U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

UUppddaatteettootthheeCCiivviillWWaarrSSiitteessAAddvviissoorryyCCoommmmiissssiioonn

RReeppoorrttoonntthheeNNaattiioonn

’’ssCCiivviillWWaarrBBaattttlleeffiieellddss

SSttaatteeooffTTeennnneesssseeee

 Washington, DC 

 December 2009 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

State of Tennessee

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Washington, DC 

December 2009 

Authority 

The American Battlefield Protection Program Act of 1996, as amended by the Civil War 

Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016, 17 December 

2002), directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the Civil War Sites Advisory 

Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. 

Acknowledgments 

NPS Project Team Paul Hawke, Project Leader; Kathleen Madigan, Survey Coordinator; 

Tanya Gossett and January Ruck, Reporting; Matthew Borders, Historian; Kristie Kendall, 

Program Assistant. 

Battlefield Surveyor(s) Joseph E. Brent, Mudpuppy and Waterdog, Inc. 

Respondents Stacy Allen, Shiloh National Military Park; Gib Backlund, Stones River 

National Battlefield; David Fraley, Carter House; Jimmy Jobe, Fort Donelson National 

Battlefield; Stuart Johnson, Stones River National Battlefield; Alton Kelley, Middle 

Tennessee Convention and Visitor’s Center; Dot Kelley, Knoxville Civil War Roundtable; 

Steve McDaniel, Parker’s Crossroads Battlefield Association; Lee Miller, General N.B. Forrest 

Historical Society; Jim Ogden, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park; Fred 

Prouty, Tennessee Wars Commission; Albert Samsel, City of Bean Station; David E. Simpson, 

Robert H. Hatton CAMP #723; Malcolm Wilcox, Salem Cemetery Battlefield; Herbert Wood, 

Davis Bridge Preservation Association. 

Cover: The Thompson House, ca. 1835, a historic structure on the Spring Hill battlefield. 

The property, Oaklawn Plantation, is permanently protected by a conservation easement. 

Photo by Joseph E. Brent, 2006.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 

Table of Contents 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 3

SYNOPSIS ....................................................................................................... 5

METHOD STATEMENT .................................................................................. 10

RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS ................................................................................... 10 

QUESTIONNAIRES...................................................................................................... 13 

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF TENNESSEE’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS . 15

QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS .......................................................................................... 15 

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 17 

STEWARDSHIP .......................................................................................................... 20 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION .......................................................................... 26 

LOCAL ADVOCACY ................................................................................................... 27

BATTLEFIELD PROFILES......................................................................... 30 

APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 114

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ............................. 114 

APPENDIX B. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................. 117 

APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS............................... 120 

APPENDIX D. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS ......... 121 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 3 

Introduction 

The information in this report fulfills, in part, the purposes of the Civil War Battlefield 

Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016). Those purposes are: 

1) to act quickly and proactively to preserve and protect nationally significant Civil 

War battlefields through conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of those 

battlefields from willing sellers; and 

2) to create partnerships among state and local governments, regional entities, and 

the private sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil 

War battlefields. 

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 directs the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park 

Service, to update the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation’s 

Civil War Battlefields. The CWSAC was established by Congress in 1991 and published its 

report in 1993. Congress provided funding for this update in FY 2005 and FY 2007. 

Congress asked that the updated report reflect the following: 

• Preservation activities carried out at the 384 battlefields identified by the CWSAC 

during the period between 1993 and the update; 

• Changes in the condition of the battlefields during that period; and 

• Any other relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. 

In accordance with the legislation, this report presents information about Civil War 

battlefields in Tennessee for use by Congress, federal, state, and local government 

agencies, landowners, and other interest groups. Other state reports will be issued as 

surveys and analyses are completed. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 4 

Figure 1. CWSAC Battlefields in Tennessee. 

Figure 2. CWSAC battlefields near Nashville. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 5 

Synopsis 

There are 38 CWSAC battlefields in the state of Tennessee. Historically, these battlefields 

encompassed about 386,000 acres.1

 Today, 115,000 acres, or about one-third, of these 

landscapes survive. These 115,000 acres retain sufficient significance and integrity to make 

them worthy of preservation.2

 At present, about 20,000 acres, or 17 percent, are 

permanently protected by governments and private nonprofit organizations. The 

remaining 95,000 acres are at risk. 

There have been numerous notable successes in Tennessee since 1993, thanks in large part 

to support and funding from the State. More than 1,000 acres have been protected at two 

battlefields—Chattanooga III and Columbia. At least 100 additional acres have been 

protected at each of 12 other battlefields since 1993, including more than 800 acres at 

Hatchie’s Bridge (Davis Bridge) and more than 380 acres at Parker’s Cross Roads.

 3 In 

less than two decades, Tennesseans have saved 7,319.82 acres of their Civil War heritage. 

There have also been prominent losses. Brentwood battlefield, in Williamson County, has 

suffered extensive land development since the early 1990s. Only 10 acres of this battlefield 

are permanently protected, within the Radnor Lake Natural Area and Wildlife Refuge. 

ABPP calculates about 1,300 more acres could be set aside to commemorate and interpret 

the battle. Further south, the march of commercial and residential development along 

U.S. Route 31 between Spring Hill and Franklin has had disastrous effects on three 

battlefields: Franklin, where the last rural lands of the battlefield have been bulldozed; 

and Thompson’s Station and Spring Hill, where housing subdivisions are rapidly 

eroding the historic landscapes. South of Knoxville, late-20th-century housing and 

commercial development has overrun the Campbell’s Station battlefield. Just one parcel 

of open land survives. 

In June 2000, the Tennessee Wars Commission issued a statewide preservation plan for 

Civil War battlefields.4

 The successful implementation of this plan, at all of the 

battlefields, is crucial to protecting surviving historic lands. To achieve success throughout 

the state, battlefield advocates will need to develop public-private partnerships, especially 

where development pressure is building in rural and semi-rural areas. 

The CWSAC used a four-tiered system that combined historic significance, current 

condition, and level of threat to determine priorities for preservation among the 

battlefields. Nationwide, the CWSAC identified 50 top priority battlefields; three in 

Tennessee. The CWSAC viewed these battlefields as the most historically significant of the 

war, the most endangered in 1993, and having a “critical need for action.” The CWSAC 

assigned five more Tennessee battlefields to the second highest priority, those considered 

“opportunities for comprehensive preservation.” These were battlefields “in relatively 

good condition, [and] face few threats, but are relatively unprotected....” The third 

priority included battlefields “that already have substantial historic land under protection 

 

1

Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the 38 battlefields in Tennessee 

represent 386,232.56 acres. The Study Areas for the battles of Chattanooga III, Wauhatchie, Fort Henry, Memphis I, Shiloh, and 

Hatchie’s Bridge include an additional 15,800.63 acres of land and water in other states. 2

 Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries for the 38 

battlefields in Tennessee represent 115,835.07 acres. Another 5,908.86 acres of potentially eligible battlefield land extend into other 

states. 

3

 The term “protected” indicates either lands purchased for the purposes of conservation and historic preservation by a government 

or a non-profit organization or lands for which development rights have been severed and are now held in the form of a perpetual 

conservation easement by a government or qualified organization. 4 Preservation & Interpretation Plan for Civil War Resources in Tennessee, Looney Ricks Kiss and Preservation Partners, LLC, for the 

Tennessee Historical Commission and Tennessee Wars Commission (Nashville), June 2000. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 6 

and face limited threats,” but that needed “some additional land protection.” Seven were 

in Tennessee. 

The CWSAC’s fourth and lowest priority was for “fragmented” battlefields. The CWSAC 

explained, “While some lost battlefields are truly obliterated, important remnants of 

others still exist....” Although these sites “to varying degrees no longer convey an 

authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the battle, they often remain important areas 

suitable for interpretation, museums, and commemoration.”5

 In 1993, the CWSAC 

determined that 22 Tennessee battlefields, more than half of the state’s Civil War legacy, 

had been substantially compromised by post-war development. 

Of Tennessee’s top priorities from 1993, only Spring Hill battlefield remains imminently 

threatened. The battlefield continues to lose ground to residential and industrial 

development associated with the General Motors assembly plant and the growth of the 

town of Spring Hill and Williamson County. Still, about half of the battlefield’s Core Area 

and much of its Study Area to the south of the town and east of U.S. Route 31 remain rural 

and intact. Immediate protection efforts may yet save the remaining section of this 

disappearing landscape. 

At the Chattanooga III and Fort Donelson battlefields, most of what survives is 

protected by the National Park Service and the Civil War Preservation Trust. The remaining 

intact but unprotected portions of the battlefields, such as the heights south of Dover at 

Fort Donelson and the undeveloped lands adjacent to the Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga National Military park in Chattanooga, need to be the focus of ongoing 

preservation efforts. 

 

5

 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1993, 22- 23.

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County/City 

I Critical Need Chattanooga III (TN024) Hamilton; Dade, Walker, 

 3 Battlefields and Catoosa counties, Georgia 

 Fort Donelson (TN022) Stewart 

 Spring Hill (TN035) Maury 

Table 1. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – First Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County/City 

II Comprehensive Brentwood (TN015) Williamson 

 Preservation Fair Garden (TN029) Sevier 

 Possible Murfreesboro II (TN037) Rutherford 

 5 Battlefields Parker’s Cross Roads (TN011) Henderson 

 Thompson’s Station (TN013) Williamson

Table 2. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Second Tier 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 7 

Of the CWSAC’s second tier battlefields in Tennessee, four—Brentwood, Fair Garden, 

Murfreesboro II, Thompson’s Station—have experienced, rapid, large-scale growth 

since 1993. None remains an opportunity for comprehensive preservation of its entire 

historic landscape. Fair Garden and Thompson’s Station are in the best shape. 

Immediate protection of those two battlefields should be the focus of federal, state, and 

local efforts. At Brentwood, two engagement areas retain integrity; the remaining 

landscape is built up. These last, significant portions of the Brentwood battlefield will 

likely disappear within the next five years without local support for protection and 

interpretation. At Murfreesboro II, the explosive growth of the City of Murfreesboro will 

rapidly eat away the battlefield unless immediate steps are taken to save remaining 

historic lands to the west and north of Stones River National Battlefield. Parker’s Cross 

Roads battlefield has experienced a slower rate of development since 1993, but has lost 

some historic lands, especially on the east of the Study Area. Sustained preservation 

efforts are needed throughout the battlefield’s Core Area and to the north and west. 

The ABPP’s review of third tier battlefields in Tennessee found all seven battlefields in 

good or excellent states of integrity. Hartsville, Hoover’s Gap, Jackson, and Vaught’s 

Hill face accelerating change from rural to developed lands. The ABPP believes these 

battlefields should be viewed as higher priorities for preservation. Immediate protection 

efforts are needed to preserve their cohesive landscapes. Fort Pillow, Hatchie’s Bridge 

(Davis Bridge), and Shiloh are in rural areas experiencing limited development pressure. 

Each is substantially protected already, but ongoing efforts will be needed to complete the 

preservation of intact, historic lands at these three battlefields. 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County/City 

III Additional Fort Pillow (TN030) Lauderdale 

Protection Hartsville (TN008) Trousdale, Wilson 

Needed Hatchie’s Bridge/Davis Hardeman, McNairy; Alcorn County, 

 7 Battlefields Bridge (TN007) Mississippi 

 Hoover’s Gap (TN017) Bedford, Rutherford 

 Jackson (TN009) Madison 

 Shiloh (TN003) Hardin, McNairy; Alcorn and 

 Tishomingo counties, Mississippi 

 Vaught’s Hill (TN014) Rutherford

Table 3. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Third Tier 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 8 

The ABPP’s research and recent assessments have also redefined many severely fragmented 

and “lost” battlefields in the fourth tier of CWSAC priorities. Of 22 battlefields considered 

low priorities in 1993, the ABPP found that half retain some or much of their historic 

features and landscapes. Among those with good integrity but steady threats are Blue 

Springs, Memphis I, and Mossy Creek. The landscapes of eight other “found” 

battlefields—Blountsville, Bull’s Gap, Columbia, Dandridge, Dover, Fort Henry, 

Stones River, and Wauhatchie—have been more severely compromised by modern 

development. Protection efforts at all these battlefields quickly need to target remaining 

historic parcels before the battlefields become unrecognizable. 

Of the other 11 battlefields listed by the CWSAC as lowest priorities for preservation, the 

ABPP confirmed that they are either severely fragmented (only remnant landscape or 

cultural features of the battle survive) or destroyed due to significant changes in land use 

since the time of the battle. In some cases, only previously protected areas of these fields 

endure, such as at Johnsonville. These battlefields provide opportunities for 

commemoration, but few opportunities for cultural resource preservation beyond what 

has already been saved and maintained. In other cases, such as Campbell’s Station,

historically important land fragments may survive and may yet be preserved and 

interpreted, but overall the battlefields are ruined. 

Because no survey data was collected for Memphis II, the CWSAC was unable to assign 

Preservation Priority rankings in its 1993 report. As part of the field research undertaken 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County/City

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County/City 

IV Fragmented/ Bean’s Station (TN026) Grainger

 Destroyed Bull’s Gap (TN033) Hamblen, Greene 

 22 Battlefields Blountsville (TN019) Sullivan 

 Blue Springs (TN020) Greene 

 Campbell’s Station (TN023) Knox 

 Chattanooga I (TN005) Hamilton, Chattanooga 

 Chattanooga II (TN018) Hamilton 

 Collierville (TN022) Shelby 

 Columbia (TN034) Maury 

 Dandridge (TN028) Jefferson 

 Dover (TN012) Stewart 

 Fort Henry (TN001) Stewart; Calloway County, Kentucky 

 Fort Sanders (TN025) Knox 

 Franklin I (TN016) Williamson 

 Franklin II (TN036) Williamson 

 Johnsonville (TN032) Humphreys, Benton 

 Memphis I (TN004) Shelby; Crittenden County, Arkansas 

 Mossy Creek (TN027) Jefferson 

 Murfreesboro I (TN037) Rutherford 

 Nashville (TN038) Davidson 

 Stones River (TN010) Rutherford 

 Wauhatchie (TN021) Hamilton county Tennessee; 

 Dade and Marion counties, Georgia 

Table 4. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Fourth Tier 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 9 

for this update, the ABPP assessed conditions at the battlefield and assigned site 

boundaries. The battlefield lies entirely within the City of Memphis; only previously 

protected lands survive. 

See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for detailed condition assessments and preservation 

recommendations. The National Park Service will issue updated priorities after all CWSAC 

battlefields nationwide have been surveyed and all state reports have been completed. 

Figure 3: Open land at the Blue Springs battlefield. The view is taken from the position held by 

the left of the Union line during the battle. Photo by Joseph E. Brent, 2005 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 10 

Method Statement 

Congress instructed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield 

Protection Program (ABPP), to report on changes in the condition of the battlefields since 

1993 and on “preservation activities” and “other relevant developments” carried out at 

each battlefield since 1993. To fulfill those assignments, the ABPP 1) conducted a site 

survey of each battlefield, and 2) prepared and sent out questionnaires to battlefield 

managers and advocacy organizations (see Appendix B). 

The 1993 significance rankings for each battlefield stand. Significance was assigned by the 

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission and the ABPP sustains the CWSAC’s opinions as to the 

relevant importance of each battle within the larger context of the war. 

Research and Field Surveys 

The ABPP conducted the field assessments of Tennessee battlefields from November 2005 

through March 2006. The surveys entailed additional historical research, on-the-ground 

documentation and assessment of site conditions, identification of impending threats to 

each site, and site mapping. Surveyors used the Global Positioning System (GPS) to map 

historic features of each battlefield and used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to 

draw site boundaries. The ABPP retains all final survey materials. Each battlefield survey 

file includes a survey form (field notes, list of defining features, list of documentary 

sources, and a photo log), photographs, spatial coordinates of significant features, and 

boundaries described on USGS topographic maps. The surveys did not include 

archeological investigations for reasons of time and expense. 

Study Areas and Core Areas 

The CWSAC identified a Study Area and a Core Area for each principal battlefield in 

Tennessee, with the exception of Memphis II (see Figure 4 for definitions). The CWSAC 

boundaries have proven invaluable as guides to local land and resource preservation 

efforts at Civil War battlefields. However, since 1993, the National Park Service has refined 

its battlefield survey techniques, which include research, working with site stewards, 

identifying and documenting lines of approach and withdrawal used by opposing forces, 

and applying the concepts of military terrain analysis to all battlefield landscapes. The 

ABPP’s Battlefield Survey Manual explains the field methods employed during this study.6

 

The surveys also incorporate the concepts recommended in the National Register of 

Historic Places’ Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic 

Battlefields, which was published in 1992 after the CWSAC had completed its original 

assessments of the battlefields. 

Using its refined methodology, the ABPP was able to validate or adjust the CWSAC’s Study 

Area and Core Area boundaries to reflect more accurately the full nature and original 

resources of the battlefields (see Table 5). For Memphis II, the ABPP researched and 

delineated new boundaries. In Tennessee, the refined methodology resulted in significant 

increases in the size of Study Areas, Core Areas, or both. However, it is important to note 

that the Study Area and Core Area boundaries are simply historical boundaries that 

describe where the battle took place; neither indicates the current integrity of the 

battlefield landscape, so neither can be used on its own to identify surviving portions of 

battlefield land that may merit protection and preservation. 

 

6

 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007), 

http://www.nps.gov/history/abpp/battlefieldsurveymanual.pdf , October 2008. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 11 

Figure 4: Boundary Definitions

The Study Area represents the historic extent 

of the battle as it unfolded across the 

landscape. The Study Area contains resources 

known to relate to or contribute to the battle 

event: where troops maneuvered and 

deployed, immediately before and after 

combat, and where they fought during 

combat. Historic accounts, terrain analysis, 

and feature identification inform the 

delineation of the Study Area boundary. The 

Study Area indicates the extent to which 

historic and archeological resources associated 

with the battle (areas of combat, command, 

communications, logistics, medical services, 

etc.) may be found and protected. Surveyors 

delineated Study Area boundaries for every 

battle site that was positively identified 

through research and field survey, regardless 

of its present integrity. 

The Core Area represents the areas of 

fighting on the battlefield. Positions that 

delivered or received fire, and the intervening 

space and terrain between them, fall within 

the Core Area. Frequently described as 

“hallowed ground,” land within the Core 

Area is often the first to be targeted for 

protection. The Core Area lies within the 

Study Area. 

Unlike the Study and Core Areas, which are 

based only upon the interpretation of historic 

events, the Potential National Register 

(PotNR) boundary represents ABPP’s 

assessment of a Study Area’s current integrity 

(the surviving landscape and features that 

convey the site’s historic sense of place). The 

PotNR boundary may include all or some of 

the Study Area, and all or some of the Core 

Area. Lands within PotNR boundaries should 

be considered worthy of further attention, 

although future evaluations may reveal more 

or less integrity than indicated by the ABPP 

surveys. 

Potential National Register Boundaries

To address the question of what part of 

the battlefield remains reasonably intact 

and warrants preservation, this study 

introduced a third boundary line that was 

not attempted by the CWSAC: the 

Potential National Register boundary (see 

Figure 6). 

Looking at each Study Area, the surveyors 

assigned PotNR boundaries where they 

judged that enough battlefield land 

remained to convey the significance of the 

engagement. In a few cases, the PotNR 

boundary encompasses the entire Study 

Area. In most cases, however, the PotNR 

boundary includes less land than identified 

in the full Study Area. 

In assigning PotNR boundaries, the ABPP 

followed National Register of Historic 

Places guidelines when identifying and 

mapping areas that retain integrity and 

cohesion within the Study Areas.7

 

However, because the ABPP focuses only 

on areas of battle, the ABPP did not 

evaluate lands adjacent to the Study Area 

that may contribute to a broader historical 

and chronological definition of “cultural 

landscape.” Lands outside of the Study 

Area associated with other historic events 

and cultural practices may need to be 

evaluated in preparation for a formal 

nomination of the cultural landscape. 

Most importantly, the PotNR boundary 

does not constitute a formal 

determination of eligibility by the 

Keeper of the National Register of 

Historic Places.

8

 The PotNR boundary is 

designed to be used as a planning tool for 

government agencies and the public. Like 

the Study and Core Area boundaries, the 

PotNR boundary places no restriction on 

private property use. 

 

7

 For general guidance about integrity issues and National Register properties, see National Park Service, How to Apply the National 

Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, revised 1997). The survey evaluations described 

above do not meet the more stringent integrity standards for National Historic Landmark designation. See National Park Service, 

How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999), 36- 37. 8

 See 36 CFR 60.1- 14 for regulations about nominating a property to the National Register and 36 CFR 63 for regulations concerning 

Determinations of Eligibility for inclusion in the National Register.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 12 

The term integrity, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places, is “the ability of a 

property to convey its significance.”9

 While assessments of integrity are subjective, 

battlefields can have integrity only if they can be positively located through research and 

“ground-truthing,” and only if significant portions of the landscape’s historic terrain have 

not been substantially disturbed. Other conditions contribute to the degree of integrity a 

battlefield retains: 

• the quantity and quality of surviving battle-period resources (e.g., 

buildings, roads, fence lines, military structures, and archeological 

features); 

• the quantity and quality of the spatial relationships between and among 

those resources and the intervening terrain that connects them; 

• the extent to which current battlefield land use is similar to battle-period 

land use; and 

• the extent to which a battlefield’s physical features and overall character 

visually communicate an authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the 

battle. 

Natural changes in vegetation—woods growing out of historic farm fields, for example—

do not necessarily diminish the landscape’s integrity. Significant changes in land use since 

the Civil War do affect integrity; the degree to which post-war development has altered 

and fragmented the historic landscape and destroyed historic features is critical when 

assessing integrity. Still, some post-battle development is expected; slight or moderate 

change within the battlefield may not substantially diminish a battlefield’s integrity. 

Often these post-battle “non-contributing” elements are included in the PotNR boundary 

in accordance with National Register of Historic Places guidelines. 

The Potential National Register boundaries therefore indicate which battlefields are likely

eligible for future listing in the National Register of Historic Places and likely deserving of 

future preservation efforts. If a surveyor determined that a battlefield was entirely 

compromised by land use incompatible with the preservation of historic features (i.e., it 

has little or no integrity), it did not receive a PotNR boundary. 

In cases where a battlefield is already listed in the National Register, surveyors reassessed 

the existing documentation based on current scholarship and resource integrity, and, 

when appropriate, provided new information and proposed new boundaries as part of the 

surveys. As a result, some PotNR boundaries will contain or be coterminous with lands 

already listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In other cases, PotNR boundaries 

will exclude listed lands that have lost integrity. (See Tables 5 and 6 for boundary 

comparisons.)10

The data from which all three boundaries are drawn do not necessarily reflect the full 

research needed for a formal National Register nomination. Potential National Register 

boundaries are based on an assessment of aboveground historic features associated with 

 

9

 National Park Service, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992 (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division), 10. Archeological integrity was not 

examined during this study, but should be considered in future battlefield studies and formal nominations to the National Register. 10 The ABPP’s surveys and PotNR assessments do not constitute formal action on behalf of the office of the National Register of 

Historic Places. PotNR assessments are intended for planning purposes only; they do not carry the authority to add, change, or

remove an official listing. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 13 

the cultural and natural landscape. The surveys did not include a professional 

archeological inventory or assessment of subsurface features or indications. In some cases, 

future archeological testing will help determine whether subsurface features remain, 

whether subsurface battle features convey important information about a battle or 

historic property, and whether that information may help to confirm, refine, or refute the 

boundaries previously determined by historic studies and terrain analysis. 

The ABPP survey information should be reassessed during future compliance processes 

such as the Section 106 process required by the National Historic Preservation Act11 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.12 Likewise, more detailed research and assessments should take 

place when any battlefield is formally nominated to the National Register or proposed for 

designation as a National Historic Landmark. New research and intensive-level surveys of 

these sites will enlighten future preservation and compliance work. Agencies should 

continue to consult local and state experts for up-to-date information about these 

battlefields. 

Thirteen Tennessee battlefields are already listed in the National Register or are 

designated National Historic Landmarks (see Table 6). At most of these battlefields, the 

ABPP recommends a PotNR boundary of equal or greater size than the existing National 

Register boundary (although the PotNR may not trace the existing boundary exactly if 

previously registered land has lost integrity). 

Questionnaires

While the ABPP maintains data about its own program activities at Civil War battlefields, 

most preservation work occurs at the local level. Therefore, to answer Congress's directive 

for information about battlefield preservation activities, the ABPP sought input from local 

battlefield managers and advocacy organizations. The ABPP distributed questionnaires 

designed to gather information about the types of preservation activities that have taken 

place at the battlefields since 1993. The Questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix B. 

In Tennessee, representatives of 15 organizations completed and returned the 

questionnaires. Their responses, combined with the survey findings, allowed the ABPP to 

create a profile of conditions and activities at Tennessee’s Civil War battlefields. 

 

11 16 USC 470f. 

12 42 USC 4331- 4332.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 14 

Figure 5: Fort Donelson National Battlefield, upper water battery. Photo by Joseph E. Brent, 

2006. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 15 

Summary of Conditions of Tennessee’s Civil War Battlefields 

Quantified Land Areas 

Using Geographic Information Systems, the ABPP calculated the amount of land 

historically associated with the battle (Study Area), the amount of land where forces were 

engaged (Core Area), and the amount of land that may retain enough integrity to be 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Potential National Register 

boundary). 

As noted above, Study Areas and Core Areas have been revised in many cases. In 

particular, the original CWSAC surveys did not consistently include routes of approach and 

withdrawal or secondary actions that influenced the course or outcome of the battle. The 

revised boundaries take these movements and actions into account. In some instances, 

new or additional research has sharpened historical understanding of battle events. 

Therefore, the ABPP determined that additional lands belong appropriately in the Study 

and Core Areas because they lend additional understanding to the battle story. The 

individual battlefield profiles at the end of this report provide additional information 

about the extent of and reasons for any revisions to the CWSAC Study Area and Core Area 

boundaries. 

Table 5 lists the size of the three boundaries, as determined by the ABPP, for each 

battlefield. Because Civil War armies waged numerous battles in Tennessee over the same 

ground—examples include Fort Donelson and Dover, the two battles of Murfreesboro

and Stones River, and the three battles of Chattanooga and Wauhatchie—the total 

number of Civil War battlefield acres in Tennessee is lower than a simple summation of the 

Table 5 data would indicate. Calculating for the overlapping areas of the battlefields, 

there are 386,000 total Study Area acres, 87,900 total Core Area acres, and 115,000 total 

acres likely eligible for listing in the National Register in Tennessee.13 

Table 5. Battlefield Area Statistics 

Battlefield Study Area Core Area

PotNR 

Boundary

 

Bean’s Station (TN026) 5,347.21 668.61 N/A 

Blountsville (TN019) 1,549.78 459.04 232.57 

Blue Springs (TN020) 3,715.33 1,405.12 1,118.17 

Brentwood (TN015) 9,589.14 1,367.26 1,346.71 

Bull’s Gap (TN033) 12,405.25 603.93 3,205.43 

Campbell’s Station (TN023) 11,258.68 814.55 N/A 

Chattanooga I (TN005) 2,115.91 1,085.14 N/A 

Chattanooga II (TN018) 6,445.71 1,244.07 N/A 

Chattanooga III (TN024) 45,415.23 19,107.30 6,740.13 

Collierville (TN022) 5,145.25 325.91 N/A 

Columbia (TN034) 47,912.64 4,238.82 6,707.30 

Dandridge (TN028) 12,276.33 4,583.26 5,076.05 

Dover (TN012) 2,931.62 642.79 750.94 

 

13 The Study Areas for the battles of Chattanooga III, Fort Henry, Hatchie’s Bridge, Memphis I, Shiloh, and Wauhatchie include 

an additional 15,800.63 acres of land and water in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. The ABPP calculates that 5,908.86 

acres in these other states are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 16 

Fair Garden (TN029) 10,310.31 1,371.74 8,167.08 

Fort Donelson (TN002) 7,729.89 2,982.49 3,367.33 

Fort Henry (TN001) 5,144.12 1,159.87 2,118.79 

Fort Pillow (TN030) 4,470.33 423.09 4,427.04 

Fort Sanders (TN025) 6,933.28 831.14 N/A 

Franklin I (TN016) 14,386.10 2,605.65 N/A 

Franklin II (TN036) 13,681.15 2,610.71 N/A 

Hartsville (TN008) 8,044.71 679.95 7,507.25 

Hatchie’s Bridge (TN007) 5754.16 798.19 5,103.19 

Hoover’s Gap (TN017) 25,898.02 3,323.32 14,213.71 

Jackson (TN009) 1,661.21 148.89 1,615.61 

Johnsonville (TN032) 3,804.87 2,167.40 1,281.01 

Memphis I (TN004) 19,818 9,286.44 12,170 

Memphis II (TN031) 2,473.46 205.63 N/A 

Mossy Creek (TN027) 9,046.80 5,210.26 3,959.48 

Murfreesboro I (TN006) 8,639.61 328.82 N/A 

Murfreesboro II (TN037) 7,174.05 799.52 1,335.30 

Nashville (TN038) 39,422.50 3,840.14 N/A 

Parker’s Cross Roads (TN011) 7,716.82 1,287.34 2,664.48 

Shiloh (TN003) 31,341.81 7283.32 22,539.79 

Spring Hill (TN035) 7,034.77 2,278.37 3,204.75 

Stones River (TN010) 15,087.32 5,148.66 3,121.01 

Thompson’s Station (TN013) 3,473.00 603.18 1,356.21 

Vaught’s Hill (TN014) 3,479.82 849.11 2,430.15 

Wauhatchie (TN021) 11,457.05 2,001.37 7,129.61 

*Boundary figures reflect only those areas in Tennessee. See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for information about the 

size of these battlefields as they extend into other states.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 17 

Condition Assessments 

Using field survey data, the ABPP assessed the overall condition of each battlefield’s Study 

Area. While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, 17 of 

Tennessee’s battlefields have experienced relatively little or only moderate change to their 

terrain and aboveground battle features in nearly 150 years.14

Figure 6: The Carnton Association, Inc., cares for ten acres of the Franklin II battlefield, 

which include the Carnton Plantation house and the McGavock Cemetery, the largest 

privately-owned Confederate cemetery in the nation. Photo by Joseph E. Brent, 2006.

 

14 The condition of archeological resources within the battlefields was not assessed. Future studies are needed to determine the

degree of archeological integrity associated with subsurface battle deposits. 

Table 6: Battlefield Condition Summary 

Condition Battlefield 

Land use is little changed (4) Fort Pillow, Hatchie’s Bridge, Shiloh, Vaught’s Hill 

Portions of landscape have been altered, 

but most essential features remain (13)

Blue Springs, Bull’s Gap, Chattanooga III, 

Dandridge, Fair Garden, Hartsville, Hoover’s Gap, 

Jackson, Memphis I, Mossy Creek, Parker’s Cross 

Roads, Spring Hill, Thompson’s Station 

Much of the landscape has been altered 

and fragmented, leaving some essential 

features (12)

Blountsville, Brentwood, Chattanooga I, 

Columbia, Dover, Fort Donelson, Fort Henry, 

Franklin II, Johnsonville, Murfreesboro II, Stones 

River, Wauhatchie 

Landscape and terrain have been altered 

beyond recognition (9)

Bean’s Station, Campbell’s Station, Chattanooga 

II, Collierville, Fort Sanders, Franklin I, Memphis 

II, Murfreesboro I, Nashville 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 18 

Registration 

The nation’s official method for recognizing historic properties worthy of preservation is 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, only 13 of Tennessee’s 

38 battlefields have been listed in the NRHP as of 2009, and most of those listings do not 

include all of the land considered significant and eligible by the ABPP. The ABPP 

evaluated the integrity of the greater battlefield landscape. Isolated but significant 

fragments or features of battlefields may be eligible for listing in the National Register, 

but only as remnants, not as cohesive landscapes. 

The ABPP found that portions of 27 battlefield landscapes may retain enough integrity to 

be eligible for listing. Given the growth in Tennessee since the Civil War, the ABPP found 

a surprising number of battlefields where most of the Study Area is intact. Among the 

most pristine are Fair Garden, Fort Pillow, Hartsville, Hatchie’s Bridge (Davis 

Bridge), and Jackson. 

Registered battlefields meet national standards for documentation, physical integrity, and 

demonstrable significance to the history of the nation. Federal, state, and local agencies 

use information from the National Register as a planning tool to identify and make 

decisions about cultural resources. Federal and state laws, most notably Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, require agencies to account for the effects their 

projects (roads, wetland permits, quarrying, cell towers, etc.) may have on listed and 

eligible historic properties, such as battlefields. Listing allows project designers to quickly 

identify the battlefield and avoid or minimize impacts to the landscape. 

Properties listed on the National Register may also be eligible for numerous federal and 

state historic preservation grant programs. Recognition as a registered battlefield may 

also advance public understanding of and appreciation for the battlefield, and may 

encourage advocacy for its preservation.15

As Table 7 indicates, 13 of Tennessee’s battlefields are designated as National Historic 

Landmarks (NHL), or are independently listed in the NRHP. Five have been designated or 

listed since the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s study of battlefields in the early 

1990s: Bull’s Gap (NHRP 1998); Hatchie’s Bridge (Davis Bridge) (NHL 1991; NRHP 

1998); Hartsville (NRHP 1998); Johnsonville (NRHP 2001) and Parker’s Crossroads 

(NRHP 1997). The other eight battlefields were designated or listed prior to the CWSAC 

study. Of the Tennessee battlefields not listed or designated, the ABPP believes 16 

potentially retain enough historic landscape to be eligible under the NRHP’s current 

criteria for listing. 

The boundaries of Tennessee battlefields already designated or listed include more than 

12,700 acres.16 The ABPP’s assessments, however, indicate that a total of about 121,700 

acres, including previously listed properties, may be eligible for NRHP or NHL status. Table 

7 compares the number of acres already designated or listed with the number of acres that 

are likely to meet the same criteria, but are not currently part of the existing NRHP, NHL or 

 

15 There are three levels of federal recognition for historic properties. Congressional designations, such as national park units, 

National Historic Landmarks, and listings in the National Register of Historic Places. Congress creates national park units which 

are automatically listed on the National Register. The Secretary of the Interior designates National Historic Landmarks (NHL) –

nationally significant historic sites – for their exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United 

States. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation’s official list of cultural sites significant at the national, state, 

or local level and worthy of preservation. National park units and NHLs are also treated as listed in the National Register. 16 Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that 12,721.00 acres among Tennessee’s 38 battlefields 

are currently listed in the National Register. Note also that some National Register lands may have lost integrity since they 

were listed. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 19 

NPS boundary. As noted earlier, many Tennessee battlefields overlap in land area. 

Therefore, the total amount of intact land potentially eligible for listing is lower than a 

simple summation of the Table 7 data. 

Table 7: Acres Registered Compared with Acres Potentially 

Eligible to be Registered

Battlefield Acres Designation

PotNR 

Acres 

Registered 

Acres

Unlisted 

Acres

Bean’s Station (TN026) N/A 0.00 0.00

Blountsville (TN019) 232.57 0.00 232.57

Blue Springs (TN020) 1,118.17 0.00 1,118.17

Brentwood (TN015) 1,346.71 0.00 1,346.71

Bull’s Gap (TN033) NRHP 3,205.43 37.31 3,168.12

Campbell’s Station (TN023) N/A 0.00 0.00

Chattanooga I (TN005) N/A 0.00 0.00

Chattanooga II (TN018) N/A 0.00 0.00

Chattanooga III (TN024) NPS 6,740.13 3,125.00 3,615.13

Collierville (TN022) N/A 0.00 0.00

Columbia (TN034) 6,707.30 0.00 6,707.3

Dandridge (TN028) 5,076.05 0.00 5,073.67

Dover (TN012) 750.94 0.00 750.94

Fair Garden (TN029) 8,167.08 0.00 7,339.83

Fort Donelson (TN002) NPS 3,367.33 547.28 2,820.15

Fort Henry (TN001) NRHP 2,118.79 606.82 1,511.97

Fort Pillow (TN030) NHL 4,427.04 1,500.00 2,927.04

Fort Sanders (TN025) N/A 0.00 0.00

Franklin I (TN016) N/A 0.00 0.00

Franklin II (TN036) NHL N/A 159.48 0.00

Hartsville (TN008) NRHP 7,507.25 248.62 7,258.82

Hatchie’s Bridge (TN007) NHL and NRHP 5,103.19 601.37 4,501.82

Hoover’s Gap (TN017) 14,213.71 0.00 14,213.71

Jackson (TN009) 1,615.61 0.00 1,615.61

Johnsonville (TN032) NRHP 1,281.01 38.5 1,246.62

Memphis I (TN004) 12,170.00 0.00 12,170.00

Memphis II (TN031) N/A 0.00 0.00

Mossy Creek (TN027) 3,959.48 0.00 3,959.48

Murfreesboro I (TN006) N/A 0.00 0.00

Murfreesboro II (TN037) 1,335.30 0.00 1,335.30

Nashville (TN038) N/A 0.00 0.00

Parker’s Cross Roads (TN011) 2,664.48 1,059.33 1,605.15

Shiloh (TN003) 22,539.79 4,156.42 18,383.38

Spring Hill (TN035) 3,204.75 0.00 3,204.75

Stones River (TN010) NPS 3,121.01 640.79 2,480.22

Thompson’s Station (TN013) 1,356.21 0.00 1,356.21

Vaught’s Hill (TN014) 2,430.15 0.00 2,430.15

Wauhatchie (TN021) 7,129.61 0.00 7,129.61

*Boundary figures reflect only those areas in Tennessee. See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for information about the 

size of these battlefields as they extend into other states.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 20 

Stewardship 

Tennessee offers a model for successful cooperative Civil War battlefield stewardship, with 

preservation achievements notable at all levels of government – federal, state and local – 

and made possible through the efforts of many private nonprofit organizations. Together 

these public and private groups have created a partnership network that supports efforts 

to protect Civil War battle sites throughout the state. Today, 20,426.29 acres have been 

set aside permanently. Public-private partnerships, have saved one-third of those lands, 

some 7,319.82 acres, in just the past 16 years. A good deal of the credit for this 

remarkable rate of land conservation goes to the Tennessee Wars Commission, an arm of 

the Tennessee Historical Commission established in 1994. Created to “coordinate 

planning, preservation and promotion of the structures, buildings, sites and battlefields of 

Tennessee associated with the French and Indian War, American Revolution, War of 1812, 

U.S.-Mexican War, and the War Between the States,"17 the Wars Commission continues to 

fulfill its mission by working with battlefield landowners, local governments, the state 

legislature and other state agencies, the Federal government, and private nonprofit 

organizations to protect these sites. 

At the Federal level, the National Park Service currently owns more than 42 percent of all 

protected battlefield land in Tennessee. This land includes properties associated with 

parks created with the preservation and interpretation of Civil War history as their primary 

objectives – Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park (3,120 acres for 

Chattanooga); Fort Donelson National Battlefield (552 acres); Stones River National 

Battlefield (622.53 acres); and Shiloh National Military Park (4,115.75 acres). Federal 

holdings in Tennessee also include portions of the Fort Henry and Fort Donelson

battlefields, managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service as part of the 

Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. 

Through its American Battlefield Protection Program, the Federal government also 

provides grants and technical advice to communities working to preserve battlefields. The 

ABPP has two grant programs: planning grants and land acquisition grants. 

Since 1992, the ABPP has offered annual planning grants to nonprofit organizations, 

academic institutions, and local, regional, state, and tribal governments to help protect 

battlefields located on American soil. Applicants are encouraged to work with partner 

organizations and federal, state, and local government agencies as early as possible to 

integrate their efforts into a larger battle site protection strategy. The has awarded 

$511,467 to proponents of Tennessee’s Civil War battlefields. 

 

17 Tennessee Code Annotated, Sec. 4-11-50. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 21 

Table 8: American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants 

Grantee Year Project Title Award 

Association for the Preservation 1996 Interpretive Signage For Clamored Cove $8,000.00 

 of Civil War Sites 

Chattanooga-Hamilton County 1995 Protection Strategies Associated with the Civil War $7,000.00 

 Regional Planning Commission in the Chattanooga Area 

City of Franklin 1997 Carter House Area Preservation Plan $11,500.00 

City of Franklin 1992 Preservation Conference/Stabilization of Fort Granger $9,000.00 

Cumberland Valley Civil War 2000 Cumberland Valley Civil War Site Survey $21,300.00 

 Heritage Association 

Davis Bridge Memorial 2000 Davis Bridge Preservation Plan $30,200.00 

 Foundation 

Franklin Battlefield, Inc. 1993 Self-guided Driving Tour Brochure $7,640.00 

Friends of Moccasin Bend 1997 Preservation Management for Moccasin Bend $20,000.00 

 National Park, Inc. 

General N.B. Forrest Historical 1999 Parkers Crossroads Interpretation $16,600.00 

 Society 

Heritage Foundation of Franklin 1999 Battlefield Corridor Protection Plan $20,000.00 

 and Williamson Counties 

Heritage Foundation of Franklin 1994 Franklin-Spring Hill Corridor Protection Plan $22,900.00 

 and Williamson County 

Maury County Convention 1997 Spring Hill Battlefield Interpretive Project $15,600.00 

 and Visitors Bureau 

Maury County Convention 1996 Interpretive Plan for Spring Hill Battlefield $3,360.00 

 and Visitors Bureau 

Reflection Riding, Inc. 1997 Archeological and Historical Assessment and $28,075.00 

 Protection Plan for Lookout Mountain 

Rutherford County 1997 Consensus Building at Stones River National Battlefield $13,150.00 

Rutherford County 1996 Stones River Transportation Mitigation Study $30,700.00 

Rutherford County 1993 Interpretive Plan for Stones River Greater Battlefield $33,000.00 

Rutherford County 1992 Study Alternatives to Thompson Lane Beltway $2,300.00 

 Corridor and Interpretation Project 

Southeast Tennessee 1995 Chattanooga Area Civil War Sites Assessment $38,000.00 

 Development District 

Sullivan County Government 2008 Battle of Blountville--Historic Overview and Site $16,822.00 

 Assessment 

Tennessee Backroads Heritage 2000 Preservation Plan for the Tullahoma Campaign of 1863 $34,000.00 

Tennessee Historical Commission 2003 Tennessee Civil War Documentary Sourcebook CD-ROM $6,000.00 

Tennessee Historical Commission 1998 National Register Documentation for the $15,200.00 

 Campaign and Occupation of Chattanooga 

Tennessee Historical Commission 1995 Statewide Preservation Plan and National Register $60,000.00 

 Nominations 

Trust for Public Land 2008 Preserving Chattanooga's Civil War Battlefields: $41,120.00 

 Urban Planning Through GIS 

* Obligated funds, not final disbursement 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 22 

In 1998, the ABPP began its land acquisition grant program, which helps states and local 

communities purchase significant Civil War battlefield lands for permanent protection. In 

2002, Congress officially authorized the program.18 Eligible battlefields are those listed in 

the 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields prepared by the Congressionallychartered CWSAC. Eligible acquisition projects may be for fee interest in land or for a 

protective interest such as a perpetual easement. 

Congress has appropriated a total of $34.9 million for this Civil War Battlefield Land 

Acquisition Grants Program. These grants have assisted in the permanent protection of 

14,741 acres at 59 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. Of the battlefields these funds have 

helped, 6 are in Tennessee. 

 

18 The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (PL 107- 359) amended the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 

469k) to authorize the land acquisition grants. 

Table 9: Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants in Tennessee 

Battlefield 

CWSAC 

Priority 

Total 

Acres 

Acquired

Total 

CWBLAG

Funds

Total 

Non-Federal 

Leveraged 

Funds 

Total 

Acquisition 

Costs 

Chattanooga (TN024) I 36.10 252,500.00 252,500.00 505,000.00

Davis Bridge(TN007) III 643.00 995,500.00 995,500.00 1,991,000.00

Davis Bridge(TN007) III 84.00 123,000.00 123,000.00 246,000.00

Fort Donelson (TN002) I 7.22 125,000.00 159,578.00 284,578.00

Fort Donelson (TN002) I 103.54 143,800.00 143,800.00 287,600.00

Fort Donelson (TN002) I 105.00 150,000.00 176,883.00 326,883.00

Franklin(TN036) IV 110.78 500,000.00 4,600,000.00 5,100,000.00

Parker's Cross Roads 

(TN011) II 9.00 90,000.00 159,000.00 249,000.00 

Parker's Cross Roads 

(TN011) II 80.00 206,775.00 252,000.00 458,775.00 

Spring Hill (TN035) I 110.00 300,000.00 601,800.00 901,800.00

Total 1,288.64 $2,886,575.00 $7,464,061.00 $10,350,636.00

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 23 

In 1996, Congress created the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area (TCWNHA). The 

national heritage area is managed through Middle Tennessee State University’s Center for 

Historic Preservation (CHP). The CHP works with communities and organizations across the 

state to create educational, tourism, and recreational opportunities for residents and 

visitors at Civil War sites, including but not limited to battlefields. The CHP manages a 

matching grant program that encourages local governments and nonprofits to develop 

educational materials, undertake historical research and site evaluations, develop 

preservation plans, and promote heritage tourism. Unlike its National Heritage Area 

counterpart in Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, the CHP is not 

authorized to acquire land.19 

The State of Tennessee itself is steward to another 35 percent of its protected battlefields. 

The State owns more than 6,000 acres of battlefield land at 12 battlefields, and holds 

conservation easements on 900 acres at three more. 

In April 1994, just nine months after the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission released its 

findings, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted legislation creating the Tennessee Wars 

Commission, an arm of the Tennessee Historical Commission. Since its creation, the 

Tennessee Wars Commission has facilitated the purchase of land and easements totaling 

more than 1,500 acres at five battlefields, most notably Hatchie’s Bridge (Davis Bridge) 

and Parker’s Cross Roads. 

The state agency responsible for more battlefield land than any other is the Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). The TWRA’s holdings protect 4,200 acres of battlefield 

land. This is happy coincidence; the TWRA lands are set aside for the purposes of “the 

management, protection, propagation, and conservation of wildlife.“20 However, these 

natural conservation lands overlap the boundaries of 10 battlefields. For example, the 

Yanahli Wildlife Management Area protects more than 2,800 acres of the Columbia 

battlefield’s Study Area.21 

Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation is also an important battlefield 

steward. Two state historic sites, the Fort Pillow State Historic Park and the Johnsonville 

State Historic Area protect Civil War battlefields. At Fort Pillow, the state park interprets 

and manages 1,200 acres within the battlefield’s Study Area and Core Area. At 

Johnsonville, the state historic area commemorates the historic settlement, and protects 

122 acres of the battlefield’s Study Area.

Municipalities in Tennessee have played only a limited role in efforts to preserve historic 

battlefields. In 1938, the City of Nashville set aside the nearly 60-acre Fort Negley site. The 

City’s Fort Negley property remains the largest preserve of historic land associated with the 

battle of Nashville. Since 1993, the City of Franklin has distinguished itself as a leader in 

the state. The City has worked for more than a decade to preserve and restore portions of 

the Franklin battlefield within its jurisdiction. Table 10 summarizes the county, city, and 

town governments known to own and manage battlefield resources in Tennessee. 

 

19 http://www.tncivilwar.org, (November 24, 2009). 

20 70; Tennessee Code Annotated, Sec. 70-1-301. 

21 Acreage determined in GIS by comparing TWRA spatial data (January 2009) with ABPP spatial data (August 2009). 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 24 

Table 10: Local Government Stewardship of Battlefield Land

Local Government 

Battlefield(s) at Which 

Local Government Owns Land 

Total Acres 

Protected 

 

City of Franklin Franklin I and II 212.78

Nashville Metro Parks Nashville 59.38

City of Chattanooga Chattanooga III 38.80

Maury County 

City of Columbia 

Spring Hill 

Columbia 

20.00

3.00 

Town of Collierville Collierville 2.00

 

In addition to public efforts, nonprofit organizations have provided private support for 

battlefield preservation in Tennessee. Private nonprofits own and care for about 7 percent 

of all protected battlefield land in Tennessee, nearly 1,500 acres. The Civil War 

Preservation Trust (CWPT), which provides leadership to Civil War battlefield preservation 

efforts throughout the country, has amassed an impressive record in Tennessee. The CWPT 

has brokered numerous land preservation deals in the state, and itself owns more than 

1,250 acres among four battlefields: Fort Donelson, Hatchie’s Bridge (Davis Bridge), 

Parker’s Cross Roads, and Shiloh. Other nonprofit battlefield stewards include the 

Carnton Association, the Carter House, and the Save the Franklin Battlefield Foundation, 

Inc. in Franklin; Rippavilla, Inc. and the Tennessee Land Trust at Spring Hill; the Davis 

Bridge Memorial Foundation; the Sons of Confederate Veterans at Hoover’s Gap; and the 

Salem Cemetery Battlefield Association at Jackson. 

Through the development of collaborative partnerships among federal, state, and local 

governments, civic organizations, nonprofit groups and private individuals, significant 

protective measures have been and can continue to be effective in Tennessee. 

Opportunities for concerted action on the part of private landowners and land 

conservation groups are especially ripe at more than a dozen where nearly all surviving 

lands are privately owned and unprotected. For each battlefield, Table 11 compares the 

amount of land permanently protected from development with the total amount of land 

that remains intact but is not protected.22 This information may serve planners as a tool 

for prioritizing future preservation initiatives. 

 

22 The ABPP culled information about permanently protected lands from questionnaire respondents and numerous partner 

organizations. The data is not necessarily complete but provides an approximate idea of the amount of land protected at each 

battlefield as of 2009. Boundary figures reflect only those areas in Tennessee. See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for information 

about the size of these battlefields as they extend into other states.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 25 

Table 11: Protective Stewardship of Battlefield Land 

Battlefield 

Permanently

Protected Acres

ABPP PotNR 

Acres

Unprotected 

Acres Remaining* 

Bean’s Station (TN026) 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Blountsville (TN019) 0.00 232.57 232.57 

Blue Springs (TN020) 0.00 1,118.17 1,118.17 

Brentwood (TN015) 10.32 1,346.71 1,336.39 

Bull’s Gap (TN033) 0.00 3,205.43 3,205.43 

Campbell’s Station (TN023) 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Chattanooga I (TN005) 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Chattanooga II (TN018) 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Chattanooga III (TN024) 3,255.7 6,740.13 3,484.43 

Collierville (TN022) 2.00 N/A 0.00 

Columbia (TN034) 2,839.31 6,707.30 3,867.99 

Dandridge (TN028) 0.00 5,076.05 5,076.05 

Dover (TN012) 309.22 750.94 441.72 

Fair Garden (TN029) 0.00 8,167.08 8,167.08 

Fort Donelson (TN002) 1,189.37 3,367.33 2,177.96 

Fort Henry (TN001) 2,324.18 2,118.79 0.00 

Fort Pillow (TN030) 1,412.06 4,427.04 3,014.98 

Fort Sanders (TN025) 0.00 N/A 0.00

Franklin I (TN016) 230.22 N/A 0.00

Franklin II (TN036) 240.22 N/A 0.00

Hartsvile (TN008) 37.75 7,507.25 7,469.50 

Hatchie’s Bridge (TN007) 1,593.50 5,103.19 3,509.69 

Hoover’s Gap (TN017) 13.30 14,213.71 14,200.41 

Jackson (TN009) 1.5 1,615.61 1614.11 

Johnsonville (TN032) 312.78 1,281.01 968.23 

Memphis I (TN004) 468.58 12,170.00 11,701.42 

Memphis II (TN031) 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Mossy Creek (TN027) 0.00 3,959.48 3,959.48 

Murfreesboro I (TN006) 4.64 N/A 0.00 

Murfreersboro II (TN037) 118.48 1,335.30 1,216.82 

Nashville (TN038) 319.39 N/A 0.00 

Parker’s Cross Roads (TN011) 391.42 2,664.48 2,273.06 

Shiloh (TN003) 4,285.00 22,539.79 18,254.79 

Spring Hill (TN035) 271.14 3,204.75 2,662.47 

Stones River (TN010) 622.53 3,121.01 2,498.48 

Thompson’s Station (TN013) 0.00 1,356.21 1,356.21 

Vaught’s Hill (TN014) 0.00 2,430.15 2,430.15 

Wauhatchie (TN021) 173.68 7,129.61 6,955.93 

* Not all protected lands are included in the PotNR boundaries. The ABPP did not assign a PotNR boundary if 

substantial portions of the landscape do not survive. In cases such as Franklin, most of the battlefield landscape 

has been destroyed, although small protected parcels survive. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 26 

Public Access and Interpretation

In its questionnaire (see Appendix B), the ABPP asked battlefield stewards about the types 

of public access and interpretation available at the battlefields. The ABPP did not collect 

information about the purpose or intent of the interpretation and access, such as whether 

development of wayside exhibit was for purely educational reasons, to promote heritage 

tourism, or to boost local economic development. 

The ABPP asked respondents to indicate the type of interpretation available at or about 

the battlefield. The categories included brochures, driving tours, living history 

demonstrations, maintained historic features or areas, walking tours and trails, wayside 

exhibits, websites, and other specialized programs. The results, summarized in Table 12, 

indicate that all but three of Tennessee’s 38 Civil War battlefields currently provide some 

degree of public interpretation and educational opportunities. 

Table 12: Types of Interpretation at Tennessee Battlefields

 

On-site Interpretation* Battlefield

Battlefields with public 

interpretation, including visitors 

center (16) 

Campbell’s Station, Chattanooga I, Chattanooga II, 

Chattanooga III, Dover, Fort Donelson, Fort Pillow, 

Franklin I, Franklin II, Johnsonville, Memphis I, Memphis 

II, Parker’s Cross Roads, Shiloh, Spring Hill, Stones River 

Battlefields with public 

interpretation, but no visitors 

center (19) 

Blountsville, Blue Springs, Brentwood, Bull’s Gap, 

Collierville, Columbia, Dandridge, Fort Henry, Fort 

Sanders, Hartsville, Hatchie’s Bridge, Hoover’s Gap, 

Jackson, Mossy Creek, Murfreesboro I, Nashville, 

Thompson’s Station, Vaught’s Hill, Wauhatchie 

Battlefields with no public 

interpretation (3)

Bean’s Station, Fair Garden, Murfreesboro II 

*For details, see each site's Individual Battlefield Profile.

Figure 7: Interpretive signs such as this one at Collierville 

can be found at most of Tennessee’s battlefields today. 

Photo by Joseph E. Brent, 2006. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 27 

Local Advocacy 

Nonprofit organizations play important roles in protecting historic battlefields. They step 

in to preserve historic sites when public funding and management for historic preservation 

are absent. When public funding is available, nonprofits serve as vital partners in publicprivate preservation efforts, acting as conduits for public funds, raising critical private 

matching funds, keeping history and preservation in the public eye, and working with 

landowners to find ways to protect battlefield parcels. Tennessee battlefields have several 

well-organized local groups that have built and maintained relationships with all levels of 

government, most notably with the Tennessee Wars Commission, and other battlefield 

stakeholders. 

While organizations with general historical interests may play important roles in 

battlefield preservation, the nonprofit friends groups identified in Table 13 are dedicated 

solely to the preservation, interpretation, and promotion of a specific battlefield or 

battlefields. Of the 13 organizations listed in the table, at least 6 formed or incorporated 

during or after the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s study in the early 1990s. This 

information indicates that the CWSAC’s efforts did help focus attention on the 

vulnerability of Tennessee’s battlefields, and did inspire action. Today, however, friends 

groups lead local preservation efforts at only 39 percent of the battlefields. There remains 

a tremendous opportunity for local grassroots activism on behalf of the “unclaimed” 

battlefields. 

Fortunately, the Tennessee Civil War Preservation Association, Inc., (TCWPA) was created in 

1998. The organization’s mission is “to protect, interpret, and make accessible 

Tennessee’s surviving Civil War battlefields and contributing landscapes for the benefit of 

present and future generations." As a statewide nonprofit, TCWPA is well-positioned to 

assist local preservation initiatives, encourage the creation of local battlefield friends 

groups where none exist, and work with state and federal preservation agencies and the 

Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area to protect the state’s surviving battlefields.

Table 13: Active Battlefield Friends Groups 

Battlefield Friends Group(s) Year Founded 

Bean’s Station (TN026) Lakeway Civil War Preservation Association 2006

Blountsville (TN019) None 

Blue Springs (TN020) None 

Brentwood (TN015) None

Bull’s Gap (TN033) Lakeway Civil War Preservation Association 2006

Campbell’s Station (TN023) None

Chattanooga I (TN005) None

Chattanooga II (TN018) None

Chattanooga III (TN024) None

Collierville (TN022) None

Columbia (TN034) None

Dandridge (TN028) None

Dover (TN012) None

Fair Garden (TN029) None

Fort Donelson (TN002) Friends of Fort Donelson Campaign, Inc. 2002

Fort Henry (TN001) Friends of Fort Donelson Campaign, Inc. 2002
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 28 

Fort Pillow (TN030) Friends of Fort Pillow State Historic Park N/D

Fort Sanders (TN025) None

Franklin I (TN016) Save the Franklin Battlefield, Inc. 1989

Franklin II (TN 036) Save the Franklin Battlefield, Inc. 1989

Hartsville (TN008) Robert H. Hatton CAMP #723

Battle of Hartsville Preservation Association 

1988

N/D 

Hatchie’ s Bridge (TN007) Davis Bridge Memorial Foundation 1991

Hoover’s Gap (TN017) None

Jackson (TN009) None

Johnsonville (TN032) Friends of Johnsonville State Historic Park N/D

Memphis I (TN004) None

Memphis II (TN031) None

Mossy Creek (TN027) None

Murfreesboro I (TN006) None

Murfreesboro II (TN037) None

Nashville (TN038) Battle of Nashville Preservation Society 1998

Parker’s Cross Roads (TN011) Parkers Crossroads Battlefield Association 1993

Shiloh (TN003) Friends of the Shiloh Battlefield N/D

Spring Hill (TN035) None

Stones River (TN010) Friends of Stones River National Battlefield, Inc. 1989

Thompson’s Station (TN013) Save the Franklin Battlefield, Inc. 1989

Vaught’s Hill (TN014) None 

Wauhatchie (TN021) None
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 29 

Figure 8: Originally erected in 1927, the obelisk of the Battle of Nashville monument was toppled by a 

storm in 1974. A replica was re-dedicated in 1999 at a new location within the battlefield. Photo by 

Joseph E. Brent, 2006.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 114 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 

Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016, 17 December 2002 

Amends the American Battlefield Protection Program Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 469k) 

An Act 

 

To amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ``Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002''. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

 (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following 

 (1) Civil War battlefields provide a means for the people of 

 the United States to understand a tragic period in the history 

 of the United States. 

 (2) According to the Report on the Nation's Civil War 

 Battlefields, prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory 

 Commission, and dated July 1993, of the 384 principal Civil War 

 battlefields-- 

 (A) almost 20 percent are lost or fragmented; 

 (B) 17 percent are in poor condition; and 

 (C) 60 percent have been lost or are in imminent 

 danger of being fragmented by development and lost as 

 coherent historic sites. 

 (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are-- 

 (1) to act quickly and proactively to preserve and protect 

 nationally significant Civil War battlefields through 

 conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of those 

 battlefields from willing sellers; and 

 (2) to create partnerships among State and local 

 governments, regional entities, and the private sector to 

 preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil War 

 battlefields. 

SEC. 3. BATTLEFIELD ACQUISITION GRANT PROGRAM. 

The American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 469k) is amended-- 

 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as paragraph (3) of 

 subsection (c), and indenting appropriately; 

 (2) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as redesignated by 

 paragraph (1))-- 

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 115 

(A) by striking ``Appropriations'' and inserting 

 ``appropriations''; and 

 (B) by striking ``section'' and inserting 

 ``subsection''; 

 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following 

 ``(d) Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program.-- 

 ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection 

 ``(A) Battlefield report.--The term `Battlefield 

 Report' means the document entitled `Report on the 

 Nation's Civil War Battlefields', prepared by the Civil 

 War Sites Advisory Commission, and dated July 1993. 

 ``(B) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' 

 means a State or local government. 

 ``(C) Eligible site.--The term `eligible site' means 

 a site-- 

 ``(i) that is not within the exterior 

 boundaries of a unit of the National Park System; 

 and 

 ``(ii) that is identified in the Battlefield 

 Report. 

 ``(D) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the 

 Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American 

 Battlefield Protection Program. 

 ``(2) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 

 battlefield acquisition grant program under which the Secretary 

 may provide grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share 

 of the cost of acquiring interests in eligible sites for the 

 preservation and protection of those eligible sites. 

 ``(3) Nonprofit partners.--An eligible entity may acquire an 

 interest in an eligible site using a grant under this subsection 

 in partnership with a nonprofit organization. 

 ``(4) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the total 

 cost of acquiring an interest in an eligible site under this 

 subsection shall be not less than 50 percent. 

 ``(5) Limitation on land use.--An interest in an eligible 

 site acquired under this subsection shall be subject to section 

 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 

 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)). 

 ``(6) Reports.-- 

 ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the 

 date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the 

 Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 

 activities carried out under this subsection. 

 ``(B) Update of battlefield report.--Not later than 

 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 

 subsection, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 

 report that updates the Battlefield Report to reflect-- 

 ``(i) preservation activities carried out at 

 the 384 battlefields during the period between 

 publication of the Battlefield Report and the 

 update; 

 ``(ii) changes in the condition of the 

 battlefields during that period; and 

 ``(iii) any other relevant developments 

 relating to the battlefields during that period. 

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 116 

 ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.-- 

 ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be 

 appropriated to the Secretary from the Land and Water 

 Conservation Fund to provide grants under this 

 subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 

 through 2008. 

 ``(B) Update of battlefield report.--There are 

 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

 out paragraph (6)(B), $500,000.''; and 

 (4) in subsection (e)-- 

 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``as of'' and all 

 that follows through the period and inserting ``on 

 September 30, 2008.''; and 

 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and provide 

 battlefield acquisition grants'' after ``studies''. 

-end- 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 117 

Appendix B. Battlefield Questionnaire 

State 

Battlefield 

Person Completing Form 

Date of completion 

I. Protected Lands of the Battlefield (“Protected lands” are these “owned” for historic 

preservation or conservation purposes. Please provide information on land protected since 1993.) 

1) Identify protected lands by parcel since 1993. Then answer these questions about each parcel, 

following example in the chart below. What is the acreage of each parcel? Is parcel owned fee 

simple, by whom? Is there is an easement, if so name easement holder? Was the land purchased or 

the easement conveyed after 1993? What was cost of purchase or easement? What was source of 

funding and the amount that source contributed? Choose from these possible sources: Coin money, 

LWCF, Farm Bill, State Government, Local Government, Private Owner, Private Non-Profit (provide 

name), or Other (describe). 

Parcel Acres Owner Easement Year Cost Source 

Joe Smith Farm 194 Private SHPO 1995 $500,000 LWCF/$250,000 

 Private/$250,000 

Sue Jones Tract 16 Battlefield Friends, Inc. No 2002 $41,000 State/$20,000 

 BFI/$21,000 

2) Other public or non-profit lands within the battlefield? (Y/N) 

• If yes, describe 

• Name of public or non-profit owner or easement holder 

• Number of Acres owned/held 

3) Is the information in a GIS? (Y/N) 

 If yes, may NPS obtain a copy of the data? (Y/N) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 118 

II. Preservation Groups

1) Is there a formal interested entity (friends group, etc) associated with the battlefield? (Y/N)

 If yes 

 Name 

 Address 

 Phone 

 Fax 

 E-mail 

 Web site? (Y/N) 

 If yes, what is the URL? 

 Does the web site have a preservation message? (Y/N) 

 What year did the group form? 

III. Public Access and Interpretation

1) Does the site have designated Public Access? (Y/N) (Count public roads if there are designated 

interpretive signs or pull-offs) 

If yes, what entity provides the public access (Access may occur on lands owned in fee or under 

 easement to the above entities) 

F Federal government 

F State government 

F Local government 

F Private Nonprofit organization 

F Private owner 

F Other 

Name of entity (if applicable) 

Number of Acres Accessible to the Public (size of the area in which the public may physically visit 

without trespassing. Do not include viewsheds.) 

2) Does the site have interpretation? (Y/N) 

If yes, what type of interpretation is available? 

F Visitor Center 

F Brochure(s) 

F Wayside exhibits 

F Driving Tour 

F Walking Tour 

F Audio tour tapes 

F Maintained historic features/areas 

F Living History 

F Website 

F Other 

IV. Registration 

Applies only to the battlefield landscape, not to individual contributing features of a battlefield 

(i.e., the individually listed Dunker Church property of .2 acres does not represent the Antietam 

battlefield for the purposes of this exercise) 

1) Is the site a designated National Historic Landmark? (Y/N) 

 If yes, NHL and ID Number 

2) Is the site listed in the National Register? (Y/N)

 If yes, NRHP Name and ID Number 

3) Is the site listed in the State Register? (Y/N) 

 If yes, State Register Name and ID Number 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 119

4) Is the site in the State Inventory? (Y/N) 

 If yes, State Inventory Name and ID Number 

5) Is the site designated as a local landmark or historic site? (Y/N) 

 Type of Designation/Listing 

V. Program Activities

What types of preservation program activities have occurred at the battlefield? Provide 

final product name and date if applicable (e.g., Phase I Archeological Survey Report on the 

Piper Farm, 1994 and Antietam Preservation Plan, 2001, etc.) 

1) Research and Documentation 

2) Cultural Resource surveys and inventories (building/structure and landscape 

inventories, archeological surveys, landscape surveys, etc.) 

3) Planning Projects (preservation plans, site management plans, cultural landscape 

reports, etc.) 

4) Interpretation Projects (also includes education) 

5) Advocacy (any project meant to engage the public in a way that would benefit the 

preservation of the site, e.g. PR, lobbying, public outreach, petitioning for action, 

etc.) 

6) Legislation (any local, state, or federal legislation designed to encourage 

preservation of the battlefield individually or together with other similar sites) 

7) Fundraising 

a. To support program activities? 

b. To support land acquisition/easements? 

8) Other 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 120

Appendix C. Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants 

In 1998, the ABPP began its land acquisition grant program, which helps states and local 

communities purchase significant Civil War battlefield lands for permanent protection. In 

2002, Congress officially authorized the program.23 Eligible battlefields are those listed in 

the 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields prepared by the Congressionallychartered CWSAC. Eligible acquisition projects may be for fee interest in land or for a 

protective interest such as a perpetual easement. 

Congress has appropriated a total of $34.9 million for this Civil War Battlefield Land 

Acquisition Grants. These grants have assisted in the permanent protection of 14,741 acres 

at 59 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. Of the 59 battlefields these funds have helped, 6 

are in Tennessee. 

 

23 The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (PL 107- 359) amended the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 

469k) to authorize the land acquisition grants. 

Battlefield 

CWSAC 

Priority 

Total 

Acres 

Acquired

Total 

CWBLAG

Funds

Total 

Non-Federal 

Leveraged 

Funds 

Total 

Acquisition 

Costs 

Chattanooga (TN024) I 36.10 252,500.00 252,500.00 505,000.00

Davis Bridge(TN007) III 643.00 995,500.00 995,500.00 1,991,000.00

Davis Bridge(TN007) III 84.00 123,000.00 123,000.00 246,000.00

Fort Donelson (TN002) I 7.22 125,000.00 159,578.00 284,578.00

Fort Donelson (TN002) I 103.54 143,800.00 143,800.00 287,600.00

Fort Donelson (TN002) I 105.00 150,000.00 176,883.00 326,883.00

Franklin(TN036) IV 110.78 500,000.00 4,600,000.00 5,100,000.00

Parker's Cross Roads 

(TN011) II 9.00 90,000.00 159,000.00 249,000.00 

Parker's Cross Roads 

(TN011) II 80.00 206,775.00 252,000.00 458,775.00 

Spring Hill (TN035) I 110.00 300,000.00 601,800.00 901,800.00

Total 1,288.64 $2,886,575.00 $7,464,061.00 $10,350,636.00

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Tennessee 121

Appendix D. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants 

Through its American Battlefield Protection Program, the Federal government also 

provides grants and technical advice to communities working to preserve battlefields. The 

ABPP has two grant programs: planning grants and land acquisition grants. 

Since 1992, the ABPP has offered annual planning grants to nonprofit organizations, 

academic institutions, and local, regional, state, and tribal governments to help protect 

battlefields located on American soil. Applicants are encouraged to work with partner 

organizations and federal, State and local government agencies as early as possible to 

integrate their efforts into a larger battle site protection strategy. The ABPP has awarded 

$511,467 to proponents of Tennessee’s Civil War battlefields. 

Grantee Year Project Title Award 

Association for the Preservation 1996 Interpretive Signage For Clamored Cove $8,000.00 

 of Civil War Sites 

Chattanooga-Hamilton County 1995 Protection Strategies Associated with the Civil War $7,000.00 

 Regional Planning Commission in the Chattanooga Area 

City of Franklin 1997 Carter House Area Preservation Plan $11,500.00 

City of Franklin 1992 Preservation Conference/Stabilization of Fort Granger $9,000.00 

Cumberland Valley Civil War 2000 Cumberland Valley Civil War Site Survey $21,300.00 

 Heritage Association 

Davis Bridge Memorial 2000 Davis Bridge Preservation Plan $30,200.00 

 Foundation 

Franklin Battlefield, Inc. 1993 Self-guided Driving Tour Brochure $7,640.00 

Friends of Moccasin Bend 1997 Preservation Management for Moccasin Bend $20,000.00 

 National Park, Inc. 

General N.B. Forrest Historical 1999 Parkers Crossroads Interpretation $16,600.00 

 Society 

Heritage Foundation of Franklin 1999 Battlefield Corridor Protection Plan $20,000.00 

 and Williamson Counties 

Heritage Foundation of Franklin 1994 Franklin-Spring Hill Corridor Protection Plan $22,900.00 

 and Williamson County 

Maury County Convention 1997 Spring Hill Battlefield Interpretive Project $15,600.00 

 and Visitors Bureau 

Maury County Convention 1996 Interpretive Plan for Spring Hill Battlefield $3,360.00 

 and Visitors Bureau 

Reflection Riding, Inc. 1997 Archeological and Historical Assessment and $28,075.00 

 Protection Plan for Lookout Mountain 

Rutherford County 1997 Consensus Building at Stones River National Battlefield $13,150.00 

Rutherford County 1996 Stones River Transportation Mitigation Study $30,700.00 

Rutherford County 1993 Interpretive Plan for Stones River Greater Battlefield $33,000.00 

Rutherford County 1992 Study Alternatives to Thompson Lane Beltway $2,300.00 

 Corridor and Interpretation Project 

Southeast Tennessee 1995 Chattanooga Area Civil War Sites Assessment $38,000.00 

 Development District 

Sullivan County Government 2008 Battle of Blountville--Historic Overview and Site $16,822.00 

 Assessment 

Tennessee Backroads Heritage 2000 Preservation Plan for the Tullahoma Campaign of 1863 $34,000.00 

Tennessee Historical Commission 2003 Tennessee Civil War Documentary Sourcebook CD-ROM $6,000.00 

Tennessee Historical Commission 1998 National Register Documentation for the $15,200.00 

 Campaign and Occupation of Chattanooga 

Tennessee Historical Commission 1995 Statewide Preservation Plan and National Register $60,000.00 

 Nominations 

Trust for Public Land 2008 Preserving Chattanooga's Civil War Battlefields: $41,120.00 

 Urban Planning Through GIS 

* Obligated funds, not final disbursement