near the top of the fill, including a 

fresh water clam or mussel, a wood fragment, a 

thin disc, a bone fragment, and four or five horse 

teeth. The team considered these “unintentional 

inclusions” without any particular significance, but 

noted that the bone fragment may have come from 

the battle and the shell may have been from a 

worker’s meal. They continued their work and on 

July 29 uncovered the tops of two cannon balls. 

They stopped their work and contacted John W. 

Walker, an archeologist with the NPS Southeast 

Archeological Center (SEAC) in Tallahassee, 

Florida. Once Walker arrived, the crew continued 

excavations and found a smaller cannon ball, three 

artillery shells, two rifle-musket barrels, and a 

																																																							 10. Regional offices no longer have historic preservation 

crews. There are two Historic Preservation Training Centers 

that serve the NPS. One is based out of Monocacy National 

Battlefield and the second is based out of Grand Teton 

National Park. For more on the development of these 

regional centers in the 1970s and 1980s, see Blaine Cliver 

Interview by Rebecca Conard and Elizabeth Smith, Phone 

Interview, September 26, 2008, 10-14, Women’s Rights 

National Historical Park Archive, Seneca Falls, NY.

11. John W. Walker, Investigations of the Hazen Brigade 

Monument Stones River National Battlefield Murfreesboro, 

TN (Tallahassee, FL: National Park Service Southeast 

Archeological Center, 1989), ii, 4-6. 
101 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

wooden rod (see Fig. 47). These items were found 

on the sixth course of stone blocks, and Walker 

believed they were placed there intentionally. The 

artillery shells were manufactured by the 

Confederacy. The cannon balls and rifle barrels 

may have also been of Confederate origin, but 

Union forces used similar types as well. Walker 

asserted that these items probably dated to the 

battle and were more than likely deliberately 

placed within the monument as it was being 

constructed. Walker offered several 

interpretations for the artifacts’ grouping. One 

interpretation he gave was that the monument’s 

builders chose this grouping of artifacts as a 

symbol of the tools of death used by the enemy,

which Hazen’s Brigade was able to fend off. 12

Figure 47 NPS archeologists working in the Hazen Brigade 

Monument in July 1985. Courtesy of STRI. 

The preservation crew reinforced the interior of 

the monument with a concrete block inner wall 

with cement and steel rods connected to the 

exterior limestone blocks. The crew left a new 

“time capsule” with a copy of the park's research 

report with photographs of the original interior

and artifacts inside the monument before the 

capstones were reset. The park then incorporated 

the original artifacts into a visitor center’s 

display.13

																																																							 12. Ibid., 6-7. 

13. Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1984," February 25, 1985, Folder Stones River National 

Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 

1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP; and Donald 

Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones River 

National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 1985," 

February 2, 1986, Folder 157 A2621 Annual Reports, Series 

1, Park Archive. 

In the midst of these preservation projects, Magee 

and his staff were particularly concerned with 

recovering some of the park's military history and 

using it as a way to connect with descendants of 

both Union and Confederate soldiers. Specifically, 

they were interested in coming up with a more 

comprehensive index of those buried at the 

national cemetery. For many years, park staff used 

the Roll of Honor published by the U.S. 

Government in 1866 as the authoritative list of 

those buried in the national cemetery, but soldiers 

were not listed alphabetically and commonly had 

only initials or misspelled names. The park then 

started comparing the Roll of Honor list with other 

records, such as the Official Roster Of Soldiers from 

The State of Ohio, and were able to fill in some of 

the missing information and correct names to 

better serve descendants who came to the national 

cemetery looking for their ancestors.14 Park staff 

continue to use this list, but note that revisions are 

ongoing.

While undertaking this research, staff found 

documentation that suggested some Confederate 

soldiers might be buried in the national cemetery

in grave O-6315. They were part of a mass grave 

discovered by Dr. Burris in 1880 on his property 

about a quarter of a mile from the national 

cemetery. By that point, it was hard to tell if the 

remains were Union or Confederate, so the 

cemetery superintendent decided to reinter them 

in the national cemetery. Upon discovering these 

letters between Dr. Burris and the cemetery 

superintendent in 1984, park staff concluded that 

it was entirely likely that gravesite O 6135 

contained Confederate remains.15 Magee 

publicized this discovery to dispel the belief that 

the national cemetery was just a Union cemetery.16

Park staff were also able to acquire a few key 

artifacts under Magee's administration. Magee saw 

a family leave flowers at the grave of Lt. Christian 

Nix, 24th Wisconsin Infantry, on Memorial Day. 

He asked if Nix was their ancestor and learned 

that their grandmother still had Nix’s papers and 

original headboard, which was fashioned out of a 

																																																							 14. Donald Magee, "Adjutant Records Help Stones River 

Research On Buried Union Troops," Civil War Book 

Exchange & Collector's Newspaper, March-April 1987.

15. Tammy Hall, "In Union Gravesite Stones River Holds 

Rebels," Daily News Journal, May 27, 1984.

16. Magee Interview, 31.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 102

fence. The park acquired the headboard.17 Magee

also arranged a trade with the city of Oshkosh, 

Wisconsin, for a Napoleon cannon, which was one 

of four guns captured by Confederate forces from 

Battery C, First Illinois Light Artillery during the 

Battle of Stones River. The city of Oshkosh was 

using it as part of a memorial for Camp Bragg, a 

Civil War camp named after General E.S. Bragg. 

The memorial was situated on a street corner. The 

cannon had a special engraving for Colonel 

William D. Moore of the 8th Tennessee 

Volunteers, who was killed there on December 31, 

1862. The city agreed to trade the Stones River 

cannon for something similar in the park's 

collection. The park placed the cannon on display 

in the visitor center in April 1987.18 Both the 

headboard and cannon were artifacts the park 

could use to tell very personal stories about the 

battle. 

Interpreting Military History 

Park staff continued many of the programs started 

by superintendents Hunter and Sanders, 

particularly environmental education and living 

history, but they refocused their interpretive goals 

to telling the story of the battle. Park staff revived 

traditional military history, but tried to 

incorporate personal stories into the interpretive 

programs. At the same time, park staff also worked 

to discourage various recreational activities that 

they believed to be inconsistent with the park's 

mission. 

Magee and his staff renewed relations with current 

military personnel and offered to host field trips at 

the battlefield, commonly referred to as “staff 

rides.” This partnership harkened back to the early 

years of battlefield preservation under the War 

Department, when national military parks were to 

be preserved in part so that military personnel 

could study these engagements. Park staff 

established relationships with ROTC departments 

at MTSU, Tennessee Tech University, and 

Vanderbilt University. The park also cooperated 

with the U.S. Army's Ordnance, Missile, and 

Munitions School in Huntsville, Alabama, which 

																																																							 17. Ibid., 16-17.

18. Barbara Schmitz, "Unusual deal offered for historical 

cannon," Oshkosh (WI) Northwestern, March 11, 1987; 

Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones 

River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 

1987," March 2, 1988, Folder 157 A-2621 Annual Reports, 

Park Archive.

chose the battlefield as a site to teach military 

tactics and strategy.19 

The park continued offering living history 

demonstrations. Magee and his staff worked to 

find new ways to utilize this tool to tell the battle's 

story. They held small encampments, regularly on 

the Fourth of July, complete with cannon 

demonstrations at the Artillery Monument. Magee 

recalled one living history interpreter presented a 

program as a Civil War doctor to talk about Civil 

War medicine and healthcare. Perhaps the most 

innovative program the park developed during 

Magee's tenure was Hallowed Ground, an evening 

program held in the national cemetery, which told 

stories about those affected by the battle (see Fig. 

48). This program began in 1983 and remains a 

popular park program. Today, it covers a number 

of themes from the battlefield to the home front

through letters and other primary source 

documents written by or about soldiers buried in 

the national cemetery.20 

Figure 48 Park Ranger Bettie Cook giving Hallowed 

Ground program in December 1987. Courtesy of STRI. 

																																																							 19. Magee Interview, 28; Magee, "Superintendent's Annual 

Report of Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery 

for Calendar Year 1984"; Magee, "Superintendent's Annual 

Report of Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery 

for Calendar Year 1985."

20. Magee Interview, 15-16; Magee, "Superintendent's 

Annual Report of Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery for Calendar Year 1983."
103 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Magee felt strongly that the park should be used 

for preserving the historic resources associated 

with the battle to tell the history of the Civil War, 

which meant that he saw some recreational 

activities as inappropriate. He discouraged large 

group activities, such as bike-a-thons, rallies, 

concerts, and jamborees. Civil War history groups, 

in particular, supported this policy, because they 

preferred more reverent activities to take place at 

the park.21 Magee acknowledged, however, that 

regular visitation came from hikers, walkers, and 

joggers, which he did not discourage. In fact, he 

continued to work with recreation groups, like the 

Boy Scouts of America, who have placed American 

flags at the gravestones at the national cemetery on 

Memorial Day every year since 1983. He worked 

with several Eagle Scouts to complete projects 

around the park. Magee also forged a relationship 

with MTSU's Park and Recreation program.22

Magee and park staff worked to be proactive 

about what activities were appropriate and 

inappropriate for a national battlefield and 

cemetery. Ironically, Magee allowed weddings on 

the national battlefield, explaining, “love is a 

battlefield,” in an oral history interview. The 

Artillery Monument area was a popular site for 

couples to get married because it afforded a view 

of Stones River.23

1987 Boundary Expansion 

Legislation 

In 1984, Middle Tennesseans elected Democrat 

Bart Gordon to Al Gore, Jr.'s vacated seat in the 

House of Representatives. Gordon was a sixth 

generation Rutherford County resident. He 

attended MTSU before pursuing his law degree at 

the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Gordon 

became the state chairman of the Democratic 

Party while he was practicing law. He ran a 

successful campaign for the House of 

Representatives in Tennessee’s 6th District when 

Gore sought a seat in the Senate.24

																																																							 21. "Membership Memo," Civil War Round Table Associates, 

May-June 1982, Personal Papers of Donald Magee.

22. Magee Interview, 16, 18; Magee, "Superintendent's 

Annual Report of Stones River National Battlefield and

Cemetery for Calendar Year 1983."

23. Magee Interview, 14.

24. Bart Gordon Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, 

TN, October 16, 2015, 1.

Tennessee’s 6th District was one of the fastest 

growing areas in the United States. Between 1980 

and 1986, his district increased 12 percent with an 

additional 61,195 people. Rutherford County 

alone experienced a 22 percent increase during 

this period. Part of this growth was due to the 

establishment of the Nissan automotive plant in 

Smyrna, which represented the largest Japanese 

foreign investment in the world when the 

company broke ground in 1981.25 This new factory 

brought in hundreds of jobs in addition to new 

businesses that were an outgrowth of Nissan.

With such rapid growth, Gordon was interested in 

improving quality of life in his district and decided 

that Stones River National Battlefield and 

Murfreesboro Greenway were keys to his vision. 

Gordon did not visit the battlefield much growing 

up, but he realized it was an under-utilized 

resource when he read the 1980 GMP. He recalled 

his reaction to the GMP in an oral history 

interview, 

So really that was sort of an epiphany in a 

couple of ways: one, we could better visualize 

what we could do for the battlefield; and the 

second thing is that in it, it had a greenway that 

was projected to go from the Rosecrans...which 

is more in town [and] connects and comes out 

here through the floodplain. And that really 

intrigued me.26

The GMP gave him a set of actions to take to help 

the park realize its full potential to better serve the 

residents of the 6th District. 

Gordon arrived in Washington, D.C., shortly 

before other Civil War battlefields began waging 

preservation battles that made national headlines. 

Manassas National Battlefield was once again

embroiled in controversy when Hazel/Peterson 

Companies purchased the Marriott property and 

started to construct a regional shopping center. 

While the NPS remained neutral about 

development on adjacent property, Congress did 

not. Preservation groups brought national 

attention to Manassas National Battlefield and the 

intensity of public interest in a site right outside of 

																																																							 25. Kevin Ellis, “6th, 7th Districts Among Fastest Growing in 

U.S.,” The Tennessean, February 9, 1988; Tennessee 

Encyclopedia of History and Culture 2.0, s.v., “Nissan Motor 

Manufacturing Corporation, U.S.A.,” 

https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=999

(accessed February 12, 2016). 

26. Gordon Interview, 3.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 104

the nation’s capital motivated Congressional 

leaders to intervene. In 1988, Congress issued a 

“legislative taking,” which meant that the federal 

government would immediately take ownership of 

the land, with costs determined at a later date. 

“Stonewalling the Mall” brought greater attention 

to battlefield preservation efforts across the 

country, such as development pressures that were 

happening at Stones River National Battlefield.27

Figure 49 Blanton House foundations, photographed 

during the winter of 1989-1990. Photographer unknown. 

Courtesy of STRI.

STRI staff and local historic preservationists were 

dismayed to see more of the greater battlefield lost 

to development. In 1985, Richard Smith Buick 

purchased a 30-acre tract of land extending from 

Broad Street to Van Cleve Lane near the Artillery 

Monument (site of the Marbro Drive-In Theater) 

and opened a new car dealership. New businesses 

opened on Highway 41. Off Manson Pike, less 

than a mile from the southwest portion of the park 

boundary, developers began constructing a new 

residential area called Manson Retreat with ten 

new homes. Local historic preservationists from 

the Rutherford County Historical Society (RCHS) 

attempted to purchase the Blanton property, 

which was for sale, through a state program called 

the Safe Growth Acquisition Fund (see Fig. 49). 

The state had made the house site, which was the 

site of a Civil War hospital, its top priority for 

historic properties proposed for the program. The 

RCHS contacted the Trust for Public Lands to 

purchase the property until the state approved the 

funds. Unfortunately, the owner sold the property 

to a local developer before the Trust for Public 

Lands could act. Despite appeals from local 

																																																							 27. Joan Zenzen, Battling for Manassas: The Fifty-Year 

Preservation Struggle at Manassas National Battlefield Park

(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998),

132-61. 

preservationists, the developer did not preserve 

the Blanton house foundation.28 The next year 

Congressman Gordon and his Chief of Staff, Kent 

Syler, toured the battlefield in preparation for 

submitting the land acquisition proposal. They and 

park staff found that much of the 284 acres 

proposed in the 1980 land acquisition plan were

now developed or were planned for 

development.

29 Their 1987 proposal included 70 

acres that potentially could be added to the park,

and Gordon intended to introduce the bill in the 

early part of the 1987 session. However, when 

Gordon introduced House bill 1994, he had 

reduced the 70 acres to 53 acres. He did include in 

the bill a portion of Fortress Rosecrans owned by 

the City of Murfreesboro and a trail along Stones 

River connecting the earthworks with the park. 

The House held hearings on June 11, 1987, and 

legislation passed the House on June 29. Senators 

Jim Sasser and Al Gore sponsored Senate bill 963, 

which was identical to House bill 1994. The Senate 

passed the bill on December 11. President Reagan 

signed the legislation as Public Law 100-205 on 

December 23, 1987 (see Appendix C).

30

																																																							 28. Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones 

River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 

1985." Deed records show that William F. Ketron Sr. and 

William F. Ketron Jr. purchased this land from John and 

Patricia Booher in October 1984 for $45,000. The Ketrons 

subdivided the property into four parcels. Tract Number 2 

includes an “old cemetery,” presumably the Blanton 

cemetery. William F. Ketron Jr. was a local insurance agent, 

but became involved in county and state politics. He is 

currently a state senator. He and his wife lived on the 

Blanton property until at least 1999, when he did an oral 

history interview with Miranda Fraley, in which he describes 

the cemetery being in his backyard and finding Civil War 

era artifacts while doing yard work. Members of Friends of 

Stones River National Battlefield, who live nearby, indicate 

that he still lives there. In 1994, he and his father sold a 7.3-

acre tract to the National Park Service for $73,000. Recently, 

Senator Ketron has been outspoken in favor of heritage 

preservation. In 2016, he sponsored the Tennessee Heritage 

Protection Act, which makes it difficult to change or remove 

monuments on public property that commemorate a 

historical event or person. Warranty Deed, October 16, 

1984, Deed Book 339, Page 251, and Warranty Deed, July 

15, 1994, Deed Book 530, Page 807, both Rutherford County 

Register of Deeds; William F. Ketron, Jr. Interview by 

Miranda Fraley, Murfreesboro, TN, June 22, 1999, 5-6, Park 

Library; Sam Stockard, “Heritage Act Passes,” Murfreesboro 

Post, March 3, 2016. 

29. Steve Rogers, press release, "Stones River Funds Clear 

House, Headed for Senate," October 11, 1990, Legislative 

Issues—Projects, Bart Gordon Papers, Albert Gore Research 

Center (AGRC), Murfreesboro, TN.

30. Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1986," February 2, 1987, Folder Stones River National 

Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 

1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP; Magee, 
105 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

While Congress was deliberating the bill, a local 

landowner donated approximately seven acres to 

the Nature Conservancy, in anticipation of 

Congress expanding the park's boundary. This 

parcel of land was called the "Nature Conservancy 

Tract" and is situated across from the Artillery 

Monument and between Stones River and 

Thompson Lane.31

In 1988, Congress appropriated $565,000 for the 

acquisition of 53 acres, $35,000 for a study of 

Fortress Rosecrans, and $35,000 for a study of the 

hiking trail.32 The 53 acres included in the 

boundary expansion focused on a few key areas. 

One area included the Pioneer Brigade 

earthworks, which was being used as a garbage 

dump by the landowner. Visitors could only see 

the earthworks through a fence. Another area was 

a parcel where the Regular Brigade had its first 

engagement. It also happened to be of ecological 

importance, because personnel found Tennessee 

coneflower growing in this area. The last 

acquisition area was around the Artillery 

Monument.33 The NPS finished the Trail Study 

and Environmental Assessment in 1989. The 

study's authors presented three alternatives with 

trails east or west of Stones River, or an overland 

route. The park and city held public hearings and 

contacted individual landowners. The NPS 

selected the west side of the river as its "preferred 

alternative," and began preparing design drawings, 

undertaking environmental compliance and 

Section 106, and land acquisition.34

																																																																																						 "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones River National 

Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 1987;" An Act 

to Amend the Boundaries of Stones River National 

Battlefield, and for Other Purposes, Public Law 100-205, 

100th Cong., 1st Sess. (December 23, 1987).

31. Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones 

River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 

1987."

32. Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1988," March 2, 1989, Folder Stones River National 

Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 

1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

33. Matt Bolch, “Battlefield expansion awaited,” Daily News 

Journal, October 23, 1988. 

34. Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 

and Cemetery 1989 Annual Report," March 2, 1990, Folder 

Stones River National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual 

Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

Friends of Stones River National 

Battlefield 

Several individuals and community organizations 

were concerned about loss of the greater 

battlefield and wanted to support the park’s land 

acquisition efforts as well as assist general park 

operations. For example, the park coordinated

preservation advocacy efforts with RCHS to 

purchase the Blanton property. Even though their 

efforts were unsuccessful, this partnership shows 

that there were individuals and groups who had 

interests and priorities that matched the park’s. 

Some supporters decided to form an organization 

to assist the park. In 1988, volunteers helping with 

living history programs formed the Stones River 

Volunteer Historical Association to help with park 

interpretive programs and other efforts. It is 

unclear how long this group operated, because the 

next year, park supporters formed another group 

called the Friends of Stones River National 

Battlefield.35 Group organizers filed the necessary 

paperwork for the organization to have 501(c)3 

status as a non-profit. The Friends group hoped to 

assist the park in land acquisition efforts and aid 

park operations, including interpretive programs. 

The first members of the Friends had a variety of 

interests in the park. Mike Liles, a park neighbor, 

was elected to the board along with Bob Ragland 

and Bertha Chrietzberg.36 Bob and Sue Ragland 

were living history volunteers and Bob had been

active with the Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War 

Round Table.37 Bertha Chrietzberg was an 

environmental activist and outdoor recreation 

supporter who taught recreation courses at 

MTSU. She was a founding member of the 

Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association in 1966 and 

																																																							 35. Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones 

River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 

1988"; Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery 1989 Annual Report."

36. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery 1989 Annual Report."

37. The Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War Roundtable 

disbanded in 1978, due to waning interest and criticism 

against the Forrest name. Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War 

Roundtable, The Best of Gaus' Bugle: Selections from the 

Official Publication of the Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War 

Roundtable (Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee State 

University 1978), 1.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 106

Tennessee Trails Association in 1968. Naturally, 

she was involved in the Murfreesboro Greenway 

project as well.38 Together with Pennie Jekot, the 

group’s president, Liles, Ragland, and Chrietzberg

negotiated for donation of privately held lands 

adjacent to the Artillery Monument area.39 

Change in Administration 

The year 1989 proved fruitful for many changes at 

STRI. The park was expanding its boundaries to 

include an additional 53 acres. Park staff were 

working with the City of Murfreesboro to preserve 

Fortress Rosecrans and construct the new 

greenway trail. The park had a new friends group. 

Don Magee was promoted to superintendent of 

the USS Arizona National Memorial in Hawaii in 

June. Mary Ann Peckham took over the 

superintendency at STRI later that August.40

Like other superintendents before her, Peckham 

had a mix of NPS experience before taking the job 

at STRI. Peckham earned her bachelor's degree in 

economics from the University of Wisconsin at 

Madison. She pursued her master's degree in 

American history there, but did not finish as she 

became involved in her NPS career. Her first NPS 

job was a seasonal position at Little Bighorn 

National Battlefield (then known as Custer 

Battlefield National Monument). She worked 

there in 1976, during the battle's one hundredth 

anniversary. She then moved to Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore for an extended seasonal 

position where she worked as a cultural resource 

management technician. There, she earned her 

first permanent job as a park technician, in which 

she was tasked with law enforcement, resource 

management, and campground operation duties. 

After several years, she moved on to the Blue 

Ridge Parkway, where she worked as an 

interpretive specialist for a period of time before 

being named Chief of Interpretation for the park. 

She had experience in interpretation, law 

enforcement, resource management, and 

																																																							 38. "Governor's Environmental Stewardship Award 

Winners: 25th Anniversary," Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, June 2011, 

https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments

/gesa-25-anniversary.pdf (accessed February 8, 2016).

39. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery 1989 Annual Report."

40. Ibid.

administration by the time she was named 

superintendent of Stones River National 

Battlefield.41

The 1987 legislation laid out Peckham's priorities 

for the next few years. She continued to work on 

land acquisition efforts, including putting together 

a Land Protection Plan with park and regional 

staff to prioritize the agency’s efforts to expand the 

park. She continued to build a partnership with 

the city to preserve and interpret Fortress 

Rosecrans and build the Greenway.42 The park 

also received funding in 1989 to add an extension 

to the visitor center for public restrooms, so she 

managed that process.43 In 1990, the park was able 

to remove power lines in the park, which had been 

proposed in the 1980 GMP.44 She and her staff 

initiated key planning efforts, including a Resource 

Management Plan and new GMP. To help the 

park accomplish these goals, she and her staff 

often looked to volunteers and the Friends of 

Stones River National Battlefield to increase the 

park’s operational capacity. 

Two years after Peckham’s arrival, the NPS 

celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary. 

Anniversary celebrations were capped off by a 

major conference of park superintendents in Vail, 

Colorado, to discuss the future of the agency in the 

twenty-first century. A number of 

recommendations came from this conference, 

collectively referred to as the “Vail Agenda,” 

including the primacy of protecting park 

resources, ensuring visitor accessibility, educating 

the public, being proactive leaders, and 

incorporating science into park management.45

																																																							 41. Mary Ann Peckham Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, October 13, 2015, 2-3.

42. Ibid., 10-11.

43. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery 1989 Annual Report." SEAC archeologists 

completed a survey for the visitor center addition and 

parking lot expansion and found no diagnostic material. 

Stephen C. Bryne, An Archeological Survey of the Visitor 

Center Addition and Parking Lot Expansion, Stones River 

National Battlefield, Rutherford County, Tennessee 

(Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center, May 1990), 

i-ii. 

44. Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 

1990 Annual Report," March 29, 1991, Folder Stones River 

National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative 

Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

45. National Park Service, Steering Committee of the 75th

Anniversary Symposium, The Vail Agenda: Report and 
107 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Some of the issues raised at the Vail conference 

had an impact on STRI operations, including 

resource protection and professionalization. 

1991 Boundary Expansion 

Congress continued to support battlefield 

preservation in the early 1990s. After the debacle 

at Manassas National Battlefield, Congress 

authorized a fifteen-member Civil War Advisory 

Commission in November 1990 at the request of 

Secretary of Interior Manuel Lujan Jr. This 

collection of historians, preservationists, 

Congressional members, and NPS Director were 

tasked with identifying sites related to the Civil 

War and determining their relative significance, 

similar to the War Department survey authorized 

in 1926.46 In 1993, the commission released its 

report, which listed the status of every Civil War 

battlefield site and categorized them based on 

significance, integrity, and preservation priority. 

The commission ranked these sites in four general 

groups based on priority. Stones River was listed 

in the fourth priority group with other 

“fragmented battlefields” considered to have low 

integrity.47

Although the report was not published until 1993, 

Backlund indicated in an oral history interview 

that park staff and Congressman Gordon were 

aware that the commission was going to give the 

park a low priority ranking prior to the report’s

release. This caused Congressman Gordon and 

battlefield preservationists great concern because 

development continuously threatened the 

battlefield and they wished to protect additional 

land. Park and regional staff had put together a 

Land Protection Plan, which prioritized the 

parcels the park wanted to purchase. Park staff, 

supporters, and Congressman Gordon wrote 

letters to the advisory commission asking them to 

reconsider this low ranking. Gordon hoped a 

																																																																																						 Recommendations to the Director of the National Park 

Service (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1992), 1-3.

46. Zenzen, Battling for Manassas, 160. 

47. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, “Table 7: Civil War 

Battlefields Based on Preservation Priorities,” in Civil War 

Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War 

Battlefields (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1993), 

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/cwsac/cwstab7.html (accessed 

June 27, 2016). 

higher ranking would help additional legislation 

move through Congress.

48

Despite this low ranking, Congressman Gordon 

sponsored another bill that Congress approved as 

Public Law 102-225 on December 11, 1991 (see 

Appendix C). This law expanded the park 

boundary again by an additional 300 acres, raising 

the land-acquisition cap of the park to 712 acres. 

Approximately twenty-five acres came from the 

City of Murfreesboro, which agreed to donate 

Fortress Rosecrans to the park. This piece of 

legislation also called the NPS to update its GMP, 

which typically is not required for most boundary 

expansions.49

Congressman Gordon and his allies in Congress 

were very much working against the clock. In 

1991, the park lost a key property on the east side 

of Van Cleve Lane, called the Cowan-Gannon 

Tract. Congressman Gordon and his associates 

were negotiating on the park's behalf, while also 

preparing the 1991 boundary expansion legislation 

for Congress. Gordon indicated in an oral history 

interview that NPS staff were a bit hesitant in 

making an offer and this delay was long enough for

another buyer, New Vision Church, to purchase 

the property. NPS staff, Gordon, and park 

supporters appealed to New Vision Church to 

consider selling the property to the federal 

government, but the church's board did not 

budge. They requested that the NPS exclude their 

property from the park's new boundary, and the 

NPS had to acquiesce.50

Once again, land acquisition affected African 

American residents of the historic Cemetery

																																																							 48. Gilbert Backlund Interview by Angela Sirna, Part Two, 

Murfreesboro, TN, October 15, 2015, 5-6; National Park 

Service, “Land Protection Plan Stones River National 

Battlefield 1992 Update,” October 15, 1992, Folder 48 L-14 

Land Protection Plan, Park Archive.

49. To expand the boundaries of Stones River National 

Battlefield, and other purposes, Public Law 102-225, 102d 

Congr., 1st Sess. (December 11, 1991); Backlund Interview 

Part Two, 1.

50. Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 

1991 Annual Report," March 26, 1992, Folder Stones River 

National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative 

Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP; Gordon 

Interview, 7; Kent Syler Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, November 13, 2015, 6-7.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 108

community. Backlund recalled that many, but not 

all, of the African American residents living in the 

expanded boundary area on the west side of the 

park and on the north side of the national 

cemetery had been previously affected by the 

creation of the park in the 1920s. Despite this 

disruption, he remembered park staff having a 

positive relationship with the park’s African 

American neighbors.51

A major road change both helped and inhibited 

the park. Since the 1970s, the City of 

Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, and Tennessee 

Department of Highways had discussed building a 

connector road from Broad Street (Highway 41) to 

Old Fort Parkway, and included such a road in 

Murfreesboro's twenty-year transportation plan.52

Backlund remembered that there was a small dirt 

road in that general area, but nothing that was 

used heavily.53 STRI staff had been in support of 

such a road over the years, because it would divert 

local traffic off of Van Cleve Lane while also 

bringing visitors closer to the park. 

In 1992 and 1993, planning for this road, called the

Thompson Lane extension, was well underway.

54

Park staff and preservationists grew concerned 

about the potential impact on the park and the 

expanded boundary. They were able to seek 

research and planning support from the American 

Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), a new 

federal program created by the Secretary of 

Interior in 1991, an outgrowth of the Civil War 

Advisory Sites Commission. The purpose of the 

ABPP is to promote preservation efforts of 

battlefield sites from all wars on U.S. soil by 

providing technical expertise to public and private 

partners. The ABPP also administers a grant 

program to help with battlefield preservation and 

planning.55 Between 1992 and 1997, the ABPP 

																																																							 51. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 7. 

52. Harland Bartholomew and Associates, "Recommended 

Transportation Plan: Murfreesboro Area Transportation 

Study," N.D., Memphis, TN, Folder 437 D-18 Master Plan, 

Series 1, Park Archive.

53. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 5.

54. Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 

Report," March 12, 1993, Folder Stones River National 

Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 

1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

55. “About Us,” American Battlefield Protection Program, 

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/aboutus.htm (accessed June 28, 

2016). 

awarded $79,150 to Rutherford County for various 

studies and projects related to Stones River 

National Battlefield, including Study Alternatives 

for Thompson Lane Beltway Corridor and 

Interpretation Project (1992), Interpretive Plan for 

Greater Stones River Battlefield (1993), Stones 

River Transportation Mitigation Study (1996), and 

Consensus Planning at STRI (1997).56 According 

to Backlund, these efforts were parlayed into a 

Battlefield Protection District instituted in the 

mid-1990s (see Appendix F).

57 However, this 

zoning was superseded in the mid-2000s, when the 

City of Murfreesboro instituted the new Gateway 

Design Overlay District Zone. According to 

Donald Anthony, Principal City Planner for 

Murfreesboro, this new overlay incorporates and 

strengthens the original ordinance.58

The Thompson Lane extension opened to traffic 

on November 12, 1993, and the NPS closed Van 

Cleve Lane between Manson Pike and Old 

Nashville Highway the same day with the 

intention to close the part between Old Nashville 

Highway and Highway 41 at a later date. No 

community members protested the lane's closure, 

a notable change from when the NPS discussed 

closing the road in the 1950s.59 The extension, 

however, did not help the park's land acquisition 

program. The city extended water and sewer along 

the connector road, which brought in commercial 

businesses close to the park.

60

The park's land acquisition program brought 

tensions between the agency and landowners, 

preservationists and those interested in promoting 

the area's economic growth. The Land Protection 

Plan, which was a useful document for the NPS, 

became a negotiation tool for property owners. 

Some landowners tried to rezone their properties 

																																																							 56. American Battlefield Protection Program, Update to the 

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s 

Civil War Battlefields: State of Tennessee (Washington, DC: 

American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park 

Service, December 2009), 21. 

57. Backlund Interview, Part Three. 

58. Angela Sirna, conversation with Donald Anthony, 

Principal Planner City of Murfreesboro, July 26, 2016, 

author’s notes. 

59. Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 

1993 Annual Report," March 16, 1994, Folder Stones River 

National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative 

Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

60. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 5.
109 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

from residential to commercial. Mike Liles, a 

founding member of the Friends group, tried to do 

this three times with his property, a .65-acre parcel 

that fronts Old Nashville Highway. The NPS 

offered him $22,000 for his property in 1989. He 

turned down the offer and tried to rezone his 

property in 1990, but was unsuccessful. The NPS 

again offered him $22,000 in 1991, which he also 

dismissed. In 2004, the NPS offered him $32,000 

for his property, which he again declined. In 2006, 

he tried again to have the property rezoned to 

commercial, because he had a buyer interested in 

building a Civil War relic store or antique shop. 

The Murfreesboro Post quoted Liles as saying “The 

property should belong to the battlefield, but like 

any owner of any piece of property I want what it 

is worth.” The newspaper mentioned that a nearby 

parcel zoned commercial off of Gresham Lane 

near Medical Center Parkway sold for $215,000 an 

acre. Liles offered the NPS first refusal if they did 

not oppose his bid to rezone. The NPS did not 

take his offer, and once again park staff had to 

speak against his request at public meetings, since 

it was within the proposed park boundary. After 

this last request was denied, Liles decided to build 

a house on his property, which is currently a park 

in-holding.61

Another controversy ignited once the Thompson 

Lane extension was completed. The NPS sought to 

purchase a tract of land owned by a local 

veterinarian named Raymond Miller, which was 

located at the intersection of Manson Pike and 

Van Cleve Lane. At one point, he tried to rezone 

his property from residential to commercial to sell 

to the Middle Tennessee Electric Membership 

Corporation to build a service center. NPS 

supporters spoke on the park's behalf to prohibit 

that zoning change. Like Liles, Miller wanted to 

maximize the amount he could get from the 

federal government. While negotiating with the 

NPS, he purchased road frontage from his farmer 

neighbor on the other side of Thompson Lane, 

which raised the purchase price considerably.62

Miller requested the federal government condemn 

his property so that he could obtain a fair price for 

																																																							 61. Erin Edgemon, “Skirmish surfaces over lot adjacent to 

battlefield,” Murfreesboro Post, October 8, 2006; Backlund 

Interview, Part Three.

62. Syler Interview, 6.

his land.63 The court awarded him $3,589,000 for 

fifty acres on October 16, 1998.64

Additional development proposals came from 

large corporations that also threatened the 

battlefield, similar to the proposed mall at 

Manassas National Battlefield. In 1998, the Dell 

Corporation bought options on two tracts totaling 

400 acres south of Manson Pike, between 

Thompson Lane and I-24. The company 

abandoned its plans, however, after receiving a 

development offer from the City of Nashville and 

hearing local concern about the loss of historic 

land.65 

The NPS faced development pressures not only 

from private landowners and corporations, but the 

city itself. The City of Murfreesboro developed a 

proposal for a conference center and business 

park just east of Stones River National Battlefield 

off of Manson Pike. Local citizens against this 

project formed a group called “Referendum Now” 

and presented city officials with a petition asking 

for a referendum on the project. The galvanizing 

concern was the use of tax dollars to fund private 

investment, but local preservationists joined the 

effort because of the center’s potential impact on 

STRI. The city withdrew its plan before the 

referendum could be held.

66

Cumulatively, the NPS land acquisition program in 

the 1990s unleashed feelings in the community 

that the federal government should not interfere 

with the rights of property owners. Larry Hicklen 

observed much of these discussions from his store, 

Yesteryear, right next to the park visitor center 

entrance. His property was also included in the 

proposed park boundary. He recalled that 

community relations soured after the federal 

government condemned the Miller property. 

There was a point in time where the park was 

making a run to acquire property. I think it was 

																																																							 63. Peckham Interview, 13-14.

64. Chad Gillis, “Jury Says Land Worth $3.5 Million,” Daily 

News Journal, August 16, 1998; Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones 

River National Battlefield October 1998- September 1999," 

Annual Report," January 25, 2000, Folder Stones River 

National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative 

Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

65. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield October 

1998- September 1999." 

66. Ibid.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 110

during Mary Ann Peckham's tour of duty as 

superintendent. And the methods the park 

went about procuring the land alienated a lot of 

the local landowners and it was like, "We're Big 

Brother and we're going to take it whether you 

like it or not." And that turned out, in my 

opinion, to be a huge mistake. Because just one 

parcel alone, the Miller farm, they offered a 

fraction of what he had already been offered 

for just a small part of it and it went to court. 

And Dr. Miller got like—I forget now but it was 

like in the million [dollar] plus area that ate up 

a couple or three years' budget for the park and 

created a real bad taste in the mouth of the 

neighbors of the park that it wasn't a 

cooperative environment. And after that, I 

think the government took on to, "We're not 

going to do that anymore."67

Hicklen indicates that local community members 

felt the federal government was overstepping 

itself, and the NPS realized it needed to scale back. 

Backlund speculates that residents in Rutherford 

County were growing more conservative during 

this period. They were not always supportive of 

federal expenditures for park land, which they did 

not see as essential to their community. These 

feelings reflected larger political changes, 

particularly when Republicans took over both 

houses of Congress after the 1994 election. 

Gordon introduced legislation in 1995 to expand 

the boundary by an additional seven hundred 

acres, but it never made it out of committee.68

Tensions between Democratic President Bill 

Clinton and the Republican Congress were so 

strong that the federal government shut down 

briefly from November 14-19, 1995, and again 

from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996, over 

Congressional disagreements regarding the federal 

budget. STRI had to close during those periods. It 

is unsurprising, then, that Gordon was unable to 

pass any additional boundary expansion 

legislation with the Republican-led 104th U.S. 

Congress. 

Resource Management Plan 

While Congressman Gordon and his staff were 

working to expand the park’s boundaries, 

Peckham and NPS staff developed a new Resource 

																																																							 67. Larry Hicklen Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, 

TN, November 13, 2015, 11.

68. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 6;, “6th, 7th Districts 

Among Fastest Growing in U.S.” 

Management Plan for STRI to evaluate its current 

policies and guide natural and cultural resource

management. In 1989, the NPS Washington Office 

issued guidance to parks about how to prepare 

these documents, which they recommended be 

updated every four years.69 STRI finished its plan 

in 1991. 

The focus of the Resource Management Plan was 

mostly the restoration of the battlefield back to its 

1862 appearance, but planners acknowledged the 

centrality of natural resource management in 

accomplishing that goal. In the Natural Resource 

Section, planners wrote that the park lacked all 

baseline data to meet Phase I of Servicewide 

Standards. In particular, planners showed concern 

for exotic plant species and the impacts of nearby 

development on wildlife habitat, water and air 

quality, and noise pollution. Now that the park 

was involved in the Greenway, which was located 

next to the river, park staff were now responsible 

for a riparian area. However, they could not 

determine the impacts of these issues, because the 

park lacked all baseline data. Planners put forth a 

number of project proposals to help the park meet 

some of these needs, mostly baseline data.70

It took more than four years for STRI to get the 

natural resources baseline data it needed. In fact, 

work on gathering this information did not begin 

until 1995, when the Nature Conservancy began 

an inventory and monitoring project on the cedar 

glades, producing the report Vascular Plant 

Inventory, Baseline and Photo Point Monitoring, 

and Rare Species Monitoring of the Calcareous 

Glades of Stones River National Battlefield. The

Nature Conservancy started another inventory in 

1997 for vascular plants within the park. Vascular 

flora of Stones River National Battlefield including 

notes on natural communities and race species was 

completed in 1999. In 1996, the park worked with 

staff from Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

on an exotic plant project by surveying the park 

for exotic plants and training staff in identification 

and control techniques.71 In FY 2000, the park 

																																																							 69. Associate Directors of Natural and Cultural Resources to 

Regional Directors, Memorandum, “Final Guideline for 

Resources Management Plans,” March 15, 1989, Folder 

391A N-16 Resource Management Plan, Park Archive. 

70. National Park Service, “Resource Management Plan 

Stones River National Battlefield,” 1991, 5-7, Folder 391A N16 Resource Management Plan, Park Archive.

71. Mary Ann Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield 

October 1995-Septmber 1997 Annual Report,” March 1998, 
111 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

received funding from the NPS Water Resources 

Division for Water Quality Monitoring. MTSU 

Biologist Dennis Mullen completed a study of fish 

in Lytle Creek, which he shared with the park.72

The park lacked the staff with the subject matter 

expertise to carry out this work, so staff forged 

partnerships with organizations and researchers to 

undertake this work. 

The Cultural Resource Section of the Resource 

Management Plan also revealed gaps in the park’s 

data. Primarily, planners noted the need for a 

Historic Resource Study to identify sites relating to 

the greater battlefield to inform land acquisition 

activities. The park did not have a comprehensive 

archeological survey, and the lands to be acquired 

needed to be evaluated for archeological sources. 

Planners noted that the national cemetery had lost 

some of the design elements included in the 1892 

“as built” drawing, and needed a new cultural 

landscape report. They showed concern for the 

impact on the area’s urbanization on the park’s 

cultural resources, such as increased traffic on 

historic Van Cleve Lane and the effects of 

pollution on the Hazen Brigade Monument. They 

also noted that the park’s administrative history 

had not been updated since 1958. But probably 

most concerning was that the park’s museum 

collection, which included about 300 objects, was 

being stored in the basement of the Visitor Center

without a collection management plan or an 

assessment of the space’s temperature or humidity 

levels.

73

Like the Natural Resource Section, it took much 

longer than four years for the park to start to 

address the issues outlined in the Cultural 

Resource Section of the Resource Management 

Plan. The NPS did manage to complete a Cultural 

Landscapes Inventory (CLI) in 1994, which aimed 

at identifying, inventorying, and assessing the 

																																																																																						 “Superintendent’s Annual Reports” Binder, Park 

Administrative Files. 

72. Mary Ann Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield 

October 1999 to September 2000 Annual Report,” February 

12, 2001, Folder Stones River National Battlefield, 

Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, 

Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

73. National Park Service, “Resource Management Plan 

Stones River National Battlefield,” 8-11.

condition of features that comprised component 

landscapes within the park’s boundary.74

In 1995, the park was selected for archeological 

investigations as part of the Systemwide 

Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP). The 

survey utilized five different testing techniques, 

including auger/shovel testing, test excavations, 

geophysical survey done by metal detector, EM 38 

Ground Conductivity Instrument survey, and 

GSM-19 Overhauser Magntometer survey. 

Volunteers assisted with the metal detector survey 

and contributed 736 man-hours. They covered 

103.65 acres and recovered 2,349 artifacts. Of 

these artifacts, 57 percent were related to the Civil 

War. Archeologists used location data to infer 

troop locations, types of weapons used, and 

intensity of fighting in certain areas. John 

Cornelison wrote in the survey report, 

This survey was the first major test of the metal 

detecting methodology on battlefield where 

the combatants used similar and generally 

indistinguishable weapons and tactics. Overall, 

the techniques were extremely successful and 

provided a wealth of information concerning 

the battle and other park resources.75

Despite these accomplishments, Cornelison did 

not publish his results until 2005. 

The park lacked a dedicated cultural resource 

specialist to sustain momentum on cultural 

resource documentation and management, since 

permanent park staff were heavily involved in land 

acquisition activities and park planning efforts. 

Therefore, when Jim Lewis was hired in 1997, 

cultural resources became one of his collateral 

duties. The park hired a number of seasonal 

employees to help him with museum collections 

and other cultural resource work. By 1998, the 

park had a Scope of Collections Statement and had 

started work organizing its archives. That same 

year, the park received funding for a Cultural 

Landscape Report (CLR) for the national 

cemetery. Lucy Lawliss worked with Clint 

Genoble, a graduate student at Louisiana State 

University, on the CLR, which was the basis for his 

																																																							 74. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

Cultural Landscape Inventory, 1994. 

75. John E. Cornelison, Jr., An Archeological Report on a 

Geophysical and Limited Site Testing, Stones River National 

Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee: A Regionwide 

Archeological Survey Program Project SEAC Accession #1167 

(Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center, 2005), 2. 
Chapter Six

National Park Service 112

master’s thesis. The final report was never 

completed, however, and the park had to hire a 

contractor to restart the project in 2015. In 1998, 

the NPS completed a Cultural Landscape 

Inventory for the national cemetery.76

The Resource Management Plan also included a 

new technology, Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS), that was changing park resource 

management servicewide. Planners intended to 

use the technology for capturing baseline data for 

integrated management and long-term planning, 

including mapping exotic vegetation and land use 

planning. Recent innovations in GIS applications 

to historical sites, namely Civil War battlefields, 

also appeared promising for preservation and 

interpretation. The Washington Office 

commended the park for incorporating GIS in its 

management efforts and recommended ways the 

park might work with the regional GIS 

coordinator.77

Landscape Restoration and 

Earthworks Preservation 

The Southeast Regional Office primarily dealt with 

land acquisition, but park staff were left to restore 

the landscape back to its 1862 appearance. Not all 

the land the park acquired from the 1987 and 1991 

boundary expansions was free of modern 

intrusions. This meant removing houses, capping 

wells, and dealing with hazardous materials. 

Buildings over fifty years old had to be evaluated 

for the National Register of Historic Places. The 

NPS acquired part of a housing subdivision west of 

Thompson Lane across from the Hazen Brigade 

Monument, which included eleven-single family 

and duplex houses. Peckham and Backlund 

recalled that this was very new for Civil War parks 

to acquire land that was not "pristine," and the 

park did not have a lot of direction on how to 

																																																							 76. Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield October 

1995-September 1997 Annual Report”; Mary Ann Peckham, 

"Stones River National Battlefield October 1997-September 

1998 Annual Report," January 29, 1999, Folder Stones River 

National Battlefield, Superintendents' Annual Narrative 

Reports, 1980-2001, Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP; National 

Park Service, Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Inventory, 1998. 

77. Associate Director, Cultural Resources, to Regional 

Director, memorandum, “Resource Management Plan for 

Stones River National Battlefield,” July 5, 1991, Folder 391A 

N-16 Resource Management Plan, Park Archive.

proceed.78 The staff eventually learned how to take 

the necessary environmental measures to remove 

the structures and restore the landscape, which is 

now a common issue for battlefield restoration.

79

Most of the buildings acquired by the park were 

non-historic, but the park did partner with 

MTSU’s Center for Historic Preservation to 

evaluate a few buildings for their historical 

significance. In 1996, the park acquired Tract 01-

203 near the Artillery Monument. Known as the 

Vaughter tract, this parcel had a wood frame 

house that possibly dated to the nineteenth

century with contemporary outbuildings (see 

Fig. 50). Tom Vaughter last lived in the house and 

raised pigs. He also had a number of peacocks that 

roamed his land.80 Students at MTSU’s Center for 

Historic Preservation investigated the house in 

1993 and again in 1998. The 1993 team found that 

it did date from the nineteenth century and was 

built sometime between 1850 and 1890, but they 

could not specify whether or not the house was 

there during the battle. They suggested that it may 

be the same dwelling listed in the 1878 Beers Map, 

called the Collier-Leach House. Even if the 

dwelling post-dated the battle, the report noted 

that it may be significant for its relationship to 

Reconstruction.81 The 1998 team confirmed these 

findings, but could not provide a specific 

construction date.82 Although the investigators did 

not specify this, Tom Vaughter was African 

American. He was the son of Mary Smith 

																																																							 78. Quote from Peckham Interview, 9; Backlund Interview, 

Part Two, 6-7.

79. Peckham Interview, 9-10.

80. Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield October 

1995-September 1997 Annual Report.”

81. Edward A. Johnson to Mary Ann Peckham, letter, 

August 3, 1993, and James K. Huhta, Edward A. Johnson, 

and Liz M. Johnson, “Dating the Vaughter House: 

Preliminary Analysis of Material Evidence,” Prepared by 

Middle Tennessee State University Center for Historic 

Preservation, Murfreesboro, TN, August 1992, both Folder 

231 H-3015 Management, Preservation, & Maintenance, List 

of Classified Structures: Vaughter House, Series 1, Park 

Archive.

82. 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,” Prepared by Middle Tennessee 

State University, Murfreesboro, TN, January 1999, Collection 

Number 0092, Series, 1, Stones River National Battlefield 

Museum Collection. 
113 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Vaughter, the daughter of Ellis Smith.83 The 

federal government condemned a portion of her 

family’s land in the 1960s to be added to the 

Artillery Monument area. Knowing what we know 

about Cemetery community today, this dwelling 

may have been part of that community. However, 

park staff did not know the story of Cemetery 

community very well at this point and thought that 

Cemetery community was limited to the “Cedars” 

area along Old Nashville Highway. The house, 

which was in poor condition, was razed after the 

NPS determined it was ineligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places.

84

Figure 50 Vaughter House, included in 1999 MTSU Center 

for Historic Preservation Report. Likely photographed in 

1998, photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

The park faced a pretty daunting environmental 

challenge when cleaning up a local garbage dump, 

called Rosebank, near Redoubt Brannan on the 

Clark tract, which was between the park boundary 

and Stones River, near the railroad. Removing 

																																																							 83. Mary Smith Vaughter, Will, September 6, 1972, Book 

13, Page 522, copy found in Vaughter House Research File, 

Collection Number 0092, Series, 1, Stones River National 

Battlefield Museum Collection; 1940 United States Federal 

Census, Civil District 9, Rutherford County, Tennessee, Roll 

T627_3931, Page 5A, Enumeration District 75-10, (accessed 

through ancestry.com).

84. In the 1999 report, Carroll Van West determined that 

the house did not fit the larger pattern of African American 

settlement in Rutherford County, Tennessee, but the 

research of Rebecca Conard and her students has revealed 

that Cemetery community was more extensive than 

originally thought. The Vaughter property is located along 

historic Van Cleve Lane, which would have connected them 

to the Cedars area of Cemetery community. Huhta et al, 

“The Vaughter House”; Rebecca Conard, Historic Cemetery 

Community: The Cedars, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Rutherford County, Tennessee (Murfreesboro, TN: Middle 

Tennessee State University, prepared for Stones River 

National Battlefield, May 2016), ii.

houses was one thing, but removing a dump was 

another. Local residents began using this dump 

sometime in the 1950s. In fiscal year 1998, park 

staff began discussion with the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation 

about removing nearly forty years of detritus. The 

City of Murfreesboro began cleaning the dump in 

1999.85

Park staff also had little guidance on earthwork 

restoration, which they realized as they began 

planning how to preserve Fortress Rosecrans after 

the City of Murfreesboro transferred it to the 

park. Peckham recalled the challenges to restoring 

the earthworks: 

Obviously, the earthworks, what we could 

know of them after surveying them, were 

highly invisible given the cover, trees, and 

whatever. There were pathways through it that 

were volunteer trails that were actually 

increasing the erosion of the earthworks. 

There was virtually no up-to-date thinking 

about how you preserve earthworks. So, first of 

all, you [needed to] "restore" some kind of a 

cover for those earthworks. And what do you 

do about the trees? And how do you stabilize 

them? What do you do here? There was very 

little guidance...that was available nationally. 

And maybe time is fortuitous here but we were 

very fortunate to have working with us the 

person who helped spearhead the whole 

planning effort to restore Fortress Rosecrans.

86

The person that Peckham was referring to was 

Lucy Lawliss, who at the time was a landscape 

architect for the regional office. Lawliss helped 

staff at STRI put together an earthworks 

management plan. 

																																																							 85. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 1992 

Annual Report"; Peckham, "Stones River National 

Battlefield October 1997-September 1998 Annual Report"; 

Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield October 1998-

September 1999 Annual Report."

86. Peckham Interview, 19-20. Lawliss finished her twentyfive year career with the NPS as superintendent of 

Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park, when 

she retired in 2015. 
Chapter Six

National Park Service 114

Figure 51 Photograph showing erosion at Fortress 

Rosecrans. Possibly photographed in 1930s. Photographer 

unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

NPS cultural resource staff were in the early stages 

of establishing standards for earthworks 

preservation and interpretation when the city of 

Murfreesboro transferred Fortress Rosecrans to 

the park. In 1989, the NPS published Earthworks 

Management Manual, which was based on

investigations undertaken at four Virginia 

battlefields. These investigations uncovered two 

important conditions essential to earthworks 

preservation. First, vegetative cover with little 

human intervention is necessary to prevent

erosion (see fig. 51). Second, earthworks in 

forested areas exhibit less erosion than those in 

open areas, and their features are more 

discernible.87 This manual recommended that 

broomsedge (andropogon virginicus) be planted in 

open areas, which only needed to be mowed twice 

a year and discouraged visitors from walking on 

the earthworks. However, NPS cultural resource 

staff and consultants found that there needed to be 

more comprehensive guidance for sites outside 

Virginia, such as Fortress Rosecrans. In 1995, NPS 

cultural resource staff began work on a guide to 

sustainable earthworks management. The primary 

finding was that native grasses were equal to or 

superior to lawn-quality turf. Native grasses were 

better for adapting to changing climates and 

conditions.88

From their work at STRI, Lawliss and her 

colleague, Sean Eyring, used Fortress Rosecrans as 

																																																							 87. Andropogon Associates, Earthworks Landscape 

Management Manual (Philadelphia, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Office, National Park Service, 1989).

88. Shaun Eyring and Lucy Lawliss, “Preserving Battlefield 

Terrain: Technologies for Earthworks Management,” APT 

Bulletin 31, no. 4 (2000): 14. 

a case study in earthworks restoration. When the 

NPS took ownership of the property, the 

earthworks were under unstable forest cover and 

infiltrated by exotic species. The park brought in 

an expert tree crew from parks in the Southeast 

Region to carefully thin the trees without using 

heavy equipment. The down trees were then put 

through a chipper on site and the mulch spread on 

trails and bare spots on the earthworks (see Fig. 

52). They found that mulched trails were 

appropriate groundcover near the earthworks. 

The park also built a system of boardwalks at 

Fortress Rosecrans to help keep visitors off the 

earthworks and provide a better viewing platform 

for earthwork features. Before building the 

boardwalks, SEAC archeologists undertook 

subsurface testing along the proposed route. NPS 

staff removed the exotic species and hydroseeded

a native grass-cover mix. The park then instituted 

a two-year monitoring program to observe the 

impact of invasive species, maintenance 

operations, animals, and visitors. This monitoring 

effort was conducted with the purpose of 

providing a site-specific monitoring protocol that 

could be adapted by other parks.89 The park held 

a dedication ceremony in October 1994 (see Fig. 

53).

Figure 52 Rehabilitation of Fortress Rosecrans. 

Photographed by Mike Mosley, 1994. 

																																																							 89. Eyring and Lawliss, “Preserving Battlefield Terrain,”16-

18; John E. Cornelison, Jr., Report on Archeological 

Investigation of Lunette Palmer and Redoubt Brannan, Parts 

of Fortress Rosecrans, Located in Stones River National 

Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, SEAC Accessions 993 

and 1021 (Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center, 

October 1992), 2.
115 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Figure 53 NPS Director Roger Kennedy, Congressman Bart 

Gordon, Murfreesboro Mayor Joe Jackson, and 

Superintendent Mary Ann Peckham cut the ribbon at the 

dedication of Fortress Rosecrans. Photographed by Lou 

Carter on October 31, 1994. Courtesy of STRI. 

The park had to put planning and restoration 

work on hold for Redoubt Brannan in 1993 while 

someone investigated possible hazardous waste on 

the property due to the presence of Rosebank 

dump adjacent to the earthworks. The park was 

able to resume work and implement its plan in 

1996. A tree crew comprised of staff from Blue 

Ridge Parkway, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 

and Natchez Trace Parkway selectively removed 

trees from the site. Then, the site was hydroseeded 

with a mix of partridge pea, crimson clover, and 

annual rye grass, which was suggested by Historic 

Landscape Architect Darrell Morrison. Park staff 

continued to spot treat exotic species. A crew from 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Shiloh 

National Battlefield built an interior boardwalk in 

1996. The park contracted Elkhorn Construction 

of Powell, Wyoming, to build a new parking lot 

and trail. However, the trail was unsatisfactory and 

the park had to find a new contractor. This new 

trail linked the site with the new Greenway trail.90

1999 General Management Plan 

While the Southeast Regional Office worked to 

resolve land acquisition issues, park staff were 

tasked with updating the 1980 GMP, as required 

by Public Law 102-225. They quickly found that 

the GMP needed more than just an update; the 

park needed a completely new document. For this 

GMP, they had the assistance of the NPS Denver 

Service Center (DSC), which replaced the EODC 

																																																							 90. Peckham, “ Stones River National Battlefield 1993 

Annual Report”; Peckham, “Stones River National 

Battlefield October 1995-September 1997.” 

and WODC in the early 1970s.91 This centralized 

office helped parks like Stones River National 

Battlefield with planning and design projects by 

providing technical expertise in a variety of 

different areas. Despite the DSC's assistance, it

took nearly eight years to complete a document 

that was meant to last fifteen years. 

The process was languid for several reasons. At the 

park level, staff had to work through contentious 

land acquisitions, multiple planning projects, and 

various landscape restoration projects. The 

National Park Service implemented new 

initiatives, like the Vail Agenda, that park staff had 

to respond to. Furthermore, the 1990s brought a 

host of new technological tools that changed the 

way parks operated, with the advent of GIS and 

new centralized management procedures such as 

the Project Management Information System 

(PMIS). These new tools impacts how projects 

were formulated and funded.92 Peckham indicated 

in an oral history interview another reason why 

the process may have been slow. She said that park

staff and stakeholders wanted to take the 

opportunity to imagine a new vision for the park. 

In fact, the planning team, with input from park 

staff and stakeholders, began work on the GMP by 

addressing the park’s mission, vision, and 

interpretive themes first. Peckham recalled their 

approach:

The lens through which that planning team, of 

which we were all a part, was to look at the 

resources and to explore and relate the 

significant stories to the resources. And focus 

less on building and infrastructure and more 

on what do we really need to save to tell the 

story.93

This meant they had to think through issues in 

interpretation, resource management, and visitor 

services. 

The GMP team articulated the park's purpose, 

significance, and their vision for it. They stated 

that the purpose of the park "is to preserve and 

interpret the battlefield of Stones River, to mark 

																																																							 91. Kathy Mengak, Reshaping Our National Parks and Their

Guardians: The Legacy of George B. Hartzog Jr.

(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2012), 219.

92. Backlund Interview, Part Three. 

93. Peckham Interview, 16.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 116

the significant sites, and to promote understanding 

and appreciation of the battle and related 

events."94 Park planners noted several reasons for 

the battle's significance, including the 

"psychological and political" importance of the 

Union's victory for President Lincoln and the 

United States. They noted the commemorative 

aspects of the landscape, including the national 

cemetery and Hazen Brigade Monument. They 

also acknowledged the significance of Fortress 

Rosecrans in telling the story of Union occupation 

during the war. In their vision for the park, they 

wrote that the park should be "a non distracting 

environment where visitors can contemplate the 

sacredness of the battlefield, understand and 

appreciate the Battle of Stones River and its 

significance, [and] experience a personal 

connection with this past human conflict."95

Peckham and her staff were interested in creating 

a new interpretive vision for STRI. Planners were 

quite clearly unsatisfied with merely providing the 

military order of the battle in the confines of those 

three days that the battle took place. They were 

interested in getting at questions of causation and 

legacies of the war—why it mattered—although 

they refrained from saying slavery and 

emancipation explicitly. However, their line of 

thinking followed the direction of historical 

scholarship of the time. Historians were involved 

in creating a “New Military History,” a new body 

of scholarship interested in larger socio-cultural 

issues.96 The interpretive themes included in the 

GMP mark the influence of “New Military 

History” on park interpretation. Stones River 

National Battlefield seemed to have been at the 

leading edge of this conversation. 

Park planners offered three possible alternatives in 

the 1999 GMP to achieve this new vision for the 

park. The first alternative focused on providing a 

"sense of place" to the visitor, and was most 

ambitious in acquiring more of the greater 

																																																							 94. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Tennessee: Final General Management Plan, Development 

Concept Plan, Environmental Impact Statement (Denver, 

CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1998), 11.

95. National Park Service, Final General Management Plan, 

Development Concept Plan, Environmental Impact 

Statement, 11. 

96. Jennifer Murray, On a Great Battlefield: The Making, 

Management, and Memory of Gettysburg National Military 

Park, 1933-2013 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 

2014), 169. 

battlefield so that it could be restored back to its 

1862 appearance. However, to achieve expanded 

land acquisition plans it would require an 

additional act of Congress. Alternative 1 also called 

for a 7.6-mile auto-tour route that would take 

visitors to all significant areas of the core 

battlefield. Park planners also envisioned a 

renovated visitor center, with a new documentary 

film, and new design plan for the Artillery 

Monument area, which they were now referring to 

as "McFadden Farm," named after the landowners 

there during the battle. Cumulatively, this 

alternative focused on restoring the battlefield's 

historic appearance and providing a quality visitor 

experience that encouraged them to leave the 

visitor center and engage with the landscape.97

Alternative 2 scaled down the boundary change 

proposal and instead focused on providing better 

interpretation and visitor experience within the 

authorized boundary. It called for many of the 

same things in Alternative 1, such as a new tour 

road, visitor center renovation, and McFadden 

Farm changes. However, the tour road would only 

be five miles long, not 7.6 miles as it had been 

prescribed in Alternative 1. Alternative 2 

emphasized working with park neighbors, local 

agencies, and community groups to preserve and 

protect those landscapes with historical integrity 

outside of the park boundary.98 

Alternative 3 is commonly referred to as the "No 

Action Alternative." It meant that park operations 

would continue as they currently were, but park 

planners were more interested in Alternatives 1 or 

2. They did not feel that Alternative 3 was the most 

effective alternative, because they could not 

interpret the battle outside of the park boundary.99

Park planners presented these alternatives to the 

public in 1997 at three public meetings. The GMP 

team had regularly included public involvement 

throughout the process, starting in 1992, but this 

was an opportunity for stakeholders to share their 

thoughts on the entire document. Park planners 

preferred Alternative 1 at the time. However, public 

																																																							 97. National Park Service, Final General Management Plan, 

Development Concept Plan, Environmental Impact 

Statement, 19-42.

98. Ibid., 43-48.

99. Ibid., 49-53.
117 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

comments varied in their support. Many 

respondents supported Alternative 1, because they 

felt the battlefield was worth protecting, the park's 

current size was inadequate to telling the battle's 

story, and the greater battlefield was under grave 

threat. But then there were many respondents who 

did not want to see the park expand and felt 

Alternative 2 was sufficient. They criticized the 

NPS for overreaching and taking too long to act on 

a property, consequently impinging on the rights of 

property owners. Interestingly, some of those 

supporting Alternative 1 were also displeased with 

how long the federal government took to acquire 

property.100 These public meetings underscored the 

tensions between preservationists and those 

interested in economic development that colored 

the entire land acquisition process through the 

1990s. 

The NPS finalized the GMP and EIS two years 

later in 1999 and maintained Alternative 1 as the 

NPS's preferred action. However, the park lacked 

the necessary local support and favorable 

conditions in Congress to make an ambitious land 

acquisition program feasible. Contentious issues, 

such as the condemnation of the Miller property, 

really "poisoned the well" among local 

landowners, according to Jim Lewis.101 A 

Republican-controlled Congress limited what 

Congressman Gordon could achieve. Additionally, 

he had his own challenges being a Democrat in an 

increasingly conservative area. It appeared that the 

window for land acquisition had mostly closed. 

Tennessee Civil War National 

Heritage Area 

The GMP did place a new emphasis on park 

partnerships, which highlighted a national shift in 

Civil War preservation and interpretation. This 

shift was exemplified by the creation of the ABPP, 

which promoted private-public partnerships, since 

many people realized that the federal government 

could only purchase so much property. 

Communities would need a variety of tools to 

preserve their Civil War heritage. Under the 

guidance of Mary Ann Peckham, park staff were 

doing more to work with local organizations and 

																																																							 100. Ibid., 123-133.

101. Jim Lewis Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, TN, 

November 9, 2015, 12.

Civil War preservation groups to help raise 

awareness of the greater battlefield. In the mid1990s, Congress created a new type of national 

park unit called a Heritage Area that provided a 

unique opportunity to bring these groups together 

in a more formal manner to preserve and interpret 

the Civil War in Tennessee.

The National Heritage Area (NHA) program was 

created in 1995 as an innovative initiative to 

preserve and interpret large-scale landscapes that 

reflect the country's diverse heritage. This program 

is administered by the NPS, but the federal 

government does not own any land. These NHAs 

are partnership units, comprised of a variety of 

organizations, which is overseen by a board. 

Congress appropriated funds to help promote 

preservation, interpretation, and heritage tourism, 

but Congress intended NHAs to become selfsustaining after a period of years.102

James Huhta, Director of the MTSU Center for 

Historic Preservation, put in a proposal in 1995 for 

the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area 

(TCWNHA), and it was one of eight selected for 

the new program. Huhta had been an advocate for 

preserving Civil War sites in Rutherford County 

and those that related to the Battle of Stones River. 

The TCWNHA is administered by the Center for 

Historic Preservation at MTSU and covers all the 

counties in Tennessee. It remains the only heritage 

area that encompasses an entire state. The NPS 

supported the TCWNHA when it was created, and 

park staff regularly work with the program. The 

creation of the heritage area in 1998 indicates that 

the NPS and preservationists realized there was a 

limit on what the federal government could do, 

particularly in terms of land acquisition. 

Partnerships were key in moving battlefield 

preservation and interpretation forward.103

Holding the High Ground 

In 1998, superintendents from Civil War parks 

convened in Nashville for a conference called 

Holding the High Ground, where participants 

																																																							 102. "History of the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area," 

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, 

http://www.tncivilwar.org/who_we_are/history (accessed 

February 11, 2016).

103. Ibid.
Chapter Six

National Park Service 118

were charged with answering the question, "How 

do we go about expanding the scope of 

interpretation on Civil War battlefields, giving 

visitors the opportunity to explore the 

fundamental contexts and meanings of the 

resources that comprise Civil War battlefields?"104

NPS staff were joined by various stakeholders, 

including state politicians and real estate people, to 

discuss how various entities were managing and 

interpreting Civil War resources. Because the park 

is so close to Nashville, STRI staff helped organize 

the conference and hosted field trips. Discussants 

came to a consensus that slavery should be 

discussed as a cause of the Civil War, an argument 

based in historical scholarship, but could be 

unpopular with stakeholders with a firm hold on 

Lost Cause ideology.105

This conversation was notable in context with the 

“Culture Wars” of the 1980s and 1990s, when 

historical interpretations at museums, historic sites, 

and classrooms came under political scrutiny as 

long-revered narratives were challenged by new 

scholarship.106 Indeed, the Sons of Confederate 

Veterans were not pleased with this new direction 

in Civil War park interpretation.107

Congressman Jesse Jackson sought to ensure that 

the conversation at the Nashville meeting was not 

just talk. In 2000, he attached an amendment to the 

Department of Interior’s appropriation bill 

requiring the National Park Service to expand 

interpretation at Civil War sites, including the topic 

of slavery and its centrality as a cause of the Civil 

War. At the direction of the Secretary of Interior 

Bruce Babbitt, the NPS put together a report on the 

status of interpretation at NPS Civil War sites, 

which recognized that there were deficiencies in 

placing Civil War battles in larger context.108 That 

																																																							 104. Robert Sutton, "Holding the High Ground: Interpreting 

the Civil War in National Parks," George Wright Forum 25, 

no. 3 (2008): 47.

105. Ibid., 52.

106. Tom Engelhardt and Edward T. Linenthal, ed., History 

Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American 

Past (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996), 5. 

107. Murray, On a Great Battlefield, 170. 

108. Robert Sutton, ed., Rally on the High Ground: The 

National Park Service Symposium on the Civil War (Fort 

Washington, PA: Eastern National, 2001), under 

“Foreword,” 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/rthg/fore.ht

m (accessed July 12, 2016). 

same year, the NPS convened a conference at 

Ford’s Theater, bringing in highly respected Civil 

War scholars such as James McPherson and Eric 

Foner to talk about the latest scholarship, 

particularly on the causes of the war, and issues in 

interpretation. One of the emergent themes in the 

symposium’s proceedings was the link to the Civil 

Rights Movement, notably Congressman Jackson’s 

remarks, which would influence sesquicentennial 

planning efforts in coming years.109

Staff at STRI were clearly influenced by these 

meetings. In Fiscal Year 2001, a year after 

Congressman Jackson’s amendment, the park 

noted in its annual report that interpretive staff 

were now giving programs on slavery in Middle 

Tennessee.110 This indicates that staff were 

responsive to these larger conversations. But it also 

means that planning documents like the GMP were 

out of date almost as soon as they were finished, 

because they could not keep pace with larger 

cultural changes. 

Park Staffing 

Magee had the assistance of Administrative 

Technician Frances McPeak, Maintenance 

Foreman Bobby Simerly, Park Technician Bettie 

Cook, Tractor Operator August King, 

Maintenance Worker Frankie King, Park 

Technician (Typing) Teresa Watson (then Teresa 

Bratcher), and Laborer Albert Pomplun. Ron 

Gibbs, Chief of Interpretation and Resources 

Management under James Sanders, left sometime 

before 1980. Dennis P. Kelly from Manassas 

National Battlefield replaced him, but the position 

was downgraded to GS-6 Lead Park Technician. 

Kelly helped fill the historian role at the park, but 

Magee had a hard time keeping historians at the 

park during his tenure. In 1982, Kelly switched 

positions with Daniel A. Brown at Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield. Brown remained at 

STRI until 1985, when he was promoted to 

historian at Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park. Charles Spearman from Fort Union National 

																																																							 109. Jesse Jackson, “A More Perfect Union,” in Rally on the 

High Ground, 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/rthg/chap1.h

tm (accessed July 12, 2016). 

110. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2001 September 

2000 to October 2001."
119 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Monument replaced Brown in 1985.111 These 

historians assisted with park research and 

preservation projects, but Magee said Bobby 

Simerly was just as essential in carrying out these 

projects. Magee remembers that Simerly, who was 

first hired by Jim Sanders, was “worth his weight in 

gold (see Fig. 54).”112 He was a capable 

maintenance foreman and very helpful with the 

park’s preservation projects. 

Figure 54 Bobby Simerly observes historic preservation and 

archeology work on the Hazen Brigade Monument in July 

1985. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI.

When Magee arrived at Stones River National 

Battlefield in 1980, he was mandated to report how 

the park was addressing Equal Opportunity 

Employment. NPS administrators were continuing 

the agency’s drive to bring more women and 

minorities into the agency (see Fig. 55). Frances 

McPeak, Teresa Watson, and Bettie Cook were 

already at the park before Magee’s arrival. The 

park continued to hire women and minorities for 

seasonal positions as well. McPeak, Watson, and 

Cook attended meetings and seminars on women 

working in the federal government. In 1982, the 

park held a mini-conference for women in the 

federal government.113 These women offered 

																																																							 111. Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1980," March 11, 1981; Donald Magee, 

"Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones River National 

Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 1982," March 7, 

1983, both Folder Stones River National Battlefield, 

Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, 

Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP; Magee, "Superintendent's 

Annual Report of Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery for Calendar Year 1985."

112. Magee Interview, 8.

113. Donald Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1980," March 11, 1981; Donald Magee, 

"Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones River National 

invaluable skills and energy to their positions. 

Bettie Cook was the Environmental Education 

coordinator for the park, but also went through 

law enforcement training. Teresa Watson helped 

the park transition to the digital age when the park 

received its first computer in 1984.114

Figure 55 “Ms. Bettie Cook, Park Aid.” Photograph, taken 

September 29, 1972, shows Cook in an NPS women’s 

uniform standing next to STRI sign. Photographer 

unknown. Courtesy of STRI.

Magee indicated that female employees were 

vulnerable to harassment from other male 

employees. He recalled one occurrence when one 

male staff member was relocated for harassing a 

female employee at the park.115

																																																																																						 Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 1982," March 7, 

1983, both Folder Stones River National Battlefield, 

Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, 

Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

114. Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones 

River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 

1984."

115. Although this story of sexual harassment is anecdotal, 

it is worth noting since the Department of Interior inspector 

general recently investigated agency sexual harassment 

complaints and concluded that multiple women were 

repeatedly harassed at Grand Canyon National Park and 

Canaveral National Seashore. Secretary of the Interior Sally 

Jewell has acknowledged that these findings are likely the 

“tip of the iceberg.” Thus, anecdotal evidence like Magee’s 

comment is important for recognizing a larger pattern 

servicewide. Magee Interview, 10; Lisa Rein, “Interior chief: 

‘Culture’ of sexual harassment probably pervades the 

National Park Service,” Washington Post, July 12, 2016,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016

/07/12/interior-chief-culture-of-sexual-harassment-likelypervades-the-national-park-service/ (accessed July 13, 206). 
Chapter Six

National Park Service 120

Frankie King, a local African American man,

continued to work in maintenance (see Fig. 56). 

King began working for the park in 1969 before 

enlisting in the Navy in 1971. He was released 

from the Navy a year later and resumed working 

for STRI. Park staff were stunned when, in 1989, 

Frankie was murdered in Nashville. His wife was 

convicted of the crime. Since he was a veteran, 

Frankie was buried in Stones River National 

Cemetery in Section Q.116 As a longtime resident of 

the Bottom, Frankie provided a link between the 

park and the African American community.117

Figure 56 “Gus King and Frankie King setting up link 

chipper.” Photographed by Teresa (Bratcher) Watson on 

December 5, 1980. Courtesy of STRI. 

The death of Frankie King did not occur in the 

park, but Magee noted in the 1980 annual report 

that crime was on the rise in and around the park 

due to urbanization and economic insecurity.118 A 

suicide occurred in the park during his tenure, and 

park staff found a decomposed head from another 

homicide.119 Additionally, park staff found 

marijuana plants in the park. The police found that 

																																																							 116. “F. King,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs BIRLS 

Death File, 1850-2010 (accessed through ancestry.com); 

Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones River 

National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 1984"; 

Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery 

1989 Annual Report"; Magee Interview, 26-27; Hicklen 

Interview, 17-18.

117. Teresa Watson recalled the African American 

community being “standoffish,” but employing people like 

Frankie King at the park helped ease tensions. Teresa 

Watson Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, TN, 

February 18, 2016, 22. 

118. Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of Stones 

River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar Year 

1980."

119. Magee Interview, 19.

a former seasonal maintenance employee had used 

a shovel and fertilizer owned by the park to grow 

these plants. He was arrested and prosecuted.120

Although these events were abnormal compared 

to regular park infractions, such as traffic citations

and vandalism, they may have underscored the 

need for commissioned park rangers at Stones 

River National Battlefield. Charlie Spearman, the 

park historian and Chief Ranger, had a law 

enforcement commission. Bettie Cook also earned 

her commission while working for the park. 

When Mary Ann Peckham took over the 

superintendency, she had the assistance of seven 

full time employees, including longtime employees 

Teresa Watson (then known as Teresa Warnack), 

Bettie Cook, and Bobby Simerly, who proved to be 

valuable assets for park administration, 

interpretation, and maintenance.121 Frances 

McPeak retired in 1990 and Peckham promoted 

Watson to take her place.122 Gilbert (Gib) 

Backlund joined the staff in 1992, followed by Jim 

Lewis in 1997. Both have remained at the park for 

long periods of time and have been influential in 

the park’s management and operation.

Backlund earned a bachelor's degree in English 

from the University of Minnesota and gained a 

variety of experience in interpretation, law 

enforcement, and resource management working 

at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, 

Mammoth Cave National Park, Glacier National 

Park, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore. He 

did a short-term detail at Stones River National 

Battlefield in 1991, before Superintendent 

Peckham hired him full-time in 1992. Backlund 

replaced Charles Spearman as Chief Ranger.123 He 

was later promoted to Chief of Operations. 

Under Peckham’s direction, Backlund revamped

the park's volunteer program as part of a larger 

effort to develop a more formal interpretive 

																																																							 120. Ibid; Magee, "Superintendent's Annual Report of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Cemetery for Calendar 

Year 1985."

121. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield and 

Cemetery 1989 Annual Report"; Peckham Interview, 7.

122. Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield 1990 

Annual Report.” 

123. Gilbert Backlund Interview by Angela Sirna, Part One, 

Murfreesboro, TN, October 14, 2015, 1-3.
121 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

program. When Backlund arrived in 1992, the park 

had 282 volunteers, who donated 2,398 hours of 

their time. In Fiscal Year 2000, the volunteer 

program grew to include 599 volunteers with 5,783 

hours.124 Backlund indicates that upon his arrival, 

park volunteers were mostly self-directed and 

independent, which made it difficult for park staff 

to ensure quality, particularly in the living history 

programs, a popular volunteer activity. Backlund, 

under the guidance of Peckham, developed a list of 

standards for living history and a volunteer 

agreement form, which volunteers were asked to 

review and sign. He also devised an interpretive 

program schedule in order to make these 

programs more formalized and organized. 

Additionally, he arranged formal volunteer

training. But there were definite power dynamics 

in the group. Some members felt a sense of 

ownership of the park and their programs, so 

introducing these new measures did cause some 

tensions between park staff and volunteers. With 

time, however, park staff were able to expand the 

volunteer program from primarily living history to 

other interpretive programs, visitor services, 

museum collections, maintenance, and resource 

management.125

Some park volunteers were active with the new 

Friends of Stones River National Battlefield. Bob 

and Sue Ragland, for example, were organizing 

members of the battlefield's living history group, 

while also members of the RCHS. Shirley Jones, 

who was a member of the RCHS, later became 

president of the Friends group, but became

involved through land acquisition activities, which 

was a major concern for the group. Friends 

members often attended public hearings having to 

do with land acquisition and zoning and would 

speak in favor of the park. They informally talked 

to landowners, hoping to persuade them to sell to 

the federal government. They helped with some 

small transfers of land, but they did not have the 

budget for larger projects. Peckham was 

supportive of the group and often attended 

meetings to provide the park's perspective on 

matters.126

																																																							 124. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 1992 

Annual Report"; Peckham, “Stones River National 

Battlefield October 1999 to September 2000 Annual 

Report.” 

125. Backlund Interview, Part One, 10-13.

126. Ibid., 9; Eddie Macon Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, February 3, 2016, 10.

In the early 1990s, there were further efforts to 

professionalize the agency, which were partly 

outlined by the Vail Agenda. Among the specific 

recommendations from the Vail conference was to 

establish or raise educational requirements for 

professional track positions.127 This measure was 

supported by the ANPR, whose membership had 

formed to promote professionalization in the 

agency. Out of the Vail conference came the 

Ranger Futures/Ranger Careers program, which 

upgraded many ranger positions and eliminated 

the park technician series. This way, NPS 

personnel could move into higher rated positions 

that required additional educational knowledge 

and expertise.128 This was an important 

development for STRI, as well as other parks in the 

system, because it allowed administrators to 

upgrade certain positions and bring in more 

experts for others. However, this had the effect of 

further specializing ranger positions and making it 

harder to hire individuals who could function as 

generalists.

Staff positions were upgraded over the next few 

years. In 1993, the superintendent’s position was 

changed from GS-11 to GS-12. In 1998, it was 

raised again to GS-13. As Chief Ranger, Backlund 

was moved from a GS-9 to GS-11. He retained the 

GS-11 level when his position changed to Chief of 

Operations in 1996. The superintendent combined 

maintenance and ranger duties (which now 

included a Law Enforcement Park Ranger and an 

Interpretive Park Ranger) to form one division 

under his supervision. Teresa Watson, who was 

listed as a GS-7 Administrative Support Assistant 

in 1992 was later promoted to GS-9 Administrative 

Officer. Maintenance workers also saw wage 

increases. Bobby Simerly retired as the 

Maintenance Supervisor WS-6 in April 1996 after 

23 years of government service. 129

																																																							 127. National Park Service, “National Parks for the 21st

Century: The Vail Agenda,” 1992, reproduced by Dilsaver, 

America’s National Parks, 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_8

e.htm (accessed June 30, 2016). 

128. “Association Actions,” Ranger 10, no. 3 (Summer 1994): 

6-7.

129. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 1993 

Annual Report;" Peckham, "Stones River National 

Battlefield October 1997-September 1998 Annual Report;"

Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield October 1999 

to September 2000 Annual Report;” Mary Ann Peckham, 

“Stones River National Battlefield October 1995-Septmber 

1997 Annual Report,” March 1998, “Superintendent’s 

Annual Reports” Binder, Park Administrative Files. 
Chapter Six

National Park Service 122

When Simerly retired, the superintendent 

abolished the Maintenance Supervisor (also 

referred to as Maintenance Foreman) position and 

created the Maintenance Work Leader position. 

Laura Stresemann transferred from Greenbelt 

Park to fill this position in May 1997.130

With a budget increase, Backlund was able to hire 

Jim Lewis as a Law Enforcement Park Ranger in 

June 1997. Lewis earned a History of Science 

degree from Cornell University before working as 

a seasonal ranger at Morristown National 

Historical Park and then a park guard at Edison 

National Historic Site. His position at Edison NHS 

was converted to park ranger and Lewis had the 

opportunity to go through Federal Law 

Enforcement Training. In addition to earning a 

law enforcement commission, Lewis became 

interested in managing museum collections while 

working at Edison NHS. When a position came 

open at Stones River National Battlefield, 

Backlund hired him for his law enforcement 

background and interest in interpretation, since 

the park needed someone to do both (see Fig. 

57).

131 Despite the agency’s move toward more 

specialized positions, this did not negate the need 

for the park to hire people that could fill multiple 

roles. 

Figure 57 Park Ranger Jim Lewis during living history 

program. Photographer and date unknown. Courtesy of Jim 

Lewis/STRI. 

Conclusion 

The year 2000 brought not only a new millennium, 

but another change in administration at Stones 

River National Battlefield when Mary Ann 

Peckham retired from federal service. In early 

September that year, the Southeast Regional Office 

																																																							 130. Peckham, “Stones River National Battlefield October 

1995-Septmber 1997 Annual Report.”

131. Lewis Interview, 1-6; Gib Interview, Part One, 11.

contacted her about a newly created position, 

Branch Chief of Partnership Programs, for the 

region. She discussed the position with them, but 

had reservations. She felt it was a bad time to 

change management at Stones River National 

Battlefield. She declined the position and the 

regional office informed her that if she failed to 

accept the reassignment, she would be removed 

from her position. She opted to retire. Peckham 

continued to volunteer with the NPS and then 

began working as Executive Director of the 

Tennessee Civil War Preservation Association. She 

continues to help communities preserve 

battlefields across the state of Tennessee.132

Peckham and her staff put up the last fight for 

expanding STRI's boundary in an attempt to 

preserve more of the greater battlefield. They had a 

small window to work with because they needed 

support from Congress and had to act before land 

prices increased with development. Fortunately, 

they had the support of Congressman Gordon, 

who was instrumental for both the 1987 and 1991 

boundary expansions, in addition to the Greenway 

project and transfer of Fortress Rosecrans to the 

NPS. The NPS also had the support of local 

preservationists, including members of the 

Rutherford County Historical Society, and new 

partner organizations, such as the Friends of 

Stones River National Battlefield and Tennessee 

Civil War National Heritage Area. The policies and 

procedures that the NPS had to follow meant that 

the NPS could not act as fast as some of their 

supporters would have liked, however. As that 

narrow window for land acquisition began to close, 

park neighbors complained that the NPS was 

overreaching in its agenda and were infringing 

upon property rights. 

While the NPS might not have acquired all the land 

it had hoped for, the park did nearly double in size 

during this period, which offered new 

opportunities for visitor engagement, but also new 

challenges in battlefield preservation. First, park 

staff had to learn how to remove modern 

intrusions from the battlefield to bring it back to an 

appearance that fit with their idea of what the 1862 

landscape looked like. In this respect, the park was 

at the leading edge of battlefield preservation along 

																																																							 132. Peckham Interview, 24; Louis [Finkel] to Bart [Gordon], 

memorandum, "Status of Management Change at Stones 

River and Reassignment of Mary Ann Peckham," November 

15, 2000, Peckham/SRNB Leadership Folder, Box 27, 

Legislative Issues—Projects, Bart Gordon Papers, AGRC.
123 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

with its treatment of Civil War earthworks and 

recreational development. The Greenway trail, 

completed in fiscal year 1998, was one of the first 

greenways in Middle Tennessee. Other cities were 

impressed by its success and wanted to use it as a 

model. The NPS helped the City of Murfreesboro

with the first three-mile section. The city has 

gradually extended the trail, which is expected to 

reach fifteen miles with future extensions 

planned.

133 Park staff were also at the leading edge 

of Civil War interpretation by showing an interest

in expanding the park stories beyond just military 

history. 

																																																							 133. Peckham, "Stones River National Battlefield 1992 

Annual Report"; Mary Ann Peckham, "Stones River National 

Battlefield October 1997-September 1998 Annual Report"; 

Syler Interview, 10-11.
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 124

Chapter Seven

Rebuilding the Park, 2000-2012

By the time Stuart Johnson arrived to take up the 

superintendency of Stones River National 

Battlefield in 2000, the NPS had largely stepped 

away from any ambitious land acquisitions. 

Regional and park staff still worked to acquire

tracts within the 1991 authorized boundary, but 

not with the same gusto as before. Instead, with 

Johnson’s guidance park staff began making 

preparations to breathe some new life into the 

park. 

Park Ranger Jim Lewis recalled that the park felt 

very "dated" when he arrived in 1997.

1 The visitor 

center, museum exhibits, tour road, wayside 

exhibits, and staff residences all dated from the 

Mission 66 period. In fact, they had changed little 

since Mission 66, with the exception of an 

extension made to the visitor center during 

Superintendent Peckham's tenure. The 1999 

General Management Plan outlined improvements 

to be made to the park, which were heavily 

emphasized in Alternative 2.2 Once Johnson 

arrived, park staff focused on putting the pieces 

together for Alternative 2, which called for 

restoring the battlefield back to its 1862 

appearance, rerouting the tour road, updating the 

visitor center and museum, and installing new 

wayside exhibits.3 Congressman Bart Gordon 

remained a strong ally during this time and was 

																																																							 1. James Lewis Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, TN, 

November 9, 2015, 9.

2. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield, 

Tennessee: Final General Management Plan, Development 

Concept Plan, Environmental Impact Statement (Denver, 

CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1998), 43-

38.

3. Lewis Interview, 15-16.

able to acquire the necessary funding from 

Congress to make many of these plans a reality.4

Implementing GMP Alternative 2 

Superintendent Peckham was involved with 

planning the new visitor center and tour road 

before she retired, but the process had stalled.5

The planning team was struggling to figure out 

how to use existing park resources to make a 

better experience for visitors. The person that 

would help guide them through this process was 

the new superintendent, Stuart Johnson, who

previously had been the Chief of Planning for the 

Southeast Regional Office. Johnson had the skills 

to turn their vision for the park into a reality. 

Johnson had a wealth of experience in cultural 

resource management and park planning. 

Originally from Atlanta, Johnson earned a 

bachelor's degree in political science from Duke 

University. He went on pursue a master's degree in 

park and recreation from Clemson University. His 

first position with the NPS was as a seasonal 

interpreter at the Blue Ridge Parkway in 1973, 

upon the recommendation of his graduate advisor 

at Clemson, who was very much interested in 

interpretation. Johnson did not feel that 

interpretation was his wheelhouse, but he was 

interested in park planning. He took a Peace Corps 

position in Iran to help establish a national park 

there, but the project did not get off the ground. 

He returned to the United States and took an 

																																																							 4. Kent Syler Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, TN, 

November 13, 2016, 18. 

5. Lewis Interview, 15.
125 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

internship at Unicoi State Park in Georgia. His first 

permanent job was with the South Carolina 

Department of History and Archives, where he 

managed historic preservation grants. He then 

took a position with the Department of the 

Interior in the Heritage Conservation and 

Recreation Service, which was the agency that 

replaced the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The 

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was 

a short-lived agency, created by President Jimmy 

Carter in the late days of his administration and 

almost immediately abolished by President Ronald 

Reagan. Many of the agency's responsibilities were 

transferred to the National Park Service, and 

Johnson found himself working for the NPS at the 

Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta. He started 

working in historic preservation grants, but then 

later managed the historic preservation tax credit 

program for the region and then became involved 

in cultural resource planning. While working for 

the Southeast Region, he earned a master's degree 

in history from Georgia State University. Johnson 

realized that in order to move his career forward 

he needed to work at a park. After helping plan a 

new national park—Natchez Trace National 

Historical Park in Natchez, Mississippi—he was 

tapped to be the park’s first superintendent in 

1990. He remained there for three years, but family 

reasons prompted him to return to the Southeast 

Regional Office. There, he served as Chief of 

Planning for the Southeast region until 2001. 

Around that time, Johnson's family situation 

improved and he hoped to get back to a park. He 

expressed his desire to the Regional Director, who 

told him the position at Stones River National 

Battlefield would be open soon. It was a lateral 

transfer, so the regional office did not need to 

advertise the job. Johnson accepted and entered 

duty on February 4, 2001 (see Fig. 58).

6

As Chief of Planning, Johnson helped coordinate a 

number General Management Plans that were 

occurring across the region, including Stones 

River National Battlefield. Denver Service Center 

helped the park with the 1999 GMP, but Johnson's 

staff were also involved. He recalled that the plan 

was very good, but it took too long. In his 

																																																							 6. Stuart Johnson Interview by Angela Sirna, Phone 

Interview, 2-6; Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual 

Narrative Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal 

Year 2001 September 2000 to October 2001," February 14, 

2002, Folder Stones River National Battlefield, 

Superintendents' Annual Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, 

Records of NPS, RG 79, NACP.

experience in park planning, he learned that "the 

longer a controversial planning effort goes on, the 

longer it stays a target."7 Had the NPS been able to 

finish that document more quickly, the park may 

have been able to get a bigger boundary. But since 

planning lasted so long, it gave people more 

opportunities to become dissatisfied with the 

process. He recalled that Alternative 1 was "dead 

on arrival," but he thought the proposals in 

Alternative 2 were quite good.8 He and his staff 

followed these plans closely in subsequent years.9 

Johnson oversaw an unprecedented level of 

development at the park, at least since Mission 66. 

Congressman Gordon was a major reason why the 

park was able to carry development plans forward. 

Gordon was adept at using legislative earmarks to 

direct federal funding to projects for STRI. He had 

done so frequently during the late-1980s and 

throughout the 1990s to help the park expand its 

boundary twice. When it became clear that he 

would be unable to get any more boundary 

expansion legislation through Congress, Gordon 

continued to find funding for the park for capital 

improvements.10 Johnson was also able to find 

money through various sources within the agency 

itself for construction and rehabilitation and was 

able to bring all the park facilities up to a “highlevel.”

11

Figure 58 Stuart Johnson observes events commemorating 

the 148th anniversary of the Battle of Stones River, January 

2011. Courtesy of Jim Lewis/STRI.

																																																							 7. Johnson Interview, 9.

8. Ibid., 8.

9. Ibid., 9.

10. Angela Sirna, Interview with Bart Gordon, 

Murfreesboro, TN, October 16, 2015, 4-5.

11. Johnson Interview, 9; Gordon Interview, 4-5; Gilbert 

Backlund Interview by Angela Sirna, Part Two, 

Murfreesboro, TN, October 15, 2015, 6.
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 126

Right as the park started to embark on new capital 

improvement projects, park staff received the 

results of a Visitor Study, completed by the Park 

Studies Unit of the University of Idaho in the fall

of 2002. This study helped park staff and planners 

understand how visitors used the park. They 

included questions about park maintenance and 

what they would like to see at the park in the 

future. In fact, visitors were asked, “If you were a 

manager planning for the future of the park, what 

would you propose?” The top response was more 

detailed signage. The study also discovered that 71 

percent of the visitors surveyed were first time 

visitors. Park staff also found that the average 

group expenditure was $226. These findings were 

important for helping staff determine the park’s 

planning priorities, while also showing the 

economic impact of the park to justify these 

projects.

12 

One of the first major projects the park completed 

during this time was a renovation of the Mission 

66 visitor center (see Fig. 59). Mary Ann Peckham 

had been involved in the plans before she retired, 

but Gib Backlund recalls that Johnson had a very 

different approach. Peckham was not interested in 

expanding the building's footprint, since it was 

located on a landscape that the park wanted to 

preserve. Johnson felt it was more practical to 

expand the building to keep the staff offices there 

and be able to tell the battle's story from that 

location. The Tennessee State Historic 

Preservation Office did review the building 

because it was a Mission 66 visitor center and was 

close to turning fifty years old, meaning it might be 

eligible for the National Register for Historic 

Places. The prevailing thought in the NPS in the 

early 2000s was that it was important to upgrade

these Mission 66 buildings before they reached 

fifty years old. Johnson shared this sentiment and 

felt that the visitor center should be functional and 

was not historic in its own right. The SHPO 

concurred, declaring the building ineligible for the 

National Register, which meant the NPS could 

move forward with the remodel.13

The visitor center expansion and rehabilitation 

took about two years, was completed in 2004, and 

cost about $2.8 million. This new expansion 

																																																							 12. Bret H. Meldrum and Margaret Littlejohn, Stones River 

National Battlefield Visitor Study Fall 2002 (Moscow, ID: 

University of Idaho, July 2003), 5, 53, 70. 

13. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 9-10.

provided additional office space, enlarged the 

Eastern National store area, and created storage 

for museum collections. The museum 

rehabilitation also allowed park staff to invigorate 

the battle's story by presenting a broader story 

than the Mission 66 exhibits. The visitor center 

opened to the public in August 2004. Park staff 

held a formal dedication on September 18 that 

year with remarks from Regional Director Patricia 

Hooks, Congressman Gordon, and Director of the 

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area Carroll Van 

West. Nearly 500 people attended the daylong 

event, which included living history 

demonstrations, book signings, and tours of the 

new facility.14 

Figure 59 Visitor Center, photographed by Rebecca 

Conard, March 2016.

The next major component that the NPS 

addressed was reconstruction of the historic 

rostrum in the national cemetery, which had been 

removed in 1942 (see Fig. 60). This project was 

first proposed in the 1980 GMP and Congressman 

Gordon was really interested in bringing it back to 

the national cemetery. However, NPS 

administrators, including Mary Ann Peckham, 

resisted this idea for many years. First, the rostrum 

was built long after the Civil War was over, which 

some NPS employees felt was outside of the park's 

scope. Second, the NPS was very reluctant to take 

on reconstruction projects as a general policy. 

Congressman Gordon went beyond the wishes of 

the NPS and found the money to reconstruct the 

rostrum. In the 2004 fiscal year, archeologists from 

the Southeast Archeological Center conducted a 

ground penetrating radar survey of the rostrum 

																																																							 14. Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones 

River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2004 October 2003 to 

September 2004," February 20, 2005, Park Administrative

Files.
127 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

site along with a partial excavation to identify the 

rostrum's exact location. The NPS contracted the 

rostrum's reconstruction to Leong Enterprises, 

which completed most of the masonry work in the 

2006 fiscal year. The rest of the reconstruction, 

including installation and painting of the wooden 

trellis and handrails, was completed in 2007. The 

park dedicated the rostrum on March 31, 2007. 

The entire project cost $457,264.15 Now 

organizations may use the rostrum for public 

events as veterans had intended back when the 

original structure was built in 1882. 

Figure 60 Rostrum, reconstructed in 2007, in Stones River 

National Cemetery, photographed by Rebecca Conard, 

March 2016. 

In 2009, the park was able to accomplish a 

significant amount of cyclic and emergency 

preservation work. The NPS Historic Preservation 

Training Center (HPTC) sent a crew to the park to 

repoint 1,100 linear feet of the cemetery wall, 

repoint 300 coping stone head joints, repair 60 

linear feet damaged by a tornado that April, and 

repoint the Hazen Brigade Monument as well as 

install a drainage system. They also rehabilitated 

the Artillery Monument, after the MTSU Concrete 

Industry Program completed a structural 

investigation.16

																																																							 15. Gordon Interview, 5; Backlund Interview, Part Two, 10-

11; Johnson Interview, 17; Johnson, "Superintendent's 

Annual Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 

2004 October 2003 to September 2004," Stuart Johnson, 

"Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River National 

Battlefield Fiscal Year 2006 October 2005 to September 

2006," March 21, 2007, Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's 

Annual Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 

2007 October 2006 to September 2007," July 25, 2008, all 

Park Administrative Files.

16. Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones 

River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2009 October 2008 to 

September 2009," May 28, 2010, Park Administrative Files. 

That same year, the park received $99,271 from 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) to realign the headstones in the national 

cemetery. Congress passed ARRA in the wake of 

the 2008 financial crisis, hoping that major public 

works projects would help stimulate the economy. 

The NPS put forth a number of “shovel ready” 

projects and was able to invest $750 million in 

eight hundred projects across the country. STRI 

also received $13,000 for invasive plant removal 

through ARRA that year.17

NPS staff also focused their efforts on developing 

a new tour road and entrance, which had been in 

the works since the early 1990s (see Appendix E). 

Those working on the 1999 GMP reimagined the 

tour route to follow a more chronological manner 

to provide a better interpretive experience for 

visitors. Superintendent Johnson had more 

pragmatic reasons for a new tour road, which was 

to resolve the accessibility issues that had plagued 

the park since the opening of Highway 41 in the 

1950s. Transportation corridors continued to 

change as the city and state developed additional 

roads in and near Murfreesboro. In 2000, planning 

began for two additional interchanges off of I-24 

near New Salem Parkway and Manson Pike.18 In 

2002, the city and state started construction on 

Medical Center Parkway. Nicknamed 

Murfreesboro’s “new door,” Medical Center 

Parkway would connect I-24 to the city’s center 

via the Manson Pike interchange. Additionally, a 

new medical center was being developed on land 

adjacent to the park and purchased by the city in 

1998.19 Instead of focusing on bringing visitors 

from Highway 41, park road planners wanted to 

reorient the entrance to the new Medical Center 

Parkway, which intersected with Thompson Lane 

just south of Manson Pike. 

The park worked with DSC, Southeast Regional 

Office, and an engineer based out of Natchez 

Trace to develop the design and project 

																																																							 17. Ibid; “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” 

National Park Service, 

https://www.nps.gov/transportation/front_pdfs/ARRA_Projec

t_Profile.pdf (accessed August 2, 2016). 

18. Angela Cannon Hayes, “Two I-24 Interchanges Added,” 

Daily News Journal, September 19, 2000. 

19. John Callow, “City’s New Door: Medical Center Parkway

Will Run from a New Interchange to the Middle of 

Murfreesboro,” Daily News Journal, September 23, 2002.
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 128

proposals.20 This group began working on the 

Development Concept Plan in 2003 and 

completed the document in December 2005. The 

plan included new road segments, trails, wayside 

exhibits, and entrances. In July 2006, the park 

received $420,527 from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Public Lands Highway 

Discretionary Program. These funds were used to 

move the project into the next phase of planning 

including survey/topographic work, preparation 

for submittal to the Development Advisory Board, 

and preparation of contract documents.21 In 

February 2010, the DSC contracted the next phase 

of the project to TAB Construction Company for 

$855,260, which began work on July 15 that year. 

Louis Berger Group was responsible for 

construction management. TAB Construction was 

responsible for improving the visitor center 

parking area; constructing accessible, paved 

interpretive trails; improving the Chicago Board of 

Trade tour stop, and repaving approximately half a 

mile of existing tour road. In September 2010, the 

DSC awarded a contract in the amount of 

$1,018,196 to Grahams Construction, Inc. for the 

next phase in the project, which also was managed 

by the Louis Berger Group.22 Contractors finished 

the tour road project in 2011, including a new park 

entrance off of Thompson Lane (see Fig. 61). 

Johnson recalled that it was important to bring the 

park entrance back out to the community, and 

Thompson Lane now was the most accessible way 

into the park.23 The new entrance was also close to 

new commercial businesses, including the new 

medical center and shopping mall called "The 

Avenue," built on land that, historically, was part 

of the greater battlefield. Instead of fighting 

development, park staff chose to orient the park's 

new entrance toward it. 

The new tour road was supplemented by freshly 

designed waysides using text, images, and 

photographs to give visitors a better idea of how 

the battle unfolded and what they were looking at. 

Lewis noted that these new waysides were a major 

upgrade from the Mission 66 outdoor exhibits, 

																																																							 20. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 12.

21. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2006 October 2005 to 

September 2006."

22. Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative 

Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2010 

October 2009 to September 2010," June 17, 2011, Park 

Administrative Files.

23. Johnson Interview, 14.

which were metal plaques with minimal text and 

perhaps a line drawing.24 The park was making a 

concerted effort to use the landscape to tell the 

battle story with the assistance of these waysides. 

Figure 61 Entrance gates, constructed in 2011, along 

Thompson Lane, photographed by Rebecca Conard, March 

2016.

Natural Resource Challenge 

The park's natural resource program was 

bolstered during Johnson's tenure thanks to a new 

servicewide initiative called the “Natural Resource 

Challenge.” The Challenge grew from a Vail 

Agenda recommendation to embrace an 

“ecosystem management culture.”25 The agency 

called upon NPS historian Richard West Sellars to 

undertake an administrative history of the NPS’s 

natural resource management policies. Sellars, an 

insider, wrote a condemning critique of the 

agency’s unimpressive record in natural resource 

management, including its willingness to ignore 

well-grounded recommendations of scientists. He 

published his findings in Preserving Nature in the 

National Parks: A History (1997).

26

Instead of ignoring him, the agency used Sellar’s 

findings to propel a bold initiative called the 

																																																							 24. Lewis Interview, 8.

25. National Park Service, Steering Committee of the 75th

Anniversary Symposium, The Vail Agenda: Report and 

Recommendations to the Director of the National Park 

Service (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1992), 105, 

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002732350 (accessed 

July 16, 2016).

26. Sellars discussed the impact of his 1997 publication in 

the epilogue of revised edition published in 2008. NPS 

Director Jonathon Jarvis also mentioned Sellar’s book in a 

2008 retrospective presented at the George Wright Society 

meeting on the Natural Resource Challenge. 26. Richard 

West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A 

History (1997; repr. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 

2008), 291-93; Jonathan B. Jarvis, ”The Natural Resource 

Challenge: A Retrospective and View to the Future,” U.S. 

National Park Service Publications and Papers, Paper 27 

(2008): 87, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark/27

(accessed July 16, 2016). 

 
129 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

“Natural Resource Challenge,” a multifaceted, 

multi-year project aimed at overhauling NPS 

natural resource policy. Planning for the Challenge 

started in 1998 and was officially announced in 

August 1999. Agency officials estimated that it 

would need $200 million in base funding to carry 

out the Challenge, but reduced its request to $100 

million, which seemed more feasible. Congress 

allocated about $80 million in varying amounts 

between fiscal years 2000 and 2006, far short of 

what the NPS had asked for.27

Most of this money went directly to parks. Several 

hundred scientifically trained permanent 

employees were hired to do labor-intensive 

fieldwork to help acquire baseline data and 

institute long-term monitoring programs, 

particularly efforts related to air and water quality. 

Challenge money also funded university-based 

research centers called Cooperative Ecosystem 

Studies Units (CESU), which cover biogeographical regions and put parks in contact with 

researchers. Taken together, these programs were

(and are) aimed at strengthening parks’ 

competencies in managing natural resources.28

Stones River National Battlefield was a beneficiary 

of this program. In 2003, the park received a base 

increase to hire an ecologist. The park hired Terri 

Hogan, one of the researchers who had worked on 

the Nature Conservancy inventories when 

Peckham was superintendent.29 Since Hogan had 

already completed some inventorying efforts at 

STRI, she was already familiar with the park and 

its natural resource challenges. 

With Hogan at the helm, the park’s natural 

resource program included reintroducing native 

grasses, using fire as a management tool, 

controlling exotic species, and acquiring baseline 

data. One person, however, was not enough to 

make all of this happen. Hogan continued to 

collaborate with like-minded individuals, 

organizations, and institutions to share ideas, data, 

solutions, and even manpower. For example, 

MTSU biology professor Tom Hemmerly, who 

																																																							 27. Sellars, Preserving Nature, 295. 

28. Ibid., 295.

29. Johnson Interview, 18; Johnson, "Superintendent's 

Annual Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 

2004 October 2003 to September 2004." 

had worked with Elsie Quarterman and planted 

Tennessee coneflower in the park many years 

earlier, brought his students to MTSU to study 

plants and wildlife within the park.30 This 

partnership with the natural sciences at MTSU 

helped the park complete some of its natural 

resource baseline inventories.31

Landscape Restoration 

The park continued work restoring disturbed 

lands back to an appearance consistent with the 

time of the battle. Johnson recalled that there was 

a debate about how to maintain Civil War 

battlefield parks during that time, whether it was 

appropriate to use turf or native grasses. Johnson 

decided to focus on reintroducing native grasses to 

the park after a successful test of warm season 

grasses in 2004. The park leased agricultural land 

to area farmers to help maintain the historic scene, 

but development pressures around the battlefield 

made farming more difficult. In 2005, the park 

removed thirty acres north of Broad Street from 

the agricultural special use permit because it was 

too difficult to move farm equipment to that 

area.

32 This was another reason that the park's 

move toward warm season grasses seemed 

favorable. To help with the restoration efforts, the 

park entered into a five-year agreement with the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) at 

Alderson, WV, in 2002 to grow plant plugs from 

seed collected on park property.33 These plugs 

were then used to help restore portions of the 

battlefield. 

																																																							 30. Gilbert Backlund Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, October 14, 2015, Part One, 14.

31. Completed reports include, Michael Kennedy and Heidi 

LaMountain, Inventory of Mammals at Stones River 

National Battlefield, University of Memphis, prepared for 

Stones River National Battlefield, 2006, Brian Miller, Jeremy 

Spiess, and Matthew Niemiller, Inventory of Amphibians 

and Reptiles of Stones River National Battlefield, prepared 

for Stones River National Battlefield, November 2005, 

Dennis Mullen, Fish Inventory at Stones River National 

Battlefield, prepared for Stones River National Battlefield, 

2006. 

32. Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones 

River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2005 October 2004 to 

September 2005," March 24, 2006, Park Administrative Files.

33. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2004 October 2003 to 

September 2004."
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 130

Some park supporters did not agree with the 

park’s shift to using native grasses. Larry Hicklen, 

the owner of Yesteryear, believes it gives the park

an “unkempt” look and does not provide an 

accurate view of the landscape. He explained, 

The latest mode of management has been 

more to let the park grow totally 

natural....[visitors] come in the store, they 

mistake a naturalist management approach as it 

being just pure unkempt.... And the second 

complaint that I hear from visitors regularly... 

is the cotton fields should be like [they had] 

just been picked the previous season and 

would have made the soldiers charging across 

it totally exposed and [explains] why there 

were such massive casualties in the cotton 

fields. Well now, there’re not being farmed and 

they are growing up and it’s just like kind of 

raw thickets and does not present a historical 

accurate landscape to the day of the battle at 

all.

34

Hicklen maintains that the park should at least 

take care to mow around cannons and monuments 

so that it appears that the park is well cared for and 

shows respect for those that died on the 

battlefield. While native grasses might be more 

sustainable for the park, Hicklen touches upon a 

real issue for the park. Some visitors may be given 

the impression that the park is not cared for, or, 

even worse, that naturalistic landscape 

management might give them an inaccurate idea of 

what the battlefield looked like during the 

engagement. 

To help maintain open fields and vistas, the park 

completed a Fire Management Plan in 2001.35 For 

many years, the NPS resisted using fire as a 

management tool until ecologists demonstrated 

that controlled burns were helpful in reducing fuel 

loads and restoring native plant communities. 

Policies began to change in the 1970s.36 Park 

managers found that controlled burning was also 

useful in managing historic landscapes, such as 

open fields on Civil War battlefields (see Fig. 62). 

Upon completion of the 2001 plan, the park began 

using prescribed burns as a way to reduce fuel 

																																																							 34. Larry Hicklen Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, 

TN, November 13, 2015, 10. 

35. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

Fire Management Plan (Murfreesboro, TN: Stones River 

National Battlefield, 2001), 

http://www.nps.gov/stri/learn/management/loader.cfm?csM

odule=security/getfile&PageID=908664 (accessed February 

17, 2016).

36. Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, 253-58.

loads, keep fields open, and manage exotic and 

invasive species. They use prescribed burns on 

earthworks as well. 

Figure 62 Team conducting a prescribed burn at STRI on 

March 8, 2011. Photographed by Jim Lewis. Courtesy of Jim 

Lewis/STRI. 

Exotic and invasive species posed a formidable 

challenge to the park's natural resource 

management program, particularly Chinese privet, 

bush honeysuckle, and Chinese yams. Some of 

these invasive plants arrived in the area before the 

park was established, while others came by the 

way of suburban development or were introduced 

by the NPS. For example, between 2000 and 2002, 

park staff inadvertently planted weeping lovegrass 

on Fortress Rosecrans to help preserve the 

earthworks before learning it was highly invasive.37

Superintendents as far back as Jim Sanders sought 

ways to manage these exotics at STRI, but were 

largely unsuccessful. Don Magee was willing to 

experiment and even purchased a few goats when 

he learned that they eat honeysuckle. They do, but 

they do not eat the roots, which meant the plant 

continued to grow back. He also found that 

visitors thought the goats were pets and wanted to 

pet them.38

In the 1990s, park staff teamed up with subject 

matter experts in the Middle Tennessee area to 

find solutions, including professionals in the 

Tennessee State Department of Conservation and 

Environment and the Biology Department at 

																																																							 37. Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones 

River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2008 October 2007 to 

September 2008," June 15, 2009, Park Files.

38. Donald Magee Interview by Angela Sirna, Phone 

Interview, November 3, 2015, 34. 
131 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

MTSU. The park became an institutional member 

of a new group called the Tennessee Exotic Pest 

Plant Council.39 However, park staff were still 

unable to thwart invasive species. In 2006, the park 

reported, "Of 138 exotic plants known to the park, 

forty are listed as severe or significant threats to 

native plant communities and eleven are listed as 

lesser threats or are on the state watch list."40 That 

year, the park had the assistance of the Southeast 

Exotic Plant Management Team, which helped 

staff treat woody invasives over twenty-six acres. 

Park staff at STRI, like employees at other parks 

battling invasive species, found that they could not 

treat them fast enough. They needed more 

manpower, so they enlisted the help of volunteers. 

In 2007, the park hired high school and college age 

students through a program called the Student 

Conservation Association to help with invasive 

plant removal.41

While combatting the invasive species, park staff 

were continuing to acquire baseline data for the 

park's natural resource program. The agency’s

Natural Resource Challenge encouraged parks to 

gather baseline data to help monitoring efforts in 

seven different areas, including water quality, air 

quality, vascular plants, mammals, birds, fish, 

geology, and soils. The park utilized its 

relationship with MTSU to complete several of the 

studies. The park sent and continues to send its 

inventory information to the Cumberland 

Piedmont Network, which is administered from 

Mammoth Cave National Park, to manage the data 

and monitor projects within the network.42

In 2003, the state of Tennessee designated an area 

of 185-acres within Stones River National 

Battlefield as a Class II Natural-Scientific State 

Natural Area, called the Stones River Cedar 

Glades and Barren State Natural Area. This 

designation was made to recognize the NPS’s 

efforts to restore this area, which protects the 

federally protected Plyne’s ground plum 

(Astragalus bibullatus) and Tennessee purple 

																																																							 39. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 14.

40. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2006 October 2005 to 

September 2006." 

41. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2007 October 2006 to 

September 2007." 

42. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 14.

coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis), delisted as an 

endangered species in 2011. The Plyne’s ground plum 

was planted in the area in 2001 from seeds grown at 

the Missouri Botanical Garden.43

The park's landscape restoration efforts received a 

heavy hit from Mother Nature on April 9, 2009, 

when an EF-4 tornado tore through the park. 

Dubbed the "Good Friday" tornado, this storm cut 

a swath through the center of the park and the 

Round Forest area, downing nearly 70 acres of 

trees. Park neighbors took shelter with NPS 

employees in the visitor center basement, which 

was originally constructed as a fallout shelter. In 

Rutherford County, the tornado killed a mother 

and her infant daughter, injured forty-two others, 

destroyed one hundred seventeen residences, 

damaged over two hundred more, and caused over 

forty million dollars in damages. The storm event 

required an NPS incident team in addition to 

considerable staff effort to clean up the debris. 

The park had help from other units in the region, 

including Natchez Trace Parkway, Cumberland 

Gap National Historical Park, Mammoth Cave 

National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park, and Big South Fork National River and 

Recreation Area. Clean up lasted into the next 

fiscal year, even with the help of a contractor.44

Cultural Resource Studies 

Between 2001 and 2007, several technical reports, 

documentation efforts, and academic research 

provided important information and treatment 

recommendations for the park’s cultural 

resources. Taken together, this new research 

provided park staff with a better understanding of 

resources outside of its boundaries, expanded the 

park’s historical contexts, and identified the 

resources associated with them. 

																																																							 43. A certificate acknowledging the natural area is located 

in the park’s administrative area. It was signed May 14, 

2003. See also “Stones River Cedar Glade and Barrens Class 

II Natural-Scientific State Natural Area,” Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation, 

http://www.tn.gov/environment/article/na-na-stones-rivercedar-glade (accessed August 1, 2016). 

44. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2009 October 2008 to 

September 2009"; Teresa Watson Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, February 18, 2016, 23-24; MTSU School of 

Journalism, “Good Friday Tornado Project,” 

http://mtsujournalism.org/tornado/index.html (accessed 

February 27, 2016). 
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 132

In 2001, archeologist John Cornelison, Jr. 

undertook a metal detector survey of the Harlan 

and Bigsby tracts, recently acquired by the park, 

and an agricultural field southeast of the national 

cemetery and the Round Forest area. He 

recovered 103 historic and Civil War era artifacts 

and a historic trash pit near the Harlan House. In 

2003, SEAC archeologists returned to STRI and 

completed a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 

survey on the Holland family cemetery outside the 

Hazen Brigade Monument. They found only two 

graves there. They also surveyed five other 

locations, including the area surrounding the 

Federal burial trenches at the Hazen Brigade 

Monument, the McFadden Cemetery, the 

Tollhouse site, Redoubt Brannan, and a site at 

Bragg’s Headquarters. They were able to provide 

additional details about these sites, but nothing 

that required the park to change its management 

or interpretation practices.45

The park’s National Register for Historic Places 

nomination form, last revised in 1977, got a muchneeded update in 2003. The 1977 form was fairly 

simple, like most nominations written at the time. 

However, the park needed to incorporate new 

research and scholarship into the new form, plus 

expand the document to include new areas that 

were acquired in the 1987 and 1991 boundary 

expansions, including Fortress Rosecrans (which 

was previously listed separately in a 1974 

nomination). The park partnered with the 

TCWNHA to complete the additional 

documentation, which was conducted my Michael 

Gavin, Preservation Specialist. Gavin also worked 

with Sean Styles of the Georgia Trust for Historic 

Preservation. The form was mostly focused on the 

military history of the landscape, but this new 

nomination did add African American Ethnic 

Heritage as a new area of significance, although 

research on Cemetery community was still in its 

early stages.46

That same year, seasonal Museum Tech Miranda 

Fraley (then a doctoral student at Indiana 

University), secured funding from the Southeast 

																																																							 45. Charles Lawson, Ground Penetrating Radar 

Investigations at Stones River National Battlefield 

(Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center, 2003), 16, 

24-25. 

46. Michael Gavin and Sean M. Styles, “Stones River 

National Battlefield,” National Register of Historic Places, 

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, Murfreesboro, 

November 14, 2003. 

Regional Office for a Historic Resource Study.47

The regional office entered into an agreement with 

Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation to 

undertake the study. Sean Styles was the historian 

that completed most of the research for this study; 

Fraley completed the report after his illness and 

death. The Historic Resource Study was arguably 

the most important historic research document for 

the park since Bearss’s 1962 “Historical Fence and 

Ground Cover Plan.” The HRS examined the 

historical contexts associated with the park and 

analyzed the extent that historic resources relating 

to these contexts have survived. This document 

was important because it not only evaluated those 

resources within the park’s boundary but also 

those that related to the greater battlefield. The 

HRS noted that the most significant resources at 

STRI were related to two different themes: the 

Civil War period and the Commemoration and the 

creation of the National Military Park.48

In 2004, Fraley finished her dissertation, which 

examined Civil War memory in Rutherford 

County. As part of her graduate research, she 

completed a number of oral history interviews 

with local community members, which are now in 

the park library. Her dissertation followed the 

leading edge of Civil War scholarship at the time,

which was focused on memory studies. She drew 

upon the work of David Blight, Cecelia O’Leary, 

and Michael Kammen, who examined the 

evolution of Civil War memory within national 

contexts.49 Her research focused on local memory 

and asked critical questions about how race and 

gender influenced Civil War commemoration in 

Rutherford County. She drew upon her significant 

knowledge of Stones River National Battlefield, 

but also discussed commemorative efforts at Sam 

Davis Historic Site in Smyrna and the labors of the 

local United Daughters of the Confederacy 

chapter. Fraley provided essential critical analysis 

of park-creation efforts at Stones River National 

Battlefield. She also was one of the first scholars to 

																																																							 47. Fraley began volunteering with Lewis in the museum 

collections and the park later hired her as a seasonal 

museum technician. Fraley did not continue her career with 

the NPS, but is now Director of Curatorial Interpretation at 

the Tennessee State Museum.

48. Sean Styles, Stones River National Battlefield Historic 

Resource Study (Murfreesboro, TN: Stones River National 

Battlefield, Southeast Cultural Resource Regional Office, 

and National Park Service, February 2004). 

49. Miranda Fraley, "The Politics of Memory: Remembering 

the Civil War in Rutherford County, Tennessee," 

dissertation, Indiana University, 2004, 13. 
133 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

start to uncover the history of Cemetery 

community. 

In 2007, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and 

John Milner Associates completed a Cultural 

Landscape Report (CLR) for the park. The scope 

of the project focused on the core battlefield area, 

McFadden Farm unit, the two headquarters sites, 

the Hazen Brigade Monument site, and the 

Fortress Rosecrans parcels. The project scope did 

not include the national cemetery, or the greater 

battlefield area. The purpose of the report was to 

evaluate the existing conditions of these 

landscapes, provide comparative analyses to their 

historical conditions, determine their integrity, 

and then provide treatment recommendations. 

The contractors recommended a total of sixteen 

action items to rehabilitate the park’s component 

landscapes, which included addressing invasive 

and exotic plant species, screening adjacent 

development to manage views, removing noncontributing wooded areas, rehabilitating portions 

of Van Cleve Lane, locating and marking historic 

structures missing from the battlefield landscape, 

and converting a portion of the tour road into a 

pedestrian trail that connects with the proposed 

tour road.

50 

All these researchers made apparent in their 

respective works that the park’s African American 

history was important, but additional research 

would be needed for Cemetery community. Fraley 

started to uncover the history of Cemetery 

community in her dissertation. When Gavin and 

Styles outlined the historical context and 

significance of the park’s commemorative period, 

they included African American history as well. 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates and John Milner 

Associates also recognized the importance of the 

Cemetery community in shaping the landscape 

after the battle and recommended that the park 

include this history in its interpretive planning.51

																																																							 50. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner 

Associates, Stones River National Battlefield Cultural 

Landscape Report, Prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, 2007, 1-7. 

51. Fraley, “Politics of Memory,” 163-69; Gavin and Styles, 

“Stones River National Battlefield,” Section 8, p. 10; Styles, 

Stones River National Battlefield Historic Resource Study,

75-76; Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner 

Associates, Stones River National Battlefield Cultural 

Landscape Report, 157.

Harding House Survey

In 2008, the Civil War archeological community 

received a rare opportunity to perform a survey on 

a part of the greater Stones River battlefield on 

land slated for development. This survey was 

made possible through a partnership between the 

NPS, various MTSU departments, and developer 

Stonegate Commercial. Developers infrequently 

allowed archeologists to survey sites prior to 

development, but Stonegate Commercial allowed a 

special group to examine a piece of property that 

was believed to be the location of the Harding 

House and kiln site.52

The Harding House was a two-story log structure 

located off of Wilkinson/Manson Pike, north of 

Medical Center Parkway. The Hardings had 

intended to replace their house with a brick 

building, and thus had a brick kiln onsite. 

However, the Civil War interrupted their plans. 

Their home was enveloped by the Battle of Stones 

River. It was used as a Union field hospital before 

Confederate forces captured the house and took 

the patients prisoner. Union forces overcame the 

Confederates and retook the house. According to 

the park’s Historic Resource Study, the Harding 

House survived until the 1870s, when it burned. 

Because the Harding House had seen much action 

during the battle and had served as a field hospital, 

the NPS included the site in its 1999 GMP for land 

acquisition.53 However, the site was outside the 

park’s authorized boundary, so the NPS could not 

stop a developer from purchasing the property.

The resulting construction meant the destruction 

of important archeological data.

When Backlund learned the Harding House site 

was slated for development, he contacted Dr. Tom 

Nolan, director of MTSU’s Laboratory for Spatial 

Technology, and archeologist Zada Law, Nolan’s 

assistant and also an adjunct professor in the 

Geosciences Department. They had the support of 

the NPS, Dr. Hugh Berry, director of the MTSU 

Forensic Institute for Research and Education, 

and MTSU public history and anthropology 

students. They also invited the Middle Tennessee 

																																																							

52. Lisa Rollins, “Vols Find Spur of Historical Moment,” 

Daily News Journal, July 22, 2008. 

53. Styles, Historic Resource Study, 46-47. 
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 134

Metal Detectors to assist in the survey, which they 

held during two weekends in July 1998.54

The volunteers used metal detectors to canvas the 

area. They found over forty different fragments, 

the most impressive of which was a spur that they 

initially believed was from the Civil War period, 

but later determined to be produced after the war. 

They flagged these points, photographed the 

artifacts, and marked these points using GIS to 

help historians and archeologists locate troop 

placements and movements during the battle.

Artifacts collected during the project were given to

the NPS. The group completed a pedestrian survey 

of the reported house and kiln site, but were 

unable to verify the locations.55 Nolan was able to 

verify the house site in September, when the 

developer began to clear the site and uncovered 

the house’s foundation. The developer allowed 

Nolan to photograph the foundation and take GIS 

data.56

The Harding House Survey Project is notable for 

several reasons. It was a remarkable example of a 

public-private partnership that allowed STRI to 

work closely with a developer to capture 

important information, even if the site could not 

be saved from development. When talking about 

the project, Law stated, “We can’t save every place, 

but we can save information digitally.”

57 The

survey team’s use of GIS to create a digital record 

to check and improve the accuracy of Civil War 

maps was much in line with NPS research and 

																																																							 54. Byron Wilkes, “Students Uncover History,” Middle 

Tennessee State University Sidelines, July 30, 2008; Rollins, 

“Vols Find Spur of Historical Moment”; “Harding House 

Civil History Survey,” information sheet, [2008], papers 

found in Fullerton Laboratory of Spatial Technology, 

Department of Geosciences, Middle Tennessee State 

University. This collection is in the process of being donated 

to STRI. 

55. Ibid. 

56. Harding House Excavation Photos, [September 1998], 

[Thomas Nolan], “Harding House site excavation” note, 

[September 1998], and Thomas Nolan, “Harding House 

Foundations & Artifacts GPS 2007 imagery” map, 2008, all 

found in Thomas J. Nolan Digital Document and Geospatial 

Data Collection 1993-2010, Fullerton Laboratory of Spatial 

Technology, Department of Geosciences, Middle Tennessee 

State University. This collection is in the process of being 

donated to STRI. 

57. Quoted by Lisa Rollins, “Harding House Civil War History 

Survey to be Conducted,” Rutherford Reader, July10-16, 

2008. 

academic scholarship that was being produced in 

the early 2000s.58 Also, the project was an excellent 

example of how the park was capable of turning 

out a large volunteer force, this time for a public 

archeology project.

Interpretation and Education 

The 1999 GMP focused on providing a better 

interpretive experience through connecting 

visitors to the cultural landscape through various 

interpretive media and programs. This allowed 

interpretive staff to incorporate more recent 

scholarship on the Civil War and the battle for 

Stones River, including its causes and 

consequences. They also incorporated new 

interpretive methods, most notably “civic 

engagement,” which encouraged NPS staff to 

incorporate more inclusive stories into its 

interpretation, expand the park’s educational 

agenda, and to partner with communities to 

preserve these places and tell these stories.59 Park 

staff with the assistance of specialists at the 

Harpers Ferry Center and contractors replaced 

the Mission 66 museum exhibits in the visitor 

center with new exhibits and a new video 

presentation. They also developed a new wayside 

exhibit plan to accompany the tour road and the 

various trails throughout the park. They formed 

partnerships with the city to install wayside 

exhibits outside of park property to help convey 

the larger magnitude of the battle.60 

Chief of Operations Gib Backlund recalled some 

controversy when the visitor center first opened. 

There was a reproduction of a painting completed 

shortly after the Civil War that depicted enslaved 

African Americans running away from their 

southern owners as the Union Army advanced. 

The artist depicted these slaves with stereotyped 

imagery, including exaggerated facial features. 

Some visitors expressed dissatisfaction with the 

park's use of this image, particularly since it was 

near the entrance of the museum. It was one of the 

																																																							 58. Alberto Giordano and Thomas Nolan, “Civil War Maps 

of the Battle of Stones River: History and the Modern 

Landscape,” Cartographic Journal 44, no. 1 (February 2007): 

61.

59. Edward T. Linenthal, “The National Park Service and 

Civic Engagement,” Public Historian 28, no. 1 (Winter 2006): 

123. 

60. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 10, 12; Lewis Interview, 

16.
135 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

first things visitors encountered. The park had a 

group of people look at the painting and offer 

alternatives. Ultimately, the park decided to 

remove the portion of the painting that people felt 

was offensive. This incident indicates that park 

staff sometimes had to step back and adjust their 

approach as they sought to include the African 

American experience in the park’s interpretation.61 

The park continued living history programs and 

found ways to broaden the park's story in these 

demonstrations as well. Park Ranger Jim Lewis 

became heavily involved in the park's living history 

program, particularly the historical weaponry 

demonstrations, but found that only explaining 

the military aspects limited opportunities for 

engagement. He and park staff expanded beyond 

basic weapons demonstrations to include a wider 

array of demonstrations that included hands-on 

learning opportunities and focused more on 

individual stories and the relationship between 

military events and the larger political and social 

themes of the period. They looked to involve 

audience members, particularly children. For 

example, interpreters started bringing in the signal 

corps story as a way for audience participation. 

Lewis, himself, dabbled in first person 

interpretation, but acknowledges it was quite 

difficult to execute. He developed two characters 

based on historical actors: Marcus Woodcock of 

the 9th Kentucky Infantry and Charles Bennett of 

the 9th Michigan Infantry. Bennett, at one point in 

time, was a junior officer in the 13th USCT. This 

provided Lewis an avenue to talk about African 

American soldiers during the Civil War and their 

relationship to Stones River National Battlefield. 

The park was learning more about the USCT’s 

relationship to Stones River National Battlefield 

and cemetery, including the story of William 

Holland, a USCT veteran who owned property 

adjacent to the Hazen Brigade Monument.62 To 

help living history interpreters be more effective in 

their storytelling, Backlund arranged for Jette 

Holladay, an MTSU theater professor, to review 

and critique interpretive programs.63

																																																							 61. Backlund Interview, Part Two, 10.

62. Lewis Interview, 23-24.

63. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2004 October 2003 to 

September 2004."

Park staff integrated new media to help tell the 

park's story. Like all other parks in the system, 

STRI also got a webpage. Park staff uploaded 

lesson plans for teachers. They developed a cell 

phone tour, which supplanted the park's audio 

tour.64

The park hired John McKay as Interpretive Park 

Ranger in 2003, after Bettie Cook retired.65 McKay 

had been in an intake training position at New 

Orleans Jazz National Historical Park. With his 

efforts, park interpretive staff continued to 

develop new ways to engage school-age children 

and encourage teachers to bring their classes to the 

park. They hosted teacher workshops and 

developed a new Junior Ranger handbook. Park 

staff also travelled to schools to do programs 

there, which helped those schools with limited 

travel budgets. For groups that were able to travel 

to the park, they developed "History Hikes," 

which utilized an "Inquiry Based" learning 

approach. Groups would hike with a ranger for 

about a mile and talk about history and ecology at 

various sites. This program also supported First 

Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" Campaign, 

aimed at keeping children active.66 In 2009, the 

park received a $10,000 grant from the National 

Park Foundation to hold a video contest for high 

school seniors and four-day events for 

elementary-age children and their families to 

better reach underserved communities.67 In 2011, 

park staff formed a partnership with McGavock 

High School's Academy of Digital Design and 

Communication to develop a multi-disciplinary 

curriculum with the stories associated with Stones 

River National Battlefield as a central theme. 

Students produced seven short, student-produced 

interpretive videos. The park continues to build on 

this partnership.68

																																																							 64. Ibid; Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative 

Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2010

October 2009 to September 2010."

65. Stuart Johnson, “Superintendent’s Annual Narrative 

Report Stones River National Battlefield, Fiscal Year 2003 

October 2002-September 2003 (Draft),” February 20, 2003, 

“Superintendent’s Annual Reports” Binder, Park 

Administrative Files.

66. Stuart Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative 

Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2011 

October 2010 to September 2011 (Draft)," February 2012, 

Park Administrative Files.

67. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2009 October 2008 to 

September 2009."
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 136

To help the park stay abreast of recent scholarship, 

staff at STRI forged partnerships with the MTSU 

History Department and the TNCWHA to present 

yearly symposiums on the war and the battle for 

Stones River. Beginning in 2002, the park and its 

partners held day-long events covering topics on 

legacies of the battle, slavery in Tennessee, 

occupation and the homefront, Civil War memory, 

pathways to freedom, and reasons why soldiers 

fought.69 These symposia were a way for the park 

to promote public scholarship. 

The park further developed its relationship with 

MTSU, hosting graduate student researchers, 

interns, and seasonal employees from a range of 

disciplines. For example, Terri Hogan, before she 

was hired as the park's ecologist, completed the 

park's plant inventory when she was a student at 

MTSU. 

MTSU Public History Program 

Park staff developed a particularly strong 

relationship with MTSU's public history graduate 

program. Andrew Gulliford, director of the public 

history program, often invited Gib Backlund or 

Mary Ann Peckham to talk to his classes. Gulliford 

encouraged Backlund to take some history 

graduate classes, which eventually resulted in 

Backlund earning his master's degree in public 

history in 2005. His master's thesis was about the 

Mission 66 program at STRI.

70 Backlund was not 

the first or only MTSU public history student to 

produce a master thesis about the battlefield. In 

1998, Robert Dunkerly compared general 

management plans of several Civil War parks, 

including STRI.

71 Jeff Sellers worked as a seasonal 

																																																																																						 68. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2011 October 

2010 to September 2011 (Draft)"; Lewis Interview, 33.

69. Johnson, “Superintendent’s Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2004 October 2003 to 

September 2004”; Johnson, “Superintendent’s Annual 

Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2005 

October 2004 to September 2005”; Johnson, 

“Superintendent’s Annual Report Stones River National 

Battlefield Fiscal Year 2007 October 2006 to September 

2007”; and Johnson, “Superintendent’s Annual Narrative 

Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2010 

October 2009 to September 2010.” 

70. Gilbert Backlund, “Patriotism on the Battlefield: The 

National Park Service and Mission 66 at Stones River,” 

master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 2005. 

interpreter and also produced a thesis about the 

challenges of expanding interpretation at STRI.

72

Elizabeth Goetsch, also a former seasonal 

employee, wrote about the battlefield's cultural 

landscape.73 Together, these scholars helped the 

park learn more about its own past, while the park 

helped prepare them for careers in public 

history.74 

History graduate students, like Miranda Fraley,

were particularly helpful in cataloguing and 

maintaining the park's museum collections. The 

park also hired John George, who was a doctoral 

student in public history at MTSU. George helped 

the park develop its Integrated Pest Management 

Plan.75 While he was working at the park, George 

wrote his dissertation about the creation of the 

battlefield park.76 He now works at Abraham 

Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park. The 

park's use of graduate student workers to assist 

with museum collections not only brought 

museum collections up to professional standards, 

but yielded important scholarship as well.

The MTSU public history program was 

instrumental in helping the park learn about the 

historic Cemetery community, which it knew little 

about. Fraley’s research on Civil War memory in 

Rutherford County uncovered some of 

Cemetery's history. Beginning in 2007, MTSU 

public history professor Rebecca Conard brought 

her graduate students to the park to research the 

Cemetery community for class projects. Over a 

series of semesters, her students were able to tease 

																																																																																						 71. Robert Dunkerly, “Reading the Battlefield Landscape: 

The Restoration, Preservation, and Interpretation of Historic 

Landscapes at Battlefield Parks,” master’s thesis, Middle 

Tennessee State University, 1998.

72. Jeffrey Sellers, "Battle for the High Ground: The 

Challenge of Expanding the Interpretation at Stones River 

National Battlefield," master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee 

State University, 2010. 

73. Elizabeth Goetsch, “All Could Not Help But Feel It: A 

Cultural Landscape Approach to History at Stones River 

National Battlefield,” master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee 

State University, 2011. 

74. Backlund Interview, Part One, 13-14.

75. Johnson, “Superintendent’s Annual Report Stones River 

National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2008 October 2007 to 

September 2008.”

76. John George, “Stones River: Creating a Battlefield Park, 

1863-1932,” dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University, 

2013.
137 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

out African American land ownership patterns at 

the park.77 Lydia Simpson, a master's student and 

seasonal employee, researched land ownership 

patterns for her 2011 master's thesis, focusing on 

the USCT.78 Conard helped organize the 

program's first field school at the park to examine 

the Cemetery community, which took place in

May 2011. Partners for the field school included 

the MTSU Public History program, STRI, and 

Bradley Academy Museum. During the three-week 

course, five doctoral students and four community 

scholars conducted oral histories, surveyed 

historic sources, developed interpretive materials, 

and completed an online exhibit. They were 

assisted by MTSU public history faculty, park staff, 

and guest lecturers. The capstone to the field 

school was a one-day public symposium held at 

Bradley Academy Museum, featuring guest 

speakers Carla Jones, president of the Matt 

Gardner Homestead; Susan Eva O'Donovan, 

University of Memphis; Allison Dorsey, 

Swarthmore College; David Vela, director of NPS 

Southeast Region, and Robert Sutton, NPS Chief 

Historian.79 Other interpretive products to come 

from guided student research include the wayside 

exhibit on the Cemetery community and the 

portable exhibit, “Listening to a Landscape: The 

Stories of Stones River National Battlefield,” with 

fabrication funded by a grant from the TCWNHA. 

It took several years and the work of many 

historians, but slowly the story of the Cemetery 

community has been brought to the surface. 

Community Relations, 

Partnerships, and Volunteers 

The park's aggressive land acquisition efforts 

during the 1990s created tenuous relations with the 

local community by the time Stuart Johnson 

arrived at STRI. Johnson admits he was not the 

																																																							 77. Rebecca Conard, et al. “African Americans on the Land: 

Five Cultural Landscape Studies of Stones River NHB.” 

Murfreesboro, TN: Public History Seminar, Middle 

Tennessee State University, December 2007. 

78. Lydia Simpson, "Settling In: Tracking the Formation of 

the Cemetery Community through Public Records," master's 

thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 2011.

79. Rebecca Conard, "Finding Historic Cemetery 

Community: The 2011 Public History Field School," Public 

History at Middle Tennessee State University Newsletter 

(Fall 2011), 

http://www.mtsu.edu/history/documents/newsletters/PHNew

sletterFall_2011.pdf (accessed February 19, 2016).

most outward looking park manager, but he 

realized the need to improve park relations. His 

strategy to repair these relations was to encourage 

his own staff to be active members of the 

community. Gib Backlund, for example, was active 

in the Rotary Club. Park staff became more 

involved in the Rutherford County Chamber of 

Commerce. Park staff strengthened ties with the 

university community. It likely also helped that the 

park was no longer looking to dramatically expand 

its boundary, but improving its facilities to make 

the park a worthy destination for visitors and 

community members. Johnson recalled, "I think 

our relationships with the city went from being 

probably unpleasant to at least being civil: 

professional as opposed to constantly feuding and 

fighting."80 Towards the end of his tenure, park 

staff were starting to make inroads with the local 

African American community thanks to the work 

of public history students and faculty at MTSU 

researching Cemetery's history.81

A common complaint visitors had about the park 

was the lack of directional signage. Park staff began 

working with the Rutherford County Convention 

& Visitors Bureau on a countywide signage plan in 

1997, which finally came to fruition in 2009, when 

the county installed 135 signs to direct people to 

local tourist attractions and landmarks. Staff began 

working on a sign plan for the park in 2006, which 

was approved in 2012. These sign plans are a good 

example of how park staff worked with community 

leaders on a project that would benefit the whole 

community, including STRI. Better directional 

signage also improved visitor satisfaction.82

Another way that the park was able to improve

community relations was by building the park's 

volunteer program. Backlund started this effort 

when he arrived at the park in the early-1990s. 

Bettie Cook served as the volunteer coordinator 

for a number of years. Jim Lewis took over when 

she retired in 2003. The volunteer program took on 

new importance as the park's budget reduced the 

number of seasonal positions. These positions 

																																																							 80. Johnson Interview, 15.

81. Ibid.

82. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2001 September 

2000 to October 2001”; Erin Edgemon, “Countywide 

Direction Signs Going Up,” Murfreesboro Post, January 7, 

2009; Jim Lewis to Angela Sirna, email, November 2, 2016, 

author’s notes. 
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 138

were essential to carrying out the park's 

interpretive program and other various aspects of 

park operations, including visitor services, 

maintenance, and museum collections. Park staff 

also coordinated large one-day volunteer efforts on 

special occasions, such as National Public Lands 

Day.83 The volunteer program has served to both 

stretch out the park's permanent workforce and

also build community investment through service 

work. 

While park staff improved community relations 

and expanded the volunteer program, the Friends 

of Stones River National Battlefield was on the 

decline during Johnson's tenure. Eddie Macon, 

who became a member of the group in 1996, 

recalled that participation steadily dropped after 

Peckham left the park. She was very involved in the 

group, but Johnson was not. Members were still 

concerned about development affecting the 

battlefield, but this issue did not have the same 

urgency it once did when the group first formed. 

Most of the activities the group sponsored 

included appreciation dinners for volunteers and 

staff, snacks for scout groups, and other smaller 

gestures to help park operations. In 2002 and 2005

the group did sponsor reunions for veteran 

descendants when the group had active board 

members. But some members stopped 

participating in the organization because they felt 

they should be doing more for the park, such as 

land acquisition. Others felt that the Friends group 

was not supporting their concerns, such as 

promoting their Confederate heritage.84 In 2010, 

Johnson noted that in the park's annual report that, 

"The organization struggled to keep active board 

members, and it's future is uncertain."85 Eddie 

Macon was the only active board member.

Bart Gordon Retires 

Congressman Bart Gordon announced in 

December 2009 he would not be seeking a 

fourteenth term. He retired in 2011, after serving 

																																																							 83. Backlund Interview, Part One, 12; Lewis Interview, 19.

84. Eddie Macon Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, 

TN, February 3, 2016, 18-20, 23; “Reunion,” The Vidette,

November 2004, and “Second Reunion a Success!” The 

Vidette, December 2005, both Friend of Stones River 

National Battlefield Papers. 

85. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2010 October 

2009 to September 2010."

as a Representative from Tennessee for twenty-six 

years. Gordon accomplished much in his political 

career. He was the Chairman of the Science and 

Technology Committee. He asked the National 

Academy of Sciences to look at American 

competitiveness in the twenty-first century, who in 

turn produced the report “Rise Above the 

Gathering Storm.” He also supported many 

historic preservation and recreation projects in 

Middle Tennessee area, many of them centering 

on Stones River National Battlefield. Some of his 

major accomplishments included: two boundary 

expansions, restoration of Fortress Rosecrans, 

Murfreesboro Greenway, visitor center 

renovations, rostrum reconstruction in the 

national cemetery, and a new tour road and 

entrance gate.86

Gordon was a major ally for the park who could 

not easily be replaced. In fact, when he announced 

his retirement, reporters noted that Gordon was 

going to face a tough reelection campaign as 

Republicans began to solidify themselves against 

President Obama’s policies.87 Gordon’s district 

was becoming increasingly conservative.

Republican Diane Black won his seat in 2010. 

Civil War Sesquicentennial 

The NPS kicked off Civil War sesquicentennial 

programming in 2001. Sesquicentennial planning 

was largely decentralized, in the hands of the states, 

but the NPS still retained a leadership role. 

Historians familiar with the failures of the 

centennial (1961-1965) watched with bated breath 

to see how the country would react to the war's 

150th anniversary, but the cultural and political 

climate was much different. It had been fifty years 

since the beginning of the Civil Rights movement 

and the nation had a black president, Barack 

Obama. There was no Cold War, although the 

United States was engaged in a War on Terror. 

There was no national commission, but many sites 

connected their events to the public through a new 

platform called social media. The sesquicentennial 

was an interesting moment to gauge the public's 

interest in the Civil War, to see what relevance, if 

any, it had on their lives. 

																																																							 86. Gordon Interview, 14; Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz, 

“House Democrats Lose Fourth Member to Retirement,” 

Washington Post, December 15, 2009. 

87. Cillizza and Balz, “House Democrats Lose Fourth 

Member to Retirement.”
139 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

NPS historian John Hennessy wrote that the Civil 

War sesquicentennial realized the interpretive 

framework discussed at the 1998 Holding the High 

Ground conference, which directed Civil War sites 

to broaden the story they tell, particularly to 

include the central role of slavery.88 These 

programs reveal how interpretation has changed at 

NPS Civil War sites, because this process has been 

"largely of addition, not subtraction."89 In some 

ways, NPS interpreters continued the programs 

that were popular during the centennial, which 

focused on the military aspects of the war, but the 

national theme that the NPS chose for the fouryear commemoration, "Civil War to Civil Rights," 

pushed Civil War sites to take into account the 

centrality of slavery and consequences of 

emancipation in a very public way while also tying 

it to the modern Civil Rights movement. 

Figure 63 USCT living history interpreter at STRI, 

photographed by David Wittenburg, October 27, 2013. 

Courtesy of STRI. 

Programming at STRI reflected these national 

trends. Beginning in 2009, according to Lewis, park 

staff thought through how to expand the story 

beyond the actual days of the battle. For example, 

staff chose to highlight stories of occupation. They 

held a birthday party for the 13th USCT, which 

formed in Murfreesboro in October 1863 (see Fig. 

63). They also presented a program about the 

creation of Stones River National Cemetery. Park 

staff called on scholars to speak to the public about 

the significance of the battle. In October 2012, the 

NPS and TCWNHA, along with Eastern National,

Friends of Stones River National Battlefield, MTSU 

																																																							 88. John Hennessy, "Touchstone: Sesquicentennial, the 

National Park Service, and a Changing Nation," CommonPlace 14, no. 2 (Winter 2014), http://www.common-placearchives.org/vol-14/no-02/hennessy/#.VsitY5MrKCQ

(accessed February 20, 2016).

89. Ibid.

Department of History, MTSU Center for Historic 

Preservation, and Teaching with Primary Sources, 

sponsored a two-day public symposium that 

featured workshops, tours, and presentations. The 

symposium was taped and rebroadcast on CSPAN3. Real time commemoration of battle engagements 

remained a popular aspect of the sesquicentennial, 

and STRI offered three days of living history 

programs over eight days of anniversary 

programming in December 2012 and January 2013. 

But on January 1, 2013, no muskets were fired. 

Staff held a night watch at Ebenezer Primitive 

Baptist Church, which was part of the original 

Cemetery community. The program focused on the 

Emancipation Proclamation to show the battle's 

strong connection to that document. Students at 

MacGavock High School created short films for 

the "Expressions of Freedom" project that staff 

screened at the park. Park staff continued the 

anniversary with living history demonstrations that 

had both military and social history focuses (see 

Figs. 64-66). There were also special activities for 

the park's Junior Ranger program. Unfortunately 

for visitors and staff, the area experienced very bad 

weather throughout the anniversary programs, 

which reduced visitor numbers.90

Figure 64 Confederate living history interpreters during 

150th anniversary, December 29, 2012. Courtesy of STRI. 

Figure 65 Union living history interpreters during 150th

anniversary, December 29, 2012. Courtesy of STRI.

																																																							 90. Lewis Interview, 29; National Park Service and Tennessee 

Civil War National Heritage Area, “The Legacy of Stones 

River,” 2012, 

https://www.nps.gov/stri/planyourvisit/upload/legacystonesri

ver-final-rgb-1.pdf (accessed June 14, 2016). 
Chapter Seven

National Park Service 140

Figure 66 Visitors watch 150th anniversary events, 

December 30, 2012. Courtesy of STRI. 

Superintendent Johnson decided that the park 

should use an Incident Management Team to help 

with anniversary events, but Johnson himself did 

not attend. He decided to retire shortly before the 

anniversary events began (see Fig. 67). He had 

spent nearly thirty-two years with the NPS and 

over forty years in historic preservation. When 

asked why he retired when he did, he said: 

This is purely a reflection of the kind of person 

I am: I knew that there were not going to be 

anymore significant projects on the horizon. We 

had done all that we could do to the park with 

the financial resources that we had available. I 

knew that there was no money in the pipeline 

and in fact, I knew that we were facing a period 

of probable decline in the terms of available 

funding, available staff, and so forth. And I just 

felt like it was the appropriate time for me to go. 

I think they needed—don't know whether they 

did or not but the Park Service needed to bring 

in somebody who's a more competent manager 

in that kind of setting. And I knew it wouldn't 

be me.91

Johnson also had the professional philosophy that 

he was a caretaker for the park for just a brief 

period of time. It was up to him to do the best job 

he could for the park's resources and visitors.92 He 

retired when he felt his job was done and knew he 

had a team capable for carrying out the 

sesquicentennial programs. Gayle Hazelwood 

arrived in his place, just days before the 

anniversary events began. 

																																																							 91. Johnson Interview, 22-23.

92. Ibid., 22.

Figure 67 Stuart Johnson with his family at his retirement 

party, September 29, 2012. Courtesy of STRI. 

Park Staffing 

Park staffing remained relatively stable during 

Johnson’s tenure. When he arrived at STRI, the 

park had nine full-time employees. When he left, 

the park had added three additional permanent 

positions. The park was able to add two permanent 

maintenance worker positions and an ecologist.

93

As mentioned previously, the Natural Resource 

Challenge allowed the park add a GS-11 Ecologist 

position, which was filled by Terri Hogan. She left 

STRI for a position at Congaree National Park in 

September 2010, after spending nearly eight years 

building the park's natural resource program. 

Johnson decided to create an Integrated Resource 

Manager Position, to bring together natural and 

cultural resources together. In 2012, Johnson hired 

Troy Morris, who had a natural resource 

background with the Army Corps of Engineers.

94

Two personnel changes occurred in 2003. 

Longtime park ranger Bettie Cook retired and John 

McKay filled her position. The park continued to 

have two ranger positions, one explicitly marked 

for Law Enforcement and the other for 

Interpretation. That same year, the park hired Ron 

Hibdon to fill the GS-5 Administrative Support 

Assistant position that was vacated by Ellen Brown. 

Additionally, the Maintenance Leader position was 

renamed Chief of Maintenance when Laura 

																																																							 93. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2001 September 

2000 to October 2001”;Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual 

Narrative Report Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal 

Year 2011 October 2010 to September 2011 (Draft)."

94. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2011 October

2010 to September 2011 (Draft)"; Backlund Interview, Part 

Two, 14.
141 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Stresemann accepted a position with Homestead 

National Monument. Donnie Knott, an Air Force 

veteran, served in this capacity until he transferred 

to Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military 

Park in 2009.95

After Knott’s departure, Johnson again changed 

the position title to WS7-Maintenance Foreman. 

William Reese transferred from Richmond 

National Battlefield/Maggie Walker National 

Historic Site in June 2010 to take over the new 

Facility Manager position. Both Knott and Reese 

had the assistance of Albert Pomplun, a longtime 

park employee who retired in 2011 after 30 years of 

service with the NPS.96

Conclusion 

By Johnson's retirement in 2012, the park had 

undergone a dramatic transformation. Physically, 

park facilities received a much-needed facelift. The 

park had a renovated visitor center and museum, a 

new tour road, new waysides, a rostrum for the 

national cemetery, and a brand new entrance gate. 

Situated on Thompson Lane, this new entrance 

gate was the new front door that park planners had 

sought ever since Highway 41 opened in the 1950s. 

The park's physical transformation had to keep 

pace with what was happening outside of its 

boundaries. During Johnson's tenure, 

Murfreesboro added Medical Center Parkway, the 

Avenue shopping mall, and another I-24 

interchange. This development reaffirmed that 

STRI was an urban park.

Park staff made great strides in broadening the 

story they told, but they were struggling to attract 

new audiences. Like the rest of the NPS, their 

average visitor was a white, middle-aged man. In 

particular, they were having a hard time bringing in 

African American audiences.97 These shortcomings 

																																																							 95. Johnson, “Superintendent’s Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield, Fiscal Year 2003 October 

2002-September 2003 (Draft).” 

96. Johnson, "Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report 

Stones River National Battlefield Fiscal Year 2010 October 

2009 to September 2010"; Johnson, "Superintendent's 

Annual Narrative Report Stones River National Battlefield 

Fiscal Year 2011 October 2010 to September 2011 (Draft)."

97. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

Long-Range Interpretive Plan (Murfreesboro, TN: Stones 

reaffirm John Hennessy's assertion that the 

sesquicentennial was not a high point in Civil War 

interpretation, but just a point in how 

interpretation is evolving. It is a process that is not 

yet complete.98

																																																																																						 River National Battlefield and Harpers Ferry Center 

Interpretive Planning, 2015), 22. 

98. Hennessy, "Touchstone."
Epilogue

National Park Service 142

Epilogue

Johnson’s retirement surprised many, but the park 

was left in the capable hands of Gayle Hazelwood, 

former Deputy Director of the Southeast Regional 

Office. Hazelwood was the park’s first African 

American and first openly acknowledged LGBTQ 

superintendent. She came to the park with an

impressive NPS resume. She had a strong 

background in recreation and interpretation and 

had held two superintendencies at dynamic, urban 

parks before becoming Deputy Director. She also 

came to STRI shortly before the NPS announced a 

new initiative to identify places and events 

associated with the history of LGBTQ Americans.1

Hazelwood recalled that she first learned of the 

NPS quite accidentally while she was completing 

her undergraduate degree in therapeutic 

recreation at Ohio University. She was umpiring a 

men’s fastball tournament. During a break, one of 

the fellow umpires, an NPS employee, began 

talking to Hazelwood about her career ambitions 

and took her under his wing.2

She first worked as a seasonal ranger at Cuyahoga 

Valley National Park in 1985, and entered into the 

agency’s Intake Program. However, the transition 

from seasonal to permanent employee did not go 

smoothly. She left the NPS to work at Ohio State 

Parks when a permanent position was not 

available. Shortly after finishing her training with 

Ohio State Parks, she received a call about a 

permanent position and accepted. She worked as a 

recreation specialist at Cuyahoga Valley and 

completed her master’s in recreational 

management at Ohio University.3

																																																							 1. “The LGBT Heritage Initiative,” National Park Service, 

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=5

3065 (accessed August 14, 2016). 

2. Gayle Hazelwood Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, November 17, 2015, 2-3. 

3. Ibid., 1-2. 

She stayed at the park for nine years before 

accepting the Chief of Interpretation at Martin 

Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta. 

She landed her first superintendency at New 

Orleans Jazz National Park Historical Park in 1998 

and remained there until 2003. She then became 

Deputy Superintendent of National Capital ParksEast and then became superintendent after her 

boss retired six months later. She stayed at 

National Capital Parks-East for five years before 

returning to Atlanta, having accepted the Deputy 

Director position for the Southeast Regional 

Office. In that position, she was responsible for 

supervising a third of the region’s superintendents 

and a number of program areas, including 

inventory and monitoring of natural and cultural 

resources, the Southeast Archeological Center, 

and outreach to HBCUs.

4

When Johnson retired, Hazelwood approached 

the Regional Director about the vacancy at Stones 

River National Battlefield. She was interested in 

the park for both professional and personal 

reasons. She enjoyed park operations and working 

with communities. Her partner also landed a job 

with Nashville Public School System as the 

Director of STEM (Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Math). Things moved quickly. 

Hazelwood arrived six days prior to the kick off of 

the park’s sesquicentennial events (see Fig. 68).

5

Figure 68 Superintendent Gayle Hazelwood at the Legacy 

of Stones River symposium, October 26, 2012. Photographer 

unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

																																																							 4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., 3. 
143 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Hazelwood had never worked at a Civil War park

in her twenty-seven year NPS career, but gladly 

stepped in as a cheerleader for STRI. Once the 

sesquicentennial events concluded, she swiftly 

turned her attention to her priorities, which 

included reinvigorating the nearly defunct Friends 

of Stones River National Battlefield group, 

expanding the park’s interpretation, and 

developing new community partnerships.6 Stuart 

Johnson, her predecessor, had guided the park 

through its biggest capital improvement campaign 

since Mission 66, so she had virtually a brand new 

park to manage. Hazelwood was a much more 

outward facing superintendent than Johnson and 

spent most of her energies on community 

outreach. Hazelwood’s experience working with 

urban parks and diverse communities helped steer 

the park’s newfound status as an urban park in a 

rapidly growing area. 

Friends of Stones River National 

Battlefield 

In 2012, the Friends of Stones River National 

Battlefield was struggling. Eddie Macon was the 

president and only active board member. He 

related in an oral history interview that 

membership declined during Johnson’s tenure 

partly because the superintendent did not show 

interest in the group. Hazelwood asked to meet 

with Macon when she arrived at the park, and 

Macon told her that due to family obligations he 

was walking away from the Friends group in one 

year. If she could not help find new board 

members, he was going to let the organization 

lapse and make a donation to the park with the 

Friend’s remaining funds.7

With Hazelwood’s efforts, the Friends group did 

not dissolve after a year. She became involved in 

Leadership Rutherford, a program sponsored by 

the Rutherford County Chamber of Commerce 

that is designed to motivate individuals to further 

their leadership skills while addressing community 

needs. One group of participants chose to revive 

the Friends group as its project.8 While it is unclear 

																																																							 6. Ibid., 3-5. 

7. Eddie Macon Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, 

TN, February 3, 2016, 21-22. 

8. Gilbert Backlund Interview by Angela Sirna, 

Murfreesboro, TN, June 8, 2016, Part Three. 

how effective the leadership group’s efforts were, 

the Friends group did find new leadership with 

board members who held a variety of backgrounds 

and interests and who were willing to be active 

helpers. Gary Burke, a United States Colored 

Troop living historian, joined the board, along 

with Drs. Susan Myers-Shirk and Rebecca Conard, 

both history professors at Middle Tennessee State 

University. Backlund recalled that he and other 

park staff were surprised to learn that Mike Liles 

had reached out to Eddie Macon about becoming 

involved in the group again. Liles had once served 

as vice-president of the organization when it had

first formed in 1989, but had strained relations 

with the park when the NPS tried to purchase his 

land and spoke against his efforts to rezone his 

property as commercial. The park embraced 

Liles’s new outlook, and he now serves as the 

president of the Friends group (see Fig. 69).

9

Figure 69 Superintendent Gayle Hazelwood welcomes 

Mike Liles as the new president of Friends of Stones River 

National Battlefield, 2014. Photographer unknown. 

Courtesy of Friends of Stones River National Battlefield.

With new leadership, the Friends group was then 

able to reach out to the community to help rebuild 

the membership. Hazelwood mentioned this 

growth in an oral history interview and the group’s 

efforts to attract an audience with diverse 

interests, particularly those that use the park on a 

regular, if not daily, basis:

We’ve got your traditional Civil War enthusiast 

but, as many people know, here at Stones River 

																																																							 9. Ibid. 
Epilogue

National Park Service 144

we also have a very active walking, hiking, dog 

loving, bird loving, butterfly watching group of 

people.10

Hazelwood made it clear that the Friends group 

should include those people who primarily use the 

park for recreation as well.

Not all members were happy with these changes. 

Macon noted that some members interested in 

history and southern heritage were not pleased

with the direction the park was moving, such as 

welcoming recreationists and interpreting local 

African American history. Some of them remain 

members, paying dues but not actively 

participating in park or Friends’ activities. Others, 

however, have completely left the Friends group. 

Macon recalled one member (but did not use his 

name) in particular who left the organization to 

give his efforts to the Sam Davis Home.11

Hazelwood described the situation in more 

diplomatic terms, saying that some members did 

not share the same priorities as the park.12 

Today, the Friends group serves as a partner and 

advisory group to the park. The group helps 

support park programs, such as Public Lands Day 

and Memorial Day, by providing volunteers or 

refreshments. The park superintendent or 

designated staff member attends Friends board 

meetings to help bring the group up to speed about 

park activities and needs. In turn, Friends 

members may provide feedback about park 

operations.

2013 Visitor Study

Most of the action items outlined in Alternative 2 

of the 1999 General Management Plan were 

complete by the time Hazelwood arrived at the 

park in 2012. In 2013, the park commissioned a 

visitor study to evaluate how well the park was 

meeting its visitor service goals, and provide hard 

data for the next set of planning documents that 

would help guide the park for the next five to ten 

years. 

																																																							 10. Hazelwood Interview, 4-5. 

11. Macon Interview, 19-20.

12. Hazelwood Interview, 6. 

The study was conducted July 13-23, 2013, by the 

NPS Visitor Services Project (VSP), which is part of 

the Park Studies Unit at the University of Idaho. 

Park and VSP staff developed a questionnaire over 

a series of conference calls. Staff handed out the 

questionnaire at the visitor center to 450 different 

groups. The form was returned by 269 

respondents, a 59.8 percent return rate.13

The survey found that that 58 percent of visitor 

groups consisted of one or two individuals. Ninetynine percent of visitors were from the United 

States, with 35 percent coming from Tennessee and 

the rest from thirty-six different states. Visitors 

aged 51-70 years old accounted for the largest age 

group of respondents at 43 percent. Fifty-two 

percent were male and 96 percent were white. 

Seventy-three percent of visitors responded that 

this was their first visit. The average length of stay 

for respondents was 2.1 hours. About half of the 

visitors were also visiting other local attractions, 

the most common of which were Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga National Military Park, Shiloh 

National Military Park, and Battle of Franklin sites. 

Visitors mostly stayed in the core battlefield area, 

spending most of their time at the visitor center, 

national cemetery, and the Slaughter Pen.14

The demographics uncovered in the survey 

reinforced much of what was already known 

anecdotally. The majority of battlefield visitors 

were middle-aged white men interested in the Civil 

War. It also showed that very few African 

Americans visited the park. As a point of 

comparison, 12.5 percent of residents living in 

Rutherford County in 2010 were African 

American.15 The lagging representation of 

minorities, particularly African Americans, is a 

system-wide issue, not just one found in Civil War 

parks. 

Seventy-three percent of respondents reported 

that they “learned something about the Civil War 

that was relevant or meaningful to their life.”

																																																							 13. Marc F. Manni, Douglas Eury, and Yen Le, Stones River 

National Battlefield Visitor Study Summer 2013 (Fort Collins, 

CO: National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and 

Science, May 2014), v, 3. 

14. Ibid., v-vi. 

15. “Quick Facts: Rutherford County, Tennessee,” United 

States Census Bureau, 

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/RHI125215/47149

(accessed July 19, 2016). 
145 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Survey results showed that the most common 

topics that visitors learned about during their visit 

were “Events of the Battle of Stones River” (95 

percent), “Events of the Civil War” (78 percent), 

and “Natural setting where events occurred” (78 

percent).16 These survey results indicate that the 

park was successful in meeting its interpretive 

goals, as they were shaped by conferences like 

“Holding the High Ground” and “Rally on the 

High Ground.” 

2014 Foundation Document

With this data in hand, park staff embarked on a 

new planning document called the Foundation 

Document, which some in the agency refer to as 

“GMP-light.” Much criticism had been waged in 

and outside the agency against GMP’s, which were 

very costly, time consuming, and almost out of date 

as soon as they were approved. The Foundation 

Document is supposed to be a much more nimble 

document with a shorter shelf life and does not 

require an Environmental Impact Statement. Its 

purpose is “to provide basic guidance for planning 

and management decisions.”17 As the NPS started 

to gear up for the agency’s 100th anniversary, 

administrators put forth the goal that all NPS units 

will complete a Foundation Document by 2016.18

Park staff outlined seven statements of significance

related to the park’s purpose:

• “The Battle of Stones River secured middle 

Tennessee, its vital transportation network and 

its rich agricultural lands for the Union, while 

providing a much needed strategic victory that 

bolstered Union morale as the American Civil 

War moved into 1863.”

• “The Union victory at Stones River 

strengthened political support for President 

Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, 

which went into effect on January 1, 1863. The 

proclamation signaled a major shift in 

American Civil War goals—from a right to 

preserve the Union to a struggle for freedom.” 

																																																							 16. Manni, Eury, and Le, Stones River National Battlefield 

Visitor Study Summer 2013, vi. 

17. National Park Service, Foundation Document, Stones 

River National Battlefield, Tennessee, (Murfreesboro, TN: 

Prepared for Stones River National Battlefield, November 

2014), 2.

18. “Foundation Documents for National Park Service 

Units,” National Park Service, 

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/foundationDocuments.cfm

(July 19, 2016). 

• “The Hazen Brigade Monument, one of the 

oldest intact American Civil War monuments, 

was built on the Stones River battlefield in 1863 

by soldiers who served under Col. William 

Hazen to memorialize the brigade’s actions and 

losses.” 

• “After the Battle of Stones River, Union forces, 

with the help of formerly enslaved laborers, 

constructed Fortress Rosecrans, one of the 

largest Civil War earthen fortifications, to serve 

as a major supply depot for both the 

Chattanooga and Atlanta campaigns. Stones 

River National Battlefield protects surviving 

portions of these earthworks.”

• “Stones River National Cemetery was one of 

the first national cemeteries authorized by the 

federal government. The national cemeteries 

were a response to military and civilian 

concerns with the way in which the nation 

cared for war deaths.”

• “The freedman’s settlement known as 

Cemetery, established following the American 

Civil War on the site of the Battle of Stones 

River, existed until the designation of Stones 

River National Battlefield in 1927, and beyond. 

Some park neighbors are descendants of those 

early community members. Some of the 

freedmen who lived there played an integral 

role in the building of Stones River National 

Cemetery.”

• “Stones River National Battlefield protects 

cedar glades, a specially adapted plant 

community, including some plants known to 

occur only within a few select locations within 

Rutherford County, Tennessee.” 19

With these significance statements articulated, the 

park identified related Fundamental Resources 

and Values (FRVs). FRVs “are those features, 

systems, processes, experiences, stories, scenes, 

sounds, smells, or other attributed determined to 

warrant primary consideration during planning 

and management processes.”20 STRI identified 

Battlefield Landscape, Stones River National 

Cemetery, Commemorative Landscape and 

Monuments, Fortress Rosecrans, Archeological 

Resources, and Museum Collections as the park’s 

FRVs. The park identified Other Important 

Resources and Values (OIRVs) as well, which 

included Appropriate Recreational Opportunities 

and Cedar Glades.21

																																																							 19. National Park Service, Foundation Document, Stones 

River National Battlefield, Tennessee, 6. 

20. Ibid., 7.

21. Ibid., 7-9. 
Epilogue

National Park Service 146

The planning team identified six interpretive 

themes along with subthemes.

• Theme 1: “Stones River was one the major Civil 

War battles in size, complexity, and long-term 

results.”

• Theme 2: “The Battle of Stones River 

significantly changed the course of the Civil 

War by shifting momentum from the 

Confederate Army to the Union Army and 

providing a timely boost for the Union cause.” 

• Theme 3: “The battle profoundly affected the 

lives of countless people—civilian as well as 

military.” 

• Theme 4: The rural landscape of Stones River 

battlefield—especially its terrain, vegetation, 

and features—notably influenced the battle.” 

• Theme 5: “Stones River National Battlefield 

represents an important early effort in the 

movement toward battlefield commemoration 

in the United States.”

• Theme 6: “The Confederate army’s withdrawal 

from the area after the battle allowed Union 

forces to build Fortress Rosecrans, a major 

supply/logistical transportation base, and to 

affect Murfreesboro throughout the rest of the 

Civil War and Reconstruction.”22

The interpretive themes are elaborated in the next 

section of this administrative history, but their 

inclusion in the Foundation Document 

demonstrates how park staff currently think about 

the relationship between FRVs and interpretation. 

The Foundation Document provides a matrix of 

the FRVS with analysis based on current 

conditions and trends, threats and opportunities, 

existing plans and data, data and/or GIS needs, 

planning needs, and applicable laws or regulations. 

The FRVS were listed in stable, fair, or good 

condition. Some of the threats listed were not new, 

such as adjacent development, vandalism, or 

invasive plant species. However, the planning team 

noted that STRI had one of the highest densities of 

invasive plant species in the Southeast Region 

“despite extensive management efforts.”23 What is 

noticeably different about how the team describes 

these threats is a more nuanced understanding of 

them. For example, they articulated that industrial 

development brought increased vehicle traffic

(which affected air and water quality), heavier

stream pollution from storm water runoff, more 

																																																							

22. Ibid., 10-12.

23. Ibid., 16. 

wildlife-vehicle accidents, monument degradation 

from acid rain, and negative impacts to the 

appearance of the night sky and soundscape. Land 

acquisition was a topic conspicuously absent from 

the document, which marks another difference 

from the planning efforts in the 1990s.24 

The planning team did note a new threat—climate 

change—that would have adverse impacts on both 

natural and cultural resources. Climate scientists 

project that the average annual temperature will 

increase 1.5 to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 and 

2.5 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2070.25 This 

dramatic change will worsen the invasive species 

epidemic, therefore altering the appearance of the 

battlefield landscape. It will also increase the 

likeliness of extreme storms, which may lead to 

tree damage in the national cemetery and the 

park’s earthworks. Severe storms might bring 

increased rainfall and flooding, which would in 

turn uncover archeological resources that are 

currently safe underground. Climate change may 

also threaten the overall health of the plant 

communities in the cedar glades.26 While there is 

little the park can do to reverse climate change, the 

planning team underscored the importance of 

monitoring resource conditions and working with 

local, state, and federal partners on regional 

efforts. They also recommended the park continue 

developing its sustainability committee to reduce 

the park’s own carbon footprint and implement 

more sustainable practices.27

The “opportunities” section of the FRV matrix 

allowed the planning team to pinpoint possible 

partnerships to help the mark meet its goals, which 

was much in line with Hazelwood’s priority to 

develop park partnerships. For example, the 

museum collections section, the planning team 

noted that the park needed a full-time museum 

curator, particularly someone that could direct 

digitization efforts. As a possible opportunity to 

help meet this need, they noted that the MTSU 

Public History Ph.D. program has a residency 

requirement, which would be a way to bring in a 

doctoral student for a year.28 Other partnership 

																																																							 24. Ibid.,14-33. 

25. Ibid.,16.

26. Ibid., 16, 20, 25, 28, 35.

27. Ibid., 16. 

28. Ibid., 30. 
147 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

opportunities listed include working with the City 

of Murfreesboro to make sure development meets 

both the interests of the city and the park, 

collaborating with the city and landowners to 

preserve Curtain Wall No. 1 and the remnants of 

Lunette Negley, and find groups willing to help 

with cyclical maintenance of the park’s 

monuments.29 

After the FRV analysis, the planning team noted 

four key issues: urban development and regional 

growth, protection of the entire battlefield 

landscape, connectivity to the community, and 

sustainability.30 This administrative history should 

show that the first three concerns are not new. 

However, unlike in the past, the park is not 

currently seeking to add new land, but to work 

with local, state, federal, non-profit, and private 

partners and stakeholders to accomplish its goals. 

The only new issue is the matter of sustainability, 

which is an issue that the NPS is currently 

addressing servicewide with the hope that the 

agency will serve as a leader in climate change 

response.

31

With these four key issues in mind, the planning 

team outlined additional planning and data needs, 

ranking them from high to low priority. Some of 

the high ranking planning needs include a tree 

management plan for the national cemetery, 

parkwide trail management plan, turf management 

plan for the national cemetery, accessibility 

assessment of the park and national cemetery, 

preservation maintenance plan for the national 

cemetery, a Cultural Landscape Report for 

Fortress Rosecrans and Redoubt Brannan (along 

with an earthworks management plan update), 

viewshed management plan, and development 

concept plan specifically for the visitor center area 

to expand the parking area and provide a shade 

structure for visitor use.32 In terms of data needs, 

the planning team ranked highly a conservation 

study for the Hazen Brigade Monument and 

																																																							 29. Ibid., 16, 23, 25. 

30. Ibid., 38-39.

31. In 2010, the NPS released its report, Climate Change 

Response Strategy (Fort Collins, CO: Climate Change 

Response Program, National Park Service, 2010), which was 

a call for both individual and collective action, urging the 

agency to be a leader in climate change response. 

32. National Park Service, Foundation Document, Stones 

River National Battlefield, Tennessee, 40. 

cemetery wall, an archeological overview and 

assessment, fire and security survey for the park’s 

museum collections, and a visual resource 

inventory and viewshed analysis.

33

Long-Range Interpretive Plan 

In 2014, the park used planning for the 

Foundation Document to kickoff an effort to 

formulate a new Long-Range Interpretive Plan 

(LRIP) based upon the interpretive themes 

articulated during the Foundation Document 

planning process. The park had the assistance of 

Peggy Scherbaum, an Interpretive Planner from 

Harpers Ferry Center. In September 2014, a group 

of park staff, stakeholders, and partners met to 

review elements of the Foundation Document. 

They also created Visitor Experience Goals and 

identified target audiences. The park convened a 

Recommendations Workshop in December 2014

with park staff and stakeholders. From that 

meeting, the park was then able to develop an 

Action Plan. The LRIP was completed in 2015.34

The key audiences identified in the LRIP reveal 

how the park has been working to expand its 

interpretive programming. They not only include 

Civil War enthusiasts and educational audiences—

the traditional visitors the park has sought over the 

years—but also recreational users, 

conservationists, travelers, bus tours, park 

neighbors, new residents, and digital dwellers.35

This list shows that park staff and stakeholders are

interested in welcoming those that experience the 

park incidentally or accidentally. They realize that 

while much of the greater battlefield had been lost 

to development, the growth of new residents in 

the area means a new visitor base. 

This administrative history shows that these ideas 

were not entirely new. Throughout the 

generations, STRI superintendents hoped to 

capitalize on the haphazard traveler. In the 1970s, 

Superintendent Jim Sanders certainly saw the 

																																																							 33. Ibid., 42. 

34. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

Long-Range Interpretive Plan (Murfreesboro, TN: Stones 

River National Battlefield and Harpers Ferry Center 

Interpretive Planning, 2015), 1.

35. Ibid., 14-17.
Epilogue

National Park Service 148

potential of attracting new audiences as new 

housing developments were built near the park 

during that time. He also sought to bring in nature 

lovers and recreationists. 

However, the 2015 LRIP did identify one group 

that previous superintendents had not fully 

considered: “digital dwellers.” The park had 

developed electronic media in the visitor center 

and through cell phone tours around the 

battlefield. However, with the advent of the 

smartphone and prevalence of social media, they 

realized the need for a stronger virtual presence to 

reach those “park users with high expectations of 

digital programs and dependence on hand-held 

devices.”36 They specifically singled out 

“millennials” and those families with “digitallyfocused youth.” 

The LRIP’s authors noted that the park faces 

several interpretive challenges at STRI. First, there 

are many activities competing for people’s leisure 

time. The park will have to continue providing 

quality programs, both on-site and virtual, to 

demonstrate the value of spending time at the 

park. Second, audience expectations are 

continuously changing with trends in media 

technology, so park staff must be aware of how 

people are connecting with park resources.37

Third, the park has to take a hard look at its 

operations and make difficult decisions to 

maintain fiscal responsibility, which might mean 

cutting hours, traditional services, or programs, 

but also finding creative avenues to find additional 

funding and staffing. Finally, recreational users 

																																																							 36. Ibid., 16.

37. A case in point recently occurred in the summer of 2016, 

when Pokémon Go, a location-based augmented reality 

mobile application based on a popular 1990s video game 

franchise, brought new visitors to museums, historic sites, 

and national parks across the country. This quickly raised 

questions about the appropriateness of playing a game in 

areas considered sacred ground, like a Civil War battlefield 

or a national cemetery. NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis posted 

a video message on Facebook encouraging players to catch 

Pokémon at national parks, but to be careful about park 

resources. STRI staff, also concerned about park resources, 

sent out rangers, volunteers, or interns out with visitors 

who were trying to catch Pokémon. They are also trying to 

work with game developers to remove Pokémon stops in 

the national cemetery. The park’s last count was fifteen. 

Rebecca Hersher, “Holocaust Museum, Arlington National 

Cemetery Plead: No Pokémon,” National Public Radio, 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2016/07/12/485759308/holocaust-museum-arlingtonnational-cemetery-plead-no-pokemon (accessed July 19, 

2016). 

may not understand all of the park’s rules, which 

might create additional staff or volunteer work to 

educate them or repairing social trails.38

The planning team developed a number of 

audience goals based upon recommendations 

from staff and stakeholders. For youth under 18 

years of age, the park’s goal is to present a range of 

programs and media that will allow youth to 

engage with park resources and stories. For grade 

school students (kindergarten through 12th grade), 

the park’s goal is to use a variety of mediums that 

will link park learning opportunities to state 

school standards. For young adults, ages 18 to 35, 

the park hopes to use multiple venues to 

“encourage young people to co-create their own 

park experience in ways that are impactful, 

support sharing, improve their lives and the world 

around them, and continue beyond the park 

experience.” For park neighbors, the park intends

to use interpretive media to show the geographic 

breadth of the Battle of Stones River and its 

relevance to contemporary local communities. For 

Civil War enthusiasts, the park plans to improve its 

electronic presence to “provide balanced and 

empathetic conversational opportunities based on 

facts and primary sources.” This goal clearly points 

to the agency’s efforts in the past several years to 

train park rangers in using civic dialogue to engage 

visitors in conversations about very complex 

issues, such as the causes and consequences of the 

Civil War. For travelers, the goal is to present a 

range of interpretive mediums so that visitors can 

have memorable experiences.39

In the audience goals section, the document 

authors included African Americans as another 

audience group that was not initially identified as a 

key audience. They wrote, 

There is a significant disparity between the 

percentage of Tennessee’s population which is 

of African American heritage (17%: 2013 US 

Census), and the percentage of visitors to the 

Battlefield who are African American (1%: 

2013 Visitor Study). This is of special concern 

because of the critical involvement of African 

Americans in the site’s history.40

																																																							 38. National Park Service, Stones River National Battlefield 

Long-Range Interpretive Plan, 17-18.

39. Ibid., 21.

40. Ibid., 22.
149 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

The authors continue that African American 

history is American history, and 28 percent of 

respondents in the 2013 Visitor Survey said they 

had received “‘some, but not enough’” 

information about African American history at the 

battlefield. 41 They wrote, “Ideally, contemporary 

African Americans will co-create the interpretive 

messages that the Battlefield conveys.”42 The 

audience goal that they outlined for African 

American target group is to apply research 

findings and collaborate with African American 

community members to improve this audience’s 

experience at the park and how they connect to 

park resources and stories. The research the 

author’s were referring to was an ethnographic 

study on Cemetery community recently completed 

by MTSU Professor of History, Dr. Rebecca 

Conard.

43

The park’s Action Plan for meeting these audience 

goals includes a variety of different activities. For 

youth under 18 years of age, the park plans to 

enhance the Junior Ranger Program and has 

adopted Instagram. For grade school students, the 

park is working to modify park programs to meet 

state education standards, increase awareness of 

the park’s offerings for educators, providing 

opportunities for independent high school 

research or presentation, create outdoor 

education space, and establish a demonstration 

garden. For young adults, park staff will work to 

expand career development and mentorship 

opportunities, expand outreach services 

highlighting NPS careers, offer in-depth residency 

programs, and create technology-based 

interpretive experiences. For African Americans, 

the park will gather information and input from 

local African American community members, 

establish a broader interpretive narrative, and 

develop a strategy for sustainable outreach and 

contact. To reach park neighbors, the park will 

continue to develop interpretation that ties the 

battlefield to the greater Murfreesboro area and 

emphasize the status of the park as a unit of the 

NPS. For Civil War enthusiasts, the park will 

increase digital participation by providing 

																																																							 41. Quoted in Ibid., 22. 

42. Ibid., 22-23. 

43. Rebecca Conard, Historic Cemetery Community: The 

Cedars, Stones River National Battlefield, Rutherford 

County, Tennessee (Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee 

State University, prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, May 2016).

electronic access to park collections and promote 

digital dialogue. Lastly, for travellers, the park will 

increase its electronic presence, develop exhibits, 

and improve interpretation on trails.44 

Confederate Symbols Controversy 

On June 17, 2015, Dylan Roof, a white male, 

entered a prayer meeting at Emanuel African 

Methodist Episcopal (AME) church in Charleston, 

South Carolina, and murdered nine African 

American church members. Emanuel AME 

church, known as “Mother Emanuel” is a historic 

black church, and Roof claimed himself to be a 

white supremacist hoping to start a race war.45 As 

the public struggled to come to terms with what 

happened, the media circulated images from 

Roof’s webpage showing him holding a 

Confederate flag at Confederate heritage sites and 

slavery museums.

46

In the wake of the devastation, there were 

renewed efforts around the South to remove 

public displays of the Confederate flag and 

iconography. Perhaps most notably, South 

Carolina Republican Governor Nikki Haley called 

for the state legislature to remove the Confederate 

flag flying on state grounds, which they agreed to 

do.47 There were similar calls for the NPS to 

remove the flag at Civil War battlefields. On June 

																																																							 44. Ibid., 25-31.

45. Christopher Dean Hopkins, “9 Dead in Shooting at 

Charleston, S.C., Church,” National Public Radio,

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2015/06/18/415345850/reports-eight-dead-in-shootingat-charleston-s-c-church (accessed July 21, 2016); National 

Public Radio, June 18, 2015, Bill Chappel, “’Mother 

Emanuel’ Church Suffers a New Loss in Charleston,” 

National Public Radio, June 18, 2015, 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2015/06/18/415452594/mother-emanuel-church-suffersa-new-loss-in-charleston (accessed July 21, 2016); 

46. Frances Robles, “Dylan Roof Photos and Manifesto Are 

Posted on Website,” New York Times, June 20, 2015, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/us/dylann-storm-roofphotos-website-charleston-church-shooting.html?_r=0

(accessed July 21, 2016). 

47. Amber Phillips, “Nikki Haley: Lowering the Confederate 

Flag ‘A Real Proud Moment for South Carolina,’” New York 

Times, July 12, 2015, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/postpolitics/wp/2015/07/12/nikki-haley-lowering-theconfederate-flag-a-real-proud-moment-for-south-carolina/

(accessed July 21, 2016).
Epilogue

National Park Service 150

25, 2015, NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis asked 

superintendents to work with partners to 

voluntarily remove items in park stores that “solely 

depict the Confederate flag.”48 Stones River 

National Battlefield complied with his request. 

 

Counter-protests regarding the removal of 

Confederate iconography ensued. STRI staff 

experienced this firsthand shortly after Jarvis 

directed parks to remove the Confederate flag in 

their bookstores. On August 1, 2015, a group of 

local Confederate flag supporters, in 

approximately half a dozen vehicles, showed up at 

the park with large Confederate flags on their cars 

and trucks. Park staff had been encouraged to talk 

to visitors about what the Confederate flag means 

with them. Hazelwood later recalled that the 

purpose of this dialogue was not necessarily to 

change people’s minds, but hear and understand 

that the flag was divisive. Jim Lewis met with the 

group, who did not have a First Amendment 

permit, and saw it as an opportunity to engage 

with them about the flag’s meaning.49

Figure 70 Screenshot of Facebook post on August 1, 2015.

He snapped a picture of the group and posted it on 

the park’s Facebook page (see fig. 70) with the 

following caption, 

Ranger Jim had a pleasant chat with a group of 

visitors sharing their opinion on the debate 

																																																							 48. National Park Service, “Statement Regarding the 

Confederate Flag,” June 25, 2015, 

https://www.nps.gov/gett/learn/news/statement-regardingthe-confederate-flag.htm (accessed July 21, 2016). 

49. After Hazelwood’s initial oral history session, Project 

Historian Angela Sirna followed up with a phone call 

specifically regarding the park’s response to this event. See 

Gayle Hazelwood Phone Call Notes with Angela Sirna, April 

12, 2016, author’s notes. 

surrounding the Confederate battle flag by 

simply driving around the park. This peaceful 

show of support for this controversial symbol 

stands in stark contrast to recent events at 

Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic 

Site...reminding us that symbols acquire 

meanings based on their use and the 

motivations of the people that use them.

This post caught the attention of users on social 

media. Historians like Kevin Levin sharply 

criticized the park’s response to the group, since

other park visitors would have no context for what 

was happening.50 Some Facebook commenters 

supported the display.

Hazelwood was not at the park when the incident 

occurred, but she immediately had calls from the 

Regional Office, which informed her that 

prominent people-of-color activists were upset 

about the post and how the park handled it. The 

park took down the post, which caused Levin and 

other historians to criticize the park for deleting 

the ensuing conversation. Hazelwood called these 

activists personally to discuss the incident. She 

also had a conversation with Lewis about the 

incident, and he acknowledged in hindsight that 

the post could have been worded better. From this 

incident, the park instituted a new social media 

guideline: if a person has second thoughts about 

how something should be written, they should 

check with others before it is posted.51

While the LRIP directs park staff to engage Civil 

War enthusiasts in thoughtful dialogue, either in 

person or with social media, the August 1 incident 

at STRI demonstrates the limits of social media for 

such dialogue. What may have been just a local 

incident quickly became a national issue, with 

people across the country weighing in without 

appropriate context. 

The Confederate iconography debate in 

Rutherford County was not limited to Stones 

River National Battlefield. In Murfreesboro at 

Middle Tennessee State University, the shootings 

in Charleston prompted students, staff, and alumni 

																																																							 50. Kevin Levin, “National Park Service Needs a Stricter 

Confederate Flag Policy,” Civil War Memory, August 2, 

2015, http://cwmemory.com/2015/08/02/national-parkservice-needs-stricter-confederate-flag-policy/ (accessed July 

21, 2016). 

51. Gayle Hazelwood Phone Call Notes with Angela Sirna.
151 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

to ask the university to change the name of the 

ROTC building, Forrest Hall, named after 

Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. 

Their calls for a name change elicited an equally 

passionate response, from local community 

members, to keep the name. MTSU President 

Sidney McPhee created a special Forrest Hall Task 

Force to hold a series of public hearings among 

students, alumni, and community members, and 

then make a recommendation to him about the 

name change. McPhee appointed Mike Liles, 

Friends president, to the committee, although he 

was not representing the Friends group or the 

park. The public meetings were contentious, with

heated verbal exchanges between campus 

protestors and community members. Campus 

protestors, many of them members of the

“Talented Tenth,” an African American student 

group, were escorted out of one meeting by police

after they began chanting a protest slogan. In April 

2016, the Task Force recommended to change the 

name. However, one of the Task Force members, 

State Senator Bill Ketron, sponsored the 

Tennessee Heritage Protection Act, which passed 

in March 2016, a law that will make changing the 

name of the building harder. The name change has 

been approved by the Tennessee Board of 

Regents, but will need approval by the Tennessee 

Historical Commission.52 Staff at STRI were not 

involved in the Forrest Hall controversy, but it is 

worth mentioning because it demonstrates how 

deeply Confederate heritage and iconography still 

divides the local community. 

Interpreting Cemetery 

Community 

Although the August 1 Confederate flag 

controversy might make it appear that the park is 

falling behind in its goals to reach African 

American audiences, it has actually made big 

strides this year. In 2015, Mark Friedman, a 

Friends board member, formed an African 

American committee with the specific goal of 

bringing African Americans to the park. The 

committee struggled at first with more white 

participants than African Americans. However,

after meetings with the African American Heritage 

																																																							 52. Sarah Grace Taylor, “Timeline: 2015-2016 Forrest Hall 

Protests,” MTSU Sidelines, March 21, 2016, 

http://mtsusidelines.com/2016/03/timeline-2015-16-forresthall-protests/ (accessed July 21, 2016); “Updates,” Middle 

Tennessee State University, 

http://mtsu.edu/forresthall/updates.php (accessed July 21, 

2016). 

Society of Rutherford County (AAHS), the 

committee had buy in from key African American 

community members, such as Mary Watkins, 

Florence Smith, and Katie Wilson, who are

involved in AAHS, Bradley Academy Museum, and 

the local chapter of the National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). 

In February 2016, the committee held two 

programs at the park for Black History Month. 

The first program was a tour of Cemetery 

community (see Fig. 71), which coincided with the 

launch of a new cellphone tour app for Cemetery 

community. The tour, which covered sites within 

and outside the park’s boundaries, incorporated 

the research of Dr. Rebecca Conard and her 

students. The second program was a celebration of 

Cemetery history. It featured local African 

American gospel groups, oral histories with 

Eleanora “Boe” Washington and Anthony King, 

USCT living historians, and a play written and 

directed by Watkins (see Fig. 72). Both events 

demonstrated good promise for diversifying the 

park’s audience and promoting civic dialogue. 

Figure 71 USCT living history interpreter giving a program 

at the grave of William Holland by the Hazen Brigade 

Monument, one stop of the Cemetery tour. Photographed 

by Angela Sirna, February 6, 2016.
Epilogue

National Park Service 152

Figure 72 Audience watches play about Cemetery 

community. Photographed by Angela Sirna, February 20, 

2016. 

On May 7, 2016, the committee followed 

February’s events with a Decoration Day program 

at the national cemetery. Participants convened at 

the visitor center and marched to the national 

cemetery, singing “John Brown’s Body” (see Fig. 

73). They were joined by school children at the 

park that day for an “Every Kid in a Park” 

program. Gary Burke, USCT living historian, gave 

the invocation, and was followed by his fellow 

reenactor, Kevin Greene, who spoke about the

history of Decoration Day. After hearing a song 

from a local gospel group, audience members were 

invited to place a flower on a grave in the national 

cemetery (see Fig. 74). 

Figure 73 Decoration Day activities began with the group 

marching from the visitor center to the national cemetery, 

singing “John Brown’s Body.” Photographed by Angela 

Sirna, May 7, 2016.

Figure 74 Visitors place flowers on the graves in national 

cemetery during Decoration Day program. Photographed 

by Angela Sirna, May 7, 2016.

In many ways, the efforts of the African American 

Committee are accomplishing what the Civil War 

sesquicentennial fell short on, which was bringing 

in diverse audiences for inclusive programming. It 

is an excellent example of the potential of park 

partnerships, since the park, Friends group, AAHS, 

and MTSU came together to contribute to this 

programming. Furthermore, the park continues to 

be on the edge of interpretation by actively 

bringing in the story of Reconstruction and 

connecting it to the local African American 

community. 

Since the end of sesquicentennial events in 2015, 

the NPS has received criticism for not planning 

similar observances for Reconstruction. Scholars 

have pointed out that the NPS does not have a 

single unit devoted solely to Reconstruction 

history.53 In May 2015, the NPS commissioned a 

Theme Study on the Reconstruction Era to bring 

more awareness of this period in American 

history.54 This study, which has not yet been 

completed, may identify sites that can be listed as 

National Historical Landmarks. It has also 

prompted already existing NPS sites, such as 

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, to 

evaluate their Reconstruction history. By building 

																																																							 53. Marty Blatt, Chief of Cultural Resources and Historian at 

Boston National Historical Park and Boston African 

American National Historic Site, said it was an 

“embarrassment” the NPS did not have one site devoted to 

Reconstruction. Marty Blatt, “From Civil War to Civil 

Rights,” George Wright Forum 31, no. 1 (2014): 7.

54. National Park Service, press release, “Upcoming Theme 

Study to Focus on the Era of Reconstruction,” May 14, 2015, 

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=1706

(accessed July 21, 2016).
153 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

interpretive programming around the history of 

Cemetery community, the park has been able to 

incorporate Reconstruction into the narrative it 

tells at the park. 

Road to the Centennial 

This year, 2016, is the one hundredth anniversary 

of the National Park Service. Planning efforts have 

been going on for at least a decade. In 2006, 

Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne launched 

the National Park Centennial Initiative, which 

invited parks and stakeholders to envision a new 

century for the NPS and prepare parks for the next 

century of service. The agency held more than 

forty listening sessions nationwide and received 

more than six thousand comments. The centennial 

team incorporated this input into a report called 

The Future of America’s National Parks, which was 

presented to President George W. Bush.

55

President Bush was relatively supportive of the 

NPS and the centennial initiative. However, the 

Financial Crisis of 2008, the election of President 

Barack Obama, and a new Congress diverted

political focus away from the centennial initiative. 

In 2011, NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis issued a Call 

to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of 

Stewardship and Engagement. Within the report, 

Jarvis included thirty-six action items for parks 

and their partners to start incorporating into their 

operations and programming. These action items 

did not come with any additional funding, 

however. At the time, national politics were deeply 

polarized. Republicans held a majority of the 

House and Senate and vehemently opposed 

President Obama’s policies, specifically the 

Affordable Care Act. Congress narrowly averted a 

government shutdown in 2011, when Republicans 

threatened to not raise the debt ceiling if Congress 

did not repeal the Affordable Care Act. With such 

turmoil in Congress, the NPS did not count on any 

funding increase. 

Without a substantial funding increase, the NPS 

Centennial is far different from the agency’s 

fiftieth anniversary, which centered on a ten-year 

capital improvement campaign called Mission 66. 

																																																							 55. Dirk Kempthorne, The Future of America’s National 

Parks: A Report to the President of the United States 

(Washington, DC: National Park Service, Department of 

Interior, May 2007), 1-2. 

The NPS has been much more focused on 

reaching new audiences, promoting diversity, and 

creating new partnerships. In 2014, the agency 

announced its centennial campaign called “Find 

Your Park.”56 A lot of this new engagement comes 

in the form of social media, so visitors are 

encouraged to use “Find Your Park” as a way to 

connect on social media through Facebook, 

Twitter, or Instagram. The NPS and its partners 

have focused much of their efforts on bringing 

youth to parks to create another generation of 

park visitors. In February 2015, President Obama 

announced the “Every Kid in a Park” campaign, 

which provides free access to national parks for all 

fourth graders and their families during the 

centennial year. 57

Despite an arguably scaled-back anniversary 

celebration, it has been an opportunity for the 

agency to raise awareness about the agency’s

needs, but has also exposed the NPS to 

controversy. For example, in February 2016, the 

NPS released its maintenance backlog, which 

came in at a staggering $11.9 billion dollars. Just as 

Bernard DeVoto proposed closing the national 

parks in 1953, journalists have written about the 

agency’s maintenance perils to raise public 

awareness and perhaps push Congress to act.58

While journalists may have been sympathetic to 

the agency’s funding challenges, they also raised 

serious questions about the agency’s culture, 

particularly its lack of diversity in staffing and 

																																																							 56. National Park Foundation, press release, “National Park 

Service Announces Public Engagement Campaign as 

Centerpiece of 2016 Centennial,” March 24, 2014, 

http://www.nationalparks.org/connect/npf-news/nationalpark-service-announces-public-engagement-campaigncenterpiece-2016 (accessed July 20, 2016). 

57. White House Office of the Press Secretary, press release, 

“Fact Sheet: Launching the Every Kid in a Park Initiative and 

Designating New National Monuments,” February 19, 2015, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/02/19/fact-sheet-launching-every-kid-parkinitiative-and-designating-new-natio (accessed July 21,

2016). 

58. Jeffrey Olson, press release, “National Parks 

Maintenance Backlog Reaches $11.9 Billion, ” February 5, 

2016, 

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=1780

(accessed July 21, 2016); Nathan Rott, “The National Park 

Service Has a Long To-Do List But Can’t Cover the Repair 

Costs,” National Public Radio, March 8, 2016, 

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/08/466461595/national-parkshave-a-long-to-do-list-but-cant-cover-the-repair-costs

(accessed July 21, 2016). 
Epilogue

National Park Service 154

visitor demographics.59 In January 2016, at the 

behest of Secretary of Interior Sally Jewel, the U.S. 

Department of Interior Office of the Inspector 

General released a damning report on allegations 

of sexual harassment directed toward female river 

guides at the Grand Canyon, revealing a long-term 

pattern of sexual harassment and corruption. The

report was followed by additional allegations, 

congressional hearings, and calls for NPS Director 

Jonathan Jarvis to resign.60 Jarvis was also under 

fire for an ethics violation when he published a 

book with the agency’s cooperating association, 

Eastern National. A Department of Interior 

investigation found that Jarvis did not get 

necessary approvals for this project, even though it 

was completed on his own time and all proceeds 

go to the National Park Foundation.

61 These 

allegations have cast a pall over NPS Centennial 

efforts and have led observers to ask whether the 

agency needs a culture change.62

Hazelwood, while she was superintendent, said 

that the park was not approaching the Centennial 

as a one-time event. Rather, they are treating it as 

an opportunity to “lay the foundation” for how the 

park is going to “do business” in the next 

																																																							 59. Nathan Rott, “Don’t Care About National Parks? The 

National Park Service Needs You To,” National Public Radio,

March 9, 2016, 

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/09/463851006/dont-care-aboutnational-parks-the-park-service-needs-you-to (accessed July 

21, 2016).

60. U.S. Department of Interior Office of Inspector General, 

Investigative Report of Misconduct at the Grand Canyon 

River District (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, 

January 12, 2016), 

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/Misconduct_Gr

andCanyonRiverDistrict_Public.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016); 

Lisa Rein, “Interior Chief: ‘Culture’ of Sexual Harassment 

Probably Pervades National Park Service,” The Washington 

Post, July 12, 2016, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016

/07/12/interior-chief-culture-of-sexual-harassment-likelypervades-the-national-park-service/ (accessed July 21, 2016).

61. Joe Davidson, “Park Service Chief Apologizes for 

Unethical Behavior,” The Washington Post, June 2, 2016, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016

/06/02/park-service-chief-apologizes-for-unethical-behavior/

(accessed July 21, 2016); U.S. Department of Interior Office 

of Inspector General, Investigation of Jonathon Jarvis 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, February 25, 

2016), 

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/JonathanJarvis

_Public.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016). 

62. Cathy Stanton, “Does the National Park Service Have a 

Culture Problem?” History@Work: The National Council on 

Public History Blog, July 19, 2016, http://ncph.org/history-atwork/does-the-national-park-service-have-a-cultureproblem (accessed July 21, 2016). 

century.63 Her vision of that foundation includes 

finding new stories to tell, reaching new audiences, 

and allowing people “to find their own voice” at 

the park.64

STRI has embraced the positive media coverage of 

the Centennial this past year and has played upon 

the programs and initiatives being directed by NPS 

administration. In April, the park held a special 

Park Day volunteer project, which invited 

community members to help clean up trash and 

invasive plant species, while also offering special 

programs. While the park does not charge an 

entrance fee, they have promoted the Every Kid in 

a Park program. Grand Traverse Academy in 

Michigan “adopted” Stones River National 

Battlefield for the centennial. In May, high school 

students travelled to the park and spent a day, May 

7, presenting programs for area fourth graders and 

their families. On August 13, 2016, the park held its 

annual “Legacy of Stones River” symposium using

the theme, “Making a ‘National’ Park Service.” 

Park Staffing 

The park has seen a significant turnover in staff 

since Johnson retired in 2012, due primarily to 

retirements and a few transfers. Tight agency 

budgets have limited the park’s ability to fill these 

positions. In 2011, the federal government barely

avoided a government shutdown when 

Republicans threatened to not raise the debt 

ceiling. As a compromise, President Obama signed 

the Budget Control Act of 2011, which stipulated 

that if Congress could not agree on a plan to 

reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion, they would 

institute sequestration, or an automatic across-theboard cut, of about $1 trillion beginning in 2013.65

The NPS was one of many federal agencies 

affected by sequestration, which took effect 

March 1, 2013. The NPS was directed to reduce its 

budget by 5.1 percent, or $153.4 million dollars. 

Most of this money, $113 million exactly, came 

from the agency’s operating budget.66 Despite 

																																																							 63. Hazelwood Interview, 14. 

64. Ibid.

65. “What You Need to Know About the Sequester,” The 

White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester 

(accessed July 21, 2016). 

66. U.S. Congress, Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, before 

the House Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform Concerning Federal Agency Sequestration Planning 
155 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

these cuts, the federal government did actually 

shut down October 1-16, 2013, when Congress 

could not agree on budget. 

National parks were very visible during the 2013 

government shutdown, since some felt that parks 

should be open regardless of whether there were 

people to staff them. Controversy rose when Park 

Rangers denied World War II veterans access to 

the World War II monument at the National

Mall.67 There were protests at parks across the 

country, and there were some people that ignored 

the locked gates and went into parks anyway. 

There were also incidents of vandalism.68 STRI did 

not really experience these issues, although 

Watson recalled one small protest group stationed 

at New Vision Baptist Church.69 Republicans in 

Congress, feeling that NPS Director Jarvis made 

the shutdown worse than it needed to be, called 

him in for a hearing and questioned his agency’s 

decisions. Republicans’ distrust of NPS 

organizational leadership was underscored by 

Republican Senator Tom A. Coburn, who released 

a report that same month called, Parked! How 

Congress’ Misplaced Priorities are Trashing Our 

National Treasure. Coburn’s report criticized the 

NPS for being overly bureaucratic with only half 

of the agency’s funding actually going to parks. 

However, most of Coburn’s critique was aimed at 

Congress, who created these parks but failed to 

provide the necessary funding to maintain them.70

																																																																																						 and Implementation, April 16, 2013, 

https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/113/federalagencysequestr

ation_041613 (accessed July 21, 2016).

		

67. Garance Franke-Ruta, “How the National Parks Became 

the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown,” The Atlantic, 

October 11, 2013, 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/howthe-national-parks-became-the-biggest-battleground-inthe-shutdown/280439/ (accessed July 21, 2016). 

68. Kurt Repanshek, “Around the Parks: Vandals, Occupiers, 

and Cyclists,” National Parks Traveler, October 7, 2013, 

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2013/10/aroundparks-vandals-occupiers-and-cyclists24051 (accessed July 21, 

2016). 

69. Watson Interview, 37-38. Jim Lewis confirmed there was 

a protest group by the main park entrance, which he 

photographed.

70. Kurt Repanshek, “Congressional Hearing into National 

Park Service Shutdown Process Leads to Bashing,” National 

Park Traveler, October 16, 2013, 

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2013/10/congressiona

l-hearing-national-park-service-shutdown-process-leadsbashing24113 (accessed July 21, 2016); Kurt Repanshek, 

Nevertheless, one might imagine that the 

uncertainties of the government shutdown and 

sequestration combined with the congressional 

critiques would be demoralizing among NPS 

employees. 

NPS Director Jarvis instituted a hiring freeze as 

one way to deal with sequestration, which meant 

vacated positions went unfilled. The hiring freeze 

went on until 2014. 71 That same year, Troy Morris, 

the Integrated Resource Program Manager took 

another job. Despite the hiring freeze being lifted, 

this position has not been filled due to budget 

constraints. 

The NPS now faces another issue as many 

employees are eligible to retire. The National 

Federation of Federal Employees estimates that 30 

percent of the federal workforce will be eligible to 

retire in 2016.72 Teresa Watson, the park’s 

Administrative Officer, retired in 2014, after nearly 

forty years of service with the park. She felt that it 

was her time to retire for personal reasons.73 In the 

time since she left, her duties have been 

distributed to administrative staff at Fort 

Donelson National Battlefield. Two years later, on 

May 1, 2016, Chief of Operations Gib Backlund 

retired after forty years of service (see Fig. 75).

In December 2015, Superintendent Hazelwood 

left the park to become the NPS’s National Urban 

Initiative Program Manager.

74 Hazelwood 

intended to retire at STRI, but this position proved 

to be too great of an opportunity. Despite her 

short tenure, Hazelwood was able to accomplish 

																																																																																						 “Senator Coburn Blames Congress, National Park Service, 

for State of National Park System,” National Park Traveler, 

October 29, 2013, 

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2013/10/senatorcoburn-blames-congress-bloated-national-park-servicestate-national-park-system24163 (accessed July 21, 2016). 

71. “Federal Agencies Lift Hiring Freeze,” National 

Federation of Federal Employees, 

http://nffe.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/103182 (accessed 

July 21, 2016).

72. “Federal Agencies Lift Hiring Freeze,” National 

Federation of Federal Employees, 

http://nffe.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/103182 (accessed 

July 21, 2016).

73. Teresa Watson Interview by Angela Sirna, Murfreesboro, 

TN, February 18, 2016, 32-37. 

74. Hazelwood Interview, 16. 
Epilogue

National Park Service 156

much at STRI, including guiding the park through 

several new planning documents, reviving the 

Friends group, reaching new audiences, and 

creating new, sustainable partnerships. 

Figure 75 Former STRI administrative officer Teresa Watson 

and Chief of Operations Gib Backlund hold up Backlund’s 

retirement cake. Photographed by Frank Caperton, April 30, 

2016. Courtesy of Friends of Stones River National 

Battlefield. 

The same day that Backlund retired, new 

superintendent Brenda Waters entered duty (see 

Fig. 76). Waters came to STRI from William 

Howard Taft National Historic Site in Cincinnati, 

Ohio. She began her NPS career in 2004, when she 

served as a liaison for the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Exotic Plant Management Team. In 

2008, she became the Assistant Chief for Natural 

Resources at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

and the Great Lakes Research and Education 

Coordinator. In 2014, she completed a two-year 

leadership program, called the NPS Bevinetto 

Congressional Fellowship. She next worked as the 

acting Midwest Region Deputy Associate Director 

for Natural Resources Stewardship and Science 

and then acting superintendent of Pea Ridge 

National Battlefield before being named 

superintendent of William Howard Taft in 2015.75

She brings a wealth of natural resource 

management knowledge and organizational 

management to STRI. Her experience in exotic 

plant management will especially be helpful. 

																																																							 75. Nigel Fields, press release, “Brenda Waters Selected as 

New Superintendent of Stones River National Battlefield,” 

February 11, 2016, 

https://ncrcms.nps.gov/stri/learn/news/supt2016.htm

(accessed July 21, 2016). 

Figure 76 Superintendent Brenda Waters with USCT living 

history group at Decoration Day program, May 7, 2016. 

Photographer unknown. Courtesy of STRI. 

Conclusion 

When Stones River National Battlefield enters the 

NPS’s next century of stewardship, it will do so 

firmly as an urban park. The last four years of park 

management make clear that the park is no longer 

interested in another land acquisition campaign. It 

will continue to purchase inholdings and perhaps 

make some boundary adjustments, but the 

aggressive acquisition efforts of the 1990s are over. 

As Murfreesboro and Rutherford County 

continue to grow, the park must be nimble to 

ensure the park’s relevance in the community. 

Park staff must seek out new audiences and find 

ways to broaden the park’s narrative or new 

methods of telling it. They must work to keep 

apace of changing technology, social media in 

particular. The park will need allies and partners—

“friends”—who will advocate on its behalf. As 

recent years have shown, the NPS has many critics. 

That is unlikely to change, but it helps to have 

advocates. If history is our guide, then we know 

that the story of Stones River National Battlefield 

will remain relevant to those who fought in wars, 

care about the concepts of freedom, or just enjoy 

green space and little bit of solitude in an 

otherwise fast-paced urban area. 
157 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES 

Archives Consulted

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 

Park, Oglethorpe, GA

Middle Tennessee State University, Albert Gore 

Research Center, Murfreesboro, TN 

Bart Gordon Papers 

National Archives and Record Center, College 

Park, MD 

Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, 

TN

Digital Collections 

Stones River Battlefield History Landscape 

Collection 

Ancestry.com

Denver Service Center E-TIC

BOOKS

Fitch, John. Annals of the Army of the Cumberland.

Philadelphia, PA: J.P. Lippincott & Co., 

1863.

Nathan Bedford Forrest Civil War Roundtable, 

The Best of Gaus' Bugle: Selections from 

the Official Publication of the Nathan 

Bedford Forrest Civil War Roundtable.

Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee 

State University, 1978.

Spence, John. A Diary of the Civil War. Nashville: 

Williams Printing Company, 1993.

Articles

DeVoto, Bernard. "Let's Close the National 

Parks." Harper's Magazine. October 

1953.

Eyring, Shaun, and Lucy Lawliss. “Preserving 

Battlefield Terrain: Technologies for 

Earthworks Management.” APT Bulletin 

31, no. 4 (2000): 13-19.

Franke-Ruta, Garance. “How the National Parks 

Became the Biggest Battleground in the 

Shutdown.” The Atlantic, October 11, 

2013.

SECONDARY SOURCES 

Books 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 

Relations, The Comprehensive Employment 

and Training Act: Early Readings from a 

Hybrid Block Grant. Washington, DC: 

Advisory Commission on 

Intergovernmental Relations, June 1977.

Ash, Stephen. Middle Tennessee Society 

Transformed, 1860-1870. Knoxville: 

University of Tennessee Press, 1987.

Blight, David. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in 

American Memory. New York: Belknap 

Press of Harvard University Press, 2002. 

Brown, Thomas. Reconstructions: New Perspectives 

on the Postbellum United States. New York: 

Oxford, 2006.

Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the 

National Park Dilemma. Amherst: 

University of Massachusetts Press, 2007.

Cimprich, John. Slavery's End in Tennessee, 1861-

1865. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama 

Press, 1985.

Conn, Stetson. Historical Work in the United States 

Army 1862-1954. Washington, D.C: 

U.S. Army Center of Military History, 

1980.
Bibliography

National Park Service 158

Cook, Robert. Troubled Commemoration: The 

American Civil War Centennial, 1961-

1965. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 

University, 2007. 

Daniel, Jerry. Battle of Stones River: The Forgotten 

Conflict between the Confederate Army of 

Tennessee and the Union Army of the 

Cumberland. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 

University Press, 2013.

Dilsaver, Lary. America's National Park System: 

The Critical Documents. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield, 1994.

Engelhardt, Tom, and Edward T. Linenthal.

History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other 

Battles for the American Past. New York: 

Henry Holt and Company, 1996.

Faust, Drew Gilpin. This Republic of Suffering: 

Death and the American Civil War. New 

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.

Foner, Eric. America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-

1877. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

______. Nothing but Freedom: Emancipation and Its 

Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 

University Press, 1983.

______. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and 

American Slavery. New York: W.W. 

Norton & Company, 2010.

______. The Story of American Freedom. New York: 

W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. 

Janney, Caroline. Burying the Dead but Not the 

Past: Ladies’ Memorial Associations and the 

Lost Cause. Chapel Hill: University of 

North Carolina Press, 2008. 

Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory: The 

Transformation of Tradition in American 

Culture. New York: Knopf, 1991. 

Lee, Ronald. The Origin and Evolution of the 

Military Park Idea. Washington, DC: 

National Park Service, 1973.

Mengak, Kathy. Reshaping Our National Parks and 

Their Guardians: The Legacy of George B. 

Hartzog Jr. Albuquerque: University of 

New Mexico Press, 2012.

McClelland, Linda Flint. Building the National 

Parks: Historic Landscape Design and 

Construction. Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Murray, Jennifer. On a Great Battlefield: The 

Making, Management, and Memory of 

Gettysburg National Military Park, 1933-

2013. Knoxville: University of Tennessee 

Press, 2014.

Preston, Howard. Dirt Roads to Dixie: Accessibility 

and Modernization in the South, 1885-

1935. Knoxville: University of Tennessee 

Press, 1991.

Robertson, Thomas. Malthusian Moment: Global

Population Growth and the Birth of

American Environmentalism. New 

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 

2012.

Savage, Kirk. Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: 

Race, War, and Monument in NineteenthCentury America. Princeton, NJ: 

University of Princeton Press, 1997. 

Sellars, Richard West. Preserving Nature in the 

National Parks: A History. 1997. Reprint,

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Silber, Nina. The Romance of Reunion: Northerners 

and the South, 1865-1900. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 1993.

Smith, Timothy B. A Chickamauga Memorial: The 

Establishment of American’s First Civil War 

National Military Park. Knoxville: 

University of Tennessee Press, 2009. 

______. The Golden Age of Battlefield 

Preservation: The Decade of the 1890’s and 

the Establishment of America’s First Five 

Military Parks. Knoxville: University of 

Tennessee Press, 2008. 

Zenzen, Joan. Battling for Manassas: The Fifty-Five 

Year Preservation Struggle at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. University Park: 

Pennsylvania State University, 1998.
159 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Dissertations, Theses, and Unpublished 

Student Papers

Akerstrom, Megan. “Dixie Highway in 

Murfreesboro: Transportation and 

Change in an Early Twentieth-Century 

Southern Town.” Master’s thesis, Middle 

Tennessee State University, 2010.

Backlund, Gilbert. “Patriotism on the Battlefield: 

The National Park Service and Mission 

66 at Stones River.” Master’s thesis, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 2005. 

Dunkerly, Robert. “Reading the Battlefield 

Landscape: The Restoration, Preservation, 

and Interpretation of Historic Landscapes 

at Battlefield Parks.” Master’s thesis, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 1998. 

Fraley, Miranda. “The Politics of Memory: 

Remembering the Civil War in Rutherford 

County, Tennessee.” Dissertation, 

Indiana University, 2004. 

Genoble, Richard. “War, Memory, and Landscape: 

The Stones River National Cemetery.” 

Master’s thesis, Louisiana State 

University, 1996.

George, John Riley. “Stones River: Creating a 

Battlefield Park, 1863-1932.” Dissertation, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 2013. 

Goetsch, Elizabeth. “All Could Not Help But Feel 

It: A Cultural Landscape Approach to 

History at Stones River National 

Battlefield.” Master’s thesis, Middle 

Tennessee State University, 2011. 

Hanbury, Dallas. "The Effects of Urban Renewal 

and Modern Urban Planning on Working 

Class Neighborhoods: Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee and the Transformation of Its 

First Industrial Suburb, Westvue." 

Master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

University, 2012.

______. “The Black Freedom Movement in 

Murfreesboro, TN.” Unpublished paper, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 2013.

Hudson, Janet. "A Profile of Black Landownership 

in Rutherford County during

Reconstruction." Honor's thesis, Middle 

Tennessee State University, 1989.

Law, Zada."The Role of Automobility in the 

Creation of National Military Parks 

between World War I and World War II." 

Unpublished paper, Middle Tennessee 

State University, 2011.

Lodl, John. “Building Viable Black Communities: 

The Transition from Slavery to Freedom 

in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1860-1880.” 

Master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

University, 2004.

Quarterman, Elsie. “Plant Communities of Cedar 

Glades in Middle Tennessee.” Doctoral 

thesis, Duke University, 1948.

Sellers, Jeff. “Battle for the High Ground: The 

Challenge of Expanding the Interpretation 

at Stones River National Battlefield.” 

Master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

University, 2010.

Sharp, Leslie. “Down South to Dixie: The 

Development of the Dixie Highway from 

Nashville to Chattanooga, 1915-1940.” 

Master’s thesis, Middle Tennessee State 

University, 1993.

Simpson, Lydia. “‘Settling In’: Tracking the 

Formation of the Cemetery Community 

through Public Records.” Master’s thesis, 

Middle Tennessee State University, 2011. 

Sirna, Angela. “In Need of Better Guidance:’ The 

Administration of Stones River National 

Battlefield, 1933-1941.” Unpublished 

paper, Middle Tennessee State University, 

2012. 

Willett, Ann Wilson. “A History of Stones River 

National Military Park.” Master’s thesis, 

Middle Tennessee State College, 1958.

Articles 

Baskin, Carol C., and Jerry Baskin, “In Memorial: 

Dr. Elsie Quarterman (1910-1914).” 

Castanea 80, no. 2 (June 2015): 74-76. 

Marty Blatt, “From Civil War to Civil Rights,” 

George Wright Forum 31, no. 1 (2014): 5-9.
Bibliography

National Park Service 160

Conard, Rebecca. "Finding Historic Cemetery 

Community: The 2011 Public History Field 

School." Public History at Middle 

Tennessee State University Newsletter. Fall 

2011.

______. Historic Cemetery Community: The Cedars, 

Stones River National Battlefield, 

Rutherford County, Tennessee.

Murfreesboro, TN: Middle 

Tennessee State University, prepared for 

Stones River National Battlefield, May 

2016. 

______. “The Changing Face of the Country:

Environmental History and the Legacy of 

the Civil War at Stones River National 

Battlefield.” George Wright Forum 28, no. 

2 (2011): 161-81. 

Fraley, Miranda. “The Legacies of Freedom and 

Victory Besieged: Stones River National 

Cemetery, 1865-1920.” Tennessee 

Historical Quarterly 64, no. 2 (Summer 

2005): 134-64.

Giordano, Alberto, and Thomas Nolan. “Civil War 

Maps of the Battle of Stones River: History 

and the Modern Landscape.” 

Cartographic Journal 44, no. 1 (February 

2007): 55-70. 

Hennessy, John. "Touchstone: Sesquicentennial, 

the National Park Service, and a Changing 

Nation." Common-Place 14, no. 2 (Winter 

2014). http://www.common-placearchives.org/vol-14/no02/hennessy/#.VsitY5MrKCQ. Accessed 

February 20, 2016.

Hosmer, Charles. "Verne E. Chatelain and the 

Development of the Branch of History of 

the National Park Service." Public 

Historian 16, no. 1 (Winter 1994): 25-38.

Jarvis, Jonathan. ”The Natural Resource 

Challenge: A Retrospective and View to 

the Future,” U.S. National Park Service 

Publications and Papers, Paper 27 (2008): 

84-88.

Keiter, Robert. “Revisiting the Organic Act: Can it 

Meet the Next Century’s Conservation 

Challenges?” George Wright Forum 28, no. 

3 (2011): 240-253.

Linenthal, Edward T. “The National Park Service 

and Civic Engagement.” Public Historian 

28, no. 1 (Winter 2006): 123-29. 

Murray, Jennifer. "'Far Above Our Poor Power to 

Add or Detract': National Park Service 

Administration of the Gettysburg 

Battlefield, 1933-1938." Civil War History 

55, no. 1 (March 2009): 56-81.

Pittard, Mabel. “Daniel C. Miller: A Yankee in 

Rutherford County.” Rutherford County 

Historical Society 26 (Winter 1986): 1-50.

Quarterman, Elsie."Major Plant Communities of 

Tennessee Cedar Glades." Ecology 31, no. 

2 (April 1950): 234-254.

Rath, Frederick, Jr., “Reflections on Historic 

Preservation and the National Park 

Service: The Early Years.” CRM 

Supplement 14, no. 4 (1991): 1, 2-5. 

Sellars, Richard West. “Pilgrim Places: Civil War 

Battlefields, Historic Preservation, and 

America’s First National Military Parks, 

1963-1900.” Common Ground, no. 1 

(Winter 2005): 22-52. 

Sutton, Robert. "Holding the High Ground: 

Interpreting the Civil War in National 

Parks," George Wright Forum 25, no. 3 

(2008): 47-57.

Unrau, Harlan, and G. Frank Williss. “To Preserve 

the Nation’s Past: The Growth of Historic 

Preservation during the 1930s.” Public 

Historian 9, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 19-49.

NPS REPORTS, CONSULTANTS’ REPORTS, 

AND OTHER SPECIAL STUDIES

American Battlefield Protection Program. Update 

to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War 

Battlefields: State of Tennessee. 

Washington, DC: American Battlefield 

Protection Program, National Park 

Service, December 2009.

Andropogon Associates. Earthworks Landscape 

Management Manual. Philadelphia, PA: 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, National 

Park Service, 1989.
161 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Allaback, Sarah. Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The 

History of a Building Type. Washington 

DC: National Park Service, 2000.

Appleman, Roy. "A History of the National Park 

Service Mission 66 Program." 

Unpublished report for National Park 

Service, 1958. 

Blee, Catherine. An Assessment of the Cultural 

Resources of Stones River National 

Battlefield and the Proposed Development 

Impacts on Them. Denver, CO: Denver 

Service Center, National Park Service, 

January 1976. 

Bearss, Edwin C. A History of Fortress Rosecrans.

Murfreesboro, TN: National Park 

Service, 1960. 

Bearss, Edwin C. and J.C. Killian. Fence and 

Ground Cover Map. Part of the Master 

Plan Stones River National Battlefield, 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Murfreesboro, 

TN: National Park Service, 1962.

Brown, Daniel A. Marked for Future Generations: 

The Hazen Brigade Monument, 1863-

1929. Stones River National Battlefield 

and National Park Service, 1985. 

Carr, Ethan, Elaine Jackson-Redondo, Len

Warner, and Collaborative Inc. National

Park Service Mission 66 Era Resources 

Multi-Property Nomination." August 14, 

2015.

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Civil War 

Sites Advisory Commission Report on the 

Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. 

Washington, DC: National Park Service, 

1993.

Cockrell, Ron. Grand Portage National Monument: 

An Administrative History. Rev. Ed. 

Omaha, NE: National Park Service, 

Midwest Regional Office, 1983.

Conard, Rebecca. “All Men and Women Are 

Created Equal”: An Administrative History 

of Women’s Rights National Historical 

Park. Boston: Northeast Regional Office, 

National Park Service, 2012.

Conard, Rebecca, et al. “African Americans on the 

Land: Five Cultural Landscape Studies of 

Stones River NHB.” Murfreesboro, TN: 

Public History Seminar, Middle 

Tennessee State University, December 

2007. 

Danz, Harold. Historic Listings of National Park 

Service Officials. Rev. Ed. Washington, 

DC: National Park Service, 2000. 

Everhart, William, and Janet McDonnell. Oral 

History Interview with George B. Hartzog, 

Jr., Director, National Park Service 1964-

1972. Washington, DC: National Park 

Service, 2007.

Fraley, Miranda. “Stones River National 

Battlefield Community Oral History 

Project.” Unpublished transcripts, Stones 

River National Battlefield, 1999.

Gibbs, Ron. Stones River National Military Park/ 

Stones River National Battlefield National 

Register Nomination. January 26, 1978. 

Greenways, Inc., and Lose and Associates, Inc. 

Preliminary Master Plan for Stones River 

Greenway, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. 

Prepared for the City of Murfreesboro, 

1993. 

Hogan, Theresa, and Michele Webber. Vascular 

Flora of Stones River National Battlefield 

including Notes on Natural Communities 

and Rare Species. Prepared for Stones 

River National Battlefield, 1999. 

Huhta, James. Fortress Rosecrans National Register 

Nomination. September 1, 1973.

Jones, W. Dwayne, Padre Island National Seashore: 

An Administrative History. Corpus Christi, 

TX: San Padre Island National Seashore, 

1999.

Kempthorne, Dirk. The Future of America’s 

National Parks: A Report to the President of 

the United States. Washington, DC: 

National Park Service, Department of 

Interior, May 2007.

Kennedy, Michael, and Heidi LaMountain. 

Inventory of Mammals at Stones River 

National Battlefield. Prepared for Stones 

River National Battlefield, 2006.
Bibliography

National Park Service 162

Mackintosh, Barry. Interpretation in the National 

Park Service: A Historical Perspective

Washington, DC: National Park Service, 

1986.

Manni, Marc F., Douglas Eury, and Yen Le. Stones 

River National Battlefield Visitor Study 

Summer 2013. Fort Collins, CO: National 

Park Service Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science, May 2014.

Meldrum, Bret H., and Margaret Littlejohn. Stones 

River National Battlefield Visitor Study Fall 

2002. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, 

July 2003. 

Meyers, Richard. The Vicksburg National 

Cemetery: Vicksburg National Military 

Park, An Administrative History. Division 

of History, Office of Archeology and 

Historic Preservation, National Park 

Service, 1968.

Middle Tennessee State University Public History 

Program. “Design Concepts for Historic 

Cemetery Community Wayside Exhibit 

Stones River National Battlefield.” 

Prepared for Stones River National 

Battlefield, May 2011.

Miller, Brian, Jeremy Spiess, and Matthew 

Niemiller. Inventory of Amphibians and 

Reptiles of Stones River National Battlefield.

Middle Tennessee State University 

Department of Biology and Stones River 

National Battlefield, November 2005. 

Miller, Wihry, and Lee, Inc. Stones River National 

Battlefield Master Plan. Louisville, KY: 

National Park Service, 1974.

Miller, Wihry, and Lee, Inc., and Elsie 

Quarterman. Stones River National 

Battlefield Cedar Glades Report. Prepared 

for the National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center, 1976. 

Moyer, Teresa, Kim Wallace, and Paul Shackel.

“To Preserve the Evidences of the Noble 

Past”: Administrative History of Harpers 

Ferry National Historical Park." Frederick, 

MD: Catoctin Center for Regional Studies 

Frederick Community College and Center 

for Heritage Resource Studies Department 

of Anthropology University of Maryland, 

2004. 

Mullen, Dennis. Fish Inventory at Stones River 

National Battlefield. Middle Tennessee 

State University Department of Biology 

and Stones River National Battlefield, 

September 2006.

National Park Service. Cedar Glades 

Environmental Study Area, Teacher’s 

Manual, Grades K-8, 1974. 

______. Climate Change Response Strategy. Fort 

Collins, CO: Climate Change Response 

Program, National Park Service, 2010.

______. Completion Report: Stones River National 

Battlefield U.S. Regulars Monument and 

Cemetery Wall, 1993 Stabilization. Atlanta, 

GA: Southeast Regional Office, Historic 

Architecture Division 1993. 

______. Development Concept Plan for 

Improvements to the Self-Guiding Tour 

Routes Environmental Assessment,

September 2005.

______. Final Environmental Statement for General 

Management Plan and Development 

Concept Plan Stones River National 

Battlefield and Cemetery. Denver, CO: 

Denver Service Center, March 1980. 

______. Final General Management Plan, 

Development Concept Plan, Environmental 

Impact Statement. Murfreesboro, TN: 

Stones River National Battlefield, 

November 1998. 

______. Foundation Document, Stones River 

National Battlefield, November 2014.

______. Holding the High Ground: Principles and 

Strategies for Managing and 

Interpreting Civil War Battlefield 

Landscapes, Proceedings of a Conference 

Battlefield Managers. Washington, DC: 

National Park Service, 1998.

______. Land and Water Conservation Fund State 

Assistance Program Federal Financial 

Assistance Manual, 2008.

______. Stones River National Cemetery Cultural 

Landscape Inventory, 1998.

______. Stones River National Battlefield Cultural 

Landscape Inventory, 1994.
163 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

______. Stones River National Battlefield Integrated 

Pest Management Plan, October 2009. 

______. Stones River National Battlefield Fire 

Management Plan Environmental 

Assessment, February 2003. 

______. Stones River National Battlefield LongRange Interpretive Plan. Murfreesboro, 

TN: Stones River National Battlefield and 

Harpers Ferry Center Interpretive 

Planning, 2015.

______. Stones River National Battlefield, 

Management Objectives, 1992.

______. Trail Study/Environmental Assessment, 

Stones River National Battlefield, 1989.

National Park Service, Steering Committee of the 

75th Anniversary Symposium. The Vail 

Agenda: Report and Recommendations to 

the Director of the National Park Service. 

Washington, DC: National Park Service, 

1992. 

Nickel, Robert, and Catherine Nickel. “GroundPenetrating Radar Surveys of Civil War 

Sites: The Rostrum at the National 

Cemetery, Stones River National 

Battlefield, Tennessee.” Tallahassee, FL: 

Southeast Archeological Center, National 

Park Service, April 2004.

Niedermeier, Lynn. “Van Cleve Lane: Recovering 

a Trace of History.” Unpublished 

paper, Middle Tennessee State University, 

1991. 

Paige, John, and Jerome Greene, Administrative 

History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga 

National Military Park. Denver, CO: 

Denver Service Center, National Park 

Service, 1983.

Shedd, Charles, Jr. A History of Shiloh National 

Military Park, Tennessee. National Park 

Service, 1954.

Styles, Sean. Stones River National Battlefield 

Historic Resource Study. Murfreesboro, 

TN: Stones River National Battlefield, 

Southeast Cultural Resource Regional 

Office, and National Park Service, 

February 2004. 

Sutton, Robert, ed. Rally on the High Ground: The 

National Park Service Symposium on the 

Civil War. Fort Washington, PA: Eastern 

National, 2001.

Unrau, Harlan and G. Frank Williss. Expansion of 

the National Park Service in the 1930s: 

Administrative History. Denver, CO: 

Denver Service Center, September 1983. 

U.S. Department of Interior Office of Inspector 

General. Investigation of Jonathon Jarvis. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Interior, February 25, 2016.

______. Investigative Report of Misconduct at the 

Grand Canyon River District Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Interior, January 

12, 2016.

Walker, John W. Investigation of the Hazen 

Brigade Monument, Stones River National 

Battlefield, Tennessee. Tallahassee, FL: 

Southeast Archeological Center, National 

Park Service, 1989. 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John 

Milner Associates, Inc. Stones River 

National Battlefield Cultural Landscape 

Report. Prepared for Stones River 

National Battlefield, 2007.

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., John 

Milner Associates, Inc., and Liz Sargent 

HLA. Stones River National Cemetery 

Cultural Landscape Report. Prepared for 

Stones River National Battlefield, 

November 2015.

Wright, David. History of Fortress Rosecrans and a 

Preservation Plan of the Southern 

Bastion Front. Murfreesboro, TN: 

Middle Tennessee State University Center 

for Historic Preservation, [1981]. 
Appendices

National Park Service 164

Appendices

Appendix A—List of Superintendents

Appendix B—Timeline

Appendix C—Boundary Expansion Map

Appendix D—1929 Landownership Map

Appendix E—Tour Route

Appendix F—Battlefield Protection District
165 Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History

Appendix A: List of 

Superintendents

Stones River National Cemetery1

John A. Means: 1864- June 1865 

William Earnshaw: June 1865- August 1867 

Tredwell Moore: September 1867- 1869?

Leonard S. Doolittle: 1869?- 1876? 

Thomas Frame: 1876?- July 1890 

Thomas D. Godman: August 1890- January 1891 

Rufus C. Taylor: February 1891- March 1894 

Lucien B. Gould: April 1894 - July 1894 

Edwin P. Barrett: August 1894- January 1900 

Clayton Hart: February 1900- August? 1908 

Frank B. Delaplane: September? 1908- August 1909 

Thomas Shea: September 1909- July 1911 

John H. Thomas: August 1911- August 1924 

Melroe Tarter: September 1924- August 1929

Stones River National Military Park/Stones River National Battlefield2

Melroe Tarter: August 1929-February 1942

John F. Steffey: June 1942-January 1947

Victor H. Shipley: March 1947- July 1956

John T. Willett: December 1956- July 1960

Lawrence W. Quist: August 1960- October 1965

Sherman W. Perry: December 1965- September 1971

John D. Hunter: October 1971- July 1974

James A. Sanders: October 1974-May 1980

Donald E. Magee: October 1980-June 1989

Mary Ann Peckham: August 1989- December 2000

Stuart Johnson: February 2001- September 2012

Gayle Hazelwood: September 2012- December 2015

Brenda Waters: May 2016- Present

																																																							 1. List for cemetery superintendents compiled by John George, located in “Appendix A,” in “Stones River: Creating a 

Battlefield Park, 1863-1932,” dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University, 2013, 228. 

2. A partial list of superintendents, from Melroe Tarter to Mary Ann Peckham’s arrival, was found in Harold Danz, Historic 

Listing of National Park Service Officials, rev. ed. (Denver: National Park Service, 2000), under “Park Superintendents,” 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/tolson/histlist.htm (accessed August 1, 2016). The rest of the list was compiled 

using superintendent’s annual reports and press releases. 
Appendices

National Park Service 166

Appendix B: Timeline

December 31, 1862- January 2, 1863 Battle of Stones River

1865 Stones River National Cemetery established 

March 3, 1927 President Calvin Coolidge signed Public Law 69-777, An 

Act: To Establish a National-Military Park at the Battle 

Field of Stones River, Tennessee. This law established the 

Stones River Battlefield Commission. 

April 1930 The 71st Congress passed amendment (H.R. 2825) to 

Public Law 69-777, which allowed the War 

Department to construct park roads and facilities at 

Stones River National Military Park. 

July 15, 1932 War Department dedicates Stones River National 

Military Park. 

August 10, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 

6166, which transferred Stones River National Military 

Park from the War Department to the National Park 

Service. 

April 22, 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed An Act to Revise 

the Boundaries and Change the Name of Stones River 

National Military Park, Tennessee, and for Other 

Purposes of 1960. This law added six acres to the Artillery 

Monument area and changed the park’s name from 

Stones River National Military Park to Stones River 

National Battlefield. 

December 23, 1987 President Ronald Reagan signed An Act to Amend the 

Boundaries of Stones River National Battlefield, and for 

Other Purposes. This law expanded the park’s 

boundaries by approximately fifty acres and provided 

funding for a Greenway Trail Study.

December 11, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signed An Act to Expand 

the Boundaries of Stones River National Battlefield, and 

Other Purposes, Public Law 102-225. This law expanded 

the park’s boundaries to their current size, transferred 

Fortress Rosecrans from the City of Murfreesboro to the 

National Park Service, and directed the NPS to revise 

Stones River National Battlefield’s General Management 

Plan. 
Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History 167

This drawing shows how STRI’s boundaries have changed over its existence. The 1929 boundary was created under the War DepartmAppendix C: Park Boundary Expansions

ent. 

Subsequent expansions occurred under the National Park Service. The years denote the time the park’s boundary was expanded, not necessarily when the land was acquired. For example, some holdings included in the 1991 boundary have not yet been acquired. Cartographer: Zada Law, 2016.
Appendices

National Park Service 168 

Appendix D: Landownership 

Map, 1929

 Compiled from property research based on the Land Acquisition Map for Stones 

 River National Military Park, War Department, 1929. Cartographer: Zada Law.

Walter King

Robert & Marienne Steelman

Nannie Bell

Black

Will Cole

(47

(46

(48

(49

(50

Robert W. Averitt

Elnora Peyton

Louis H. Hickman

Ed Orr Estate

Sam Gresham

Sallie Gresham

Elnora Peyton

Martha Gresham Lizzie Gresham

Will & Mary Freeman Sam Gresham

John Gresham

Lucin Gresham

Lizzie Gresham

John

Mason

Sallie Gresham

Martha Gresham

J. A. Ransom &

R. F. Overall

Harold M. Henderson

Evelyn H. Jordan Estate

Virginia H. Earthman Estate

Ed Howard

Sallie Bass

Robert Avent

Louise Harding

Wade

Eliza Avent Heirs

Ed Orr

Estate

Eliza Avent

Heirs

William Waller

Estate

John Swift

Estate

Ed Howard

Rufus & Ella

Huddleston

Nannie Bell

Black

Jos.

Harlan

Ebenezer Primitive

Baptist Church

Isabella

Burke

P.

Smalling

G.A.

Frazier

Jordan

Harlan

Mt. Olivet Missionary

Baptist Church

G.& J.

Harlan

Will Cole

Walter King

Robert & Marienne Steelman Giles S. Harding Estate Dora Tharp Bowen

G.N. Haynes

U.S. National Cemetery

G.H. Minter Estate

Lucin Gresham

Homer

Gannon

J. A. Ransom &

R. F. Overall

Ellis Anderson

Estate

Golena

Anderson

I.W. Anderson

Estate

Thaddeus

Cowan

Sam'l

Harlan

Hazen Monument

M.H.

Ward

Working

Peoples

L. & A.

Soc.

(36

(12

(37

(13

(4

(10

(6

(9

(7

(8

(1

(22

(48 (50 (35

(33

(2

(49 (34

(3

(47

(14

(16

(15

( (26 ( 25 24

(51

(20

(39 (28

(17 (18

(19

(11

(27

(30

(23

(21

( (32 29

(5

(43

(42

(41

(44

(45

(40

(31

Wilkinson Pike

Old Nashville Hwy.

Van Cleve Lane

Landownership, 1929

African American

Park Acquisitions, 1929

White

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Geospatial Research Center Dept. of Geosciences

Middle Tennessee State University

Rutherford Co. OIT Imagery, 2012
Stones River National Battlefield Administrative History 169

The War Department originally created STRI’s first circulation corridor in 1932, which was modernizedAppendix E: Park Circulation Routes

by the National Park Service 

shortly thereafter. The 1966 route was completed as part of the Mission 66 program. The 2012 route shows the park’s most recent iteration. Cartographer: Zada Law, 2016.
Appendices

National Park Service 170

Appendix F: Battlefield 

Protection District

Battlefield Protection District. Metadata by Gerald Lee, 2003. Imagery from

2004. Map by Bethany Hall, Rutherford County GIS Analyst, 2016.

Battlefield Protection District. Metadata by Gerald Lee, 2003. Imagery from

2015. Map by Bethany Hall, Rutherford County GIS Analyst, 2016.