Horseshoe Bend National Military Park

Cultural Landscape Report

February 2013

Beth Wheeler Byrd

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Offi ce

Cultural Resources Division
ii 

Cultural Resources

Southeast Regional Offi ce

National Park Service

100 Alabama Street SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 507-5847

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park

11288 Horseshoe Bend Road

Daviston, Alabama 36256-9751

http://www.nps.gov/hobe

Cover Image: Horseshoe Bend battlefi eld. NPS photo.

This cultural landscape report exists in two formats. A 

printed version is available for study at the park, at the 

Southeast Regional Offi ce of the National Park Service, 

and a variety of other depositories around the United 

States. For more widespread access, this cultural landscape report also exists in a web-based format through 

the website of the National Park Service. Please visit 

www.nps.gov for more information. 

iv 
v

Table of Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Management Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Study Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Historical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Scope of Work and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Early Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Historic Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Creek Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Creek Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

The American Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Benjamin Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Newyaucau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Red Sticks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Tecumseh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

War of 1812 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Federal Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Burnt Corn Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Fort Mims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

The Creek War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Fort Strother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Battle of Horseshoe Bend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

After the Battle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Treaty of Fort Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

The Legacy of Andrew Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Miller Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
vi 

Commemoration of the Battle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Alabama Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Establishment of the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Mission 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

National Register Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Lemuel Montgomery Grave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Archeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Fairbanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Hinsdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Dickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Recent Archeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Recent Park Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Tallapoosa River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Bean’s Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

State Highway 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Miller Bridge Piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Boat Ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Visitor Center area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Picnic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Park Tour Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Nature Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Cotton Patch Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Island Overlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Gun Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

D.A.R. Monument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Lemuel P. Montgomery grave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Congressional Monument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Cannon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Barricade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Tohopeka Village site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Creek High Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Tour Stop #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Newyaucau Village site/South side of river . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Maintenance Area and Park Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Additional Park Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Cultural Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Analysis and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

National Register Signifi cance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
vii

Landscape Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Natural Systems and Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Spatial Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Buildings and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Archeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Vistas and Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Small-scale Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Workmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Feeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Requirements for Treatment and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

National Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Section 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

NPS General Management Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

The Secretary’s Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Basis for Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Treatment Approach at Horseshoe Bend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Specifi c Treatment Recommendations for Horseshoe Bend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

The Barricade Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

NPS Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Maps and Denver Service Center eTIC Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
viii 
ix

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. Regional location map.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

FIGURE 2. Park brochure map, HOBE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FIGURE 3. Upper Creek towns and battle sites (1813-1814) Adapted from Swanton 1922.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FIGURE 4. Site of Creek towns along the Tallapoosa River near Horseshoe Bend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

FIGURE 5. Depiction of the massacre at Fort Mims, 1813.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

FIGURE 6. Creek War engagements. NPS map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

FIGURE 7. “A Map of the Battle Fought 27th March 1814, for Capt. Leonard L. Tarrants”. . . . . . . . . . . . .18

FIGURE 8. Artistic interpretation of Tohopeka. HOBE Archives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

FIGURE 9. Battle of Tohopeka from John Frost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

FIGURE 10. Menawa, a Creek warrior, 1837. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

FIGURE 11. Cheatham map, National Archives and Record Administration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

FIGURE 12. William Carroll map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

FIGURE 13. “Battle of Tehopiska [sic]” from the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, 1814... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

FIGURE 14. Treaty with the Creeks,1814, published 1847. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

FIGURE 15. Engraving of the Treaty of Fort Jackson.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

FIGURE 16. Detail of the 1906 Dadeville USGS quad map.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

FIGURE 17. Detail from Tallapoosa County map, 1885.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

FIGURE 18. Vickers family at Miller ferry on the Tallapoosa River. HOBE Archives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

FIGURE 19. 1938 aerial of Horseshoe Bend. HOBE Archives. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

FIGURE 20. Construction of MIller covered bridge, c.1907. HOBE Archives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

FIGURE 21. Construction of Highway 49 bridge, c. 1955. HOBE Archives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

FIGURE 23. Aerial of Horseshoe Bend peninsula and the Tallapoosa River, c.1960s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

FIGURE 24. Tour Loop Road and Parking Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

FIGURE 25. Tallapoosa River. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

FIGURE 26. Bean’s Island across the Tallapoosa River. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

FIGURE 27. Entrance sign to park. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

FIGURE 28. Boat ramp below Highway 49. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

FIGURE 29. Horseshoe Bend visitor center. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

FIGURE 30. Restrooms. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
x 

FIGURE 31. Entrance Area. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

FIGURE 32. Overview of picnic area. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

FIGURE 33. Horseshoe Bend picnic shelter. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

FIGURE 34. Picnic area grills, tables, and trash cans. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

FIGURE 35. Picnic area from parking lot. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

FIGURE 36. Park tour road. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

FIGURE 37. North end of nature trail. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

FIGURE 38. Nature trail near Tohopeka. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

FIGURE 39. Interpretive shelter at Cotton Patch Hill. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

FIGURE 40. Trail to Cotton Patch Hill. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

FIGURE 41. Wayside exhibit at Cotton Patch Hill parking lot. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

FIGURE 42. View from tour stop. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

FIGURE 43. Overview of Gun Hill area. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

FIGURE 44. D.A.R. Monument. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

FIGURE 45. Lemuel Montgomery grave. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

FIGURE 46. Congressional Monument. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

FIGURE 47. Cannon at Gun Hill. NPS photo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

FIGURE 48. Barricade site. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

FIGURE 49. Tohopeka village site. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

FIGURE 50. View of Tohopeka from tour stop #4. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

FIGURE 51. View from tour stop #5. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

FIGURE 52. Site of Newyaucau. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

FIGURE 53. Example of park housing. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

FIGURE 54. Existing Conditions map of Horseshoe Bend NMP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

FIGURE 55. Barricade site in the 1970s. HOBE Archives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

FIGURE 56. Spatial organization of barricade site. Note white posts and tour road. NPS photo.. . . . . . . .55

FIGURE 57. Tohopeka village site. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

FIGURE 58. View from Cotton Patch Hill, looking south. NPS photo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
xi
xii 
xiii

Foreword

Often in the National Park Service, we speak of the power of a place. Like many of the special places 

preserved and protected by the Service, Horseshoe Bend National Military Park speaks of the power of a 

place and its stories to move us, inspire us, provoke us, and yes, even empower us. 

As you look over the now-peaceful landscape of the battlefi eld from the top of Cottonpatch Hill, it is diffi cult to fathom how this bucolic Alabama viewshed could hold power other than its inherent beauty. But 

nearly two hundred years ago, these rolling hills and woodlands were the site of a violent, bloody confrontation between the old and the new that marked the end of the power of the Creek Confederacy, the beginning of the state of Alabama, and the beginning of a process that marked the removal of native tribes in the

Southeast. The battle of Horseshoe Bend directly resulted in the largest loss of Indian life in

a single battle between natives and the United States Army. It also resulted in the loss of twenty- three 

million acres of Creek lands that would form part of the future state of Alabama and add to the existing 

state of Georgia. That March day would also give rise to the career of a future President of the United 

States. Andrew Jackson’s success at Horseshoe Bend led him to a regular Army assignment as commander 

of the Seventh Military District – which included New Orleans. His election as President led us to redefi ne 

our ideas of government with the advent of “Jacksonian democracy.” But for the Creeks and other tribes 

east of the Mississippi, including his Cherokee and Creek allies at Horseshoe Bend and Choctaw allies at 

New Orleans, his Presidency meant their fi nal removal from their ancestral lands to unfamiliar lands in the 

West.

But it is not just Horseshoe Bend’s stories and place that have power. The idea that Horseshoe Bend is a 

place that inspires and provokes us enough to want to preserve and protect it is a powerful concept. This 

idea was ingrained enough in several individuals in the mid-twentieth century that it empowered them to 

literally change the course of a river in order that we may appreciate and learn from the landscape today. 

The story of Judge C.J. Coley, Thomas Martin and other members of the Horseshoe Bend Battle Park Association and their struggles to preserve this landscape gives us an appreciation for the true power of place.

Many people made this report possible. In a truly collaborative eff ort, the Southeast Region Cultural Resources Division and the interpretive staff at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park were instrumental 

in the researching, writing, and reviewing of the document, with especial emphasis on the contributions 

of Beth Byrd from the SER Cultural Landscapes Branch and Ove Jensen of the park interpretive staff . In 

addition to these dedicated NPS staff , Dr. Kathryn H. Braund of Auburn University, a recognized expert 

on Creek culture and a dedicated park partner has provided a great deal of research and knowledge to the 

story of Horseshoe Bend. We appreciate the contributions of all who have made this important aid in managing and preserving the resources at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park possible.

Doyle W. Sapp

Superintendent

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park

February 2013
xiv 
xv

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge several individuals for their assistance in preparation of this report:

The staff of Horseshoe Bend National Military Park for their cooperation and support of the research, 

especially Doyle Sapp, Superintendent, Ove Jensen and Jim Cahill.

The Cultural Resources Division staff of the NPS Southeast Regional Offi ce for technical assistance and 

support, especially Tracy Stakely, former Cultural Landscapes Chief for help in reviewing and advising. 

Thank you to Brian Coff ey, for his comments and edits of the document and to Terri Hogan and Chris Furqueron, for guidance on native grasses. 
xvi 
 1

Management Summary

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park is a unit 

of the National Park Service (NPS) in Tallapoosa 

County, Alabama preserving 2,040 acres that include the site of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the 

last major battle of the Creek War. Horseshoe Bend 

contains the battlefi eld, the site of two Creek villages, and modern park facilities. The park is one of 

only four NPS sites primarily preserved for the history of the War of 1812 and was the fi rst national 

park unit added in the state of Alabama.1

An Act of Congress on July 25, 1956, established 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (NMP) 

to commemorate the fi nal decisive battle of the 

Creek War (1813-1814) that took place on March 

27, 1814.2 The Battle of Horseshoe Bend ended 

the war between the Red Sticks, a hostile faction 

of Creek Indians and the United States government. Along the Tallapoosa River, one-thousand 

Red Sticks, barricaded behind a log breastwork, 

defended a horseshoe-shaped peninsula against 

Andrew Jackson and his Tennessee militia, the 39th

U.S. Regiment, and allied Cherokee and Creek 

soldiers. Prior to and during the battle, the refugee 

village of Tohopeka occupied the southern-most 

portion of the peninsula. The battle lasted only a 

day, but Tohopeka was destroyed and along with 

the remains of Newyaucau, south of the river, survive as archeological resources in the park. 

Together the Horseshoe Bend battleground, archeological sites, and the Tallapoosa River compose a 

signifi cant cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes 

are defi ned as geographical areas, including both 

1 Horseshoe Bend National Military Park joins Jean 

Lafi tte National Historical Park and Preserve, Perry’s 

Victory and International Peace Memorial, and 

Fort McHenry National Monument and Shrine in 

interpreting key places in the history of the War of 

1812. 

2 Public Law 800-84th Congress Chapter 729, Second 

Session H.R. 11766. Congress authorized the park 

as a unit of the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS 

was designated to administer and develop the park 

including the construction and maintenance of roads, 

trails, markers, buildings, and other improvements.

Introduction

cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or 

domestic animals therein, associated with a historical event, activity, or person, or that exhibits other 

cultural or aesthetic values.3 This Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for the Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) documents changes 

to the cultural landscape and provides treatment 

recommendations based on historic signifi cance, 

integrity and the needs of contemporary park 

management. 

Listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

in 1966 with documentation completed in 1976, 

Horseshoe Bend is signifi cant under Criteria A 

as a site associated with events that have made a 

contribution to the broad patterns of American 

history and under Criteria D as a site yielding, or 

likely to yield, archeological information important 

to prehistory or history. The nomination states the 

period of signifi cance as 1800-1899 (a generalized 

time frame used in early nomination forms). The 

contributing resources listed in the nomination 

include structural and archeological features from 

the historic era, the commemorative period, and 

the early twentieth century. Within the horseshoeshaped curve of the Tallapoosa River is preserved 

the hallowed ground that brought an end to the 

Creek War and helped launch Andrew Jackson into 

national prominence.

The upcoming bicentennial of the battle prompted 

an assessment of the cultural landscape. The park 

has a small staff sharing collateral duties and no 

cultural resource management documents to date. 

The CLR for Horseshoe Bend NMP defi nes an 

overall treatment strategy and outlines specifi c 

recommendations for character-defi ning landscape 

features on the battlefi eld. 

3 Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan. 

A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, 

Process, and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: National 

Park Service, 1998.
2 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

INTRODUCTION

Study Boundaries

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park is located 

in Tallapoosa County in east central Alabama. The 

park is accessed from State Highway 49 and encompasses 2,040 acres. Dadeville, the closest town, 

is twelve miles to the south and Alexander City, 

the county seat, is eighteen miles west. The park 

forms a roughly square shape with the southeast 

corner stepped back to align with the preexisting 

grid of adjacent land holdings. The cultural landscape addressed in this report consists of the entire 

park and includes the location of the battle that 

took place on March 27, 1814, the site of Newyaucau, and the approaches and positions of the U.S. 

troops before and during the battle.

The study area north of the Tallapoosa River 

consists of the battlefi eld, the Tohopeka village 

site, park housing, a maintenance area, the visitor 

center, a tour road and an interpretative trail. A 

small island, the position of Bean’s militia during 

the battle, is embraced by the river. The river also 

preserves the ruins of the Miller Bridge piers. To 

the south of the Tallapoosa, the site of Newyaucau 

village and the position of Coff ee’s defense are 

protected by the NPS with limited public access. 

Fire roads are interspersed under second-growth 

forests. 

Historical Summary

Horseshoe Bend began as a natural landscape 

along the riverbank of the Tallapoosa and was fi rst 

occupied over 1,000 years ago. For thousands of 

years before that, prehistoric people hunted, gathered, and traversed the land, eventually beginning 

cultivation and establishing trade routes and settlements. Though Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian cultures each occupied the bend over time, 

the historic Creek village Newyaucau was not 

established until 1777. This Muskogee town in the 

heart of Upper Creek territory was destroyed in 

1813 during the Creek War.4

 Tohopeka was established as a refugee village on the opposite bank of 

the river. As white settlers pushed westward and 

in-fi ghting over methods of assimilation increased 

between factions of the Creek Nation, violence 

erupted. The Creek War began as a series of small 

engagements between Creeks that soon led to battles with white settlers and eventually, the Federal 

government. A massacre at Fort Mims in southwestern Alabama in the summer of 1813 pressed the 

U.S. into action. 

The Battle of Horseshoe Bend occurred March 

27, 1814, when Andrew Jackson led his Tennessee 

militia, the U.S. 39th regiment, and allied Cherokee 

and Creek fi ghters to positions surrounding the 

horseshoe-shaped peninsula against entrenched, 

warring Creek known as Red Sticks. A heavily 

defended breastwork at Tohopeka crossed the narrowest portion of the peninsula landscape and the 

Red Sticks defended the position against artillery 

fi re throughout the morning. Cherokee fi ghters 

crossed the river in stolen canoes and attacked 

Tohopeka before Jackson’s men advanced toward 

the barricade. A dual-attack from the front and rear 

carried the position for the United States and the 

Red Sticks suff ered a disasterous defeat. 

Horseshoe Bend NMP preserves the last major 

battle of the Creek War in which Jackson decisively 

ended the Creek resistance to westward expansion 

and assimilation. The park interprets the historic 

Creek nation, the changing relationships that led to 

the Creek War, and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. 

Interpretation connects the battle to the Creek War 

within the context of the War of 1812 and the later 

career of Andrew Jackson. 

The Treaty of Fort Jackson and cession of Indian 

land following the battle promised some rights to 

the remaining Creeks. However, white settlement 

only increased and in 1819, Alabama established 

statehood. The Horseshoe Bend landscape became 

4 Historians suggest the village was named for the Treaty 

of New York signed in 1790. A New York loyalist may 

have travelled through the area and named the town 

prior to the treaty signing. 

FIGURE 1. Regional location map.
National Park Service 3

INTRODUCTION

farmland and remained in corn and cotton cultivation with some later mining operations, until 

the mid-twentieth century. Despite the historic 

signifi cance of the site and a commemoration in 

1914, Alabama Power proposed a dam project 

on the Tallapoosa River that would have fl ooded 

the battlefi eld and site of Tohopeka. Preservation 

edged out the hydroelectric project and the park 

was established in 1956. 

The establishment of Horseshoe Bend NMP 

coincided with Mission 66, a National Park Service 

initiative to revitalize the system by updating and 

modernizing park facilities. The ten-year program 

ended in 1966 on the fi ftieth anniversary of the 

NPS and focused on accommodating an increasing 

number of visitors. A visitor center, park buildings, 

and designed park tour road remain from this development period. The park continues to interpret 

the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. 

Scope of Work and 

Methodology

A cultural landscape report is a comprehensive 

document that records the historical development 

of a site over time, changes made to the landscape, 

and current landscape conditions. This principal 

guide to treatment records characteristics, features, materials, and qualities. The CLR examines 

T A L L A P O O S A R I V E R

Emuckfau

Creek

RED STICK BATTLE LINE

LOG BARRICADE

HORSESHOE BEND NATIONAL

MILITARY PARK

COFFEE’S

APPROACH

JACKSON’S

 APPROACH

BEAN’S

MILITIA

JACKSON’ S FORCE:

TENNESSEE MILITIA/

39TH U.S. INFNTRY

COFFEE’S FORCE:

TENNESSEE MILITIA/

CHEROKEE AND CREEK ALLIES

Artillery

Village overlook

Monument

Nature Trail

one-way

Overlook

TOHOPEKA

VILLAGE

SITE

NEWYAUCAU

VILLAGE SITE

To New Site

5mi

8km

To Dadeville

12mi

19km

79 49

49

1

1

2

3

4

5

Visitor Center

Tour stop Nature Trail

Boat launch ramp

Picnic area

Historic battle position

for Jackson’s army

Historic battle position

for Red Stick Creeks 

Battle of Horseshoe Bend, March 27, 1814

Touring the Park Today

0 0.1

0 0.1 0.5 Mile

0.5 Kilometer

North

FIGURE 2. Park brochure map, HOBE.
4 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

INTRODUCTION

historic significance based on criteria used by the 

National Register of Historic Places and evaluates 

the integrity of extant character-defining features. 

Treatment articulates a long-term strategy for 

preservation and outlines recommendations 

specific to site management, stewardship, and 

immediate park needs.

Resources for this Horseshoe Bend CLR include 

park management documents, secondary historical 

resources, and ethnographical research. Because 

the battle took place on the western frontier of 

the nascent United States, written documentation 

of the period is scarce and gaps in the historical record remain. Letters from Andrew Jackson 

and his offi cers reveal valuable descriptions of 

the terrain that infl uenced the battle and the few, 

yet-illustrative details of the attack, casualties, and 

retreat.5 Park staff provided nineteenth-century 

correspondence, later battle accounts, and a variety 

of resources that analyze and interpret the outcome of the battle. 

Kathryn Braund, a Creek and Seminole historian, 

authored and edited several books and studies on 

the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Creek 

that were invaluable resources. Two Special History Studies contracted by the park, Warriors and 

Society in the Creek War and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and Towns and the Creek War 1813-

1814, provided detail and context to the Red Stick 

story. Robbie Ethridge’s Creek Country: The Creek 

Indians and Their World was vital to understanding Creek life leading up to and resulting from the 

Creek War. Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands: The 

Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans 1812-

1815 by Frank Owsley, Jr. pieced together the 

historic landscape within the context of war and 

described the Creek War campaigns. 

Archeological reports from the 1960s and 1970s 

provided primary information on the subsurface 

remains of Newyaucau, Tohopeka, and the barricade site. Each report describes fi eld work, discoveries, and collections, while the Archeological 

Overview and Assessment (2000) by the Southeast 

Archeological Center (SEAC) summarizes and 

clarifi es all previous archeological research associated with Horseshoe Bend NMP. The Overview 

5 Kathryn Braund, Warriors and Society in the Creek 

War and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, Special History 

Study, 2003. p. 4-8. Braund describes the “offi cial” 

accounts from Jackson and his army as uniform and 

biased, citing the prepared corroboration meant 

to justify and glorify the actions of the U. S. Army. 

Braund also notes that Creek accounts of the battle 

were passed down from a respected source, but not an 

eyewitness.

and Assessment details the physiography, geology, 

vegetation, and prehistoric settlement patterns, 

while synthesizing previous archeological work 

and assessing the research needs of the park. Other 

park documents include the Mission 66 Master 

Plan and a Long Range Interpretative Plan. 

Southeast Regional Offi ce (SERO) staff recorded 

existing conditions at the park in January and May 

2010. The existing conditions of Horseshoe Bend 

include a written, graphic, and photographic record of the landscape. Current Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided the location of 

landscape features and a base map was annotated 

during fi eld surveys with up-to-date conditions. 

The site map was created in Adobe Illustrator from 

GIS data, 2006 aerial photography, and fi eld notes. 

The author recorded the cultural landscape with 

digital photography to provide a reference and 

comparison to earlier images. 

The analysis chapter of the CLR identifi es the 

landscape features and characteristics that convey 

the signifi cance of the landscape and retain aspects 

of integrity. The historic signifi cance of Horseshoe 

Bend was documented in 1976, though the National Register nomination covers only major monuments, nineteenth-century archeological sites, and 

the pier remains of Miller Bridge.6

 The analysis 

and evaluation chapter of the CLR provides the 

foundation for treatment recommendations. These 

recommendations are in accordance with National 

Park Service policy, including Director’s Order 28, 

park management, and the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes. Treatment recommendations provide guidance for the 

preservation and rehabilitation of the cultural 

landscape to address a myriad of park issues and 

the layered history of the site. 

Summary of Findings

This CLR provides Horseshoe Bend with the identifi cation of character-defi ning features, documents 

historic and existing conditions, and develops 

treatment recommendations to ensure the future 

protection of the park and its natural and cultural 

resources. The overarching treatment recommended for the historic landscape is preservation of all 

identifi ed cultural resources. 

6 PMIS project 192899. The nomination is out-of-date 

and new archeological sites and additional historical 

contexts are needed to address the Miller Bridge piers. 
 5

This chapter examines the evolution of the cultural 

landscape and presents an overview of the history 

of Horseshoe Bend. The site history is based on 

archeological reports completed since the 1960s 

and secondary resources on Creek life, Andrew 

Jackson, and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. While 

no written documentation survives from the 

period before European contact, the details of 

daily life and landscape patterns uncovered during 

archeological survey and excavation provide an 

early history of the area. The writings of William 

Bartram describe the Creek people and landscape 

just before the end of the eighteenth century and 

census records, maps, and descriptions by United 

State Indian Agent Benjamin Hawkins reveal the 

turmoil on the frontier leading up to the Creek 

War.1

Historic documents relating to the battle, such 

as military accounts, correspondence, and 

newspapers, though limited, identify important 

landscape characteristics. The documentation 

concerning the battle remains scarce, yet is crucial 

to understanding the landscape on March 27, 1814. 

Letters from Andrew Jackson to his family, Major 

General Thomas Pinckney, and Governor Willie 

Blount and a letter from General John Coff ee to 

Andrew Jackson remain the primary, fi rst-person 

accounts.2 The Red Stick perspective on the Battle 

of Horseshoe Bend survives only in later accounts 

and archeological remains. This imbalance in the 

historical record has skewed the interpretation of 

the battle throughout history. 

Early Settlement

The human history of Alabama spans thousands 

of years, revealing a long occupation of land along 

1 Braund, Towns and the Creek War, 1813-1814. Special 

History Study, National Park Service, Unpublished, 

2005, p. 4. Braund also cites James Adair and Caleb 

Swan as period references.

2 All transcribed letters are available in .pdf format on 

the Horseshoe Bend NMP website. (www.nps.gov/

hobe) 

Site History

the Tallapoosa River. The river played an important 

role in prehistoric transportation and patterns of 

early land use. Together with the surrounding area, 

the landscape conveys the broader prehistoric 

cultural sequence of southeastern Indians living 

in middle Alabama. Early prehistory remains less 

documented than the events leading up to and 

immediately following the Battle of Horseshoe 

Bend, yet evidence remains of hunting, fi shing, 

settlement, and agriculture. 

Paleo-Indian occupation in what is present-day 

Alabama occurred between 10,000 and 8,000 

BCE. Paleo-Indians traversed the region as 

nomadic hunters and gatherers, traveling in small 

bands and hunting large and small mammals. 

Mobile populations migrated seasonally and 

selected major river valleys to forage and hunt 

during the Pleistocene era. Paleo-Indians lived 

in extended families, interacting with nearby 

groups for mating and exchanging information. 

The central Tennessee Valley extending south into 

Alabama contains one of the largest archeological 

concentrations of Paleo-period projectile points, 

yet the sparse population and mobile lifestyle 

left no archeological record in the Horseshoe 

Bend landscape. 3 While little material evidence 

remains from this period, artifacts have been 

located in surrounding counties, including several 

fl uted spear points, or Clovis points, identifi ed in 

Randolph County, east of Horseshoe Bend. 

Southeastern Indians during the Archaic period 

(8,000 BCE-1,000 BCE) succeeded the PaleoIndians and developed more complex social 

organization. A major shift in the climate caused 

glaciers to melt and sea-level rise to end during 

this period, changing the composition of forests 

around Horseshoe Bend. At the start of the Archaic 

period, open spaces and coniferous forests were 

a habitat for large animals before gradually being 

3 Elizabeth de Grummond and Christine Hamlin, 

Horseshoe Bend NMP Archeological Overview and 

Assessment, SEAC Accession No. 1316, National Park 

Service, 2000. p. 20. 
6 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

replaced with oak-hickory forests. The extinction 

of large mammals at the end of the Pleistocene 

era left an abundance of water fowl and deer to 

be hunted. The atlatl, a tool developed by Archaic 

people, added leverage and accuracy to spear 

throwing. Localized hunting and advances in stone 

tool technology together helped support larger 

populations of Archaic Indians camped near the 

Tallapoosa River and other water sources. Bands of 

hunters increased in size during the Archaic period 

while hunting territories reduced in size, allowing 

for regional specialization.4

The Archaic period supported a less nomadic 

culture than the Paleo-Indian and trade networks

developed alongside the beginnings of 

horticulture. The economy of Archaic groups 

shifted with social organization; meanwhile 

regional trade increased the spread of non-native 

plants and encouraged the beginnings of pottery 

production. Early experiments in cultivation 

began due to the diversity of the temperate 

hardwood forests and abundance of small fauna. 

This period is divided into shorter sub-periods 

based on projectile point styles identifi ed by 

archeologists.5 Evidence of Late Archaic settlement 

was discovered at Tohopeka and Newyaucau and 

one projectile point was identifi ed from the Middle 

Archaic period. 

The Woodland period (1,000 BCE- 900 AD) 

spans a cultural shift from the nomadic hunting 

and gathering of the Archaic period to the 

sedentary farming and mound-building culture of 

Mississippians that followed. While southeastern 

Indian culture was continuous, the transition 

between these two contrasting periods is based on 

changes in subsistence agriculture, trading, and 

social organization. The addition of crops and 

more effi cient hunting and gathering techniques 

helped establish sedentary towns during the 

Woodland period. Beans, squash, and maize were 

grown on river fl oodplains. Woodland Indians 

established their own vessel form and produced 

ceramics with complex temper and decoration. 

Ceremonial earthworks were constructed and local 

trade included the exchange of non-native stones. 

The establishment of villages and use of natural 

features typifi es this period. Seasonal settlements 

4 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 21. 

5 Ibid. (http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/outline/03-

archaic/index.htm) Accessed June 3, 2010. 

favored forested fl oodplains in the summer and fall 

and uplands in the winter and spring. Woodland 

Indians began sociopolitical groups based on 

families and may have organized into chiefdoms 

or other forms of society. Woodland sites were 

surveyed in Lee, Randolph, and Tallapoosa 

counties in Alabama and included ceramics from 

the Alabama River, Chattahoochee River, and 

Crooked Creek complexes. Archeologists have not 

located any Woodland sites at Horseshoe Bend. 

The Mississippians (900 AD- 1500 AD) marked 

the most complex culture group of southeastern 

Indians and expressed social organization in 

a hierarchy of sites, farms, and ceremonial 

centers. The Mississippians created massive 

earthen mounds throughout the Midwest and 

the Southeast, including great complexes at 

Moundville on the Tuscaloosa River and Kolomoki 

on the Lower Chattahoochee River. A reliance on 

harvests limited settlements to the fl oodplains 

near rivers. The Mississippians were highly 

organized within a chiefdom political system and 

shared iconography among diff erent settlements, 

though warfare was common.6

 The area along 

the Tallapoosa was uninhabited for most of the 

Mississippian period, though early ceramics 

identifi ed as Dadeville were located at Tohopeka by 

Charles Fairbanks and suggest the river may have 

been used seasonally.7 During the Mississippian 

period, the bend on the Tallapoosa was within the 

region of the Lamar culture, identifi ed by boldincised pottery and complicated stamp decoration. 

Historic Indians

Southeastern Indian tribes in the historic period 

included the Creek, Chickasaw, Cherokee, 

Seminole, and Choctaw. The Creek were the 

predominant tribe in Georgia and Alabama 

and occupied land from the Atlantic Ocean to 

the Alabama River, including the present-day 

Horseshoe Bend NMP. Seminole tribes centered 

in south Florida, while Chickasaw and Cherokee 

bordered Creek lands to the west and north. To the 

west were the Chickasaw and Choctaw. Leading 

up to the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the landscape 

along the Tallapoosa River was considered 

Creek. 

6 http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/outline/05-mississippian/

index.htm. Accessed May, 2010.

7 deGrummond and Hamlin, p.32. 
National Park Service 7

SITE HISTORY

In the second quarter of the sixteenth century, 

Europeans began venturing into the hinterland 

of North America. Hernando DeSoto and his 

expedition that traversed the area between 

1539 and 1542 brought an epidemic of disease 

that reduced the native population throughout the 

southeast.8

 These forays into areas yet unmapped 

by whites also captured Indians for slave trade. 

Raiders took women and children and sold them 

to traders bound for the West Indies. The result of 

such contact had a devastating eff ect on the native 

people.9 The combination of disease and slavery 

drastically reduced the population during the 

historic period, created instability and ultimately 

reorganized regional alliances. Survivors banded 

into new tribes and the remainder of shattered 

groups integrated into what became known as the 

Creek. As a result, the Creek confederacy united 

to share beliefs and rituals common among the 

formerly disparate tribes.

Creek

During the seventeenth century, the English met 

Indians living along the Ocmulgee River, which 

the English called Ocheese Creek and over time 

began using the name “Creek” to refer to all groups 

living along rivers and streams in Georgia and 

Alabama.10 The native people involved in the Creek 

War are more accurately known as the Muskogee, 

a name that refers to a common linguistic group 

used by several ethnicities. These Okfuska groups 

coalesced from descendants of the Mississippians 

and refugees of tribes surviving disease and 

slavery.11 The network of Muskogee groups, unifi ed 

by a similar language, included tribes of Muscogee, 

Hitchittee, Uchee, Alabama, and Coosada. The 

Muskogee confederacy functioned as a political 

unit roughly divided into two groups, known 

generally as the Upper and Lower Creek. 

[W]hile united in kinship, Upper and Lower 

Towns claimed diff erent territory, held separate 

councils, and, as [an] Upper Creek headsmen 

8 De Soto traveled through central Alabama, but no 

record indicates he visited the Tallapoosa River valley.

9 Robbie Ethridge, Creek Country: The Creek Indians 

and Their World. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North 

Carolina Press, 2003. p, 24. 

10 Joel W. Martin, Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle 

for a New World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1991. P. 

5-6.

11 Ethridge, p 26.

noted, functioned as distinct “nations” or 

political bodies. Refl ecting this geographic and 

political reality, the Coweta [and other groups]

on the [lower] Chattahoochee came to be 

called the Lower Creeks, while towns on the 

Coosa and Tallapoosa watersheds [in northern 

Alabama] were generally known as Upper 

Creeks. 12

The Lower Creek lived on the Chattahoochee 

River and along the Ocmulgee and Flint Rivers 

in today’s Georgia. Their territory bordered 

Choctaw tribes along the Tombigbee River and 

extended south to the Gulf coast. Eight towns, 

Coweta, Cussita, Owseechee, Chehaws, Uchee, 

Apalachicola, Oconne, and Eufaule were located in 

this expansive territory.13

The Upper Creeks who settled in modern-day 

Alabama established a number of Okfuska towns. 

A French explorer inventorying towns identifi ed 

the Alabama, Tallapoosa, Abeika, and Coweta 

areas. A later British explorer produced a similar 

inventory and these two corresponding town lists 

remain a primary source for Creek scholars. There 

is no consensus among historians as to the local 

distinctions between these groups, many with 

diff erent ancestors, languages, and ethnic alliances, 

but Upper Creek towns along the Tallapoosa River 

included Muccolossus, Cunhutkee, Fushatchee, 

Coolome, Hoithlewaule, Ockfuskutchies, Otassee, 

Saugahatchie, Savanna, Tuckabatchee, Euchie, 

Tallassee, and Chavacleyhatchee.14 Tuckabatchee 

was the mother town on the Tallapoosa River and 

together, the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama 

Rivers marked the heart of Upper Creek territory. 

The information available on the Creek relies 

heavily on archeology and on the writings of 

naturalist William Bartram, Indian agent Benjamin 

Hawkins, and a few others.15 Bartram recorded 

details of topography, vegetation, fl ood events, 

12 Braund, Towns and the Creek War, p. 2-3. 

13 Ibid., p.15-16. The Lower Creek held claim to land from 

Florida northward almost twelve hundred miles. Lower 

Creeks assumed land through a series of wars and from 

tribes overcome by disease.

14 Ibid., p. 8. The name, number and affi liation of towns 

recorded by Spanish, French, and English travelers 

varied. “Daughter” towns were often created from 

settlers leaving “mother” towns and displaced tribes.

15 Ibid., p. 4. Braund cites James Adair and Caleb Swan 

as primary sources in addition to the British Colonial 

Offi ce Papers and papers of the Superintendent of 

Indian Affairs. 
8 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

towns, people and language. Oral histories and 

ethnography compose a fuller picture of Creek 

life, though most information not recorded in 

the written record or material culture remains 

uncertain. 

Creek Landscape 

The historic landscape of Creek country stretched 

over 62,000 square miles.16 In the decades leading 

up to the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the natural 

landscape shaped the pattern of settlement and 

land use by Upper and Lower Creek tribes. While 

Creek territory encompassed several distinct 

physiographic provinces, a system of waterways 

defi ned the landscape. Creeks built towns and 

farmed along rivers, streams, and tributaries and 

relied on natural resources for food, shelter, and 

necessities. 

The Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest 

Biome of eastern North America spanned the 

Creek landscape with Horseshoe Bend situated 

in the transitional Southeastern Mixed Forest of 

the Piedmont and Fall Line.17 Oak-hickory-pine 

forests dominated the landscape, while portions of 

Creek territory stretched east into the longleaf pine 

forests of the Coastal Plains and northwest into the 

Mesophytic Forest on the Appalachian and Interior 

Low Plateau. The ratio of dominant forest trees 

has changed since the eighteenth century and only 

a few stands of old-growth forest survive. Creeks 

utilized forests for building materials, fuel, and 

supplies. 

Creek country supported diverse fl ora and fauna. 

White-tailed deer, wild turkey, beaver, otter, 

muskrat, fox, raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, polecat, 

bear, wildcats, and wolves were present in the 

historic period and even bison until they were 

hunted to extinction in the eighteenth century. 

There were also reptiles, amphibians, insects, and 

birds, including the now-extinct Carolina parakeet 

and the passenger pigeon.18 

The forests provided hunting grounds for the 

Creek and the deer skin trade sustained their 

late eighteenth-century economy. Research by 

historians and ecologists reveals the prominent role 

16 Ethridge, p. 32. 

17 Ibid., p. 37. 

18 Ibid., p. 41. 

of fi re during the Creek era. Natural or man-made 

fi res cleared the forest fl oor of debris and improved 

habitat for animals. A landscape cleared by fi re 

resulted in open space for cultivation and nutrientrich soils. There are some historic accounts of 

forests damaged by hurricanes or tornados with 

cleared areas or tree falls called, hotali-huyan, 

meaning wind-passing in Muskogee.19

The system of waterways in the Creek landscape 

included rivers, creeks, streams, and tributaries. 

Almost all Creek towns were located along a 

waterway and access dictated the location and 

siting of towns. Often waterways and Creek 

towns shared names, sometimes emphasizing 

characteristics like weoka “roaring water” or 

wetemcau “rumbling water” while other place 

names described topography or distinct features. 

Horseshoe Bend derived from cholocco litabixee, or 

“horse’s fl at foot.” 20 The Creek used waterways for 

transportation and fi shed at shoals and waterfalls 

each spring and summer. Rivers and streams ran 

clear during the eighteenth century until the silt 

run-off from extensive nineteenth- and twentiethcentury farming clouded the streams.

The juncture of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers 

provided an ideal combination of water access, 

fertile soils, and various natural resources for the 

Upper Creek. Settlement further south along the 

Alabama River was limited due to swamps on either 

side of the river and frequent fl ooding. Creek 

country spanned several ecosystems, but Upper 

Creek towns were clustered near the Fall Line and 

the confl uence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers.

Benjamin Hawkins described the land near 

Horseshoe Bend in his A Sketch of the Creek 

Country in the Years 1798 and 1799.

...The soil is stiff , with course gravel, and in 

some places, stone. The trees are post oak, 

white and black oak, pine, hickory and chesnut, 

all of them. The whole is well watered, and the 

rivers and creeks have rocky beds, clad in many 

places with moss greatly relished by cattle, 

horses and deer, and are margined with cane or 

reed, on narrow strips or coves, of rich fl ats....21

19 Ibid., p.40. 

20 Ibid., p.33-34.

21 Benjamin Hawkins, A Sketch of the Creek Country in 

the Years, 1798 and 1799. Savannah, 1848. p. 19.
National Park Service 9

SITE HISTORY

FIGURE 3. Upper Creek towns and battle sites (1813-1814) from the Archeological Overview and Assessment. Adapted from 

Swanton 1922.
10 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

The Tal-la-poo-sa [sic] from its falls to its 

confl uence with the Coosau [sic], about thirty 

miles, has some good fl at land. The broken land 

terminates on its right bank, and the good land 

spreads out on its left. There are several pine 

creeks on this side, which have their source on 

the ridge dividing these waters from the Ko-ene-cuh. The land bordering them is rich; the 

timber large, and cane abundant....22

...Sixty miles above the confl uence of the Coosau with Tallapoosa, there is a high, waving 

limestone country settled by the Indians of 

Coo-sau, Au-be-coo-che nau-che and Eufau-lau-hat-che. The settlements are generally 

on rich fl at oaks, hickory, poplar, walnut, and 

mulberry. The springs are fi ne; there is cane 

on the creeks, and reed on the branches. The 

surrounding country is broken and gravelly. 

The land fi t for culture, is generally the margins 

of the creeks, or the waving slopes form the 

high broken ground.23

Creek Towns 

Creek towns identifi ed as either war (red) or peace 

(white) and divided leadership of issues according 

to their affi liation. Though the dual organization 

of war and peace towns is not fully documented, 

historians believe this distinction lessened as 

the division between Upper and Lower Creek 

groups became more pronounced.24 Separate 

towns had diff erent ceremonial and administrative 

responsibilities and some evidence suggests that 

town affi liation may have changed related to 

competitions of ball play.25 Creek later recognized 

towns as “mother” talwa and “daughter” talofa. 

Though the Muskogee language united several 

tribes across the confederacy, Creek identifi ed with 

their town before the larger confederacy.26 William 

Bartram described talwa, in great detail:

All Creek talwa were distinguished by a number 

of public structures: the public square ground, 

the winter council house, and the chunky yard. 

In addition Creeks cultivated extensive corn 

fi elds along river valley fl ood plains as well as 

kitchen gardens—both unfenced. Matrilineal 

22 Hawkins, p. 22. 

23 Ibid., p. 24. 

24 Ethridge, p. 94. 

25 Kathryn E. Holland Braund, Deerskins and Duffels: 

Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815, 

University of Nebraska Press, 1993. p. 7. 

26 Ethridge, p.93. 

households were scattered irregularly along the 

periphery of the town’s public spaces.27

The spatial organization of towns uncovered by 

archeologists reveals much about Creek social 

and political life. Upper Creek talwa had public 

buildings and squares for ceremony, political events 

and town council meetings. At the center of town, 

the square-ground was a sunken, level space with a 

place for fi re in the center.28 Buildings surrounding 

the square-ground formed an “enclosed” outdoor 

space. The Rotunda, or Great Winter House 

was located at one corner of the square-ground 

and had a central fi replace. Called a tcokofa, the 

shelter was used for winter sleeping quarters 

during the transitions related to the deerskin trade. 

Rectangular townhouses infl uenced by Shawnee 

construction techniques were located beyond the 

square-ground in the town.29

Smaller settlements, or talofa were located out 

of town or several miles away from the mother 

village and often had a series of houses settled by a 

few families without a common square-ground or 

council house.30 Fields associated with talofa were 

likely used for cattle to avoid damage to town fi elds. 

Creek historians speculate that talofa located away 

from the primary village also allowed illicit trading 

far from the eyes of tribe leaders.31

Beyond all Creek towns an extensive system of 

trails and waterways linked the region. Hunting 

and grazing areas and cultivated fi elds surrounded 

towns, with fi shing on nearby shoals and rocky 

streams. Creeks maintained habitat to lure deer 

and bear; harvested nut trees, herbs, and other 

plant materials; and visited faraway sites to access 

salt licks, clay pits, and mineral deposits.32 Trails 

connected places far and near, used mostly as 

footpaths until horses were introduced. While the 

Chickasaw and Choctaw built fortifi ed towns in the 

eighteenth century, no record mentions defensive 

works in Creek towns. 

27 Braund, Towns and the Creek War, p. 18.

28 Gregory A. Waselkov and Kathryn E. Holland Braund, 

ed. William Bartram on the Southeastern Indians, 

University of Nebraska Press, 1995. p. 154. 

29 Ethridge, p. 97.

30 Hawkins, A Sketch of the Creek Country, p. 313-315. 

Hawkins mentions a council house at Upatoi.

31 Braund, Deerskins and Duffels, p. 145. 

32 Braund, Towns and the Creek War, p. 18.
National Park Service 11

SITE HISTORY

Estimates of the Creek population range from 

12,000 to 20,000 just before the American 

Revolution. Based on a count of “gun men” 

or male warriors, Indian agents suggested that 

Creek towns had three to fi ve additional people, 

i.e. women, children, and elderly, per gunman. 

By the end of the eighteenth century, the Creek 

population increased to 25,000 or 26,000.33

The American Revolution

The fi ght for American independence changed the 

landscape of the frontier. The revolution impacted 

the established deer skin trade and unsettled what 

organization there was between the white settlers 

and Indians. Southeastern Indians living peaceably 

prior to the fi ghting tried to remain neutral as war 

broke out. Creeks avoided involvement by moving 

into less populated areas, while others believed 

the British were more sympathetic to their land 

claims.34

The American Revolution disrupted trade between 

the Creek and British and Creeks were forced to 

use a system of newly established “factories” or 

trade posts operated by the French and Spanish.35 

This shift in trade alliances forecast future 

struggles, yet the revolution ended the signifi cant 

infl uence of European powers on Indians of North 

America.36

A series of treaties began assimilation of Indian 

territory in the southeast after the war. In 1790, the 

Treaty of New York recognized friendly relations 

between the Creek and United States.37 Alexander 

McGillivray represented the Upper and Lower 

Creek and Seminole in New York and Henry 

Knox signed as Secretary of War under President 

George Washington. The treaty ceded Creek lands 

in what is now eastern Georgia to the government 

and required Creeks to return runaway slaves and 

33 Braund, Deerskins and Duffels, p. 9.

34 Braund, Towns and the Creek War, p. 22.

35 Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Archeological Investigations at 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Laboratory of 

Archeology, Department of Anthropology, Georgia 

State University, 1974. p. 33-34. 

36 (http://www.nps.gov/revwar/unfi nished_revolution/

war_of_1812.html)

37 Treaty of New York, August 7, 1790. (http://

georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/newyork.htm) Accessed 

January 2011. 

criminals; in return, Creek could enforce their land 

claims by punishing all trespassers.

Beyond offi cial agreements and relative peace 

in Indian territories, white settlement in the 

independent United States continued to increase. 

The population of Georgia doubled in the fi rst 

decade of the nineteenth century.38 William Blount 

governed the territory south of the Ohio River 

from 1790 to 1796, when Tennessee was admitted 

to the Union. Two years later Mississippi territory 

was open. By 1803, the Louisiana Purchase opened 

the western frontier. The Natchez Trace and other 

popular transportation routes created easy ways to 

move toward and onto Creek land. 

Benjamin Hawkins

As an agent of the United States to the Creek 

nation, Benjamin Hawkins led the program to 

acculturate southeastern tribes on the frontier. He 

worked with Muskogee groups in the 1790s with 

such success that George Washington appointed 

him to the post in 1796.39 Hawkins disseminated 

American agricultural practices to the Creek 

Nation and tried to maintain peace as the Creek 

War began in 1813. Though Hawkins served as 

a mediator, he forwarded the agenda of the U.S. 

government.

Hawkins received the post after serving as a 

North Carolina senator and observing several 

peace negotiations, including the Treaty of New 

York. His personal interest in Indian life prepared 

him for his position and as an Indian agent he 

learned Muskogee, raised a family, and involved 

himself in tribal politics regularly. Agent to Four 

Nations, Hawkins’ program to “civilize” the 

Creeks encouraged farming and herding programs, 

and advanced assimilation with economic 

development. Hawkins introduced agricultural 

tools, brought livestock and distributed looms, 

spinning wheels and other products. 

Hawkins supervised a system of factories in the 

territory then known as the Old Southwest. The 

war had ended British trading companies in 

38 Kathryn E. Holland Braund, American Indians and 

the War of 1812, 2012. Unpublished manuscript for 

National Park Service’s “War of 1812” publication. 

39 David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. Old Hickory’s 

War: Andrew Jackson and the Quest for Empire. 

Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1996. p. 8. 
12 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, Pensacola, and 

New Orleans, and allowed Americans to open 

trading posts in the interior.40 The number of 

factories grew in response to the Revolution and 

introduced trade goods to local Indians with a 

formalized system of credit. The exchange of 

goods at factories, regulated by Hawkins, soon 

left Creek dependent on the outpost. The decline 

of the deerskin trade and increased reliance on 

trade goods left Creeks indebted to frontier settlers 

and relations deteriorated. This imbalance was 

exacerbated by growing cotton markets, which 

further increased the value of frontier land. 

Without regulation, the relationship between the 

Creek and U.S. government eroded.

During the Creek War, Hawkins organized the 

friendly Creeks under Major William McIntosh 

to aid the Georgia and Tennessee militias during 

their forays against the Red Sticks. After the defeat 

at Horseshoe Bend, hostilities in Georgia and 

Tennessee prevented Hawkins from moderating 

the Treaty of Fort Jackson in August 1814. He 

continued to work with Creeks until his death in 

1816.41

Benjamin Hawkins was a pivotal fi gure in the 

period of Creek and U.S. relations prior to and 

during the Creek War. The infl uence of Hawkins 

led to assimilation of agricultural techniques 

and caused unrest within the Creek Nation. His 

writings remain a primary source for historians and 

capture the rare perspective of an Indian agent. 

Newyaucau 

In 1777, Creek Indians moved from Tukpafka 

on the Chattahoochee River in today’s Heard 

County, Georgia, to the eastern bank of the 

Tallapoosa River to avoid involvement in the 

American Revolution.42 The Creeks named the 

relocated Tukpafka -- Newyaucau-- named after 

New York, the location of the treaty between 

40 Ethridge, Introduction.

41 Horseshoe Bend NMP website.

42 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 38. Swanton, p. 125, 203. 

The tribe traditionally associated with the Hillibee 

and Eufaula groups that settled nearby may have 

descended from the Coosa or Oakfuskee. This is not 

defi nitive, since documentation on settlements is 

fragmented and duplicative. Towns changed names, 

shifted to new locations, and used names of former 

settlements. 

Creek chiefs and President George Washington.43

The town extended along the southern bank of 

the Tallapoosa River, a mile or so northeast of the 

horseshoe-shaped peninsula, and was considered 

a “daughter town” or talofa to the larger settlement 

of Oakfuskee twenty miles downriver.

The Creek settlement likely included houses, 

agricultural fi elds and a square-ground. 

Newyaucau had approximately 85 houses and 

a “large old fi eld”.44 Benjamin Hawkins wrote, 

“some of the people [of Newyaucau] have settled 

out from the town, and they have good land on 

the Inn-nook-fau creek which joins the right side 

of the river, two miles below the town,” indicating 

the town had a good river crossing just north of 

present-day Montgomery.45

During the Creek War an excursion by the Georgia 

militia, not part of a major campaign, pushed into 

Creek territory toward the confl uence of the Coosa 

and Tallapoosa River. In December 1813, militia 

led by Major General David A. Adams burned 

Newyaucau. 

As soon as we were in a situation to meet the 

enemy, the line of march was formed and we 

proceeded near a small settlement containing 

eleven houses, known by the name of Mad 

Warrior’s village, where the army was halted, 

and a small detachment sent forward to cut 

off such of the enemy as might be found there; 

not a single Indian was to be seen, tho’ there 

were strong evidences of its having been 

recently evacuated. Finding some corn here, 

such persons as were most defi cient supplied 

themselves; we then set fi re to the buildings 

which contained several articles of property, 

proceeded to within three miles of Newyaucau 

[sic], and encamped without fi re...46

By 1814, the Creek War left corn stores depleted 

and animals slaughtered throughout the region. 

The burning of Newyaucau, likely a foraging 

43 Braund, Towns and the Creek War, p.22. Historians 

suggest the name Newyaucau may be revisionist. The 

town may have been named by a New York loyalist or 

later associated with the Treaty of New York (1790). 

44 Ibid., p. 26. 

45 Hawkins, p. 46. 

46 Letter from Major General David A. Adams to 

Governor Peter Early, Headquarters, Monticello, 

December 24, 1813. Georgia Military Affairs, Vol. 

III, (1801-1813) in the collections of the Georgia 

Department of Archives and History, Atlanta, Georgia.
National Park Service 13

SITE HISTORY

excursion by the Georgia militia, destroyed the 

remaining corn crop planted in 1814. Creeks 

abandoned Newyaucau and relocated to the 

refugee village at Tohopeka. 

Although the occupation of Newyaucau was 

brief (1777-1813), the remains of the Creek town 

survive in the archeological record. Historians note 

that the “large old fi eld” described by Hawkins 

indicates cattle herding, rangeland or crop 

cultivation. Archeology at Newyaucau uncovered 

a storage pit reused for trash and a smudge pit 

with Creek pottery, bottle glass, musket balls, 

metal artifacts, glass beads, and plant and animal 

materials.47 Ceramic analysis characterized the 

town as a “permanent, family-structured” Creek 

settlement.48 Later survey work identifi ed Dadeville 

ceramics and Archaic period artifacts. House sites 

and features identify Newyaucau, but additional 

archeology is needed to defi ne the boundaries and 

extent of the village. 

Red Sticks

The rise of the Red Sticks within the Creek 

confederacy was part of a religious and political 

revolt led by Tecumseh, who was known as the 

“Shawnee Prophet.” Combined with the pressures 

47 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 42.

48 Ibid., p. 48. 

of a declining deerskin trade, assimilation 

programs, and encroaching frontier settlement, the 

rise of the Red Stick movement began internally 

and ultimately created a sharp division within 

Creek society. The civil war that began among 

Muskogee groups soon became the impetus for 

the Creek War and led to Creek involvement in the 

War of 1812. 

The “Red Stick” name may have derived from 

the red talwas and the practice of counting sticks 

to determine the date to begin battle. The name 

may also refer to the red-painted clubs reserved 

for war. Some 7,000 to 9,000 dissenting Creeks 

joined together under the leadership of William 

Weatherford, known as Red Eagle, and the war 

leader Menawa to form the Red Stick faction. 

Benjamin Hawkins listed eight hostile towns on 

the Tallapoosa River, though factions of Red Sticks 

banded together from throughout the Creek 

territory.49

Red Sticks from the Upper Creek aligned with 

British interests while many Lower Creek led by 

William McIntosh opposed the war.50 As Red 

Stick factions coalesced, chiefs were overthrown, 

49 Ibid., p. 39. 

50 James W. Holland. Victory at the Horseshoe: Andrew 

Jackson and the Creek War. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: 

The University of Alabama Press, 1968. Revised and 

reprinted 2004. p. 37. 

FIGURE 4. Site of Creek towns along the Tallapoosa River near Horseshoe Bend. 

N

0 500 1000 2000

Feet

Newyaucau

Tohopeka

Tallapoosa River
14 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

animals slaughtered, and towns divided. The 

dissent became a true civil war in the Creek 

confederacy. 

Tecumseh 

The fi rst decade of the nineteenth century 

witnessed erratic weather, record temperatures, 

drought, and hurricanes. In the fall of 1811, the socalled Great Comet was visible around the world; 

and in the winter of 1811-1812, a series of four 

great earthquakes, ranging as high as 8.8 on the 

Richter scale, rocked the central Mississippi valley. 

Agricultural life made the Upper Creek acutely 

aware of the natural world and provoked new 

interpretations of these extreme events. The social 

and political changes within the Creek Nation 

coincided with these drastic natural events. 

In 1811, following the comet sighting, Tecumseh, a 

Shawnee with a Creek mother, and a skilled orator, 

traveled through the southeast exhorting the tribes 

to resistance and linking the appearance of the 

comet with a plan of retribution. The earthquakes 

provided additional proof to some of the tribes of 

the validity of Tecumseh’s arguments. Tecumseh 

connected the symbolic phenomenon with an 

urgency to rise up against the white man. This 

movement contributed to the revolt of the Red 

Sticks. 

Prior to Tecumseh’s tour, trade competition 

and the introduction of liquor and new disease 

aff ected many Creek.51 Tecumseh’s tour called for 

a renouncement of American ways and urged the 

Creek to discard farm implements and slaughter 

their livestock. He preached that horses and cows 

were the tools of white men and encouraged mass 

slaughtering of animals, even at the detriment of 

their food supply. 

Tecumseh proposed a unifi ed pan-Indian 

confederation and solidarity against the sedentary 

ways of the white settlers.52 He toured several 

towns spreading a message of confederacy and 

tried to convince the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and 

Choctaw to join the Red Sticks in revolt. Tecumseh 

believed revenge was necessary to reverse the 

civilization forced upon Indians by Benjamin 

51 John Sugden, “Tecumsah’s Tour of Indian Country, 

1811-1812” in American Indian Quarterly. Vol. 10, No. 

4, Autumn 1986. p. 275. 

52 Martin, p. 118. 

Hawkins, the United States government, and 

others.53

While historians credit the Red Stick revolt in part 

to Tecumseh and the natural phenomena of 1811-

1812, the causes of the Creek war remain complex. 

Tecumseh’s infl uence brought unity and political 

cooperation between the Shawnee and Creek 

as they faced westward expansion of the United 

States. The prophetic religion of Tecumseh gained 

support as Creek life changed. 54 His prophecy 

infl uenced the rebellion and brought attention to 

the religious beliefs of the Red Sticks. 

War of 1812 

The War of 1812, fought between the nascent 

United States and Britain, was considered by some 

to be the second war for independence. Following 

the American Revolution and the 1793 Treaty of 

Paris, tensions between the British and French 

escalated. The consequences of the Napoleonic 

Wars coupled with arguments over shipping fi nally 

led to war with the United States.55 The War of 

1812 had three fronts: warships at sea, land and 

naval battles in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence 

River, and Creek allies in the Old Southwest. 

The Creek War became part of a more complex, 

international struggle to preserve American liberty.

After 1803, naval loyalties were dictated by the 

war between Britain and France with each country 

pressuring the new United States to assist their 

cause. British ships forbade trade with neutrals and 

“impressed” U.S. sailors into service.56 American 

merchants struggled following an embargo in 1807 

and resisted joining the British to blockade the 

French. An invasion from Canada with the support 

of Indian alliances fully committed the United 

States to war with Britain. The years of expansion, 

accommodation, and confl ict after the revolution 

left many tribes in the midwest eager to support the 

British. On the American frontier, British, Spanish, 

and French settlers each used their infl uence to 

53 Holland, p. 7. 

54 Braund, Towns and Creek War, p. 37. 

55 “The Unfi nished Revolution” in The American 

Revolution: Lighting Freedom’s Flame. (http://www.nps.

gov/revwar/unfi nished_revolution/war_of_1812.html) 

Accessed June 3, 2010. 

56 Ibid. 
National Park Service 15

SITE HISTORY

pursue their rivalries and created alliances with 

individual tribes.57

The Creek War started as a Creek civil war, but 

became a fi ght between the United States and a 

portion of the Creek nation that related, in part, 

to the broader war. Tribal divisions caused by the 

pressures of westward-looking white settlers, the 

assimilation programs of Benjamin Hawkins and 

others, and Tecumseh’s campaign for a pan-Indian 

alliance helped infl uence the Red Sticks to revolt. 

Other related factors helped make the Creek 

War unavoidable, including a new Federal road 

connecting Augusta and New Orleans and the loss 

of hunting grounds as displaced tribes and clans 

encroached from the west and south. The multifaceted revolt merged into the already complex 

alliances fi ghting the United States. 

The general campaigns through the south did 

little to deter the Creek and only provoked more 

rebellion. The frontier expansion by Tennesseans 

and Georgians helped to incite mistrust and 

competition over land in the Creek Nation and 

threats of Spanish, Chickasaw, and Cherokee 

involvement furthered aggravated the divided 

Creeks. The British relied on Creek support and 

promised guns, ammunition, and aid to helpful 

groups.58 Their infl uence centered on Pensacola 

and Mobile. Overall, the tensions in the southeast 

became intertwined in the struggle between the 

United States and Europe. 

Federal Road

After the Louisiana Purchase, a federal road in 

the Old Southwest territory was proposed from 

Augusta, Georgia to the Port of New Orleans. 

The road, intended for the postal service, was to 

become a military highway similar to the Natchez 

Trace which connected Nashville, Tennessee and 

the Mississippi River. The Federal Road became a 

source of confl ict as the proposed route bisected 

Creek country and determined the location of 

factories and towns. The need for a reliable route 

of transportation for commerce and the protection 

of forts fell into line with the policies of the 

government.

57 Teaching with Historic Places, Horseshoe 

Bend. (http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/

lessons/54horseshoe/54facts1.htm)

58 Martin, p. 25. 

Burnt Corn Creek 

In February 1813, Creeks returning home 

from a visit with the Shawnee, misinformed 

that fi ghting had begun, killed white settlers.59

Those responsible were sentenced to death and 

executed. The Red Sticks retaliated by killing the 

executioners and destroying their villages and 

livestock.60 The unrest among Red Stick Creeks 

prompted a group to travel to Pensacola, the capital 

of Spanish-ruled West Florida, to trade for muchneeded weapons and ammunition in the summer 

of 1813. 

Peter McQueen and Jim Boy, known as High Head 

Jim, led the Red Sticks to Pensacola to obtain guns 

and supplies and while there, ransacked the home 

of James Cornell. They terrorized his servants and 

stole his wife to sell into slavery. After procuring 

arms, ammunition, and horses, the Red Sticks 

began their return trip home. An overnight stop 

at Burnt Corn Creek on July 26-27, 1813, brought 

a surprise attack by waiting settlers angry over 

the unjustifi ed killings. Colonel James Caller and 

a Mississippi militia of 180 men ambushed the 

Red Sticks. With their new provisions (100 horses 

carrying ammunition), they fought back and at one 

point during the fi ght the white settlers took the 

advantage. The Americans began dividing up the 

ammunition and guns until the Red Sticks fought 

back again, turning the tide of the battle.61

The battle at Burnt Corn Creek was a signifi cant 

victory for the Red Sticks and was considered the 

start of the violence of the Creek War. National 

focus remained on the Canadian front and the 

War of 1812, but news of the escalating hostility 

started to reach Washington. The fi ght at Burnt 

Corn Creek spread rumors of Red Stick activity 

throughout the Old Southwest and while most 

accounts were exaggerated, opposition among 

the Creek intensifi ed. The warring group began 

planning to overtake forts after their success at 

Burnt Corn Creek. 

59 Holland, p. 7.

60 Arthur F. Perkins. Boundary Investigation Report 

for Horseshoe Bend NMP (Proposed), National Park 

Service, 1957, p. 10. 

61 Frank L. Owsley, Jr. Struggle for the Borderlands: The 

Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans, 1812-1815.

Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1981. 

Reprinted, 2000. p. 30-33. 
16 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

Fort Mims 

The involvement of the U.S. in Indian aff airs 

escalated in the summer of 1813. A massacre at 

Fort Mims propelled the Creek War from a civil 

war between Creek factions to a war between 

the United States and the Red Sticks. A makeshift fort built by pioneer farmer Samuel Mims 

was located forty miles north of Mobile on Lake 

Tensaw in what was then part of Mississippi 

Territory. Construction of the fort began in July 

1813 to provide a small outpost for protection. Fort 

Mims was built for local white settlers, Indians, 

and slaves and viewed as a necessity in the wake of 

the fi ghting at Burnt Corn Creek.62 Major Daniel 

Beasley commanded a small militia of 120 men to 

guard the stockade fort, but Fort Mims remained 

poorly defended and uncompleted throughout the 

summer. 

The night of August 30, 1813, no patrols or watch 

were on duty and a gate was left open despite slaves 

at the fort warning of Red Stick activity in the area. 

Major Beasley sent 40 militia men to defend a post 

at Pierce’s Mill, one mile away.63 Meanwhile, the 

young slaves were whipped for giving a false report. 

Later that night, the Red Sticks attacked. 

62 Mary Ellen Cummings and Caroline Gebhard. “Treaties 

and Memorials: Interpreting Horseshoe Bend National 

Military Park: in The Public Historian, Vol. 18, No. 4. 

Representing Native American History, Autumn 1996. 

p.25. Some accounts include one hundred AfricanAmericans at Fort Mims. 

63 Owsley, p. 35.

William Weatherford (Red Eagle) led an organized 

assault with Paddy Welsh, a prophet leader of 

the Red Sticks. The approaching Indians entered 

through the open gate and diverted the fort 

residents, then captured the portholes to fi re 

into the interior of the fort. Maj. Beasley was 

shot during the raid, leaving the fort without a 

commanding offi cer. The settlers hid in and behind 

buildings, and held a partial wall of the fort as 

defense for part of the fi ght. The Red Sticks set fi re 

to the structures within Fort Mims, burning many 

women and children alive.64 Though the portholes 

behind the wall were occupied by Red Sticks, 

some missing posts allowed a few to escape.65 The 

massacre at Fort Mims killed the entire remaining 

population, women and children included. 

Graphic descriptions revealed the horror of the 

fi nal hold-out and eventual deaths of the Fort 

Mims settlers. 

The attack fueled fear and revenge among settlers 

in the area and enraged the nation after news of 

Fort Mims reached newspapers. The Red Sticks 

retreated to swampland in present Autauga 

County and expected a swift response from 

white settlers. The “retaliatory vengeance” was 

slow, but Andrew Jackson rallied troops.66 Fort 

Mims marked a new focus on the unrest in the Old 

Southwest and the start of national involvement in 

the Creek War. By the fall of 1813, the massacre at 

Fort Mims had triggered a coordinated, off ensive 

attack on Red Stick towns. 

In the late nineteenth century, Fort Mims 

contributed to the savage imagery associated with 

American Indians. The barbarous attack translated 

into a direct assault on Americans and became 

part of the popular consciousness and negative 

perception of Indians. The accounts and drawings 

from Fort Mims were some of the only period 

documents referenced by scholars and defi ned the 

historiography of the late nineteenth century. 

The Creek War

After Fort Mims, governors sent agents and scouts 

to gauge Indian alliances on the frontier. Red Sticks 

64 Ibid., p. 38. 

65 Owlsey says 20-40 of the 247 men women and children 

escaped. Holland suggests the number is between 30-

50. 

66 Nashville Whig, September 21, 1813. 

FIGURE 5. Depiction of the massacre at Fort Mims, 1813. The 

New York Public Library, Digital Gallery. (http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?809022) from Evert A. Duyckinck, History of the War for the Union: civil, military & naval.

New York: Johnson & Fry. Illustration by Alonzo Chappel. 
National Park Service 17

SITE HISTORY

tried to persuade the Chickasaw and Cherokee to 

join their revolt, but most sided with the United 

States. The government began coordinating armies 

across the region and enlisted loyal Indians for 

their cause. President James Madison appointed 

Major General Thomas Pinckney to lead the 

Tennessee and Georgia militias against the Red 

Sticks.67

The strategy of the United States following the 

attack at Fort Mims centered on the heart of Creek 

country. The Creek War was fought primarily in 

present-day Alabama and Mississippi, despite 

forays into hostile territory by neighboring militia. 

Four armies planned to attack the Red Sticks 

from opposing directions, moving toward the 

confl uence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. 

Georgia troops led by Major General John 

Floyd attacked from the southeast and the Third 

Regiment of U.S. Regulars with troops from 

the Mississippi Territory followed the Alabama 

River north. General John Cocke commanded 

an east Tennessee militia and Andrew Jackson 

67 Owsley, p. 43-45. Madison fi rst supported Governor 

David B. Mitchell of Georgia to lead the militia, but 

withdrew his support once Mitchell resigned his 

position as governor. Later, Pinckney oversaw all Creek 

War operations from his command of the Sixth military 

district. Brigadier General Thomas Flournoy controlled 

the Seventh military district from New Orleans which 

overlapped areas of Creek country. 

led troops from west Tennessee. Both Tennessee 

militias headed south with plans to merge under 

the command of Jackson. This strategy included 

building forts and roads as the armies advanced, 

meanwhile destroying Creek villages and crops 

along the way. The U.S. anticipated a quick defeat, 

but offi cial communication, supply shortages, and 

turnover delayed the campaigns.68

General Ferdinand Claiborne led the Mississippi 

militia and won a decisive skirmish fought 

between canoes in October 1813. His troops 

joined the Third Regiment in November to 

attack Holy Ground, the Creek village of William 

Weatherford.69 The campaign throughout the 

fall successfully captured towns and constructed 

U.S. forts along the lower Alabama River. More 

importantly, Claiborne separated the hostile Red 

Sticks from their Spanish allies in Pensacola. 

The Georgia militia under Maj. Gen. John Floyd 

struggled with inadequate rations, poor training, 

and an overturn in enlistments, but constructed 

Fort Mitchell on the lower Chattahoochee River 

in November 1813. The Georgians used the fort 

as a launching point and raided the countryside, 

burning Newyaucau and other towns, before 

fi ghting at Autosse in late November. Despite lastminute changes to the plan of attack, the American 

forces managed to disperse the Red Sticks near 

Calabee Creek. 

On January 27, 1814, the Red Sticks won the 

Battle of Calabee, another engagement along 

the creek. The Georgia militia returned to Fort 

Mitchell, worried the enemy would cut off their 

vital supply line.70 The invasions by the Georgian 

and Mississippian militias into Creek country 

encouraged the Red Sticks more than hindering 

them.71 They retreated back to Fort Mitchell where 

they once again suff ered from a lack of rations and 

expiring enlistments. Friendly Creeks threatened 

to join the hostile faction if the Georgians did not 

share their crops for winter. 

Andrew Jackson and the Tennessee militia 

provided the initial invading force after the attack 

on Fort Mims, supported by Col. John Coff ee’s 

68 Ibid., p. 44-45. 

69 Ibid., p. 45-48. 

70 Ibid., p.51-61. 

71 Holland, p.8. 

TENNESSEE

GEORGIA

WEST FLORIDA

MISSISSIPPI

TERRITORY

EAST

FLORIDA

UNITED STATES

SPANISH POSSESSION

Tallapoosa River

GULF OF MEXICO

Alabama River

Coosa River

Tennessee River

Talladega

Tallushatchee

Enitachopco Creek

TOHOPEKA/

HORSESHOE BEND

Emuckfau Creek

Calabee Creek

Fort Mims

Burnt Corn Creek

Autosee

RED

Hickory Ground

(Creek village) Tookabatcha

(Creek village)

Mobile

Pensacola

Huntsville

Fayetteville

Fort

Stoddert

Fort Jackson

Fort Williams

Fort Strother

Fort Deposit

0 100 Kilometers

0 100 Miles

North

Battles shown in

FIGURE 6. Creek War engagements. NPS map.
18 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

cavalry regiment of Tennessee volunteers. A call 

to arms in late September recruited almost 1,000 

men to Camp Good Exchange near Nashville. On 

October 4, Coff ee reached Huntsville and, amid 

rumors of attack, joined Jackson to march to Fort 

Deposit in present-day Lowndes County. Jackson 

planned to blaze a trail from Fort Deposit to the 

Coosa River and fought at Talladega on November 

9, 1813, earning a victory that almost ended the 

war. The Creek faction suff ered heavy losses and 

many escaped due to uncoordinated attacks by 

Maj. Gen. John Cocke’s East Tennessee division 

and a group of allied Cherokee. They returned to 

Fort Strother and could not follow up the Talladega 

victory. 

A misunderstanding between General Cocke and 

Andrew Jackson led to the Hillabee massacre and 

FIGURE 7. “A Map of the Battle Fought 27th March 1814, for Capt. Leonard L. Tarrants”. Reprinted with permission from the 

Alabama Department of Archives and History, Montgomery, Alabama.
National Park Service 19

SITE HISTORY

the consequences of that encounter in turn, led 

to the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. While Jackson 

negotiated peace with a faction of Red Sticks 

Cocke attacked Little Oakfuskee and Genalga, two 

Hillabee towns. On November 18, 1813, Cherokee 

soldiers led by Cocke captured hostile Creeks 

and burned over 100 houses.72 The timing of the 

attack-- during a meeting to discuss surrender--

outraged the Red Sticks. The Hillabee massacre 

forced the war to continue with new vengeance at 

Horseshoe Bend. 

Fort Strother 

In the late fall of 1813, Jackson returned to Fort 

Strother. His troops lacked supplies and became 

increasingly disobedient as military terms started to 

expire. Throughout the winter, Jackson dealt with 

“mutinous” ranks and mounting desertion. The 

old volunteers returned to Nashville, Tennessee, in 

December and troops from the Tennessee brigades 

returned home in January. 

After a winter of desertion and turnover, Jackson 

faced low morale. He warned, “any offi cer or 

solider who fl ies before the enemy without being 

compelled to do so by superior force...shall suff er 

death.”73

While Jackson stalled at Fort Strother between 

major campaigns, Georgian and Mississippian 

troops attacked at Tallasee and Autosee. Andrew 

Jackson and the U.S. militia attacked at Emuckfau 

Creek on Janaury 22, 1814, and routed a band of 

Red Sticks. Two days later at the Hillibee town of 

Enotochopco, they could not overtake the warring 

Creeks. After the two small battles, Jackson awaited 

reinforcements to begin a third campaign. He 

received new recruits and his attention turned 

toward Tohopeka. 

Battle of Horseshoe Bend 

Refugees from Oakfuskee, Oakehoga (Oakchaya), 

Newyaucau, Hillabee, Fish Pond and Eufalee 

(Eufaula) inhabited the village of Tohopeka several 

months before the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. 

Red Sticks joined from surrounding Upper Creek 

towns and built defenses. Menawa, the second 

chief of Oakfuskee and a military leader joined 

72 Owsley, p. 66. 

73 Holland, p. 22. 

the Red Sticks at Tohopeka. They did not evacuate 

women and children as was the common practice, 

suggesting they were ready to make a last stand.74

On the eve of the battle, around 1,350 Red Sticks 

and their families occupied Tohopeka. 

In December 1813, construction began on a log 

barricade. The Creeks built a fortifi cation that 

stretched 300-400 yards across the narrowest 

portion of the horseshoe-shaped peninsula, 

isolating Tohopeka at the southernmost tip. 

Jackson described the scene to Governor Willie 

Blount after the battle:

This bend resembles in its curvature that of a 

horse shoe, and is thence called by that name 

among the whites...Across the neck of land 

which leads into it from the North, they had 

erected a breast-work, of greatest compactness 

and strength—from fi ve to eight feet high, 

and prepared with double rows of port-holes 

very artfully arranged. The fi gure of this wall, 

manifested no less skill in the projectors of 

it, than its construction: an army could not 

approach it without being exposed to a double 

and cross fi re from the enemy who lay in perfect 

security behind it. The area of this peninsular, 

thus bounded by the breast-works includes, I 

conjecture eighty or a hundred acres.75

The occupation of a fortifi ed Tohopeka during 

the winter of 1813-1814 suggests the landscape 

was scoured of all available building material, 

food, and fi rewood prior to the battle. The cleared 

landscape in front of the barricade was likely 

74 Dickens, p. 54. 

75 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Gov. Willie Blount. Fort 

Williams, March 31, 1814. 

FIGURE 8. Artistic interpretation of Tohopeka. HOBE Archives.
20 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

dotted with stumps left from the removal of tree 

trunks used during its construction. No graphic 

descriptions of the breastwork survive; however, 

primary and secondary references illuminate 

some important similarities.76 The standard Creek 

defensive construction was not unique to this 

battle; however, it may have been a legacy of the 

Mississippian period.77 No archival documentation 

remains from Tohopeka leading up to the Battle of 

Horseshoe Bend. 

Jackson’s scouts determined the breastworks, 

which had been too strong to break through 

during their campaign in January, was the point 

of attack. From Fort Strother, Jackson prepared 

to advance on Tohopeka. Governor Blount and 

Judge Hugh Lawson White sent the U.S. 39th 

76 MacKenzie, p. 38. Gregory A. Waselkov, A 

Reinterpretation of the Creek Indian Barricade at 

Horseshoe Bend, Unpublished. p. 101. Park archives. 

Period maps note the zigzag form of the barricade 

and a written account mentions “fi ve large logs with 

two ranges of port holes”. Waselkov concludes the 

barricade protected the Red Sticks from the front and 

rear and the front wall consisted of a single row of 

horizontal laid logs with clay chinking and two rows 

of portholes. Fraising further defended the front 

barricade and a trench and logs reinforced a bank of 

earth along the southern edge. 

77 Long Range Interpretative Plan, Horseshoe Bend 

National Military Park, April 2004. 

Regiment, previously bound for New Orleans, to 

Fort Strother under the command of Colonel John 

Williams. 

The troops amassed at Fort Williams prior to 

the battle under Andrew Jackson’s command. A 

combined force with allied Creek and Cherokee 

soldiers began staging on March 24, 1814. A third 

of Jackson’s force was mounted. The 52-mile 

march from Fort Williams through the wilderness 

began two days later. Jackson’s men marched to 

within six miles of the bend and set up camp in a 

square with brush and trees as a crude, defensive 

wall. 

On March 27, 1814, the army set out at 6:30 

in the morning. Rumors circulated that other 

Oakfuskees would attack and John Coff ee led 700 

mounted soldiers and 600 Indians (500 Cherokee, 

100 friendly Creek) to cross the river two miles 

below the bend at an island ford. This detachment 

included William Russell’s spies and was meant 

“to surround the bend in such a manner, as that 

none of them should escape by attempting to cross 

the river.”78 The troops then turned upstream 

to prevent any retreating Creek from crossing 

near the bend. Coff ee lined a mounted brigade a 

quarter-mile from the river as a defense. To the 

east, Captain Eli Hammond’s men posted along 

the river and to the west of the allied Indians. 

Surrounding the Red Sticks was a priority, though 

rumors of attacks from other towns left a portion 

of Coff ee’s men pointed south defending against 

attack. 

Lieutenant Jesse Bean occupied the island due west 

of the peninsula in the Tallapoosa River. Gen. John 

Coff ee reported on the battle:

I ordered Lieutenant Bean to take possession 

of the Island below with forty men, to prevent 

the enemy’s taking refuge there, which was 

executed with promptitude, and which had a 

very happy eff ect, as many of the enemy did 

attempt their escape to the Island, but not one 

ever landed, they were sunk by Leut. Beans 

command ere they reached the bank and that 

few was killed the instant they landed—79

78 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Maj. Gen. Thomas 

Pinckney. Battleground, March 28, 1814. 

79 Brig. Gen. John Coffee to Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson. 

Fort Williams, April 1, 1814. 

FIGURE 9. Battle of Tohopeka from John Frost, An illuminated history of North America, from the earliest period to 

the present time. New York, 1856. New York Public Library 

Digital Gallery (http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/

id?808943)
National Park Service 21

SITE HISTORY

Jackson hoped to fi x his enemy, then attack. He led 

2,000 infantry and a small battery of one threepounder and one six-pounder gun to a small hill 

north of the barricade. By mid-morning, he began 

to fi re at the fortifi ed breastworks, continuing for 

two hours: 

...at half past ten oclock A.M. [sic] I had 

planted my artillery on a small eminence, 

distant from its nearest point about eighty 

yards, and from its farthest, about two hundred 

and fi fty; from whence I immediately opened a 

brisk fi re upon its centre.80

The cannon, fi red from the elevation known today 

as Gun Hill, was unsuccessful at breaking the 

fortifi ed defense. Meanwhile, several men swam 

across the river and took dugout canoes from 

the barricaded Red Sticks. A group of Cherokee 

started swimming across the 120 yard stretch of 

the Tallapoosa River and were soon followed by 

Captain William Russell’s spies, Colonel Gideon 

Morgan and his men, Major John Walker, and 

thirty others. The canoes were used to ferry 

Coff ee’s men across the river to attack Tohopeka 

directly. Gen. Coff ee described Jackson’s artillery 

from across the river:

The fi ring of your cannon and small arms in a 

short time became general and heavy, which 

animated our Indians, and seeing about one 

hundred of the Warriors and all the squaws 

and children of the enemy running about 

among the huts of the village, which was open 

to our view, they could no longer remain silent 

spectators...81

Captain Eli Hammond’s company of rangers 

moved to the east and defended the riverbank 

opposite Tohopeka. As the Cherokee and others 

attacked and burned Tohopeka, the heaviest 

fi ghting moved north to the high ground in the 

center of the peninsula. During this rear attack, the 

Red Sticks suff ered severely. There is no written 

record of the Red Stick defense. The turning 

point of the battle occurred as the Cherokee 

and spies advanced toward the breastwork from 

Tohopeka and Jackson began a direct charge to the 

south. Coff ee repositioned his forces to continue 

defending the south side of the river. He reserved 

80 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Gov. Willie Blount. Fort 

Williams, March 31, 1814.

81 Brig. Gen. John Coffee to Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson. 

Fort Williams, April 1, 1814.

a portion of his men for the possibility of an 

Oakfuskee attack. 

Jackson began a frontal assault at 12:30 pm. A 

drum roll prompted a surge forward by militia 

from East and West Tennessee. Men “hailed...with 

acclamation” the call to storm the breastworks and 

the U.S. 39th Regiment advanced.82

“...the militia accompanied them in the charge 

with a vivacity and fi rmness which could not 

have been exceeded and has seldom been 

equaled by troops of any description...Having 

maintained for a few minutes a very obstinate 

contest, muzzle to muzzle, through the portholes, in which many of the enemy’s balls were 

welded to the bayonets of our musquets [sic], 

our troops succeeded in gaining possession of 

the opposite side of the works.”83

When the 39th fi nally breeched the barricade, 

the close-range crossfi re became hand to hand 

combat. Sam Houston received an arrow wound to 

the thigh and two rifl e balls entered his shoulder. 

82 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Maj. Gen. Thomas 

Pinckney. Battleground, March 28, 1814.

83 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Gov. Willie Blount. Fort 

Williams, March 31, 1814.

FIGURE 10. Menawa, a Creek warrior, 1837. McKenney and 

Hall. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress. 

Reproduction # LC-USZC4-2952.
22 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

FIGURE 11. Cheatham map, National Archives and Record Administration.
National Park Service 23

SITE HISTORY

FIGURE 12. William Carroll map. Reprinted with permission from the Alabama Department of Archives and History, 

Montgomery, Alabama.
24 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

Major Lemuel P. Montgomery lost his life amid 

arrows, spears, tomahawks, swords, and gunfi re. 

The dual-sided attack raged throughout the 

afternoon until the fi ghting ended around 3:30 

pm. Though heavy fi ghting tapered off , the fi ring 

and slaughter continued until it was suspended by 

darkness. The features standing at the time of the 

battle, namely the breastworks and structures at 

Tohopeka, were burned after the battle. 

Some accounts of the battle include details of Red 

Sticks hiding in caves near Tohopeka along the 

FIGURE 13. Andrew Jackson map of the “Battle of Tehopiska [sic]” from the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, 1814. Reprinted with 

permission from The Tennessee Historical Society.
National Park Service 25

SITE HISTORY

Tallapoosa River. Jackson described the morning 

after the battle, “...we continued to destroy many 

of them who had concealed themselves under the 

banks of the river until we were prevented by the 

night....we killed 16 who had been concealed.”84 In 

the 1970s, archeologists investigated potential cave 

sites, but did not locate any area that warranted 

further exploration.85

The Red Stick casualties were overwhelming. 

Monahee and two other prophets were killed and 

many others were driven into the river.86 Menawa, 

leader of the Red Sticks, was injured on the 

battlefi eld, but escaped by canoe later that night. 

His name, Hothlepoya, meant Crazy War Hunter 

and he was shot several times and left for dead 

before fl eeing to the river after the battle ended. 

The American side took roughly 300-350 women 

and children as prisoners from the battlefi eld.87

The survivors joined Major William McIntosh to 

return to Big Warrior River, though most went to 

Huntsville with friendly Creeks. The offi cial count 

of the Red Stick casualties was 557 dead; but may 

have been as high as 800.88

Jackson lost 49 men at Horseshoe Bend and the 

battle left 154 wounded. The Cherokees fi ghting 

with the U.S. troops suff ered 18 killed and 36 

wounded and the allied Creek fi ve killed and 

eleven wounded. The attack on the barricade 

led by the 39th Regiment resulted in the most 

casualties, with seventeen killed and 55 wounded.89

After the battle, Horseshoe Bend was abandoned. 

The outcome of the battle refl ected the three-toone disadvantage faced by the Red Sticks and the 

advantages the additional U.S. troops, allies, and 

artillery provided. The river, intended as an escape, 

became a trap for the rebelling Creek warriors.

84 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Maj. Gen. Thomas 

Pinckney. Battleground, March 28, 1814.

85 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 8. 

86 “I feel warranted in saying that from two hundred & 

fi fty to three hundred of the enemy was buried under 

water and was not numbered with the dead that was 

found –“ Brig. Gen. John Coffee to Maj. Gen. Andrew 

Jackson. Fort Williams, April 1, 1814.

87 Early nineteenth-century warfare, particularly on the 

frontier remained different than the Civil War or even 

modern warfare. Only women and children were taken 

prisoner. 

88 Holland, p.27. 

89 Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson to Gov. Willie Blount. Fort 

Williams, March 31, 1814.

At 7 pm, Gen. John Coff ee marched his troops 

north to the site of Newyaucau and crossed the 

Tallapoosa River west of the former Creek village. 

The reunited army then left the battlefi eld and 

returned to Fort Williams by the afternoon of 

March 31. At Fort Williams, Jackson, Coff ee, and 

others reported to Governor Blount, corresponded 

with loved ones, and documented the battle. The 

maps and letters from the days immediately after 

the Battle of Horseshoe Bend provide the primary 

American documentation of the events. The offi cial 

account of the battle is uniform in detail from all 

of Jackson’s men, and noted scholar Braund points 

out that the control of information may have led 

to the glorifi cation and justifi cation of Jackson’s 

actions. 

Documentation

Several maps survive from the period immediately 

following the battle and convey the spatial 

organization of the cultural landscape.90 A 

comparison of historic maps identifi es similar 

details of the battle, yet refl ects diff erent 

perspectives. These historic representations denote 

Tohopeka, the breastworks, battle lines, and the 

Tallapoosa River and provide valuable information 

for the understanding of the Battle of Horseshoe 

Bend.

90 Historic research included a citation of an unpublished 

sketch map of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend of 

Tallapoosa River, 27th March 1814 by Robert Houston 

McEwen located at the Library of Congress. A map by 

Hugh Ervin is held by the Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History (MA98.0171 (a)).

FIGURE 14. Treaty with the Creeks,1814, published 1847. 

New York Public Library Digital Gallery (http://digitalgallery.

nypl.org/nypldigital/id?808965)
26 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

A map attributed to John A. Cheatham (Figure 11), 

a topographical engineer, illustrates the positions 

of Jackson’s men including the approaches, camp 

site, and previous battleground along Emuckfau 

Creek. Cheatham included a narrative explanation 

on his map noting “the hill from which the 

cannon played upon the enemy works” as well as 

representations of the “high broken Piney ridge 

and broken ground, between which and the river 

is [borl?] fl at land”. Dotted lines “represent our 

men drawn up in line of battle at diff erent points” 

and “Indian huts and village, all of which was 

[sic] new.” The map also delineates the retreat of 

General Coff ee after the battle and the site of New 

Youka [sic] Village. The Cheatham map represents 

Tohopeka with thirty evenly spaced squares in 

fi ve parallel lines at the end of the peninsula. The 

breastwork has two straight ends with a concave 

angle to the south. 

J. L. Holmes produced a color map for Capt. 

Leonard L. Tarrants that detailed the horseshoe 

peninsula.91 The illustration notes features 

including, “a craggy [line?] of hills” surrounding 

the peninsula on the south side of the Tallapoosa 

River and the artillery position known today as 

Gun Hill. The map stylizes troop positions, with 

a bold line marking the front guard, and double 

lines marking the 39th Reg. U.S. Inf., the E. & 

W. Tennessee militia, and the rear guard, all led 

by Jackson. A dotted line denotes the route of 

Gen. Coff ee’s brigade of horsemen that crossed 

the river southwest of the battlefi eld and circled 

back to occupy the riverbank south of the site of 

Newyaucau. The map represents the “old town” 

and Tohopeka with a series of small ovals. A “small 

creek” is noted across the river from the Tohopeka 

and another dotted line marks the crossing site of 

the attack from Russell’s spies and the Cherokees. 

The breastworks on the map show an angled 

barricade, curving slightly toward Tohopeka with a 

bold black line. This information confi rms written 

accounts described by Andrew Jackson and other 

post-battle maps. The Holmes map generally marks 

the position of the Red Sticks with a scattered 

arrangement of red dots and dashes south of the 

barricade. Immediately behind the breastwork, the 

Red Sticks force appears concentrated. 

91 The boundary report for Horseshoe Bend refers to 

this map as the Coffee map, but no documentation 

supports this label. The map is scaled 400 yards to an 

inch. 

A map by Col. William Carroll (Figure 12) marked 

the positions of the Unites States troops on a 

scaled map (200 yards to an inch). Although 

the Carroll map incorrectly labels Tohopeka as 

“New Yauca” the notations provide a timeline of 

events corresponding to troop positions. The fi rst 

position, some 400 yards north of the barricade, 

was held for two hours and a second position, 

300 yards from the defense, was held for one-anda-half hours. The map notes the third position 

directly in front of the barricade was held for eight 

minutes. The locations of two artillery guns west 

of the second battle line are sketched as intricate 

cannons on the map. Wheels, carriages, and smoke 

are drawn in detail. 

A map without an identifi able author, commonly 

referred to as the Jackson map (Figure 13), 

numerically marks landscape features and troop 

positions. The map depicts the peninsula in 

the Tallapoosa River with dashed lines to mark 

the positions of the Coff ee cavalry, Cherokees, 

advanced guard, regulars, Col. Copeland, East 

Tennessee militia, Col. Cheatham, and the rear 

guard. The map notes the Emuckfau Creek 

battleground, Newyaucau, and the “Indian 

Village” (Tohopeka) with clusters of triangles. An 

additional feature of the Battle of Tehopiska [sic] 

map not shown on other period maps is a cluster 

of squares to the rear of the regular troop position 

representing wagons, pack horses, and the location 

of the wounded. 

After the Battle

After the battle, the destruction of Red Stick towns 

continued as many men kept fi ghting, unsure 

that the war was over. A few hostile groups held 

out for months, despite the loss at Horseshoe Bend.

Red Stick leaders were left to surrender Creek 

leadership and face certain death, surrender to 

Jackson and face certain death, or fl ee to Florida.92 

Many were ready to fi ght again at Hickory Ground, 

until Jackson led men to the banks of Coosa River 

only to fi nd the Red Sticks fl eeing to Pensacola. 

The Red-Stick Creek had no towns to return to 

and many foraged an empty landscape and hid in 

cane swamps. Famine was widespread and refugees 

burdened existing Lower Creek towns and Spanish 

Florida. Andrew Jackson noted the “misery and 

92 Braund, Towns, p. 50. 
National Park Service 27

SITE HISTORY

wretchedness” of the remaining Creeks. In 1825, 

the government reported only 37 Upper Creek 

towns and 18 Lower Creek towns.93 The impact of 

war on the Creek Nation is still little interpreted at 

the park.94

On April 15, 1814, Georgia troops arrived to secure 

Creek territory. General Pinckney and Benjamin 

Hawkins sent Tennessee troops back to Fort 

Williams and were designated to negotiate a treaty. 

Pinckney maintained open lines of communication 

between Tennessee and Fort Jackson and quashed 

any isolated uprisings from bands of Red Sticks in 

the area. 

Treaty of Fort Jackson 

On August 9, 1814, following the surrender of Red 

Sticks at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, General 

Jackson signed the Treaty of Fort Jackson. Known 

as “Mad Dog Jackson” or “Old Mad Jackson” 

during the Creek War, the success at Horseshoe 

Bend resulted in Jackson’s appointment to the U.S. 

army. The promotion of Andrew Jackson allowed 

the treaty, previously delegated to Pinckney and 

Hawkins, to be negotiated under his command. 

The treaty re-established peace between the Creeks 

and the U.S. and transferred over 20 million acres 

of “unsettled” Creek land to the government. 

93 Ibid., p. 56. 

94 Long Range Interpretive Plan, Horseshoe Bend NMP, 

Harpers Ferry Center, National Park Service, April 2004, 

p. 35. 

The articles of the treaty included the cession of 

an L-shaped tract of land between Georgia and the 

present Mobile, Alabama, and stipulated the new 

boundary of the Creek Nation. Other provisions 

included the U.S. demand that Creek must not 

communicate with any British or Spanish outpost 

or garrison and must return all persons and 

property to the government. The treaty stipulated 

that the U.S. could establish federal roads, 

military posts, and trading houses. A condition of 

surrender allowed Creeks to use the existing corn 

crop in the fi elds. 

The Treaty of Fort Jackson brought an offi cial 

end to the Creek War. Though the Fort Mims 

attack expanded a civil war into one with national 

consequences, the war remained defi ned by the 

struggles within the Creek Nation. Before the war 

ended, Jackson went on to defi ne his career as a 

military leader in New Orleans. The War of 1812 

did not end until the signing of the Treaty of Ghent 

in December 1814, and the outcome of the Creek 

War helped infl uenced negotiations, giving U.S. 

bargaining terms.95

The Legacy of Andrew Jackson 

The Battle of Horseshoe Bend ended the major 

fi ghting of the Creek War and established Andrew 

Jackson’s military reputation. Based on the victory 

at Horseshoe Bend and successful signing of the 

Treaty of Fort Jackson, President James Madison 

promoted Jackson to Major General of the 

(southern) 7th Military District. His subsequent 

command and defeat of the British at the Battle of 

95 Martin, p. 17. 

FIGURE 16. Detail of the 1906 Dadeville USGS quad map.

FIGURE 15. Engraving of the Treaty of Fort Jackson depicting Andrew Jackson and William Weatherford. Reprinted 

with permission from the Alabama Department of Archives 

and History, Montgomery, Alabama.
28 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

New Orleans on January 8, 1815, brought fame and 

a national political career. The war hero legacy of 

Horseshoe Bend and New Orleans helped elevate 

Andrew Jackson to his national post, despite no 

formal military education. These early successes of 

Jackson shaped the postwar perspective on the War 

of 1812. In 1829, he became the seventh President 

of the United States. 

Jackson’s strained relationship with southeastern 

Indians begun during the Creek War continued 

during his presidency. Between 1816 and 

1840, tribes including Cherokees, Chickasaws, 

Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminoles, signed more 

than 40 treaties with the U.S. ceding their land. 

Jackson set a policy during his inaugural address in 

1829 to relocate eastern Indians and the following 

year the Indian Removal Act passed Congress. 

Between 1830 and 1850, about 100,000 American 

Indians living east of the Mississippi moved west. 

Through a combination of coerced treaties and 

military force, the U.S. Army brutally relocated 

Creeks, Cherokee and others to a new home in 

Oklahoma. An estimated 3,500 Creeks died in 

Alabama alone on their westward journey.96

Alabama

Just fi ve years after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, 

Alabama became a state. The Creek land cession 

by the Treaty of Fort Jackson comprised threefi fths of the new state.97 In 1837, the removal of 

Creeks had begun, though settlers from Tennessee, 

Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina began populating the state while it was 

still a territory. Initially, settlers farmed land near 

former Creek towns along major rivers and sent 

crops to Mobile and Apalachicola, Florida, to 

sell in European markets. Soils in the Piedmont 

attracted settlement along the Tallapoosa in the 

1830s and, similar to Georgia, a pattern of small, 

isolated farms defi ned the area. In the nineteenth 

century, the success of cotton transformed the size 

and character of many farms in Alabama. 

A ferry operated across the Tallapoosa River 

connecting the road network near the former 

battlefi eld. An 1885 map identifi es Glenns Ferry at 

the site of the present-day Highway 49 crossing, yet 

96 http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/outline/09-beyond/

index.htm

97 Resource Management Plan, p. 1. 

shows a road only on the north side of the river.98 

The Miller family began operating the ferry around 

this time and continued to do so until a bridge was 

constructed in 1908, spanning the river just north 

of the bend. The historic road leading to the ferry 

remains as an elevated roadbed in the fl oodplains 

and a sunken road trace in the uplands. 

During the nineteenth century, central Alabama 

supported a variety of agricultural crops with 

cotton the dominant state crop prior to the Civil 

War and continuing to lead agricultural markets 

until the Second World War. “The Cotton State” 

cultivated almost four million acres of cotton in 

the 1800s. Alabama continued growing cotton 

despite the introduction of the boll weevil in 1911, 

though emphasis shifted to agricultural education 

98 Allin and Prentice, Trip Report on Site Condition 

Assessments, SEAC Acc. 2566, August 2012. Draft. p. 64. 

FIGURE 18. Vickers family at Miller ferry on the Tallapoosa 

River. HOBE Archives. 

FIGURE 17. Detail from Tallapoosa County map, 1885. Courtesy of the Prentice and Allen report, SEAC. 
National Park Service 29

SITE HISTORY

and scientifi c studies to help with the pest’s 

eradication.99

Sharecropping and tenant farming replaced 

enslaved labor after the Civil War. In 1910, tenant 

farmers and sharecroppers operated almost sixty 

percent of the 5,000 farms in the area of Horseshoe 

Bend.100 A recent archeological survey uncovered 

over sixteen new sites in the park, many of which 

are historic homesteads, moonshine stills, or 

chimney ruins.101

The Tallapoosa fl oodplains yielded wheat and oats 

in addition to corn and cotton.102 In the 1930s, 

terracing became popular and the Tallapoosa 

County Terracing Association formed to defray 

99 Encyclopedia of Alabama: Agriculture in Alabama, 

(http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.

jsp?id=h-1396), accessed October 27, 2011. 

100 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 37. 

101 Allin and Prentice, Trip Report on Site Condition 

Assessments, p. 1-3. Historic maps from 1906 and 1909 

helped focus archeological investigations.

102 Park staff suggested cane may have been grown near 

the maintenance building. Conversation with Ove 

Jenson, May 5, 2010.

the individual costs to farmers.103 Fire changed 

the immediate landscape and new pine seedlings 

replaced lost timberlands. 

Beyond agricultural crops, products related to 

industry provided jobs to many in central Alabama. 

Textile mills in Alexander City and Tallasee 

employed many before the boll weevil arrived. 

The Horseshoe Bend landscape was mined for 

sand and gravel in the twentieth century and when 

the park was established, twenty acres of land 

were planted in corn and cotton and a gravel pit 

remained at the site.104

Miller Bridge

The construction of Miller Bridge began in May 

1907, connecting the riverbanks of the Tallapoosa 

at the site of Miller ferry. Until the bridge was 

constructed, the ferry was the only connection 

between Dadeville and New Site. The bridge, 

which was set on stone piers and had a 

103 MacKenzie, p. 21. 

104 Mission 66 Master Plan, Foreword.

FIGURE 19. 1938 aerial of Horseshoe Bend. HOBE Archives. Note the extent of cleared land on and adjacent to the peninsula.
30 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

wooden, covered span, retained the Miller name. 

Nora E. Miller owned the ferry landing site and 

contributed to the eff ort to improve the road from 

Horseshoe Bend to Dadeville. Miller, a member 

of the Alabama Good Roads Association, raised 

money and support as part of a statewide campaign 

and later received recognition for her role.105 W. H. 

Wynn and his son Will built the bridge for $13,896 

utilizing stones from the north riverbank to create 

fi ve piers. Locally harvested heart pine timber 

formed the lattice town truss and since nails were 

costly, 1600 wooden pegs were used in the bridge. 

The Miller Bridge included weatherboards and a 

wood shingle roof. At the time of its construction, 

the bridge spanning 858’ was the longest covered 

bridge in Alabama. A tin roof replaced the shingles 

at some point and despite plans to possibly restore 

the failing bridge, it collapsed on June 23, 1963.106

Commemoration of the Battle

In 1907, the Alabama state legislature formed 

a commission to commemorate the Battle of 

Horseshoe Bend. Led by the governor, Braxton 

Bragg Comer, the Horseshoe Bend Battle 

Commission petitioned Congress to establish 

a military park and erect a monument on the 

battlefi eld.107 The commission began preparations 

for the centennial, and in 1909, recommended a 

memorial to Congress in lieu of a military park.108

105 Ibid. 

106 Park fi les, Miller Bridge folder. 

107 Thomas Martin. The Story of Horseshoe Bend National 

Military Park, 1959. p. 5. 

108 Ceremonies Attending the Sesquicentennial of the 

Battle of Horseshoe Bend and Dedication of the Park 

Visitor Center, Friday March 27, 1964. Denver Service 

Center eTIC, 407/D29,p 36. 

The planned Horseshoe Bend centennial coincided 

with the broader movement of battlefi eld 

preservation. Battlefi elds were preserved as 

hallowed places and monuments were constructed 

to commemorate the historic events. Preservation 

aimed at marking signifi cant sites and developing 

a coherent cultural identity in American history.109 

During the battle anniversary, the Daughters of 

1812 placed a granite monument, the fi rst placed 

on-site that commemorates the signifi cance of 

the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. In August 1918, 

the Alabama legislature authorized $5,000 for the 

marker and placed the Congressional monument at 

Gun Hill. At some point prior to the establishment 

of the park, the Congressional monument 

was enclosed in a chain-link fence to prevent 

vandalism.110

The centennial held at Horseshoe Bend on July 

4, 1914, marked a state-wide celebration with 

distinguished speakers, tours, and a mock battle 

between the 52th Alabama State Militia Company 

G from Opelika and Company H from Alexander 

City. A committee arranged transportation to 

avoid damage to the state highway and the crowd 

numbered between 8,000 and 10,000. Some 2,000 

people camped on the battlefi eld in the shade of 

the hardwood trees.111 Judge Clinton Coley, who 

went on to help establish the park, attended the 

centennial ceremony as a young boy.112

Alabama Power 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (NMP) 

was established as a direct result of a threat to 

the cultural landscape. Alabama Power began 

purchasing property along the Tallapoosa River 

in the early 1920s in hopes of damming the river 

downstream to create a hydroelectric plant. The 

power company received a license from the Federal 

Power Commission to create a dam which would 

have fl ooded the entire peninsula of Horseshoe 

109 National Register Bulletin 40. P. 3. 

110 Arthur F. Perkins. Boundary Investigation Report 

for Horseshoe Bend NMP (Proposed), National Park 

Service, 1957. Appendix III, Illustration 2. September 3, 

1956.

111 Paul Ghioto, Centennial Celebration of the Battle of 

Horseshoe Bend, August 1978. Park fi les.

112 Ceremonies, p. 1-4. 

FIGURE 20. Construction of MIller covered bridge, c.1907. 

HOBE Archives.
National Park Service 31

SITE HISTORY

Bend and saved only the elevated ground near the 

monuments.113

Thomas W. Martin, President of the Alabama 

Power Company, visited the battlefi eld in 1923 and 

halted the project, recommending preservation of 

the battlefi eld. Through Alabama Power Company, 

he cancelled licenses with the Federal Power 

Commission and the Alabama Public Service 

Commission.114 In June 1955, Martin formed a 

non-profi t corporation and soon the Horseshoe 

Bend Battle Park Association launched eff orts to 

establish a national military park. 115 

The power company owned 560 acres centered 

on the horseshoe peninsula and Horseshoe 

Bend Battle Park Association worked with the 

state to acquire the surrounding tracts. The 5.1-

acre plot previously donated by Nora E. Miller 

for the monuments was added to land holdings 

for the potential park. All land assembled by 

Alabama Power was donated to the United States 

government. 

Other improvements in Tallapoosa County 

occurred during the preservation eff ort. A modern 

concrete bridge was constructed in 1955 to replace 

the covered Miller Bridge. The improvement 

to local highways helped bring tourism to the 

battlefi eld.

113 Martin, p. 6.

114 Ceremonies, p. 31. 

115 Ibid., p. 18. 

Establishment of the Park 

An Act of Congress on July 25, 1956, established 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park on the 

Tallapoosa River. The chosen boundary protected 

the historic core battlefi eld, allowed for a scenic 

background, and included land for necessary park 

facility buildings. A boundary report described the 

park as, “wooded with 20 some acres of the higher 

plateau in cultivated fi elds of corn and cotton. The 

forest is a mixed pine and hardwood regeneration, 

with a rather dense cover of hardwoods and brush, 

including vines and brambles, in the lower fl ood 

plain.”116 The report mentions a large scar, several 

acres in size, left from a gravel pit operation and 

the need for vista clearing to restore the battlefi eld 

appearance.117 A Presidential Proclamation by 

Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 offi cially created the 

park.

The dedication ceremony of Horseshoe Bend 

NMP occurred during the sesquicentennial of 

the battle on March 27, 1964. The ceremony to 

dedicate the visitor center featured distinguished 

speakers from Horseshoe Bend Battle Park 

Association, the National Park Service, the Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians, and the Cherokee Nation. 

Alabama Congressman Albert Rains represented 

the Horseshoe Bend Battle Park Association to 

honor Chairman Thomas Martin, Thomas D. 

Russell, C. J. Coley and the other trustees for their 

commitment to creating the park. Elbert Cox, the 

116 Perkins, p. 1. 

117 Ibid., p. 2, 6. The park boundaries encompassed Section 

13, 14, 15, 22, and 23, Township 23 north, Range 23 

east and a few adjacent acres. 

FIGURE 22. Crowd at dedication ceremony in Ceremonies. 

DSC eTIC, 407/D29. p. 20. 

FIGURE 21. Construction of Highway 49 bridge next to 

Miller covered bridge, c. 1955. HOBE Archives. 
32 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

NPS Southeast Regional Director, addressed the 

crowd: 

In fact this commemoration will go on and 

on, from day to day, from year to year, in the 

unfolding development and operation of this 

Park. For Horseshoe Bend National Military 

Park is a dedicated place—with special meaning 

for those who cherish the American heritage of 

liberty and freedom.

At the time Horseshoe Bend was established, other 

War of 1812 sites were also being preserved. The 

Chalmette Monument, begun in 1840 but not 

completed until 1908, commemorated Andrew 

Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans.118 A 

monument to Oliver Hazard Perry commemorating 

the Battle of Lake Erie was completed in 1915. 

These sites today are part of Jean Lafi tte National 

Historical Park and Preserve and Perry’s Victory 

118 LCS ID 021368. 

and International Peace Memorial, respectively. 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park is the only 

NPS site to preserve the site of a major battle of the 

Creek War. The Alabama Historical Commission 

owns and operates Fort Toulouse/Fort Jackson 

near Wetumpka and in partnership with the Fort 

Mims Restoration Association operates the Fort 

Mims site.119

In 1963, the Miller Bridge collapsed and the 

wooden sections were removed. The bridge piers 

remain in place and were included in the historic 

district later designated in 1976. In the early 

planning of the park, recommendations included 

a parking pull-off for visitors interested in the old 

covered bridge remains.120

119 Alabama Historical Commission (http://preserveala.org/

fortmims). 

120 Perkins, p.6. 

FIGURE 23. Aerial of Horseshoe Bend peninsula and the Tallapoosa River, c.1960s. HOBE Archives. Note the agricultural use of 

the peninsula, the pattern of forested vegetation, and the system of farm roads. 
National Park Service 33

SITE HISTORY

Mission 66 

Horseshoe Bend NMP became part of the national 

park system amid Mission 66, a ten-year capital 

improvement program that brought new roads, 

trails, and utilities. After the Second World War, 

unprecedented numbers of Americans visited 

national parks. This heavy visitation, combined 

with an extended period of low Congressional 

funding, prompted the NPS to propose a capitalimprovement program that coincided with its 

fi ftieth anniversary. The Mission 66 initiative 

modernized and expanded facilities, prompting 

construction of new visitor centers, campgrounds, 

comfort stations, maintenance buildings, and 

employee residences to upgrade poor conditions 

and meet the demands of the postwar era. 121

The expansion of the park system in the 1950s 

included several historical areas. Underrepresented themes, including the nineteenthcentury Battle of Horseshoe Bend, were added 

to the system during Mission 66. This was part of 

121 Ethan Carr. Mission 66: Modernism and the 

National Park Dilemma. Amherst, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Press, 2007. p. 3-15.

a larger trend to diversify the story of American 

history represented at park service sites. While 

many existing parks also received new plans, the 

Horseshoe Bend Master Plan: Mission 66 Edition

remains the sole planning document of the park.122 

The Mission 66 plan for Horseshoe Bend 

NMP identifi ed the condition of the newly 

established park and outlined plans for a new 

visitor center, three interpretive shelters, roadway 

signs, an ethno-botanical trail, park housing, 

and a maintenance area.123 The master plan 

limited visitor amenities to those “essential and 

necessary” and did not include proposals for a 

campground, picnic ground, or concessionaire. A 

122 Carr, p. 321. A 1992 Resource Management Plan for 

Horseshoe Bend (407/D13) addressed the status of 

cultural and natural resource management. 

123 Mission 66, Vol. I, Chp. 1, p. 8. The shelters were to be 

located at Jackson’s artillery position on the hill, the 

“toe” of the horseshoe and site of the Indian village, 

and the site of the breastworks where Maj. Lemuel 

Montgomery lost his life. These shelters were to tie 

into other exhibits and markers at the park. NPS policy 

stated all structures existing at the time of acquisition 

should be removed, yet the plan suggested the Miller 

Bridge be restored and maintained. 

FIGURE 24. Tour Loop Road and Parking Areas, Horseshoe Bend NMP, Feb. 1963. Denver Service Center eTIC 407/3016
34 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

cooperative association was suggested to support 

interpretation. 

The Mission 66 Master Plan found the Horseshoe 

Bend NMP boundaries adequate to preserve the 

battlefi eld and it also prioritized areas within the 

park for interpretation. The plan emphasized the 

historic signifi cance of the site and noted that 

natural features should be of secondary concern. 

The visitor center was originally planned for 

Cotton Patch Hill to take advantage of the elevation 

and battlefi eld view. The Mission 66 Master Plan 

considered an observation platform connected to 

the visitor center as well as space for administrative 

offi ces, exhibit space, and an assembly room. 

However, the visitor center was built near the 

entrance of the park in 1963-64 in order to 

preserve the core battlefi eld.

The master plan called for interpretive shelters to 

highlight Jackson’s artillery position, Tohopeka, 

and the point along the barricade where Major 

Lemuel Montgomery lost his life, while the ethnobotanical trail was to describe the names and 

uses of fl ora used by the Creeks and early settlers. 

Guidelines for interpretation on the south side of 

the Tallapoosa included a supplemental parking 

area to view the Miller Bridge with signage and 

a trail to interpret the role of Coff ee’s men in the 

battle. The plan suggested interpretation at the site 

of Newyaucau, pending archeological research. A 

selection of interpretive shelters were planned to 

have audio tours.124

An immediate need identifi ed in the Mission 66 

Master Plan was historical research. The new park 

required more scholarly research on the Creek 

War, Horseshoe Bend, early Indian cultures, the 

Anglo-French controversy, and the frontier east 

of the Mississippi.125 Previous work “was more 

journalistic than scholarly” and the Mission 66 

plan recommended archeological research to 

enhance interpretation.

Beyond interpretation, the Horseshoe Bend 

peninsula where the primary battle occurred 

received preferential treatment, followed by the 

area south of the Tallapoosa River. The landscape 

was mostly wooded during the 1960s with twenty 

124 Carr, p. 189. 

125 Mission 66, Vol. I, Chp. 1, p. 5. 

acres of the higher plateau planted in corn and 

cotton. The plan addressed landscape management 

with selective clearing and vista cutting and 

recommended the vista between the visitor center 

and breastworks location remain open. The 

area south of the breastworks would revert to 

forest. Although the plan called for the addition 

of adjacent land northwest of the park near 

Emuckfaw Creek, no such acquisition occurred.126

[The] natural features have remained, or have 

returned, much the same: the spectacular 

bend in the river, the eminence on which 

Jackson mounted his feeble artillery, and a 

re-growth of trees—together these and other 

natural landmarks, set a scene wherein mental 

recreation of the battle is fostered.”127

Initial stabilization project work began on the site 

proposed for the new visitor center. A gravel pit 

used for mining material was fi lled in and reseeded 

in 1962 immediately northeast of Cotton Patch 

(Miller) Hill.128 The area was graded and planted 

with donated pine trees to prevent erosion. The 

new visitor center was built along Highway 49. A 

concrete boat ramp was built in the fall of 1964.129

National Register Listing

The Mission 66 initiative coincided with the 

passage of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) in 1966 and historic park resources were 

administratively listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places at the time. In 1976, the park 

followed up by documenting the entire park as 

a historic district, noting contributing features 

including the Congressional monument, the 

Daughters of the War of 1812 monument, the 

Miller Bridge piers, Tohopeka, New Youka [sic], 

and the site of the barricade. The National Register 

nomination lists Horseshoe Bend Battlefi eld as 

nationally signifi cant with Areas of Signifi cance as 

Archeology-Historic, Conservation, and Military 

and a period of signifi cance from 1800-1899. The 

date range references the broad century-long 

126 Ibid., p. 3. 

127 Ibid., p. 2. 

128 Construction Report: Erosion Control and Ground 

Improvement, Miller Hill, May 1963. Denver Service 

Center eTIC 407/D20.

129 Denver Service Center eTIC 407/D24. 
National Park Service 35

SITE HISTORY

designations initally used in National Register 

nominations.

Lemuel Montgomery Grave

In 1972, the park reinterred Maj. Lemuel Purnell 

Montgomery, a member of the 39th regiment, at 

the base of Gun Hill. The new burial included 

the addition of a grave marker and new fence. 

Montgomery was moved from a grave site in 

Dudleyville, Alabama.130 A brief report in the park 

archives addresses the reinterment, but does not 

provide details on Major Montgomery. The grave 

was added to the other monuments at Gun Hill, 

expanding the commemoration of the site. 

Archeology

Though local collectors explored the area around 

Horseshoe Bend and years of plowing likely 

upended countless prehistoric artifacts, a series 

of formal archeological investigations began once 

the park was established. Several surveys and 

excavations by universities and NPS staff led to 

the identifi cation the Tohopeka and Newyaucau 

villages and the location of the barricade site. 

The archeology confi rmed the exact position of 

the most important landscape features surviving 

from the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. Other 

archeology included compliance with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

and examination of twentieth-century resources. 

The park still retains the potential to yield further 

information at these sites and unexplored areas. 

Fairbanks 

In 1961, Charles H. Fairbanks led Florida State 

University (FSU) students in an archeology fi eld 

school to uncover the location and form of the Red 

Sticks barricade, fi nd the extent of the Tohopeka 

Village, and locate Newyaucau Village.131 Though 

later extensions to his original trenches revealed 

two circular burned areas in 1964, Fairbanks 

concluded that archeology could not identify the 

remains of the barricade. 

130 “Reinternment of Major Lemuel P. Montgomery at 

Horseshoe Bend NMP” Manuscript, SERO Library, 1972. 

131 Charles H. Fairbanks, “Excavation at Horseshoe Bend” 

in The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. XV, No. 2, June 

1962. p. 41. 

The students expanded initial test pits to ten by 

ten feet units during Fairbanks’ archeological 

work at Tohopeka where vegetation allowed for 

open workspace.132 The team uncovered two 

ceramic complexes at Tohopeka yielding Dadeville 

ceramics, an early Mississippian type, and ceramics 

dating to the Creek occupation. The fi eld school 

uncovered four features, two later determined to 

be trash pits. 

Fairbanks’ exploration of Newyaucau included 

surface collection along the Tallapoosa River on a 

level, pasture terrace partially planted with corn 

and cotton. The students collected artifacts and 

opened three trenches to discover two Creek 

features. One trench yielded both a trash pit that 

had once been a storage pit and a pit fi lled with 

burned corncobs. This smudge pit may have been 

used for scraping pottery. The artifacts from the 

trash pit included European goods such as glass, 

beads, and muskets balls dating to the eighteenth 

century and Creek pottery and faunal remains. 

Fairbanks also noted a “discolored circular area” 

evident in aerial photographs that he suggested was 

a town house in the Creek village.

The Archeological Overview and Assessment 

(2000) notes the details and incongruities of 

Fairbanks excavations, yet concludes the success 

of the archeology project. Though Fairbanks 

did not locate the barricade, he did identify the 

extensiveness of Newyaucau (not the boundaries). 

Hinsdale 

The construction of the park tour road 

necessitated archeological monitoring in the fall of 

1964. Glen L. Hinsdale, Park Historian, observed 

discolorations below the surface as the equipment 

graded the road. Though Fairbanks concluded that 

no evidence of the breastwork remained, Hinsdale 

wrote, “He is unquestionably accurate about the 

barricade not being present where he looked.”133

Hinsdale reported: 

132 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 40-42.

133 George C. Mackenzie, The Indian Breastwork in the 

Battle of Horseshoe Bend: Its Size, Location, and 

Construction. Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, 

Alabama. Division of History, Offi ce of Archeology and 

Historic Preservation, National Park Service. November 

1969. p.32
36 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

...On the eastside of the road, soil profi les in 

the bank clearly indicate extensive deposition 

of both the native clays and topsoil, which is in 

direct opposition to Fairbanks report. About 

50 feet from the discolored soil deposit, in the 

same cut, and on virtually the same elevation 

...a grader laid bare a circular soil profi le 

marking the location of a burned tree stump. 

The top of this color discontinuity was about 

two feet below present ground level on that 

site.134

George C. Mackenzie, an NPS Historian, published 

Hinsdale’s suspicion about the barricade remains. 

The historic battle maps only indicate relative 

position and based on the 1960s topography did 

not convey the exact position. The deposition of 

two feet of soil above the burned feature suggests 

that erosion or agricultural grading did not 

obliterate any remainder of the barricade feature. 

Mackenzie quotes extensively from the Hinsdale 

report in his book, but the original report has not 

been located. 135

Dickens 

Roy S. Dickens and students from Georgia State 

University (GSU) conducted archeology during 

the summer of 1973. The team examined the same 

areas as Charles Fairbanks in addition to the site of 

caves thought to be used by escaping Red Sticks. 

The fi eld school also conducted an underwater 

survey of the Tallapoosa River. Investigations by 

Dickens supported previous archeology and later 

published a comparison of the ceramic artifacts 

of Newyaucau and Tohopeka. Dickens’ fi ndings 

suggested a “temporary, warrior-refugee” character 

to Tohopeka in contrast to the “permanent, familystructure” of Newyaucau. 

Dickens chose nine areas above the one hundredfoot contour line to excavate at Tohopeka.136 Fullscale excavation concentrated in four areas with 

Dadeville ceramics predominant in most locations 

(A, B, and C) and historic Creek artifacts clustered 

in one area (D). Tohopeka yielded hundreds of 

post-molds, a large Dadeville storage pit, “liner 

burned depressions” and one Creek-period pit. 

134 Mackenzie, p.33. from Hinsdale report. Hinsdale report 

unavailable at HOBE, SEAC, or SERO. 

135 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 42, 60. 

136 Ibid., p. 42-50. The elevation was chosen to avoid land 

impacted by erosion.

The archeology suggests an intensive, if seasonal, 

occupation during the Mississippian period with 

house sites identifi able though the pattern of 

artifact distribution. 

Dickens and his GSU students confi rmed the 

location of the Red Sticks’ barricade through 

remote sensing and direct excavation. Dickens 

aligned aerial photographs with historical maps 

and resources to target soil resistivity and metal 

detector surveys. The results directed his gradedtrench excavations and revealed a shallow ditch 

with linear depressions at the barricade site. A 

regular line of post-molds (for stakes) survived 

north of the barricade. The barricade alignment 

excavated by Dickens’ crew matched the east end 

of the historical Cheatham map. 

Newyaucau was overgrown during the 1973 fi eld 

season and Dickens focused a shovel test pit survey 

on the central portion of the village identifi ed by 

Fairbanks. Fire roads provided the only site access 

and Dickens used harrow trenching to remove 

plowzone soils without disturbing sub-surface 

features. The survey revealed a scattering of postmolds and small features along with Dadeville 

ceramics, charcoal samples, Archaic fl akes, a rifl e 

barrel, an anvil stone, and an atlatl fragment.137

A Creek borrow pit and other features marked 

historic disturbances to Archaic and Mississippian 

period deposits, however, Dickens concluded that 

modern plowing and erosion aff ected the overall 

site. 

Two students conducted underwater archeology 

in the Tallapoosa River as part of the GSU fi eld 

school. A systematic study of the river explored 

fi ve areas with one-hundred-foot metal detector 

sweeps and visual inspection. Archeologists found 

a nineteenth-century metal trap and modern 

trash in the river just north of the Highway 49 

Bridge. The students concluded that if period 

artifacts existed, they would be deeply buried. 

Heavy siltation from twentieth-century agriculture 

impacted the other survey areas and the fi ndings 

were inconclusive. 

Dickens and his students explored the peninsula 

for caves suspected of hiding escaping Red Sticks 

after the battle. During Hinsdale’s tenure at 

Horseshoe Bend (and included in his site report 

137 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 48. Dickens report does 

not mention the Archaic fl akes in the artifact summary. 
National Park Service 37

SITE HISTORY

about the barricade fi ndings), local residents 

recounted the location of dugout caves along the 

river fl oodplain. The farmers at Horseshoe Bend 

pointed out the undisturbed east bank remains 

in a steep embankment two-thirds from the 

bottom. The cave-features recorded by Hinsdale 

and examined by the superintendent and other 

park staff included a twenty foot depression 

with signs of deposition at ground-level.138 

Dickens determined the site did not need further 

examination. 

Recent Archeology

After research archeology concluded at the park, 

smaller projects continued in association with 

construction, storm events, compliance, and 

other immediate needs. In 1991, Ken Wild tested 

an area north of the visitor center prior to the 

construction of new park housing. Shovel test pits 

yielded only modern artifacts and disturbed soil. 

Wild also examined artifacts donated to the park 

and concluded that some may have been from the 

period of European contact.139 While investigating 

the supposed site of the donated artifacts, Wild 

noted “grave like holes” but did not record the 

location or descriptions of the artifacts.140

In 1992, John Cornelison of the Southeast 

Archeological Center (SEAC) tested an area for 

a proposed new telephone utility line and found 

disturbed soil. The shovel test pits followed 

Highway 79 into the park and continued on the 

west side of Highway 49 to a fork in the planned 

utility area near the maintenance area. Following 

the negative results of the survey, clearance for 

the lines was granted.141 Cornelison also tested 

two spoil piles thought to be related to the 1991 

artifacts identifi ed by Ken Wild, but the site 

revealed no information. In 1996, Cornelison 

returned to Horseshoe Bend to assess wind 

damage from Hurricane Opal that overturned over 

one hundred trees in the park. Several areas were 

examined and no artifacts were deemed signifi cant.

In 2000, the Southeast Archeological Center 

published an archeological overview and 

assessment which summarizes in detail the 

138 Mackenzie, p. 35. 

139 deGrummond and Hamlin, p.50.

140 Ibid., p.66. 

141 Ibid., p.51. 

previous archeology at Horseshoe Bend 

and assesses the quality of fi eld methods, 

documentation, artifact analysis, and research. 

The report describes collections in detail and 

recommends historic themes for further research. 

The Overview and Assessment is the most current 

park document that addresses the cultural 

landscape and synthesizes the archeological 

resources at Horseshoe Bend within the 

framework of the cultural resource management in 

the National Park Service.

A 2012 inventory of archeological sites in the park 

added over sixteen new sites to the Archeological 

Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) 

database. Richard Allin and Guy Prentice of SEAC 

surveyed the park to locate twentieth-century 

homesteads identifi ed on historic maps from 1906 

and 1909. They mapped several sites with GPS and 

updated condition assessments for existing sites. 

Recent Park Developments

At the time the park was nominated to the National 

Register, the landscape resembled the historic 

battlefi eld scene. The 1976 nomination describes 

the district:

...presently maintained to approximate as 

nearly as possible its appearance at the time 

of the battle. Land once used extensively by 

settlers for cultivation of corn and cotton is 

being allowed to return to timber as it originally 

existed. Terraces have largely disappeared. 

The natural reforestation of the woods is 

encouraged to replace the timber cut by the 

settlers for lumber and to succeed the loblolly 

pines subsequently planted and harvested for 

pulpwood. The scars left on the terrain by sand 

and gravel pit operations have diminished as 

a result of vegetative growth. Clearings are 

maintained where Creek Indians had cleared 

the timber.142

Numerous additions to the park have modernized 

the visitor experience and improved facilities 

for park staff . The maintenance building was 

renovated in 1975.143 In 2005, the adjacent 

restroom building was added west of the visitor 

142 National Register nomination, Horseshoe Bend 

Battlefi eld, February 11, 1976. 

143 Renovation of Maintenance Building, Denver Service 

Center eTIC 407/80000. 
38 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY

center and the original visitor center building 

was made universally accessible. The extant tour 

stop shelters replaced the Mission 66 interpretive 

shelters in 2005. In 2011, the entrance road, tour 

loop, and boat ramp road were repaved.144

In the 1990s, staff identifi ed additional historic 

resources within the park boundaries. The park, 

Alabama State Historic Preservation Offi ce 

(SHPO), and the Cultural Resource Division 

of the Southeast Regional Offi ce examined two 

brick chimney sites, a series of rock piles, and an 

abandoned section of state highway 49. Due to the 

established period of signifi cance for the park and 

lack of historic integrity, the resources were found 

ineligible for the National Register.145 In 1992, an 

infestation of pine-post beetles impacted several 

mature trees at Horseshoe Bend. 

A 1992 Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

outlined baseline information related to the 

natural and cultural resource management at the 

park. The plan included a checklist for necessary 

documentation and several action items to 

implement at Horseshoe Bend, specifying the need 

for a cultural landscape report. The RMP identifi ed 

twelve natural resource and sixteen cultural 

resource project statements. The list focused 

on seven primary needs: a resource specialist to 

address on-going problems, a basic inventory 

of natural resources, protection from threats of 

vandalism, theft, and illegal hunting, elimination 

of the pine beetle infestation, preservation of river 

quality, compilation of archeological and historical 

data, and acquisition of lands known to be part of 

Newyaucau. 

Since the RMP was published, HOBE has 

completed or initiated several recommended 

projects. The Fire Management Plan was written in 

2010 and natural resources have been inventoried 

as part of the NPS Vital Signs Monitoring 

program.146 The preparation of this CLR and a 

concurrent Scope of Collections Plan as well as 

144 Final Construction Report, Resurfacing and 

Rehabilitation of Entrance, Tour Loop, and Boat Ramp 

Road, including Parking Areas and Pullouts, 2011. 

Denver Service Center eTIC 407/107529.

145 Correspondence Kirk Cordell to Lawrence Oaks, 

Alabama SHPO. June 28, 1995. 

146 Inventory and Monitoring Program Status Report 2012, 

Horseshoe Bend NMP, I&M Program, Southeast Coast 

Network, NPS, 2012. 

the completion of two Special History Studies by 

Kathryn H. Braund have advanced the cultural 

resource management goals of the park in recent 

years. A rehabilitation of the museum exhibits 

occurred in 1995 in collaboration with Harpers 

Ferry Center and the Archeological Overview and 

Assessment was completed in 2000. 

A General Management Plan (GMP) for Horseshoe 

Bend has not been completed and the Mission 66 

Master Plan remains the only park management 

document. In 2004, Harpers Ferry Center 

completed a Long Range Interpretative Plan that 

focused interpretation planning into park themes, 

visitor experiences, and recommended a range of 

services, media, programs, and outreach.147 The 

park is working toward a Foundation Statement 

to focus the core mission of the park and create a 

basis for planning decisions. This planning project 

will help articulate the fundamental values and 

important resources of Horseshoe Bend. 

147 Long Range Interpretive Plan. 
National Park Service 39

SITE HISTORY
40 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

SITE HISTORY
 41

Existing Conditions

meaning “pulverized rock.” The terrain forms 

a landscape of rolling hills and stream valleys 

situated at the juncture of the Piedmont region and 

southern terminus of the Appalachian Mountains. 

The geology of south-central Alabama includes 

hills of schist, granite, and gneiss with small 

streams emptying into the Tallapoosa River. The 

Tallapoosa, which joins the Coosa to become the 

Alabama River some forty miles southwest of 

Horseshoe Bend is edged with rich river shoals as 

the elevation grades from high limestone country 

to the coastal plain. 

The banks of the Tallapoosa River support an oakhickory forest. Loamy and sandy soils, prone to 

erosion, include Toccoa, Chewacla, and Buncombe 

soils.3

 The extensive farming at Horseshoe 

Bend depleted the topsoil, though the nearby 

Hillabee schist deposit once produced stones 

used by prehistoric groups.4 The existing forests 

within the park support species of oak, pine, and 

deciduous trees. Overstory trees include loblolly 

pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), 

red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus 

alba), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and 

hickory (Carya sp.) on ridges in the park. On the 

bottomlands, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), 

maple (Acer sp.), dogwood (Cornus sp.), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styracifl ua) and common persimmon 

(Diospyros virginiana) are midstory species while 

Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) grow alongside 

grasses and sedges.5

Tallapoosa River

The Tallapoosa River winds through the park for 

3.5 river miles from the northeast park boundary, 

around the horseshoe-shaped peninsula to the 

northwest park boundary. The river begins in 

3 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 13. 

4 Ibid., p. 14. 

5 Fire Management Plan draft, Horseshoe Bend NMP. p. 

8.

The existing conditions chapter provides a detailed 

description of extant landscape features that 

compose the cultural landscape and defi ne the 

historic character of Horseshoe Bend NMP. The 

battlefi eld includes features that survive from the 

prehistoric and historic periods as well as modern 

amenities associated with the Mission 66 initiative. 

Recent park development that contributes to 

or infl uences the treatment of the landscape 

is also documented. This chapter records the 

current condition of the landscape with features 

that retain integrity, were added over time, and 

potentially impact the site. The narrative text, site 

map, and contemporary photographs provide a 

baseline inventory and comparison to the historic 

landscape. 

Landscape characteristics are tangible and 

intangible aspects that infl uenced, or resulted from, 

the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. Characteristics 

such as spatial organization and natural systems 

and features convey the period of signifi cance.1

The topography, circulation, buildings and 

structures, and small-scale features remain from 

the eras of nineteenth-century commemoration 

and twentieth-century park development. Little 

commercial or residential development near 

the park has helped preserve the battlefi eld and 

surrounding landscape.2

 Archeological sites, land 

use, vegetation, and vistas and views are described 

in detail and complete the existing condition 

assessment of the overall cultural landscape. 

Landscape characteristics associated with each 

feature are described below.

Natural Resources

The geology of Horseshoe Bend centers on 

the Tallapoosa River with the name Tallapoosa 

1 Agricultural farming and production changed the 

vegetation at Horseshoe Bend, though the Mission 66 

Master Plan indicates, “...the natural features have 

remained, or have returned, much the same...” The 

Master Plan also mentions the re-growth of trees in the 

landscape. Mission 66 Master Plan, Vol. I, Cpt. 1, p.2. 

2 Mission 66 Master Plan, Vol. I, Cpt. 1, p. 3.
42 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Paulding County in northwest Georgia and fl ows 

southward, joining the Coosa River to become 

the Alabama River before emptying into Mobile 

Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The stretch of the 

Tallapoosa within Horseshoe Bend NMP is about 

100 to 150 yards wide with shallow rapids ranging 

from two to six feet in depth.6

 The current river 

depth just downstream from the bend ranges 

from two to twenty feet.7 The river is dammed 

above and below the park and the fl ow varies 

depending on rainfall and scheduled releases. 

Underwater archeology in the 1970s did not 

recover any artifacts or features in the river due to 

thick deposits of accumulated silt from decades 

of agriculture. The Tallapoosa River retains the 

same route it did in 1814 and today is used for 

recreational boating and fi shing. The fresh water 

supports shad, bass, minnows, crappie, darters, 

catfi sh as well as toads, newts, salamanders, turtles, 

and snakes.8

The Tallapoosa, although dammed, is a natural 

feature within the park and receives drainage from 

6 Dickens, p. 280. 

7 Ibid. Measurements taken during underwater 

archeology were unreliable over fi fteen feet. 

8 Park Species List, Fauna. 

smaller creeks and outlets. Other natural features 

include the shoreline, though previous archeology 

did not locate the site of the “caves” noted in the 

historical record. 

Bean’s Island

In the Tallapoosa River, a small fi fteen-acre island 

sits west of the horseshoe peninsula. The natural 

landform remains uninhabited and managed as 

a natural resource by the park. This island was 

the position of Lieutenant Jesse Bean’s militia 

during the battle and may contain archeological 

FIGURE 25. Tallapoosa River. NPS photo.

FIGURE 26. Bean’s Island across the Tallapoosa River from 

Tour Stop #1. NPS photo.
National Park Service 43

EXISTING CONDITIONS

information. There is no direct public access to the 

forested island. 

Cultural Resources

State Highway 49

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park is 

accessed by State Highway 49, which crosses the 

northwestern corner of the park. The two-lane 

asphalt road is a state route and the primary means 

for distant and local travelers to reach Dadeville, 

Alabama.9

 The highway crosses the river on a 

modern bridge built in 1955. North of the bridge, 

Highway 49 provides access to the visitor center, 

battlefi eld, maintenance area, and park housing. 

A boat ramp and parking area are located south 

of the bridge to the west of the highway. A single 

row of mature pine trees lines the east side of the 

road south of the river, likely planted in the 1960s 

during realignment of the highway or a later road 

improvement project.

At the southern and northern park boundaries, 

entrance signs welcome visitors to the park. The 

wooden block-cut signs are supported by L-shaped 

rubble fi eldstone bases with the National Park 

Service arrowhead attached. The signs remain 

unchanged since their original installation in the 

1960s. 

Miller Bridge Piers

The stone piers remaining from the historic 

covered Miller Bridge survive in the Tallapoosa 

River immediately west of Highway 49. The piers 

(LCS HS-3) are listed in the National Register 

and remain in ruinous condition. Four stone 

piers and two concrete abutments survive ranging 

9 Mission 66 Master Plan, Vol. I, Chp. 2. p.2.

from fair to poor condition. The southern-most 

pier is almost 35 feet tall with battered sides and 

a portion of the concrete bridge substructure 

surviving atop the fi eld stone. The middle piers 

are partially collapsed with loose stone piled at the 

base. The piers are spaced evenly across the width 

of the river and once supported a wooden covered 

bridge removed in 1963. The existing Miller Bridge 

remains are accessible only by boat and are in need 

of stabilization. 

Boat Ramp

The boat ramp provides access to the Tallapoosa 

River west of the highway. A small parking lot, 

interpretive sign, and a few, scattered picnic tables 

are located under the bridge and near the historic 

concrete abutment. The concrete boat ramp is 

open to the public and slopes gradually to the river 

bottom. A ferry landing that predated the covered 

Miller Bridge was likely near this site. 

Visitor Center area

The visitor center is located east of the highway 

in the north-central section of the park. A oneway driving loop with angled parking veers south 

from the entrance road. The 1964 visitor center 

is a one-story tan brick structure with clerestory 

windows. The building has two wings, forming an 

obtuse angle. The east wing, originally designed 

for maintenance, is currently used for offi ces and 

an auditorium. The main wing of the visitor center 

includes a front desk, bookstore, restrooms (closed 

to the public), and an open entryway with museum 

exhibits in the western-most space. 

The visitor center retains elements of its Mission 

66 architecture with the original building footprint, 

FIGURE 27. Entrance sign to park. NPS photo.

FIGURE 28. Boat ramp below Highway 49. NPS photo.
44 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

window spacing, and interior lighting.10 The gable 

roof is shingled with brown wood and dark brown 

gutters align at a regular interval along the front 

and rear facades. A tan brick retaining wall blocks 

the rear of the visitor center from view; a design 

feature intended to hide the original utilitarian 

use of the east wing of the building. The retaining 

wall curves to form a gate behind the structure 

and encloses a work yard, now used for employee 

parking. 

An outdoor waiting area connects the visitor 

center to the restroom building added in 2005. 

The covered breezeway between the visitor center 

and restrooms opens to southern views and has 

benches built into the brick columns. The restroom 

matches the massing, brick type, and roofl ine 

of the visitor center and has a row of fi ve small, 

square windows below the eaves. The restroom 

compliments the architecture of the visitor center 

with similar tan brick, roofl ines, and massing. The 

two buildings remain unattached, yet are close 

10 The Horseshoe Bend visitor center was only listed in 

the appendix of Sarah Allabeck’s Mission 66 Visitor 

Centers: The History of a Building Type, National Park 

Service, 2000.

enough to appear as though part of the same 

complex. The restrooms include parallel rows 

of men and women’s facilities and a small utility 

closet. 

Concrete sidewalks lead from the parking lot to the 

visitor center and restroom. The circulation system 

funnels visitors from the parking lot to stairs and 

a ramp on either side of a brick planter.A replica 

cannon and carriage is positioned at the main 

visitor entrance and a modern receptacle for trash 

and recycling is located on the sidewalk nearest the 

FIGURE 29. Horseshoe Bend visitor center. NPS photo.

FIGURE 30. Restrooms. NPS photo.
National Park Service 45

EXISTING CONDITIONS

parking lot. A fl agpole and brick retaining walls are 

also located in front of the visitor center. 

Picnic Area

The picnic area at Horseshoe Bend is located east 

of the visitor center and includes two shelters, 

and scattered picnic tables. The picnic area is 

accessible from the tour road and via a footpath 

leading from the visitor center parking lot. The 

shelters and tables are located under a canopy of 

pine trees which create an open understory. Each 

shelter has a concrete slab foundation, wood frame 

construction, and a standing-seam metal roof 

painted brown. Modern trash cans and recycling 

containers are located in the center of the picnic 

area as well as two grills and a spigot. Aluminum 

picnic tables are placed under the shelters and 

scattered throughout the picnic area. 

A low, brown concrete-block wall east of the 

picnic area edges the gravel parking lot. A 

concrete sidewalk connects the parking lot to the 

nearest picnic shelter with a ramp for universal 

accessibility. The picnic parking area is a gravel lot 

with two mature pine trees growing in the middle 

of the space and parking curbs edging the lot. The 

forest to the north of the picnic area has an open 

understory.

Park Tour Road 

The park tour road leads visitors from the visitor 

center on a loop with fi ve stops highlighting points 

of interest in the landscape. The asphalt-paved 

road circulates vehicles on an interpreted tour 

FIGURE 31. Entrance Area. NPS photo.

FIGURE 32. Overview of picnic area. NPS photo.

FIGURE 33. Horseshoe Bend picnic shelter. NPS photo.

FIGURE 34. Picnic area grills, tables, and trash cans. NPS 

photo.

FIGURE 35. Picnic area from parking lot. NPS photo.
46 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

of the battlefi eld and completes a one-way loop 

through the horseshoe-shaped peninsula. Along 

the roadside areas where the slope pitches away, 

large stone rubble prevents erosion from road 

run-off and concrete gutters channel drainage 

into intermittent streams. A brown park sign at the 

beginning of the tour indicates a “commemorative 

area” reminding visitors to respect the hallowed 

battlefi eld. Shortly after the fi nal tour stop south 

of Gun Hill, the loop road reconnects to become 

two lanes and continues back to the visitor center 

and highway 49. Each tour stop includes wayside 

exhibits and pull-off or designated parking. 

Nature Trail

A 2.8-mile nature trail circumscribes the horseshoe 

peninsula, beginning and ending at the Cotton 

Patch Hill overlook. The trail was originally 

established to highlight Creek life and interpret 

the ethno-botanical history of Horseshoe Bend. 

The trail includes several wooden bridges and 

boardwalks in areas of low elevation and modern 

benches along the route. The start of the trail 

follows the ridge from the high-point of Cotton 

Patch Hill and descends east to the river.11 The trail 

continues south and borders the north bank of 

the Tallapoosa River before looping westward and 

gaining elevation to highlight the site of Tohopeka 

at tour stop four. The trail makes one switchback 

through the woods before turning northwestward 

and winding around to Gun Hill. The nature trail is 

a compacted dirt and gravel footpath, with eroded 

areas supplemented with extra gravel. 

The route of the trail highlights the diversity of 

fl ora and fauna at Horseshoe Bend NMP, which 

includes not only riparian environments along the 

river, but forested portions of the park adjacent to 

the maintained core of the battlefi eld. Vegetation 

includes river birch and native grasses on the 

fl oodplain and oak-hickory forests on the western 

half of the peninsula. Maintained open space is 

regularly mowed in areas where the trail crosses 

the tour road and near the barricade site. 

Cotton Patch Hill

Cotton Patch Hill marks the highest elevation 

within the park boundaries and a location along 

Andrew Jackson’s approach the morning of 

the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. In the twentieth 

century, the high ground was terraced and planted 

with cotton. The knoll topography that currently 

exists creates an overlook with views south from 

a modern interpretative shelter to the barricade 

site and peninsula. An asphalt path circuitously 

winds along the tree line and provides access to 

the Cotton Patch Hill overlook. The trail continues 

through scattered pines to join the nature trail. 

11 Cotton Patch Hill is the 20th century name for the 

elevated position from which Jackson began his attack.

FIGURE 36. Park tour road. NPS photo.

FIGURE 37. North end of nature trail. NPS photo.

FIGURE 38. Nature trail near Tohopeka. NPS photo.
National Park Service 47

EXISTING CONDITIONS

At the crest of Cotton Patch Hill, the vista faces 

south and reveals a long, open fi eld with a 

representation of the barricade in the distance. 

Gun Hill is visible at the tree line to the west and 

the surrounding woodlands are maintained as a 

natural resource. The horizon reveals two distinct 

wood lines, indicating the location of the river 

in the distance. The overlook allows visitors a 

vantage point to see the horseshoe from a distance, 

meanwhile emphasizing the isolation of the oncebarricaded peninsula and the advantage Gun Hill 

aff orded Jackson’s men. Although Cotton Patch 

Hill was extensively graded and restored when the 

park was established, the landscape still conveys 

the overall spatial organization of the battlefi eld. 

The cleared landscape on and near the overlook 

also reveals the previous agricultural use of the site.

The open fi eld stretching south in front of the 

Cotton Patch Hill shelter is leased to a local farmer, 

Robert Earl Cotney, for a seasonal hay crop. The 

arrangement between Mr. Cotney and the park 

requires the fi eld to be mowed or harvested by a 

certain date and reduces the required seasonal 

FIGURE 39. Interpretive shelter at Cotton Patch Hill. NPS photo.

FIGURE 40. Trail to Cotton Patch Hill. NPS photo. FIGURE 41. Wayside exhibit at Cotton Patch Hill parking lot. 

NPS photo.
48 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

mowing of the facility management staff . The lease 

alleviates the maintenance of mown acreage in the 

center of the peninsula south of Cotton Patch Hill. 

HOBE staff manages the immediate landscape of 

Cotton Patch Hill, including the overlook, parking 

lot area, woodlands, and the nature trail. Regular 

mowing of other areas of the horseshoe peninsula 

is limited to the summer season. 

At the base of Cotton Patch Hill a parking lot, 

concrete sidewalk, modern trashcans, and a 

recently installed wayside exhibit are located next 

to the road. The parking lot has a grassy island 

separating it from the tour road and the wayside 

explains the history of the blue cannon carriage 

during the nineteenth century. 

Island Overlook 

Beyond the initial overlook at Cotton Patch Hill, 

the tour road continues to the riverbank. A pull-off 

tour stop overlooks the Highway 49 bridge and the 

island where Bean’s militia was posted on March 

27, 1814. The tour stop includes a pull-over with 

a widened area for parallel parking, a sidewalk, 

and wayside exhibit interpreting the river. The 

overlook has a cleared viewshed to show the width 

of the Tallapoosa River nearest the island. The view 

westward includes the modern highway bridge 

and beyond, the stone piers of the historic Miller 

Bridge and park boat ramp on the south bank. A 

hardwood forest surrounds the fi rst tour stop. This 

overlook interprets the forces led by Jesse Bean and 

the allied Creek and Cherokee position.

Gun Hill

The Gun Hill tour stop overlooks the site of the 

Red Stick barricade and marks the focus of the 

commemorative period at Horseshoe Bend. This 

location remains the only place on the battlefi eld 

memorialized in the nineteenth and twentieth 

century. Gun Hill has a modern interpretive shelter, 

cannon, bronze plaques, the D.A.R. Monument, 

the Congressional Monument, and the grave of 

FIGURE 42. View from tour stop overlook of modern Highway 49 bridge and Miller Bridge piers (background). NPS 

photo.

FIGURE 43. Overview of Gun Hill area. NPS photo.

FIGURE 44. D.A.R. Monument. NPS photo.
National Park Service 49

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Lemuel Montgomery. A series of asphalts paths 

(all handicap accessible) connect the parking area 

to the interpretive shelter and the features at Gun 

Hill. A small grassy island separates the parking 

area from the two-lane tour road.

From the parking lot, an asphalt path leads north 

to the modern shelter constructed in 2005. The 

shelter has low stone walls forming an open 

concrete area under an arched wooden roof. 

Three wayside exhibits explain the artillery fi re 

and frontal assault on the Red Sticks barricade. 

The shelter is sited at the base of the hill with 

the elevated, wooded topography extending 

northward. Facing southeast, the shelter 

view focuses on the barricade location and 

approximates the position of Andrew Jackson on 

the morning of March 27, 1814. 

D.A.R. Monument 

The D.A.R. monument, placed in 1914 and 

identifi ed as a contributing resource to the 

National Register historic district, is a granite 

memorial fourteen inches wide, thirty-two inches 

tall, and seven inches thick. The top left portion of 

the marker is broken and a bronze plaque identifi es 

the placement of the marker on July 4, 1914 to 

mark, “...the terminus of the route traced through 

the wilderness by Jackson’s army during the 

Horseshoe Bend campaign, erected and dedicated 

by the U.S. Daughters of 1812.” The D.A.R. symbol 

is also inscribed on the monument. The marker 

resembles a headstone and is located between 

the interpretative shelter and the grave of Lemuel 

Montgomery along the asphalt path. 

Lemuel P. Montgomery grave

The grave of Lemuel P. Montgomery is located 

north of the Gun Hill interpretative shelter at the 

end of the asphalt path. The gravesite is bordered 

by a low fence enclosure with chamfered posts 

painted brown. The headstone is marble (13” x 4” 

x 26”) with a rounded top and a cross in relief. The 

inscription lists “Lemuel Purnell Montgomery, 

Alabama, Major 39 U.S. Inf., March 27, 1814, 

Placed by, Tohopeka, Chapter D.A.R. 1933”. A 

bronze plaque highlights biographical data and was 

placed in 1972, when Montgomery was reinterred. 

A List of Classifi ed Structures (LCS) assessment in 

1995 identifi ed the grave marker in good condition. 

Congressional Monument

The Congressional Monument sits at the top of 

Gun Hill. The United States Congress authorized 

the erection of the monument in 1918 to 

commemorate the battle, though the date inscribed 

on the stone is incorrect. The monument has the 

inscription, “Here on the Horseshoe Battleground 

General Andrew Jackson and his brave men broke 

the power of the Creek Indians under Chief 

Menawa, March 29, 1814, Erected by the Congress 

of the United States” on the front façade. Wreaths 

are carved at the top of each end.12 The granite 

marker is sixty-eight inches tall, eighty-nine inches 

wide, and twenty-two inches thick. The upright 

monument rests on a granite base and is slightly 

arched at the top. The edges of the monument 

and the base are textured with a rough fi nish. The 

monument was moved 50 feet west of its original 

location.13 The Congressional Monument is listed 

12 The monument has the incorrect date marked. The 

battle took place on March 27, not March 29.

13 National Register nomination. Allin and Prentice, p. 8. 

FIGURE 45. Lemuel Montgomery grave. NPS photo. FIGURE 46. Congressional Monument. NPS photo.
50 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

the morning of March 27, the existing cannon at 

Gun Hill is a naval gun.14 The slope of Gun Hill is 

an open understory with oak, hickory, and black 

walnut trees. A bronze plaque is located next to the 

cannon. 

Barricade 

The focal point of the Gun Hill tour stop is the site 

of the breastworks defended by the Red Sticks on 

March 27, 1814, and confi rmed with archeology 

in 1964. Today the barricade location is marked 

with 8-foot white posts widely spaced across a 

span of cleared, mown fi eld at the narrowest part 

of the peninsula. The woodline extends to the 

east and west beyond the interpreted barricade. 

The barricade was the primary landscape feature 

existing on the battlefi eld and the focus of 

extensive research, interpretation, and archeology. 

The existing white posts were placed sometime 

after 1969 and are maintained annually with fresh 

paint. 

In 2004, the installation of new interpretive 

shelters required compliance with the National 

14 Conversation with Ove Jensen, May 2010. 

as a contributing resource to the National Register 

historic district. 

Cannon

A cannon is located next to the Congressional 

Monument on Gun Hill to mark the U.S. artillery 

position at Horseshoe Bend. The cannon is 

mounted on a blue carriage and pointed toward 

the location of the breastwork. Though Andrew 

Jackson used one 3-pounder and one 6-pounder 

SEAC archeologists collected locational data for two 

likely positions of the original monument in 2012. 

FIGURE 47. Cannon at Gun Hill. NPS photo. 

FIGURE 48. Barricade site. NPS photo.
National Park Service 51

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Environmental Policy Act. A Finding of No 

Signifi cant Impact noted: 

The park endeavors to maintain this view of 

an open battlefi eld, dominated by surrounding 

tree lines of mature hardwoods and pines. The 

site is best interpreted by capturing the visitors’ 

attention by the natural topography before 

them, allowing them to visualize the position 

of the barricade and Creek warriors and the 

placement of the cannons and soldiers and 

the Indian allies. Because there is nothing left 

of the barricade, the park has erected a row of 

white stakes to mark its location. The view of 

these stakes and the natural topography of the 

battlefi eld are essential to understanding the 

battle and the heroic events which took place 

here.15

Tohopeka Village site

The tour stop (#3) at the “toe” of the peninsula 

has a parking pull-over, two wayside exhibits, a 

concrete sidewalk, and a panoramic view of the 

Tallapoosa River. The stop highlights a portion 

of the U.S. position the morning of March 27, 

1814. To the south, an open area of mown grass 

is maintained to show the curve of the river 

and bank where the Cherokee launched attacks 

to steal canoes from the Red Sticks. This area 

includes some evidence of terracing left over 

from the 1950s. To the north of the tour stop, 

the site of Tohopeka is presently preserved as an 

archeological site under an open understory of oak 

trees.

15 Finding of No Signifi cant Impact for the Environmental 

Assessment for Interpretive Shelter Replacement, SERO 

Planning fi les, December 2004. 

Creek High Ground

The next tour stop (#4) is located west of the road 

at the crest of the ridgeline. The tour stop has a 

parking area and an asphalt sidewalk that leads 

through the woods to an interpretive shelter. The 

shelter is identical to others at Horseshoe Bend and 

wayside exhibits interpret Tohopeka and the battle. 

The shelter rests at the top of a steep slope, falling 

away to overlook the site of Tohopeka to the south. 

The high ground at this location was altered by 

agricultural terracing, but still conveys the change 

in elevation near the Red Sticks’ village. 

Tour Stop #5

The fi nal tour stop (#5) along the tour road 

interprets the Red Stick perspective of the battle 

and lists casualty numbers for both sides. The 

overlook has a pull-off for parallel parking, a 

concrete sidewalk, wayside exhibit, and a view 

north toward the barricade site. The overlook

FIGURE 49. Tohopeka village site. NPS photo.

was originally positioned to highlight a view of 

Newyaucau upstream and across the river, but 

FIGURE 50. View of Tohopeka from tour stop #4. NPS photo.

FIGURE 51. View from tour stop #5. NPS photo.
52 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

vegetation has overgrown to buff er the eastward 

view. A slope beyond the wood line, likely the 

result of historic terracing, reveals a steep descent 

and that continues to the riverbank. The immediate 

area around tour stop #5 remains open and 

maintained in the summer. This tour stop is located 

immediately south of the two-way portion of the 

tour road. 

Newyaucau Village site/South side of 

river

The portion of the park south of the river is 

reached by fi re roads and remains wooded 

with limited access. Seven miles of fi re roads 

and old trails traverse this part of the park and 

are occasionally used by an adjacent farm for 

horseback riding. A local hunting club maintains 

the right of way on adjacent property with keyed 

access. The inaccessibility of the area protects 

the sensitive archeological site within the borders 

of the park, though no evidence of looting has 

occurred in recent years.16

The archeological remains of Newyaucau are 

protected as a subsurface site. The site begins 1,800 

yards upstream from the river bend northeast 

of the Tohopeka site. Although there is limited 

public access to the site, the area is visible from the 

nature trail and stop #5 on the tour road.17 Privet is 

encroaching in several areas along the riverbank. 

Maintenance Area and Park Housing

A modern maintenance area is located across 

Highway 49 southwest of the visitor center. The 

16 Conversation with Jim Cahill, May 5, 2010. 

17 Long-Range Interpretive Plan, p. 6.

complex includes a utility building and pump 

house. To the north of the visitor center, park 

housing is located at an entrance east of the 

highway. The structures which were built between 

the late 1960s and early 1990s, include three 

ranch houses. A pedestrian footpath connects the 

housing road to the park tour road. Two of the 

ranch houses date to the Mission 66 development 

period, but have not been evaluated for National 

Register eligibility. 

Additional Park Land

The remainder of Horseshoe Bend NMP is 

managed as a natural resource. A fi ve-year Fire 

Management Plan outlines a rotational prescribed 

burn for 200-300 acres of the park in sections 

north and south of the river. This buff er of land 

around the core battlefi eld protects the scenic 

quality of the horseshoe-peninsula from potential 

adjacent development. Other historic resources 

identifi ed in 1994 include a rock pile and two 

chimney sites, which were determined ineligible 

for listing in the National Register. The land 

surrounding the core battlefi eld preserves the 

approaches and retreats of Andrew Jackson’s men 

as well as the site of Newyaucau. 

In 2012, the Southeast Archeological Center 

(SEAC) visited the park to update and locate 

archeological sites. Sixteen new sites were added 

to ASMIS and several existing sites were evaluated. 

The remains of historic homesteads, stills, and 

related twentieth-century sites require further 

research but are preserved under forest canopy.

FIGURE 52. Site of Newyaucau. NPS photo. FIGURE 53. Example of park housing. NPS photo.
National Park Service 53

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Cultural Values

The park has thirteen affi liated tribes: AlabamaQuassarte Tribal Town, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 

of Texas, Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Indian 

Tribe, Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, 

Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Indian Tribe, 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Poarch Creek Indians, 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Tribe 

of Florida, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and the 

United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians. 

The upcoming bicentennial prompted a recent 

consultation with affi liated tribes and discussion 

involved the need for expanded understanding and 

interpretation.
54 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Horseshoe Bend NMPCultural Landscape Report

Existing Conditions

0 0.1

0 0.1 0.5 Mile

0.5 Kilometer

North

Legend Building Feature Tallapoosa River Primary Road Secondary Road Trail Fence NPS Boundary

Tallapoosa River

Visitor Center

Park Housing

Maintenance Area

New Yau CauVillage site

TohopekaVillage site

PicnicArea

See inset map

FIGURE 54. Existing Conditions map of Horseshoe Bend NMP.
 55

The analysis section of this cultural landscape 

report compares the fi ndings of the site history 

with the existing conditions of Horseshoe Bend 

to identify extant landscape features and characteristics that convey historic signifi cance. The 

cultural landscape includes archeological sites 

surviving from the prehistoric and historic periods 

and structures and landscape features dating to the 

nineteenth and twentieth century. The entire park 

is listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

and includes contributing features that date to the 

prehistoric and commemorative periods of signifi -

cance. 

National Register Signifi cance

The passage of the National Historic Preservation 

Act in 1966 administratively listed Horseshoe Bend 

NMP in the National Register and the park completed documentation for resources in the historic 

district. The formal nomination was accepted on 

October 8, 1976. The existing nomination includes 

boundaries that match park property and lists the 

contributing resources as Tohopeka village site, 

New Youka [sic] village site, the Indian barricade 

site, the Congressional monument, the Daughters 

of 1812 monument, and Miller Bridge.1

The Battle of Horseshoe Bend had far-reaching 

eff ects in American history and the National 

Register period of signifi cance is broadly defi ned 

as 1800-1899. The nomination includes features 

beyond the identifi ed period of signifi cance from 

the period of battlefi eld commemoration and the 

construction and use of the covered bridge. The 

National Register district is signifi cant for historic 

archeology, military history, and the conservation 

of the site, though the documentation inadequately 

addresses the signifi cance, context, and history of 

the resources listed. 

In 1994, staff from the Southeast Regional Offi ce assessed twentieth-century resources located 

within the park. Two brick chimneys, a series of 

1 National Register nomination, Horseshoe Bend 

Battlefi eld, 1976. On fi le in SERO. 

Analysis and Evaluation

rock piles, and the abandoned roadbed of Highway 

49 were found in poor/ruinous condition. With diminished integrity and the lack of a developed historic context for Alabama and Tallapoosa County 

history, the additional resources were determined 

ineligible for listing in the National Register.2

The development of the park coincided with Mission 66 and extant resources are potentially eligible 

for listing in the National Register under Criterion 

A as potentially signifi cant examples of changing 

visions for national park planning and development. The visitor center may also be eligible under 

Criterion C as potentially signifi cant for its association with modernist design precepts and construction techniques practiced by NPS architects, landscape architects, planners, and historians. These 

resources have recently or will soon attain 50 years 

of age. If Mission 66 resources are determined 

eligible, the National Register requires that properties less than fi fty years old possess “exceptional 

importance” under Criteria Consideration G. 

Landscape Characteristics

The tangible and intangible aspects of a landscape 

consist of characteristics from the historic period 

that individually or collectively aid in the understanding of the site.3

 The landscape characteristics 

of Horseshoe Bend-- natural systems, topography, 

spatial organization, buildings and structures, and 

archeological sites, contribute to historic signifi -

cance. Together these landscape characteristics 

convey the history of the Battle of Horseshoe 

Bend and early commemoration of the Creek War. 

Changes made to the landscape since March 27, 

1814, altered the vistas and views, vegetation, land 

use, small-scale features, and circulation of the site. 

Besides the natural resources, no above-ground 

landscape features remain from the time of the 

battle. The historic landscape, however, retains 

authenticity and preserves many characteristics of 

2 Concurrence letter to Larry Oaks (Alabama SHPO) from 

Kirk A. Cordell. June 28, 1995. Letter on fi le at SERO. 

3 Page et al, p.53. 
56 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

ANALYSIS

the nineteenth century.4

An assessment of landscape features at Horseshoe 

Bend defi nes categories based on the contribution 

of each feature to the historic character of the site. 

Contributing features survive from the period of 

signifi cance and continue to convey their historic appearance and function. Non-contributing 

resources include those added since the period 

of signifi cance or that no longer retain suffi cient 

integrity. Some features that existed during the period of signifi cance have been removed, destroyed, 

or are unrecognizable in their current condition. 

Undetermined resources include features whose 

age or contribution is unknown. 

Natural Systems and Features

The course of the Tallapoosa River retains its 

nineteenth-century character, though the river’s 

depth and width have been altered by dam projects above and below the park. The river follows 

the same historic course, curving around the 

horseshoe. Drainage on the peninsula was altered 

by agricultural terracing in the twentieth century 

and the construction of the park tour road in the 

1960s. The park restored the battlefi eld and graded 

the terraces in 1963 and today the topography on 

the battlefi eld resembles the nineteenth-century 

4 Mission 66 Master Plan, p. 5. 

landscape.

The Tallapoosa River retains integrity as a signifi -

cant landscape feature in the Battle of Horseshoe 

Bend. Cherokee soldiers swam across the river the 

morning of March 27, 1814, to steal dugout canoes 

and attack Tohopeka. This assault combined with 

Jackson’s direct attack on the barricade surrounded the Red Sticks. After the battle, accounts 

describe survivors fl oating downriver from the 

battlefi eld to avoid capture, including the warrior 

Menawa. The river defi ned the topography and 

spatial organization of the battlefi eld and remains a 

contributing resource. 

Land Use 

During the prehistoric era, the landscape was used 

for hunting and gathering and supported campsites 

and villages. As the Creek War escalated, Newyaucau was burned, Tohopeka became a refugee village 

and the construction of the barricade resulted in a 

cleared peninsula. The occupation of the site ended with the battle. The landscape was abandoned 

until Alabama settlers originally from Georgia and 

Tennessee moved into the area to begin farming. 

Land use shifted from a sparsely populated natural 

landscape in the 1830s to one of intensive farming. 

Agriculture continued into the twentieth century 

until the park was established. Today Horseshoe 

Bend is an interpreted landscape protected to 

commemorate the battle. The park preserves the 

battlefi eld, provides access to the river, and off ers 

opportunities for passive recreation. 

Spatial Organization

Geography also dictated the location and position 

of Newyacau and Tohopeka, and by extension, the 

Battle of Horseshoe Bend. While the historic landscape retains no constructed features from 1814, 

the composition of the natural landscape and its 

relationship to the river show the isolated position 

of the Red Sticks. The spatial organization of Gun 

Hill, Tohopeka, the river, and the barricade defi ne 

the historic battlefi eld. The curve of the Tallapoosa 

allowed the Jackson’s men to surround the peninsula and village, while the elevated topography 

at Gun Hill provided an advantageous artillery 

position. Today the landscape conveys the arrangement of natural features that isolated the Red Sticks 

and contributed to their defeat. The landscape 

characteristic retains integrity of location, setting, 

association, feeling, design, and materials. The loss 

of Tohopeka and the barricade (above-ground) 

diminish the integrity of workmanship.

FIGURE 55. Barricade site in the 1970s. HOBE Archives.
National Park Service 57

ANALYSIS

The spatial organization of the existing landscape 

park-wide remains a primary feature of the park 

development era, particularly Mission 66. The park 

tour road and nature trail loop around the peninsula and highlight points of interest, meanwhile 

the residential, maintenance, and visitor service 

buildings are clustered near Highway 49. The siting of NPS facilities emphasized accessibility and 

convenience, preserved the core battlefi eld, and 

intercepted visitors to the visitor center for orientation and interpretation, all components of Mission 

66 park design and planning. Today Mission 66 resources retain integrity of location, design, association, feeling, setting, materials, and workmanship, 

despite the loss of the original interpretive shelters. 

Circulation

The existing circulation system at Horseshoe Bend 

includes both vehicular and pedestrian routes. 

The Mission 66 tour road and nature trail are 

used interpret the battle and Creek life and highlight the scenery of the park. The park tour road, 

built in 1964, begins at the visitor center parking 

lot and includes stops at Cotton Patch Hill, the 

Tallapoosa River, and Gun Hill before continuing 

a one-way loop to Tohopeka and two overlooks/

tour stops. The nature trail forms a loop, beginning 

and ending at Cotton Patch Hill, that follows the 

north bank of the river to the Tohopeka overlook 

(tour stop 4) before turning northward and passing the barricade site and Gun Hill. Both features 

were part of the Mission 66 master plan and retain 

integrity of location, association, setting, design, 

materials, and workmanship. 

Fire roads throughout the park, particularly on the 

south side of the Tallapoosa River, provide access 

to less public areas of the park beyond the peninsula. The primary fi re road oriented northeast to 

southwest is visible on a 1906 soil survey map of 

Tallapoosa County. The location and association of 

this road requires more research to determine National Register eligibility. Historic road traces and 

other fi re roads south of the river provide access to 

the portion of the battlefi eld held by Gen. Coff ee’s 

men. The recent SEAC archeological survey identifi ed the historic Old Miller Ferry Road (HOBE-29). 

This road trace retains integrity of location, association, materials, and feeling and once led to the 

ferry site ran by the Miller family

FIGURE 56. Spatial organization of barricade site. Note white posts and tour road. NPS photo.
58 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

ANALYSIS

Buildings and Structures

The impermanent structures of Tohopeka at the 

time of the battle were destroyed as Jackson’s 

men burned the village the evening of March 

27, 1814. Monuments added to the battlefi eld in 

1914, commemorate the fi ghting and contribute to 

the historic district. The National Register-listed 

structures in the park include the Congressional 

monument (005001), the Daughters of 1812 monument (005002), and the Miller Bridge piers and 

abutments (005003). The grave marker for Major 

Lemuel P. Montgomery (091315) is managed as a 

cultural resource, but is ineligible for National Register listing. The monuments and markers added 

to the battlefi eld landscape survive from the early 

twentieth century and convey the commemorative 

period. 

These structures retain integrity of location, setting, design, material, workmanship, association 

and feeling. The two monuments are in fair condition and retain integrity of setting, feeling, design, 

materials, association and workmanship. The park 

moved the Congressional monument in 1965 to a 

more accurate location, however, the integrity was 

not compromised. The ruinous condition of the 

Miller Bridge piers compromises the integrity of 

material and workmanship. 

A majority of the structures at Horseshoe Bend are 

park facilities built in the second half of the twentieth century. Mission 66 development required 

construction of several buildings and, since initial 

park development, additional structures have been 

added. The visitor center built in the early 1960s 

retains architectural features from the original 

construction, despite alterations and updates to 

the building. The maintenance complex and park 

housing have not been assessed for signifi cance 

or integrity but are potentially eligible based on 

age and association with park Mission 66 development.5

 Modern interpretive shelters at Cotton 

Hill, Gun Hill, and Tohopeka do not contribute to 

the cultural landscape. A modern restroom directly 

adjacent to the visitor center (added in 2005) is not 

a contributing resource. 

Topography

Though manipulated into terraces during the twentieth century, topography is a defi ning landscape 

characteristic of the battlefi eld. The restoration of 

the landscape as part of park development altered 

the peninsula of the horseshoe and reintroduced 

more gradual slopes. The terraces remain evident 

in some locations along sections of the park road. 

The topography of Cotton Hill marks the high 

ground along Jackson’s approach and Gun Hill 

conveys the advantage of his position during the 

battle. The elevated artillery position allowed the 

U.S. soldiers to attack the barricade directly. Both 

locations are interpreted by the park. The terrain 

is noted on period battle maps and over the years 

Gun Hill has become the focus of commemorative 

events and markers. The park preserves the views 

and landscape at each elevated shelter. 

Archeological Sites

Archeological sites remain signifi cant features in 

the cultural landscape and retain all aspects of 

integrity. The potential to yield future archeological 

information remains an important characteristic of 

Horseshoe Bend. Artifacts and features collected 

and identifi ed can provide context to other local 

and regional sites and expand the prehistoric and 

historic record. 

Previous archeology identifi ed the sites of Tohopeka and Newyaucau and areas of each village are 

preserved undisturbed. The battlefi eld and barricade site may yield potential archeological information below the twentieth-century plow zone. 

Several twentieth-century sites identifi ed in 2012 

are preserved at Horseshoe Bend. The location 

of the battlefi eld and Creek villages conveys the 

signifi cance of the cultural landscape and the Battle 

of Horseshoe Bend. These sites have increased importance as they remain the only tangible features 

left from the early 1800s. The signifi cance of the 

recently documented house sites contributes to the 

nineteenth-century history of the area

. 

5 PMIS 192899. 

FIGURE 57. Tohopeka village site. NPS photo.
National Park Service 59

ANALYSIS

Vistas and Views

The interpreted views at Horseshoe Bend mark 

the positions of Andrew Jackson and his troops on 

the morning of March 27, 1814. Vistas from Cotton Hill and Gun Hill are directed south toward 

the barricade site. The existing vegetation and 

modern tour road partially intrude on the historic 

view, though the preserved open space in front of 

the barricade delineates the immediate battlefi eld 

where heavy fi ghting took place. The park balances 

the management of vistas and existing natural 

resources while highlighting the most important 

features of the battle.

The view of the river conveys the isolated position 

of the Red Sticks. Tour stop one and three overlook 

Bean’s Island and the south bank of the Tallapoosa 

River where John Coff ee and allied Creek and 

Cherokee attacked Tohopeka. 

Views across the Tallapoosa River to Newyaucau 

are possible from the designated pull-off at tour 

stop fi ve, though vegetation obscures the village 

site. Views of Newyaucau are open from the nature 

trail east of Cotton Hill. 

Tour stops three and four provide views of the site 

of Tohopeka. An open understory provides visitors 

with a view of the approximate size and scale of the 

village and an interpretative shelter off ers a bird’s 

eye view of the end of the peninsula. 

Vegetation

The natural vegetation on the peninsula approximates the setting at the time of the battle.6

Although large trees were used for the barricade 

construction and corn and cotton cultivation 

changed the character of the landscape after the 

war, the growth of forests at Horseshoe Bend has 

regenerated characteristics of the 1814 period. The 

reforestation of the peninsula after farming ended 

and the park was established helped recreate the 

oak-hickory forest used by the Creeks. In areas 

south of the river, the natural vegetation is similar 

to the historic period but has been altered by agricultural practices and fi re management. 

The open, grassy fi eld north of the barricade site 

is currently managed under agricultural lease. 

The crop is not historically signifi cant, yet the 

6 National Register nomination, Section 7. 

FIGURE 58. View from Cotton Patch Hill, looking south. View marks the approach of Jackson’s men. NPS photo.
60 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

ANALYSIS

open character of the tract conveys the historic 

battlefi eld. No description of the battle mentions 

the groundcover in this area, though the existing 

vegetation expresses the cleared landscape Jackson 

encountered. Thoughout the park, invasive and 

exotic vegetation impacts the cultural landscape. 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Nepalese 

browntop (Microstegium vimineum) are two species threatening the Tallapoosa riverbank.

Small-scale Features

No small-scale landscape features survive from 

the nineteenth century at Horseshoe Bend due to 

the events of the battle, their material impermanence, and the extensive grading and cultivation 

that occurred in the twentieth century. The villages 

of Tohopeka and Newyaucau burned before and 

during the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and the barricade and defenses used by the Red Sticks were 

not preserved. Farmers terraced the peninsula and 

mined gravel near Cotton Patch Hill, eradicating 

any above-ground features that may have survived 

the nineteenth century. 

The Mission 66 development of HOBE introduced 

modern small-scale features to the park. Picnic 

tables, grills, trashcans, waysides, benches, and 

bridges (along the nature trail) are non-contributing features of the cultural landscape. Features 

related to the park tour road and visitor center 

development may be contributing. Any features 

constructed during the 1960s should be included in 

an evaluation of Mission 66 resources.

Integrity

The aspects of integrity evaluated as part of the 

National Register include location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These distinct qualities considered together 

describe the ability of a property to convey historic 

signifi cance. Integrity addresses physical landscape 

features and characteristics that express time and 

place. Battlefi elds should possess integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association to convey 

signifi cance. A basic test of integrity for a battlefi eld 

important for its association with an historic event 

is whether a participant in the battle would recognize the property as it exists today.7

Location

Location is the place where the historic property was 

7 National Register Bulletin 40, p. 10. 

constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 

Horseshoe Bend retains integrity of location as 

the place where the Red Sticks took a fi nal stand 

against Andrew Jackson and his army. The events 

that occurred on March 27, 1814, ended the Creek 

War and launched the military career of Jackson. 

The geography of the horseshoe peninsula and Tallapoosa River mark the site of this important battle 

and remain unchanged. Archeology confi rmed the 

location of Newyaucau, Tohopeka, and the Red 

Stick barricade. 

Design

Design is the combination of elements that create the 

form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. 

The spatial organization of the battlefi eld preserves the integrity of design. The elevated hills, 

the small island in the middle of the river, and the 

southern shore encircling the peninsula allowed 

the U.S. troops to surround the defended Red 

Sticks at Horseshoe Bend. Though the design of 

the landscape was a result of the natural terrain, the 

characteristics and features used by Jackson convey 

historic signifi cance. The layout of the landscape 

provided distinct advantages used during the battle 

and continues to defi ne the park today. 

Setting

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 

The integrity of setting at Horseshoe Bend preserves the character of the place in addition to 

the location of the battle. The curve of the river, 

topography, Bean’s Island and open space north 

of the barricade site preserve not only elements 

of the physical environment, but also the spatial 

relationships that defi ne the overall battlefi eld. 

The undeveloped landscape of Horseshoe Bend 

NMP conveys the rural character of the landscape 

at the time of the battle, though the serenity of the 

park belies the bloodshed and horror at the bend.8 

No in-holdings or incompatible development are 

adjacent to park boundaries. 

Materials

Materials are the physical elements that were combined 

or deposited during a particular period of time and in 

a particular pattern or confi guration to form a historic 

property. 

The integrity of materials for historic battlefi elds 

refers to manmade resources and is diminished at 

8 Long Range Interpretive Plan, p. 23. 
National Park Service 61

ANALYSIS

Horseshoe Bend. However, the integrity of archeological sites remains and sites preserve potential 

information. 

Workmanship

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a 

particular culture or people during any given period in 

history or prehistory. 

Integrity of workmanship refers to the quality in 

which landscape features were fashioned or constructed for functional or decorative purposes. The 

1814 battlefi eld had major features, like the barricade, which involved planning and construction 

by the Red Sticks. The integrity of workmanship is 

diminished by the loss of historic battle features, 

though this aspect of integrity is not crucial in assessing historic battlefi elds.9

Feeling

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or 

historic sense of a particular period of time. 

Integrity of feeling exists at Horseshoe Bend. In 

1814, any large tree would have been used for barricade construction for the village. The open fi eld 

north of the barricade site expresses the feeling of 

openness Jackson’s army encountered. Despite the 

encroachment and maturation of second growth 

forest near Tohopeka, the open understory conveys 

the feeling of the battlefi eld at the southern end of 

the peninsula. The rural character of the park contributes to the commemoration of the battle and 

preserves a reverent and quiet atmosphere. 

Association

Association is the direct link between an important 

historic event or person and a historic property. 

The HOBE cultural landscape is directly associated with the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. The battle 

centered on the fortifi ed peninsula. Gun Hill, the 

barricade site, the river, and other physical features 

show a direct connection to the historic fi ghting. 

The association of several affi liated Indian tribes 

connects the park to the descendants of those who 

fought or lived at Horseshoe Bend. 

Summary

The cultural landscape at Horseshoe Bend retains 

integrity of location, association, feeling, design 

and setting despite changes to the vegetation, vistas 

and views, and built environment. The battlefi eld 

retains its identity as the place of the battle, but 

9 National Register Bulletin 40. P. 11. 

also remains one of the few Creek War sites preserved.10 The National Register bulletin addressing 

battlefi elds notes, “...location, setting, feeling, and 

association are usually the most important aspects 

of integrity...”11 The integrity of material and workmanship was diminished by the burning of Tohopeka and the barricade. 

Non-contributing resources are common even in 

well-preserved battlefi elds. The structures related 

to visitor services and park operations at Horseshoe Bend NMP do not impact the main battlefi eld and may be potentially eligible for listing in 

the National Register as part of an NPS Mission 

66 context. The modern structures are not visible 

from the battlefi eld proper. 

The Archeological Overview and Assessment (2000) 

places each archeological site within the NPS thematic framework. On a landscape scale, the overall 

park encompasses several themes, most predominantly the War of 1812 and East of the Mississippi (1763-1850s). Other themes include Archaic 

Adaptations of the Southeast, Eastern Farmers, 

Sedentary Villagers, and Transportation.12

10 The site of several forts including Fort Mims and 

Fort Jackson, as well as the site of the Battle of Holy 

Ground are preserved in Georgia and Alabama to 

commemorate the Creek War. 

11 National Register Bulletin 40, p. 12. 

12 deGrummond and Hamlin, p. 71. 
62 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

ANALYSIS

Landscape Characteristic

Feature

Year Integrity Condition

Natural Systems and 

Features

Tallapoosa River Good

Land Use 20c. Good

Circulation

Park Tour Road 1964 Mission 66 Good

Nature Trail 1964 Mission 66 Good

Fire Roads 20c. 20c. Fair

Archeological Sites

Newyaucau 1777-1813 Prehistoric Fair

Tohopeka 1813-1814 Prehistoric Good

Barricade Site 1813-1814 Battle Good

20th c. sites (multiple) 20c. 20c.

Buildings and

Structures

Miller Bridge piers 1907-1908 20c. Poor

Visitor Center 1964 Mission 66 Fair

Restroom 1998 Modern Good

Park Housing 1963, 1991 Mission 66, Modern Fair

Maintenance Area Good

Interpretive Shelters 2005 Modern Good

Small-scale Features

Lemuel Montgomery

grave

1972 Good

D.A.R. Monument 1914 Commemoration Fair

Congressional

Monument

1918 Commemoration Good

Entrance signs (3) 1960s Mission 66 Good

Flagpole Good

Cannon (2) 1965 Mission 66 Good

Highway 49 fencing Good

Spatial Organization Good

Vegetation 20c. Fair

Vistas and Views Mission 66 Good

Topography Mission 66 Good

Cotton Patch Hill Battle Good

Gun Hill Battle Good
 63

Treatment

The treatment recommendations of the Horseshoe 

Bend CLR articulate a management strategy for the 

cultural landscape based on research, inventory, 

and analysis. Treatment provides guidance on how 

to best manage the landscape as a cultural resource 

integrated into a natural resource and convey the 

importance of the battle that took place in March 

1814. Treatment varies from broad guidance concerning the setting of Horseshoe Bend to specifi c 

recommendations for characteristics of the historic landscape. The following recommendations 

propose a plan for continued maintenance while 

outlining a strategy for long-term management by 

the National Park Service. 

Treatment recommendations of the Horseshoe 

Bend CLR take into account the historical battlefi eld, the signifi cance and existing integrity of 

landscape characteristics, contemporary needs 

of visitor services and the increased attention 

anticipated from the upcoming bicentennial. The 

recommended approach focuses on the signifi cant 

resources, yet includes the entire park landscape 

and management of natural resources in the 

backcountry. Treatment is be aimed at enhancing 

the battlefi eld and mitigating the changes in the 

landscape since March 1814.

Requirements for Treatment 

and Use

A number of laws, regulations, and functional 

requirements circumscribe treatment and use of 

historic resources in our National Parks. In addition to protecting the cultural resource, these 

requirements also address issues of human safety, 

fi re protection, energy conservation, abatement 

of hazardous materials, and universal accessibility. Some of these requirements may contradict or 

be at cross purposes with one another if they are 

rigidly interpreted. Any treatment must be carefully considered in order to preserve the fabric of a 

cultural landscape. All cultural landscape treatment 

recommendations conform to Federal laws and 

statutes and National Park Service policy, including 

the National Park Service Management Policies, 

Director’s Order No. 28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines, and the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as 

amended (NHPA) mandates Federal protection of 

signifi cant cultural resources, including buildings, 

landscapes, and archeological sites. In implementing the act, the NPS is bound by a number of laws 

and authorities have been established that are binding on the NPS.

Section 106

A routine step in the park’s planning process for 

the treatment of cultural resources is compliance 

with Section 106 of NHPA to ensure the eff ects of 

park projects on cultural resources are fuilly understood. This requires that prior to any undertaking, 

Federal agencies “take into account the eff ect” of 

the undertaking on properties listed or elgible for 

listing in the National Register and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such 

undertaking.”

Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800,”Protection of Historic Properties”) require consultation 

with local governments, State Historic Preservation 

Offi cers, Indian tribal representatives, and others. 

The compliance process also establishes criteria 

under which the Advisory Council may comment, 

though the vast majority of Federal undertakings 

do not involve this heightened level of review. To 

expedite the review process, a programmatic agreement between the Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation, the National Council of State Historic Preservation Offi cers, and the NPS allows for 

a streamlined Section 106 review process. With 

certain conditions, routine repairs and maintenance that do not alter the appearance of the 

cultural landscape or involve widespread or total 
64 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

TREATMENT

replacement of historic features or materials are 

not subject to review outside the NPS. 

NPS General Management Policies

The NPS General Management Policies (2006), 

especially Chapter 5 “Cultural Resource Management”, guide overall management of historic properties in the national park system. Based upon the 

authority of some nineteen Acts of Congress and 

many more Executive orders and regulations, these 

policies require planning to ensure that management processes for making decisions and setting 

priorities integrate information about cultural 

resources, and provide for consultation and collaboration with outside entities. These policies also 

support good stewardship to ensure that cultural 

resources are preserved and protected, receive appropriate treatments (including maintenance), and 

are made available for public understanding and 

enjoyment.1

Section 5.3.5, “Treatment of Cultural Resources,” 

provides specifi c directives, including a directive 

that “the preservation of cultural resources in their 

existing states will always receive fi rst consideration.” The section also states that,

...treatments entailing greater intervention will 

not proceed without the consideration of interpretive alternatives. The appearance and condition of resources before treatment, and changes 

made during treatment, will be documented. 

Such documentation will be shared with any 

appropriate state or tribal historic preservation 

offi ce or certifi ed local government, and added 

to the park museum cataloging system. Pending 

treatment decisions reached through the planning process, all resources will be protected and 

preserved in their existing states.2

The Secretary’s Standards

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties provides a philosophy to underpin historic preservation in the 

United States and outlines the best advice on how 

to protect a wide range of historic properties. By 

separate regulation, the Secretary requires the application of the Standards in certain programs administered through the National Park Service. The 

Standards have been widely adopted by state and 

local governments and by the private sector, and 

are intended to be applied to a variety of resource 

1 NPS General Management Policies (2006), p. 50.

2 Ibid., p. 56. 

types, including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

and districts.

The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible 

preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. For example, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to 

make essential decisions about which contributing 

features of a cultural landscape should be retained 

and which can be changed. But once a treatment 

is selected, the Standards provide philosophical 

consistency and a holistic approach to the work. 

The overall strategy for treatment of the Horseshoe 

Bend cultural landscape is guided by the Standards

which outline four types of treatment, in hierarchical order. These four distinct approaches vary by 

level of physical intervention and include specifi c 

guidelines. 

Preservation is the act or process of applying 

measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property. Work, 

including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials 

and features rather than extensive replacement 

and new construction. New exterior additions are 

not within the scope of this treatment; however, 

the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, 

electrical, and plumbing systems and other coderequired work to make properties functional is 

appropriate within a preservation project. 

Rehabilitation is the act or process of making 

possible a compatible use for a property through 

repair, alterations, and additions while preserving 

those portions or features, which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 

Restoration is the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time 

by means of the removal of features from other 

historic periods in its history and reconstruction 

of missing features from the restoration period. 

The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, 

electrical, and plumbing systems and other coderequired work to make properties functional is 

appropriate within a restoration project. 

Reconstruction is the act or process of depicting, 

by means of new construction the form, features, 

and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, 

building, structure, or object for the purpose of 

replicating its appearance as a specifi c period of 

time and in its historic location. 
National Park Service 65

TREATMENT

Regardless of treatment approach, the Standards

put a high priority on preservation of existing 

historic materials. Replacement of a fence, for 

instance, even when replacement is “in kind,” 

diminishes the authenticity of the landscape, since 

the physical changes resulting from the passage of 

time are fundamental to the authenticity of an historic resource. The Standards also require that any 

alterations, additions, or other modifi cations be 

reversible, i.e., be designed and constructed in such 

a way that they can be removed or reversed in the 

future without the loss of existing historic materials, features, or character.

Basis for Treatment

As noted above, there are four broad approaches 

to the treatment of any cultural landscape: preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Choosing the appropriate approach 

requires consideration of several primary factors: 

the site’s relative importance in history, its physical 

condition and material integrity, and its proposed 

use. Other variables to consider, both practical 

and philosophical, include the extent of historic 

documentation, historic value, long and short term 

objectives, operational and code requirements (e.g. 

accessibility, fi re, security) and anticipated capital 

improvement, staffi ng and maintenance costs. The 

impact of the treatment on any signifi cant archeological and natural resources should also be considered in this decision making process. Therefore, 

it is necessary to consider a broad array of dynamic 

and interrelated variables in selecting a treatment 

for a cultural landscape preservation project. 

A balance between change and continuity is inherent in all cultural landscapes. Change may be 

subtle, as with geomorphologic eff ects, or obvious 

such as the cyclical changes of growth, reproduction, and succession in vegetation. The continuity 

of form, order, use, features, or materials in a landscape is present in character-defi ning features. This 

dynamic quality should seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change. 

Treatment Approach at 

Horseshoe Bend

Preservation is the treatment approach recommended for Horseshoe Bend NMP due to the 

national signifi cance of the battlefi eld and existing 

condition of the landscape. Despite the scarcity 

of primary documentation relating to the period 

landscape, Horseshoe Bend retains the spatial 

organization and overall character of the nineteenth-century battlefi eld as well as integrity of the 

commemorative features dating to the twentiethcentury. Preservation allows for the retention and 

continued maintenance of all potentially eligible 

resources and signifi cant archeological sites. The 

battlefi eld is a cultural landscape that honors those 

who sacrifi ced their lives and should be preserved 

as such for the approaching bicentennial events. 

On-going maintenance at the park should continue 

to occur, keeping the cultural landscape in good 

condition.3

The integrity of the archeological resources warrants preservation in situ. Unless a compelling research question justifi es disturbance or excavation, 

all archeological resources should be preserved. To 

ensure continued preservation, all cultural resources should be addressed in fi re and vegetation 

management plans. The battlefi eld, sites of Tohopeka and Newyaucau, and twentieth-century home 

sites each retain the potential to yield archeological 

information. 

Due to an incomplete assessment of the park’s 

twentieth-century and Mission 66 resources, a 

preservation treatment approach will protect those 

cultural resources with potential eligibility to the 

National Register until further research is completed. The stabilization, protection, and preservation of all park buildings, trails, and roads should 

be a priority until a determination of eligibility 

or update to the National Register is completed. 

Rehabilitation of specifi c landscape features may 

be necessary to improve the condition of the 

landscape and return the forest to its nineteenthcentury appearance. For example, the implementation of the Fire Management Plan will open areas 

of understory throughout the park, similar to the 

historic setting. 

Considering all treatment approaches, restoration 

and reconstruction are inappropriate for Horseshoe Bend due to insuffi cient documentation in 

the historical record. Information necessary to 

accurately portray or recreate the historic features 

from the battle does not survive and is not likely to 

be found. Preservation is the appropriate treatment 

approach to ensure the existing characteristics of 

the 1814 battlefi eld remain intact. Avoiding conjecture and preserving the landscape characteristics, 

however general, from the Battle of Horseshoe 

Bend will convey the signifi cance of the site.

3 Horseshoe Bend NMP Landscape, Cultural Landscape 

Inventory (CLI), certifi ed 2012. The CLI identifi ed the 

cultural landscape of the park to be in good condition. 
66 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

TREATMENT

Specifi c Treatment 

Recommendations for 

Horseshoe Bend

Preserve and maintain the cultural landscape of 

Horseshoe Bend. The entire park composes a 

cultural landscape that preserves the battlefi eld, 

artillery position, and approach routes of the Battle 

of Horseshoe Bend. The park includes a vegetative buff er that protects the landscape and view 

shed from potential incompatible development. 

The preservation of the overall landscape should 

include comprehensive strategies not limited to 

NEPA/Section 106 compliance, NPS Vital Signs 

monitoring, fi re management, and routine maintenance. Managing the park as a cultural landscape 

should prioritize integrated resource management 

and aim to retain the defi ning landscape characteristics noted in the Analysis chapter. 

Planning 

• Train staff in landscape preservation maintenance. The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation and the National Center 

for Preservation Technology and Training 

(NCPTT) off er courses, workshops, and 

programs on historic landscapes and maintenance. The Cultural Resource Academy is 

currently developing curriculum to coordinate and expand these eff orts.

• Develop a Preservation Maintenance Plan. 

This document should outline regular 

maintenance of character-defi ning landscape 

features and articulate cultural landscape 

projects within the methodology of historic 

preservation.4 A Preservation Maintenance 

Plan would establish “best practices” and 

provide a detailed plan to document change 

in the cultural landscape and inventory extant features. 

• Update the park National Register nomination to establish more thorough historical 

contexts and address the Mission 66 development at Horseshoe Bend. As the park 

moves forward with comprehensive planning 

documents, including a Foundation Statement, an updated and expanded nomination 

would provide information on fundamental 

4 Margaret Coffi n and Regina M. Bellivia. Guide to 

Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan for a 

Historic Landscape. Cultural Landscape Publication No. 

7, Olmstead Center for Landscape Preservation, NPS, 

1998.

values and resources.

• Ensure all planning, including the Foundation Statement and Long Range Interpretive 

Plan, address the importance of the cultural 

landscape. 

Resource Management

• Stabilize the Miller Bridge piers and arrest 

vegetative growth on abutments, piers, and 

foundations. Remove trees for resource 

protection and re-point mortar, if necessary, for visitor safety. Any immediate danger 

of collapse due to structural failure should 

be mitigated and continuing threats from 

vegetative growth, natural erosion and 

settlement should be addressed on a cyclical 

schedule. An historic structure assessment 

should inform all site work. 

• Preserve archeological sites in situ. Maintain vegetation to stabilize sites and control 

invasive exotics.

• Continue to implement the Fire Management Plan to restore an open understory to 

areas of the park, similar to the nineteenthcentury landscape. 

• Re-establish the view to Newyaucau from 

the park nature trail and expand interpretation of the inaccessible archeological site 

from the fl oodplain. Visitors have restricted 

access to Newyaucau and the visual connection, although overgrown with Chinese 

privet and mature forest, is an opportunity to 

tell the story of Creek life prior to the battle. 

The interpretation of Newyaucau is noted 

in the Mission 66 master plan and the nature 

trail provides a detached view, protecting the 

sensitive archeological remains. 

• Currently, the wayside at tour stop #5 addresses Newyaucau and the Indian casualties of the battle. Consider clearing a small 

and select number of trees that obstruct the 

view across the river east of the tour stop as a 

long-term option, pending fi scal constraints 

and deferred maintenance. The removal of 

any woody vegetation should prioritize safety 

(for maintenance and visitors) and avoid 

causing increased erosion on the adjacent 

slope.

Interpretation
National Park Service 67

TREATMENT

• Interpret incorrect cannon carriage at visitor 

center and Gun Hill. The naval gun, inaccurate to the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, 

should be interpreted or corrected in public 

displays. 

• Continue scholarly historical research 

related to the battle, the Creek War, eighteenth- and nineteen-century Creek life, and 

Andrew Jackson. Archive all material related 

to the bicentennial in accordance with NPS 

museum standards.

• Expand interpretation of Creek life on the 

nature trail. Brochures, waysides, and newly 

available technologies can expand the story 

of the Creek beyond the battle and interpret 

the natural resources of the park. The nature 

trail remains a Mission 66 resource with 

potential to connect the separated banks of 

the Tallapoosa River through meaningful 

interpretation. 

The Barricade Landscape

The area directly adjacent to the barricade, currently under agricultural lease, should be preserved 

as an open landscape to accurately portray this 

character-defi ning section of the larger battlefi eld. 

The area immediately north of the barricade is 

highly visible from Cotton Patch Hill and Gun 

Hill and marks the fi eld Andrew Jackson’s men 

advanced across in a direct attack on the Red 

Stick breastwork midday on March 27, 1814. The 

agricultural lease currently maintaining the landscape does not address long-term management 

and alternatives for the barricade landscape should 

be articulated to preserve the characteristics that 

convey its historic signifi cance. 

The openness of the area, similar to the time of 

the battle, remains the primary characteristic to be 

preserved. A varying vocabulary of grasses and hay 

may be planted, but succession and encroaching 

vegetation should be managed and no new large 

plantings should be added to this area. Sustainable 

landscape management practices should be used 

regardless of maintenance routine or agricultural 

lease. 

The introduction of native warm season grasses 

at other NPS battlefi elds, including Stones River 

National Battlefi eld and Moores Creek National 

Battlefi eld, have had successful results that combine cultural landscape preservation with ecological restoration. Although some visitor education 

is required during the fi rst years of planting, the 

resounding success of these landscapes provides 

an example to consider at the Horseshoe Bend 

barricade site, when the lease is up for renewal. 

The increased habitat for native fauna is an added 

benefi t of such a project. 

The USDA-Natural Resource Conservation 

Service Plant Materials Center in the Southeast 

proposes warm-season grasses as a plant material 

to control erosion, improve wildlife habitat, and 

provide pasture, hay, and biomass.5

 Grass types 

include switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), eastern gamagrass 

(Tripsacum dactyloides), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium 

scoparium). A mix of these warm-season grasses 

adapted to warm day climates may be combined 

with tall fescue and other cool season grasses to 

supply consistent high quality forage throughout 

the year.6 Although Horseshoe Bend may manage 

the barricade landscape in a variety of ways, an 

open view from the interpretive shelters and tour 

road should be prioritized. 

5 Donald Surrency and Charles M. Owsley. Native WarmSeason Grasses in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina. 

Jimmy Carter Plant Materials Center, Americus, 

Georgia. March 2006. p. 3. 

6 Ibid., p. 4. The publication details establishment 

practices and management. 
68 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

TREATMENT
 69

Bibliography

Brantley, Jr. W.H., ed. Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 

Tallapoosa County, Alabama. Horseshoe Bend 

Battle Park Association. 1955.

Braund, Kathryn E. Holland. Deerskins and Duff els: 

The Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 

1685-1815. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of 

Nebraska Press, 1993. 

________. Warriors and Society in the Creek War 

and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. Special History Study, Horseshoe Bend National Military 

Park, 2003. 

________. Towns and the Creek War, 1813-1814. 

Special History Study, Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, 2005. 

Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma. Amherst, Massachusetts: 

University of Massachusetts, 2007.

Coffi n, Margaret and Regina M. Bellivia. Guide to 

Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan 

for a Historic Landscape. Cultural Landscape 

Publication Number 7, Olmstead Center for 

Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, 1998.

Cordell, Kirk. Correspondence from SERO-NPS to 

Larry Oaks, Alabama SHPO. Determination of 

Eligibility. June 28, 1995. 

Cummings, Mary Ellen and Caroline Gebhard. 

“Treaties and Memorials: Interpreting Horseshoe Bend National Military Park: in The 

Public Historian, Volume 18, Number 4. Representing Native American History, Autumn 

1996. 

de Grummond, Elizabeth and Christine Hamlin. 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Archeological Overview and Assessment. SEAC Accession No. 1316. Tallahassee, Florida: Southeast 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

2000.

Dickens, Jr., Roy S. Archeological Investigations at 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Laboratory of Archeology, Department of Anthropology, Georgia State University, 1974. 

Ethridge, Robbie. Creek Country: The Creek Indians 

and Their World. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: 

University of North Carolina Press, 2003. 

Fairbanks, Charles H. “Excavations at Horseshoe 

Bend, Alabama” in The Florida Anthropologist, 

Volume XV, Number 2, June 1962. 

Halbert, H.S. and T.H. Ball. The Creek War of 1813 

and 1814. Montgomery, Alabama: White, 

Woodruff , and Fowler, 1895.

Hawkins, Benjamin. Creek Confederacy and A 

Sketch of Creek Country in the Years 1798 and 

1799. Savannah, 1848.

Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Old Hickory’s War: 

Andrew Jackson and the Quest for Empire. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1996. 

Holland, James W. Victory at the Horseshoe: Andrew 

Jackson and the Creek War. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1968. 

Revised and reprinted 2004. 

Ghioto, Paul. Facts, Legends, and Accounts of the 

Battle of Horseshoe Bend. National Park Service, Spring 1979.

Kanon, Thomas. “A Slow and Laborious Slaughter” in Tennessee Historical Quarterly, Volume 

LVIII, Number 1. Spring 1999.

MacKenzie, George C. The Indian Breastwork in 

the Battle of Horseshoe Bend: Its Size, Location, 

and Construction. Horseshoe Bend National 

Military Park, Alabama. Division of History, 

Offi ce of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service. November 

1969.

Martin, Joel W. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogee’ 
70 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Struggle for a New World. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1991. 

Martin, Thomas. The Story of Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. 1959. 

Owsley, Frank Lawrence, Jr. Struggle for the Gulf 

Borderlands: The Creek War and the Battle of 

New Orleans 1812-1815. Tuscaloosa, AL: The 

University of Alabama Press, 1981. Reprint 

2000.

Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. 

Dolan. A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: 

Contents, Process, and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes program, Cultural Resource 

Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park 

Service, 1998. Perkins, Arthur F. Boundary Report for Horseshoe Bend National Military Park 

(Proposed). Region One Offi ce, National Park 

Service, 1957.

Southerland, Henry de Leon and Jerry Elijah 

Brown. The Federal Road Through Georgia, the 

Creek Nation, and Alabama 1806-1836. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama 

Press, 1989. 

Sugden, John. “Tecumseh’s Tour of Indian Country, 1811-1812” in American Indian Quarterly, 

Volume 10, Number 4, Autumn 1986.

Surrency, Donald and Charles M. Owsley. Native 

Warm-Season Grasses in Georgia, Alabama, 

South Carolina. Jimmy Carter Plant Materials 

Center, Americus, Georgia. March 2006. 

Swanton, James. The Indians of the Southeastern 

United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, 

Bulletin 137. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institute Press, reprinted 1979. 

The Reinternment of Major Lemuel P. Montgomery 

at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park.

Unpublished manuscript, Southeast Regional 

Offi ce fi les, 1972. 

Trout, Edward L. Historical Resource Materials 

Analysis: Horseshoe Bend NMP. Unpublished 

bibliography, Southeast Regional Offi ce, NPS. 

April 1971. 

Waselkov, Gregory A. and Kathryn E. Holland 

Braund William Bartram on the Southeast 

Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 

Nebraska, 1995. 

Waselkov, Gregory A. A Conquering Spirit: Fort 

Mims and the Redstick War of 1813-1814. University of Alabama Press, 2006.

________. A Reinterpretation of the Creek Indian 

Barricade at Horseshoe Bend. Alabama Archeological Society, Volume 32, Number 2, December 1986. 

“The Unfi nished Revolution” in The American 

Revolution: Lighting Freedom’s Flame. (http://

www.nps.gov/revwar/unfi nished_revolution/

war_of_1812.html)

NPS Documents 

Allin, Richard and Guy Prentice. Trip Report on Site 

Condition Assessments, Horseshoe Bend NMP, 

AL, March 20-22 and March 25-27, 2012, SEAC 

Acc. 2566. August 2012 Draft. 

Andrus, Patrick W. National Register Bulletin 40, 

Guidelines for Identifying, Evaulating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefi elds. Washington D. C.: Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, 1992. Revised 1999.

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact for the Environmental Assessment for Interpretive Shelter 

Replacement, National Park Service, December 

2004. SERO Planning fi les. 

Inventory and Monitoring Status Report, 2012, 

Horseshoe Bend NMP, Inventory & Monitoring 

Program, Southeast Coast Network, National 

Park Service, 2012. 

Long-Range Interpretative Plan, Horseshoe Bend 

National Military Park, April 2004. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, Harpers 

Ferry Center, Interpretive Planning. 

Master Plan for the Preservation and Use of Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, Mission 66 

Edition. National Park Service, 1963. (407/D19)

Mills, Marianne. Draft Foundation for Planning and 

Management. 2009. Accessed NPS Focus, June 

2, 2010. 

National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Wash-
National Park Service 71

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ington D. C.: Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, 1995.

Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation 

of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in 

the United States. American Battlefi eld Protection Program, National Park Service, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. September 

2007. 

Maps and Denver Service Center eTIC 

Resources

407/3007 Visitor Center & Utility Building, National Park Service, June 1, 1962. 

407/41902 General Area of Proposed Horseshoe 

Bend NMP

407/300001 Boundary Survey and Land Ownership, January 28, 1959. 

407/3010 Horseshoe Bend NMP Utility Systems, 

April 1962. 

407/107529 Final Construction Report, Resurfacing and Rehabilitation of Entrance, Tour Loop, 

and Boat Ramp Road, including Parking Areas 

and Pullouts, 2006.

407/D-13 Resource Management Plan, Horseshoe 

Bend National Military Park.

407/D20 Completion Report: Erosion Control and 

Ground Improvement, May 1963.

407/D21 Completion Report: Construct Utilities – 

Visitor Center (well)

407/D22 Completion Report: Preliminary Archeological Investigation to Locate Breastworks and 

Creek Indian Village, May 1962.

407/D23 Completion Report: Improvements to 

Water System (VC area/residential)

407/D29 Ceremonies Attending the Sesquicentennial 

of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and Dedication 

of the Park Visitor Center, Friday March 27, 

1964.
72 Horseshoe Bend Cultural Landscape Report

BIBLIOGRAPHY
As the nation’s prinicpal conservation agency, the 

Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and 

natural resources. This includes fostering sound 

use of our land and water resources; protecting 

our fi sh, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our 

national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor 

recreation. The department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to ensure that 

their development is in the best interests of all our 

people by encouraging stewardship and citizen 

participation in their care. The department also has 

a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U. S. administration.

HOBE 407/119737 February 2013