U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields

State of Alabama

Washington, DC 

 May 2011
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

State of Alabama 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Washington, DC 

May 2011 

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, Paul Hawke, Reporting; Matthew Borders, Historian; Kristie Kendall, 

Program Assistant 

Battlefield Surveyor(s) Kathleen Madigan and Matthew Borders, American Battlefield 

Protection Program; Joseph E. Brent, Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. 

Respondents Bill Rambo, Confederate Memorial Park; Mike Wise, Crooked Creek Civil 

War Museum; Blanton Blankenship, Fort Morgan State Historic Site; Jo Ann Flirt, Historic 

Blakely State Park; Michael Henderson, Historic Fort Gaines 

Cover: Dry moat and walls at Fort Morgan. The fort is a defining feature of the Mobile Bay

battlefield. Photograph by Matthew Borders, 2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

METHOD STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 7

RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................................... 7 

QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................... 11 

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF ALABAMA’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS ................... 12

QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS ........................................................................................................... 12 

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 12 

REGISTRATION ........................................................................................................................... 15

STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 16 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................................................... 18 

ADVOCACY ............................................................................................................................... 19 

INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES ........................................................................... 20

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 43

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS ................................................ 43 

APPENDIX B. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS .......................... 44 

APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ............................................... 45 

APPENDIX D. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 48 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 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 Alabama 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 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 4 

Figure 1. CWSAC Battlefields in Alabama. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 5 

Synopsis 

There are seven CWSAC battlefields in the State of Alabama – Athens, Day’s Gap,

Decatur, Fort Blakely, Mobile Bay, Selma, and Spanish Fort. Historically, these 

battlefields encompassed nearly 102,400 acres.1

 Today approximately 45,400 acres, or 44 

percent, retain suffucient significance and integrity to make them worhy of preservation.2

 

In 1993, 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. Table 1 indicates how the CWSAC prioritized Alabama’s Civil War battlefields 

in its study. 

Currently, the battlefields indentified as Priority I and III sites retain a high degree of 

integrity. While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, Day’s 

Gap, Fort Blakely, and Mobile Bay have experienced relatively little change to their 

terrain and aboveground features in nearly 150 years (see table 3).3

 

At Fort Blakely, the State of Alabama protects portions of the battlefield within Historic 

Blakeley State Park and the W.L. Holland and Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management 

Areas. The state also preserves a portion of Mobile Bay at Fort Morgan State Historic Site. 

Additional lands at Mobile Bay are protected by the Federal government (Bon Secour 

National Wildlife Refuge) and the Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board (Historic Fort 

Gaines and the Dauphin Island Audobon Bird Sanctuary). 

Within the Day’s Gap Study Area, only 40 acres (less than 1 percent of the battlefield 

lands that retain integrity) are protected. The protected land is owned by the Civil War 

Trust, a non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of endangered Civil War 

battlefields. 

 

1 Using GIS software, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the seven battlefields in 

Alabama represent 102,396.35 acres. 

2

 Using GIS software the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries for the seven battlefields in Alabama 

represent 45,499.46 acres. 3

 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 and underwater battle deposits. 

Table 1. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 

 CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

 I Critical Need Mobile Bay (AL003) Baldwin, Mobile

 II Comprehensive Preservation Possible N/A N/A 

 III Additional Protection Needed Day’s Gap (AL001) Cullman, Morgan

 Fort Blakely (AL006) Baldwin 

 IV Fragmented/Destroyed Athens (AL002) Limestone, Morgan; 

Giles County, TN 

 Decatur (AL004) Lawrence, Limestone, 

Morgan 

 Selma (AL007) Dallas 

 Spanish Fort (AL005) Baldwin 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 6 

While the CWSAC determined that Athens did not retain enough integrity to merit 

preservation, the American Battlefield Protection Program’s (ABPP) resurvey of the site has 

shown that more than 13 percent of the battlefield does retain integrity. Much of the 

landscape has been altered and fragmented; however, essential landscape features in the 

Sulphur Creek Trestle Core Area north of the City of Athens remain much as they were 

during the battle. In addition, a small portion of the battlefield is protected by the State 

of Alabama as part of the Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area. 

Decatur, Selma, and Spanish Fort are in urban settings and have suffered from modern 

intrusion. All three battlefields have undergone considerable change since the Civil War. 

While Decatur and Spanish Fort have lands within their Study Areas that are protected 

by the State of Alabama and the Federal government as wildlife conservation areas, the 

ABPP did not identify any additional portions of the three battlefields that retain integrity. 

Today only commemorative and interpretive opportunities remain at these three 

battlefields. 

See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for 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 2. View of the battlefield from high ground at the Day’s Gap. With over 2,900 acres 

retaining integrity, Day’s Gap is one of the most intact and least protected Civil War battlefields in 

Alabama. Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 7 

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 D). 

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 Alabama battlefields in January 2008 and 

September 2009. 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 a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to 

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

program 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 it 

surveyed in Alabama, except Decatur (see Figure 3 for definitions). The CWSAC 

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

efforts at Civil War battlefields. Since 1993 however, the National Park Service has refined 

its battlefield survey methodology, 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.4

 

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 completed its original 

assessments of the battlefields.5

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 these battlefields (see Table 2). At many of Alabama’s surveyed battlefields, 

the refined methodology resulted in significant increases to the sizes of the Study Area 

and Core Area. 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.6

 It is important to note however, that the Study Area and Core Area boundaries 

 

4

 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007). 5

 National Register Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992 , Revised 

1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division). 

6

 National Register Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields 

(http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers recommendations regarding “Selecting Defensible 

Boundaries.” While the guidelines indicates that “generally, boundaries should not be drawn to include the portion of the route
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 8 

Figure 3: 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, during, 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. 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. 

There may be more than one Core Area on a 

battlefield, but all lie 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. 

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. 

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 3).

Looking at each Study Area, the surveyors 

assigned PotNR boundaries where they 

judged that the landscape retained enough 

integrity to convey the significance of the 

historic battle. 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. Because many 

battlefields are entirely in private ownership 

and physical access to large portions of the 

battlefields is limited to public right of ways, 

the ABPP reviewed publicly available satellite 

images of the battlefield Study Areas in 

order to confirm or supplement surveyors’ 

field observations about land use and 

landform integrity.7

 

In assigning PotNR boundaries, the ABPP 

followed National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) guidelines when identifying and 

mapping areas that retain integrity and 

cohesion within the Study Areas.8

 Because 

the ABPP focuses only on areas of battle 

however, it did not evaluate lands adjacent 

to the Study Area that may contribute to a 

broader historical and chronological 

 taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters” they also state that “a basic principle is to include within the boundary all of 

the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took actions based on their assumption of being in the 

presence of the enemy.” The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all military activities that influenced the battle. 7

 The ABPP primarily used satellite images from the World Wide Web mapping services Bing, Google, and Yahoo. The date range 

for the sattelite images was 2007-2010. The level of detail in the sattelite images available from each mapping service depended 

upon the service’s coverage of a specified area; image resolutions were generally highly detailed in urban and suburban areas and 

less detailed in rural areas.

8

 For general guidance about integrity issues and National Register of Historic Places 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. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 9 

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.

9

 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. 

The term integrity, as defined by the NRHP, is “the ability of a property to convey its 

significance.”10 While assessments of integrity are traditionally based on seven specific 

attributes – location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association – 

battlefields are unique cultural resources and require special evaluation.“ Generally, the 

most important aspects of integrity for battlefields are location, setting, feeling and 

association,” and the most basic test for determining the integrity of any battlefield is to 

assess “whether a participant in the battle would recognize the property as it exists 

today.”11 

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 historic resources and the landscape 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. 

The degree to which post-war development has altered and fragmented the historic 

landscape or destroyed historic features and viewsheds is critical when assessing integrity. 

Changes in traditional land use over time do not generally diminish a battlefield’s 

integrity. For example, landscapes that were farmland during the Civil War do not need to 

be in agricultural use today to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP so long as the 

land retains its historic rural character. Similarly, natural changes in vegetation – woods 

growing out of historic farm fields, for example – do not necessarily lessen the landscape’s 

integrity. 

 

9

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

regulations concerning Determinations of Eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 10 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic 

Battlefields, 1992, Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources 

Division), http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf. Archeological integrity was not examined during this 

study, but should be considered in future battlefield studies and formal nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. 11 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic 

Battlefields, 1992, Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources 

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

DRAFT – State of Alabama 10 

Some post-battle development is expected; slight or moderate change within the 

battlefield may not substantially diminish a battlefield’s integrity. A limited degree of 

residential, commercial, or industrial development is acceptable. These post-battle “noncontributing” elements are often included in the PotNR boundary in accordance with 

NRHP guidelines.12

Significant changes in land use since the Civil War do diminish the integrity of the 

battlefield landscape. Heavy residential, commercial, and industrial development; cellular 

tower and wind turbine installation; and large highway construction are common 

examples of such changes. Battlefield landscapes with these types of changes are 

generally considered as having little or no integrity. 

The PotNR boundaries therefore indicate which battlefields are likely eligible for future 

listing in the NRHP and likely deserving of future preservation efforts.13 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), the ABPP did not assign a 

PotNR boundary.14 

 

In cases where a battlefield is already listed in the NRHP, 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 share a boundary with lands 

already listed in the NRHP. In other cases, PotNR boundaries will exclude listed lands that 

have lost integrity (see Table 4.)15

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

research needed for a formal NRHP nomination. PotNR boundaries are based on an 

assessment of aboveground historic features associated with 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 Act 16 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

 

12 The ABPP looks only at the battle-related elements of a cultural landscape. Post-battle elements, while not contributing to the 

significance of the battlefield, may be eligible for separate listing in the National Register of Historic Places on their own merits. 13 Future nominations of battlefield land may take the form of districts (most common), or individual sites within a multiple property 

context (appropriate for battlefields with far-flung resources). The ABPP’s survey boundaries do not imply any one approach; they 

serve only as a starting point for discussions between the nominating agent and the State Historic Preservation Officer. 14 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic 

Battlefields, 1992 , Revised 1999 (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers recommendations 

regarding "Selecting Defensible Boundaries." While this document indicates that "generally, boundaries should not be drawn to 

include the portion of the route taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters," the Guidelines also state that "a basic 

principle is to include within the boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took 

actions based on their assumption of being in the presence of the enemy." The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all

military activities that influenced the battle. See the individual battlefield profiles for information about military actions taken along 

the routes included. In accordance with the methodology of this study, if routes included in the Study Area retain integrity, they are 

included within the Potential National Register boundary for the battlefield landscape. 15 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. 

16 16 USC 470f. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 11 

Environmental Policy Act.17 Likewise, more detailed research and assessments should take 

place when any battlefield is formally nominated to the NRHP or proposed for designation 

as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). 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. 

In Alabama, only Fort Blakely has a sizable amount of acreage listed in the NRHP. 

Athens and Mobile Bay have NRHP listings representing a fraction of the total Study 

Areas of the two battlefields. In addition, Mobile Bay has a National Historic Landmark 

designation for Fort Morgan and the USS Tecumseh. At these three battlefields, the ABPP 

recommends a PotNR boundary of equal or greater size than the existing NRHP and NHL 

boundaries. 

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 D 

In Alabama, representatives from four organizations responded to ABPP’s inquiries. Their 

responses, combined with the survey findings, allowed the ABPP to create a profile of 

conditions and activities at Alabama’s Civil War battlefields. 

Figure 4. The Richard 

Martin National 

Recreation Trail, a Rails to 

Trails project managed by 

Limestone County, 

follows the old Tennessee 

& Alabama Central 

Railroad bed over the 

Sulphur Creek Trestle. 

Confederate troops under 

Nathan Bedford Forrest 

attacked a Union fort at 

the trestle as part of the 

battle of Athens (view 

looking south from the 

Sulphur Creek Trestle 

site). Photograph 

courtesy of Limestone 

County, 2011.

 

17 42 USC 4331-4332.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 12 

Summary of Conditions of Alabama’s Civil War Battlefields 

Quantified Land Areas 

Using Geographic Information Systems software, 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 and that remains to be 

protected (Potential National Register boundary). 

As noted above, the Study Areas and Core Areas of Alabama’s Civil War battlefields have 

been revised in many cases. Particular attention was paid to identifying the routes of 

approach and withdrawal associated with each battle, and to identifying areas of 

secondary action that influenced the course or outcome of the battles.18 The Study Area 

and Core Area boundaries established for each battlefield take these movements and 

actions into account, recognizing the extent to which theses ancillary areas serve as 

battlefield features. 

Table 2. Battlefield Area Statistics

Battlefield Study Area Core Area PotNR Boundary 

Athens (AL002) 21,919.82 2,274.85 2,998.41

Day’s Gap (AL001)) 5,410.35 1,084.76 2,933.02

Decatur (AL004) 14,623.51 1,148.87 0.00

Fort Blakely (AL006) 6,061.92 3,743.28 4,640.71

Mobile Bay (AL003) 36,916.74 16,130.48 34,927.42

Selma (AL007) 16,158.48 4,631.72 0.00

Spanish Fort (AL005) 3,742.16 2,282.27 0.00

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, three of 

Alabama’s battlefields have retained their character defining features over the past 150 

years.19

The landscape at Day’s Gap is in good condition. Portions of the landscape have been 

altered, but most essential features remain, particularly those around and within the four 

Core Areas. The battlefield is in a rural setting with some light commercial development 

and residential construction primarily along the roads. The Day’s Gap landscape is an 

excellent opportunity for comprehensive preservation strategies. Additional resource 

identification, land protection, and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) would be appropriate steps in the preservation of this battlefield. 

 

18 National Register Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America's Historic Battlefields 

(http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers recommendations regarding "Selecting Defensible 

Boundaries." While this document indicates that "generally, boundaries should not be drawn to include the portion of the route

taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters," the Guidelines also state that "a basic principle is to include within the 

boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took actions based on their assumption 

of being in the presence of the enemy." The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all military activities that influenced the 

battle. See the individual battlefield profiles for information about military actions taken along the routes included. In accordance 

with the methodology of this study, if routes included in the Study Area retain integrity, they are included within the Potential 

National Register boundary for the battlefield landscape.

19 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. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 13 

Fort Blakely remains in good condition. Approximately 44 percent of the battlefield is 

managed by the Historic Blakely Authority as the Historic Blakeley State Park. An 

additional three percent is also protected within the W.L Holland and Mobile-Tensaw 

Wildlife Management Areas. The remaining battlefield lands are owned by timber 

companies and private individuals. The primary threat to the battlefield is residential and 

commercial development. Reevaluation of the existing NRHP documentation and 

nomination of the remaining battlefield landscape to the NRHP would be appropriate 

preservation actions at Fort Blakely. 

While Mobile Bay is in good condition, 92 percent of the Study Area is water. The open 

waterways of Mobile Bay remain much as they were at the time of battle. With the 

shorelines of Dauphin Island to the west and Mobile Point to the east, any on-looker 

approaching the mouth of the bay from the water can appreciate the barrier islands and 

their two forts as strong positions of defense. The land portions of the battlefield retain 

varying degrees of integrity, with areas around Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines being the 

best preserved. 

The major threat to the land portion of the battlefield is erosion caused by natural forces 

in the Gulf of Mexico and Mobile Bay. In addition, development on Dauphin Island is 

beginning to overwhelm what little is left of the landscape. The two primary land-based 

defining features of Mobile Bay, Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines, also face serious threats. 

The eastern end of Dauphin Island is eroding and beginning to undercut Fort Gaines, 

bringing water up and in to the walls of the fort. Fort Morgan suffers from extensive 

damage to the brick masonry due to leaching and calcification caused by the elements. If 

these threats are not mitigated, both forts will suffer irreversible damage. 

The primary threat to submerged resources associated with the battle of Mobile Bay, is 

dredging. The USS Tecumseh shipwreck, a National Historic Landmark (NHL), has a 

Shipwreck Management Plan to aid in the prevention of adverse affects from dredging. 

Other submerged resources such as Fort Powell and the Confederate piling obstructions at 

the mouth of the bay have no such protection.20 In addition, natural gas drilling platforms 

both within and outside of the bay impact the viewshed from Fort Morgan and Fort 

Gaines. 

 

Preservation efforts at Mobile Bay should concentrate on recognition of underwater 

resources, mitigation of threats to the two masonry fortifications, reevaluation of the 

existing NRHP/NHL documentation, and nomination of the entire battlefield landscape to 

the NRHP. Because the majority of the battlefield is water, any future preservation efforts 

will need to recognize the bay’s role as a primary feature of the battle. 

Athens has been damaged by modern development in and around the city. Other than a 

small area in the southernmost part of the battlefield protected within the Swan Creek 

Wildlife Management Area, only essential landscape features north of Athens remain 

intact. The primary long-term threat to the northern portion of the battlefield is 

development. Reevaluation of the existing NRHP documentation and nomination of the 

remaining battlefield landscape to the NRHP should be the focus of preservation efforts at 

this battlefield. 

The three remaining battlefields, Decatur, Selma, and Spanish Fort, have lost all 

integrity. The post-Civil War growth of the three cities has destroyed the battlefield 

 

20 West, W. Wilson, Jr., USS Tecumseh Shipwreck Management Plan, Naval Historical Center, Washington D.C., 1996 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 14 

landscapes. Although commemorative and public interpretation opportunities exist and 

are appropriate, there is no opportunity for meaningful landscape preservation other than 

what has already been preserved at these sites. 

Table 3: Condition Summary

Condition Battlefield 

Land use is little changed (0) None

Portions of landscape have been altered, but 

most essential features remain (3)

Day’s Gap, Fort Blakely, Mobile Bay

Much of the landscape has been altered and 

fragmented, leaving some essential features (1)

Athens 

Landscape and terrain have been altered 

beyond recognition (3)

Decatur, Selma, Spanish Fort

Figure 5. Dredging and the construction of natural gass drilling platforms in Mobile Bay threaten 

underwater archeological sites and disrupt the viewshed of the Mobile Bay battlefield (view 

looking north from mouth of bay near Fort Morgan/Mobile Point). Photograph by Kathleen 

Madigan, 2009.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 15 

Registration 

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

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Sites and structures listed in the 

NRHP meet national standards for documentation, physical integrity, and demonstrable 

significance to the history of our nation. Federal, state, and local agencies use information 

from the NRHP 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 in the NRHP may also be eligible for federal and state historic 

preservation grant programs. Recognition as an NRHP listed battlefield can advance public 

understanding of and appreciation for the battlefield, and may encourage advocacy for its 

preservation.21 

Alabama currently has one Civil War battlefield listed in the NRHP as a battlefield 

landscape—Fort Blakely. Individual defining features associated with two other battles 

are listed seperately – Fort Morgan, Fort Gaines, USS Tecumseh (Mobile Bay), and Sulphur 

Creek Trestle (Athens). At all three of these battlefields, the existing documentation does 

not express accurately their size or current integrity. The NRHP documentation should be 

reevaluated and expanded to include the historic landscapes where the landscape retains 

integrity. Because the majority of the Mobile Bay Study Area is water, an expansion of 

the NRHP listing will need to recognize the role of Mobile Bay as a contributing feature to 

the battlefield. 

Fully 54 percent of Days Gap retains integrity; however, no land or features directly 

associated with the battle have been listed in the NRHP. The ABPP believes there is 

enough integrity within the Study Area to make Day’s Gap potentially eligible for 

individual listing in the NRHP as a battlefield landscape. 

At Decatur, Selma, and Spanish Fort, the ABPP believes the Study Areas of these 

battlefields no longer retain enough integrity to merit listing in the NRHP as battlefield 

landscapes. 

Table 4 compares the number of battlefield acres already designated or listed at Alabama’s 

Civil War battlefields with the number of acres that are likely to meet the same criteria. 

 

21 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. 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. Historic units of 

the National Park System and NHLs are also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 16 

Table 4. Acres Registered Compared with Acres Potentially

Eligible to be Registered

Battlefield Designation ABPP PotNR 

Acres

Existing 

Registered 

Acres

Acres Potentially 

Eligible to be 

Registerted 

Athens (AL002) NRHP 2,998.41 5.05 2,993.36

Day’s Gap (AL001) 2,933.02 0.00 2,933.02

Decatur ALS004) 0.00 0.00 0

Fort Blakely (AL006) NRHP 4,640.71 3,834.00 806.71

Mobile Bay (AL003) NRHP, NHL* 34,927.42 192.00 34,735.42

Selma (AL007) 0.00 0.00 2,993.36

Spanish Fort (AL005) 0.00 0.00 2,933.02

*The NRHP and NHL designations are for individual properties associated with the battle. 

Stewardship

For the purposes of this update, “protected land” means battlefield land that is in public 

or private non-profit ownership, or is under permanent protective easement, and is 

managed specifically for 1) the purposes of maintaining the historic character of the 

landscape and for preventing future impairment or destruction of the landscape and 

historic features, or for 2) a conservation purpose and use compatible with the goals of 

historic landscape preservation. 

The ABPP established this definition because, while public ownership of land often 

provides some level of protection for historic resources, it does not necessarily foreclose 

the potential for damage. Federal, state, and municipal ownership may prevent private 

development, and public ownership may require compliance with state and federal 

environmental laws, but the primary uses (military readiness, timber production, 

recreation, mineral extraction, impoundment, etc.) of that public land may not be 

compatible with the perpetual protection and appropriate management of a battlefield 

landscape. 

Through fee simple ownership and purchase of development rights, non-profit 

organizations, along with local, state, and federal government stewards have permanently 

protected more than 4,600 acres of Civil War battlefield land in Alabama. With more than 

44 percent of the lands that retain integrity in protective ownership, Fort Blakely is the 

best-preserved battlefield in the state. At Day’s Gap and Mobile Bay, less than five 

percent of the battlefield lands that retain integrity are protected. It should be noted, 

however, that the Mobile Bay battlefield is composed primarily of water. At Athens, a 

small percentage of the battlefield is protected within a wildlife management area. While 

the ABPP did not assign PotNR boundaries to Decatur and Spanish Fort, fragments of 

those landscapes are in protective ownership. There is no protected land at Selma. 

The majority of protected Civil War battlefield land in Alabama is held by three state 

agencies – the Alabama Historical Commission, the Alabama Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources (ADCNR), and the Historic Blakeley Authority. These agencies 

protect more than 3,500 acres of battlefield land at Fort Morgan State Historic Site 

(Mobile Bay), the Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area (Fort Blakely and 

Spanish Fort), the WL Holland Wildlife Management Area (Fort Blakely), the Swan 

Creek Wildlife Management Area (Athens and Decatur), and Historic Blakeley State Park 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 17 

(Fort Blakely). In addition, the ADCNR’s Forever Wild Land Trust protects 420 acres that 

are managed by the Historic Blakeley Authority as part of Historic Blakeley State Park. 22 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages more than 1,900 acres of battlefield land at 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (Decatur) and Bon Secour Wildlife Management Area 

(Mobile Bay). Although battlefield lands at these two Wildlife Refuges are not reserved 

for their association with historic events, they are considered by the ABPP to be protected. 

The conservation mission of the Wildlife Reguge system is compatible with the goals of 

historic landscape preservation. 

 

In Alabama, one local government plays a small but significant role as a battlefield 

landowner and steward. The Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board protects 184 acres of 

land at Historic Fort Gaines and the Dauphin Island Audubon Bird Sanctuary (Mobile Bay). 

In addition, Fort Gaines – a primary defining feature of the battlefield – is preserved and 

interpreted for its role in the battle of Mobile Bay. 

Finally, in partnership with the National Park Service, other nonprofit organizations, and 

local communities, the Civil War Preservation Trust has supported preservation efforts at 

Fort Blakely and Day’s Gap. 

Landscape preservation efforts in other states have benefited greatly from the purchase of 

development rights in the form of conservation easements. Used in conjunction with or 

instead of a traditional fee simple purchase, conservation easements are one of the most 

successful preservation and stewardship tools available for protecting battlefields. This 

type of easement allows private property owners to keep their land while receiving federal 

income tax credits for donating the easement, and is becoming increasingly popular with 

landowners who want to restrict the future development of their property. Preservation 

advocates need to combine forces with land trusts and willing sellers to apply this 

powerful tool at Civil War battlefields in Alabama. 

For each battlefield, Table 5 compares the amount of land permanently protected against 

the total amount of land that has integrity but remains unprotected.23 This information 

may serve planners and preservation advocates as a tool for prioritizing future 

preservation initiatives.

 

22 Forever Wild Land Trust, a state land acquisition program, was enacted in 1992. To date the program has purchased and 

protected over 280,000 acres of land in Alabama. While the land acquired through this program is intended for general recreation, 

nature preserves, and additions to Wildlife Management Areas and state parks, Forever Wild Land Trust’s conservation goals and 

land use policies are considered compatible with the goals of historic landscape preservation. 23 The ABPP culled information about permanently protected lands from questionnaire respondents, numerous partner 

organizations, and state and Federal GIS datasets. The data is not necessarily complete but provides an approximate idea of the 

amount of land protected at each battlefield as of 2011.

Table 5. Protective Stewardship of Intact Battlefield Land

Battlefield Permanently 

Protected Acres 

ABPP PotNR 

Acres 

Unprotected, Intact 

Acres Remaining 

Athens (AL002) 553.82 2,998.41 2,444.59 

Day’s Gap (AL001) 40 2,933.02 2,893.02 

Decatur (AL004) 1,657.66 0 0 

Fort Blakely(AL006) 2,167.31 4,640.71 2,473.40 

Mobile Bay (AL003)* 949.98 34,927.42 33,977.44 

Selma (AL007) 0 0 0 

Spanish Fort (AL005) 358.8 0 0 

*The majority of Mobile Bay’s unprotected, intact acres are water. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 18 

Public Access and Interpretation 

In its questionnaire (see Appendix D), 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 a 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 the Individual Battlefield Profiles, 

indicate that three of Alabama’s seven Civil War battlefields offer public access and facilities 

specifically dedicated to the interpretation of the battlefield landscape and two offer some 

level of interpretation pertaining to the battle. 

Table 6: Interpretation Summary

On-site Interpretation Battlefield

Battlefields with public interpretation, including 

visitors center (2) 

Fort Blakely (AL006), Mobile Bay (AL003) 

Battlefields with public interpretation, but no 

visitors center (4) 

Athens (AL002), Day’s Gap (AL001), 

Decatur (AL004), Spanish Fort (AL005) 

Battlefields with no public interpretation (1) Selma (AL007) 

Figure 6. The City of Decatur was 

razed before the battle of Decatur 

to allow a clear field of fire from 

Union fortifications. Today only 

four buildings remain in Decatur 

from the time of the battle, among 

them the old State Bank (shown in 

the background). The DecaturMorgan County Convention and 

Visitors Bureau interprets the battle 

through a Civil War walking tour, 

accompanying brochure, and 

interpretive signs. Photograph by 

Matthew Borders, 2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 19 

Advocacy 

Nonprofit organizations play important roles in protecting historic battlefields. These 

organizations 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 public-private 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. 

Three of Alabama’s seven Civil War battlefields have active nonprofit advocates – Fort 

Blakely, Mobile Bay, and Selma. The Historic Blakely Foundation promotes the 

historical and cultural aspects of the battlefield and works to preserve lands associated 

with the battle of Fort Blakely. At Mobile Bay, the Friends of Fort Morgan provides 

support to the Fort Morgan State Historic Site and advocates for the battlefield in the local 

community. A new group, the April 1865 Society, has been formed to promote the battle 

of Selma. The group is currently advocating for historical markers to be placed around 

the city to interpret the battle. 

While other organizations with more general historical interests may also play important 

roles in preserving Alabama’s battlefields, these groups are the only known local 

organizations in Alabama that have been dedicated solely to the goals of battlefield 

preservation, interpretation, and promotion of these resources. 

Like many other states, Alabama is promoting the Civil War sesquicentennial for public 

education, community development, and heritage tourism. In October 2010, Alabama 

launched a statewide partnership for the commemoration of the Creek War, the Civil War 

sesquicentennial, and the Civil Rights movement called Becoming Alabama. As part of this 

effort, the Alabama Tourism Department has published an Alabama Civil War Trails 

brochure highlighting the state’s Civil War battlefields and associated properties.24 

Figure 7. The Historic 

Blakely Foundation, 

with assistance from an 

American Battlefield 

Protection Program 

Civil War Battlefield 

Land Acquisition Grant, 

helped acquire and 

preserve lands 

associated with the 

battle of Fort Blakely. 

Photograph courtesy of 

Historic Blakeley State 

Park, 2011. 

 

24 Alabama Civil War Trails brochure, http://www.800alabama.com/media-room/brochures/ 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 20 

Battlefield Profile Glossary 

Location County or city in which the battlefield is located. 

Campaign Name of military campaign of which the battle was part. Campaign 

names are taken from The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the 

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 

Battle Date(s) Day or days upon which the battle took place, as determined by the Civil 

 War Sites Advisory Commission. 

Principal Commanders Ranking commanders of opposing forces during the battle. 

Forces Engaged Name or description of largest units engaged during the battle. 

Results Indicates battle victor or inconclusive outcome. 

Study Area Acres within the Study Area, as determined by the ABPP, that represent 

 the historic extent of the battle upon the landscape.

Potential National Acres of land that retain historic character and may be eligible for 

Register Lands listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by 

 ABPP. 

Protected Lands Estimated acreage (based on questionnaires and analysis using GIS 

software) of battlefield land that is in public or private non-profit 

ownership, or is under permanent protective easement, and is managed 

specifically for 1) the purposes of maintaining the historic character of 

the landscape and for preventing future impairment or destruction of 

the landscape and historic features, or for 2) a conservation purpose and 

use compatible with the goals of historic landscape preservation. 

Publicly Accessible Estimated acres (based on responses to questionnaires) maintained 

Lands for public visitation. 

 

Management Area Name of historic site, park, or other area maintained for resource 

protection and/or public visitation. 

Friends Group(s) Name of local advocacy organization(s) that support preservation 

 activities at/for the battlefield. 

Preservation Indicates which types of preservation activities have taken place at 

Activities the battlefield since 1993 (based on responses to questionnaires). 

Since 1993 

 

Public Indicates which types of interpretation/educational activities have 

Interpretation taken place at the battlefield since 1993 (based on 

Since 1993 responses to questionnaires).

Condition Statement The ABPP’s assessment of the overall condition of the battlefield’s 

Study Area (based on field surveys and responses to questionnaires). 

Historical Designation Notes the most prestigious historical designation the battlefield has 

 received (i.e. national park unit, National Historic Landmark, or 

 National Register of Historic Places). 

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

DRAFT – State of Alabama 21 

Athens (AL002) 

Location Limestone and Morgan Counties; Giles County, TN 

Campaign Forrest’s Raid in Northern Alabama and Middle Tennessee 

Battle Date(s) September 23-25, 1864 

Principal Commanders Colonel Wallace Campbell, Lieutenant Colonel Jonas Elliott, 

Colonel W. H. Lathrop, Colonel George Spalding [US]; Major 

General Nathan Bedford Forrest [CS] 

Forces Engaged 110th USCT, 102th Ohio Infantry (detachment), 18th Michigan 

Infantry (detachment), 111th USCT, 4th Cavalry Division [US]; 

Cavalry Corps, Department of Alabama, Mississippi, and East 

Louisiana [CS] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 21,919.82 acres 

The ABPP expanded the 1993 Study Area slightly around Athens to 

allow for troop movements. The Study Area around McDonald 

Station (modern day town of Tanner) was expanded to include 

skirmishing between Confederate cavalry and the USCT. The ABPP 

removed part of the Study Area to the northwest of Athens where 

there was no activity and also removed the Confederate withdrawal 

route to the northeast of Sulpher Creek Trestle as it did not have any 

bearing on the battle. The approach route to the southwest of 

Athens from Brown's Ferry on the Tennessee River to the town of Reid 

was also removed. This route was associated with the January 1864 

battle. 

The 1993 Core Areas were expanded slightly to include all combat 

maneuvers associated with both the action in Athens and the action 

at Sulphur Creek Trestle. 

Potential National 2,998.37 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 553.82 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Swan 

Creek Wildlife Management Area, fee simple 

Publicly Accessible Lands 566.02 acres 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Swan 

Creek Wildlife Management Area, 553.82 acres 

Limestone County Parks and Recreation, Richard Martin National 

Recreation Trail,10.20 acres 

Athens-Limestone Community Association, Fort Henderson Historic 

Site, 2.00 acres 

Management Area(s) Fort Henderson Historic Site 

 Richard Martin National Recreation Trail 

 Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area 

Friends Group(s) None

Preservation Activities Advocacy 

Since 1993 9 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 22 

 Fundraising 

9 Interpretation Projects

 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

 Planning Projects

 Research and Documentation 

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s) 

Since 1993 http://www.visitathensal.com/3/miscellaneous3.htm

9 Driving Tour 

 Living History 

 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

9 Walking Tour/Trails

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs

 Website 

 Other 

Condition Statement Much of the landscape has been altered and fragmented, but 

some essential features remain. 

 Athens has been damaged by modern development in and 

around the city. Other than a small area in the southernmost part 

of the battlefield protected within the Swan Creek Wildlife 

Management Area, only essential landscape features north of 

Athens remain intact. The primary long-term threat to the 

northern portion of the battlefield is development. Reevaluation 

of the existing NRHP documentation and nomination of the 

remaining battlefield landscape to the NRHP should be the focus 

of preservation efforts at this battlefield. 

Historical Designation National Register of Historic Places (Sulphur Trestle Fort Site, 1973)
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 23 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 24 

Day’s Gap (AL001) 

Location Cullman and Morgan Counties 

Campaign Streight’s Raid in Alabama and Georgia (1863) 

Battle Date(s) April 30, 1863 

Principal Commanders Colonel Abel Streight [US]; Brigadier General Nathan Bedford 

Forrest [CS] 

Forces Engaged Elements of the 51st Indiana Infantry, 73rd Indiana Infantry, 3rd Ohio 

Infantry, 80th Illinois Infantry, and the 1st Middle Tennessee Cavalry 

(5th Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry Regiment) [US]; Cavalry Corps, 

Department of Alabama, Mississippi, and East Louisiana [CS] 

Results Confederate Victory 

Study Area 5,410.35 acres 

The ABPP expanded the 1993 Study Area to include the Federal 

encampment north of Day's Gap; the point at which Forrest realized 

the Federal’s were in close proximity and organized his attack; the 

actual area of fighting at Day's Gap; and the engagement areas at 

Crooked Creek/Hog Mountain, Bethsaida Church, and Ryan Creek. 

The ABPP also connected the discontiguous 1993 Study Areas into one 

Study Area representing the full extent of the action associated with 

Day’s Gap and the entire route of chase from initial contact to the 

point of disengagement at Johnson's Crossing the night of April 30th. 

The 1993 Day's Gap Core Area was moved slightly to the west and on 

top of the ridgeline, which more closely matches reports found in the 

War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the 

Union and Confederate Armies. The Core Area at Hog Mountain was 

expanded to include the full battle of Crooked Creek/Hog Mountain. 

Core Areas were also added at Bethsaida Church and Ryan's Creek. 

These were the last actions of the day before Forrest broke off chase 

for the night and allowed Streight to move on to Blountsville. 

Potential National 2,933.02 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 40.00 acres, 

Civil War Trust, Hog Mountain, fee simple

Publicly Accessible Lands 20.00 acres, 

 Crooked Creek Civil War Museum and Park (private ownership) 

Management Area(s) Crooked Creek Civil War Museum and Park 

Hog Mountain 

Friends Group(s) None

Preservation Activities Advocacy 

Since 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories 

 Fundraising 

9 Interpretation Projects 

9 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

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

DRAFT – State of Alabama 25 

 Planning Projects

9 Research and Documentation 

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s) 

Since 1993 9 Driving Tour

 Living History 

9 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

9 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

9 Website 

http://www.co.cullman.al.us/history2.htm 

 Other 

Condition Statement Portions of landscape have been altered, but most essential 

features remain. 

 The landscape at Day’s Gap is in good condition. The battlefield 

is in a rural setting with some light commercial development and 

residential construction primarily along the roads. Day’s Gap

remains an excellent opportunity for comprehensive landscape 

preservation. Additional resource identification, land protection, 

and nomination to the NRHP would be appropriate steps in the 

preservation of this battlefield. 

Historical Designation None 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 26 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 27 

Decatur (AL004) 

Location Lawrence, Limestone, and Morgan Counties 

Campaign Franklin – Nashville Campaign (1864) 

Battle Date(s) October 26 - 29, 1864 

Principal Commanders Brigadier General Robert S. Granger [US]; General John Bell Hood [CS] 

Forces Engaged Garrison at Decatur; US Army Gunboat Stone River, USS General 

Thomas; detachments of 102 Ohio Infantry, 18th Michigan 

Infantry, 13th Wisconsin Infantry, 14th US Colored Infantry, 73rd 

Indiana Infantry, 68th Indiana Infantry, and 13th Indiana Cavalry 

[US]; Army of Tennessee [CS] 

Results Confederate victory 

Study Area 14,623.51 acres 

 The CWSAC did not assign boundaries to this battlefield in 1993. 

 The new Study Area boundary reflects the 1864 boundaries of the 

Tennessee River before the river was dammed to form Wheeler Lake. 

The boundary incorporates the Confederate approach down three 

main roads (Courtland, Moulton, and Sommerville) and Federal 

cavalry moving and skirmishing for 12 miles along the Sommerville 

Road. Included in the Study Area boundary are Confederate 

encampments; Confederate earthworks and 14-gun battery; Federal 

fortifications and advanced rifle pits and earthworks; a Federal 

battery on the north side of the Tennessee River; the Federal boats' 

advance from Limestone Creek and actions against the 14-gun 

battery; Federal reinforcements’ approach routes from Athens and 

Huntsville; and Federal patrol routes along the Tennessee River from 

Decatur to Brown's Ferry. 

 The ABPP also delineated two new Core Areas. The smaller of the two 

Core Areas represents the first major action of the battle – a larger 

skirmish between Confederate and Federal cavalries along the 

Sommerville Road. The larger of the two Core Areas encompasses the 

battlefield from the ravine (Dry Branch Creek) to the Tennessee River 

(c. 1864) to include fields of fire, actions on the Federal right and left, 

actions across the open fields, the Federal battery and boats' actions 

against the Confederate 14-gun battery, and the 14th USCT action to 

take the Confederate battery on the Federal left. 

Potential National 0.00 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 1,657.66 acres 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, 

1,329.47 acres, fee simple 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Swan 

Creek Wildlife Management Area, 328.19 acres, fee simple 

 

Publicly Accessible Lands 1,664.66 acres 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, 

1,329.47 acres 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Swan 

Creek Wildlife Management Area, 328.19 acres 

 Decatur Parks and Recreation, Rhodes Ferry Park, 7.00 acres 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 28 

Management Area(s) Rhodes Ferry Park 

 Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area

 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Friends Group(s) None

Preservation Activities Advocacy

Since 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories 

 Fundraising 

9 Interpretation Projects 

 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

 Planning Projects 

 Research and Documentation 

 Other 

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s) 

Since 1993 http://www.decaturcvb.org/images/brochures/Decatur_Civl_War_Tour.pdf 

Driving Tour 

 Living History 

9 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

9 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

 Website 

 Other 

 

Condition Statement Landscape and terrain have been altered beyond recognition. 

 Decatur has lost integrity as an historic landscape. The rebuilding 

and growth of the City of Decatur since the Civil War has 

destroyed the battlefield. Although there is no opportunity for 

meaningful landscape preservation, commemorative and 

interpretive opportunities are possible and appropriate. 

Historical Designation None 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 29 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 30 

Fort Blakely (AL006) 

Location Baldwin County 

Campaign Mobile Campaign 

Battle Date(s) April 2 – 9, 1865 

Principal Commanders Major General E.R.S. Canby [US]; Brigadier General St. John R. 

Liddell [CS] 

Forces Engaged Army of West Mississippi [US]; Fort Blakely Garrison, CSS 

Huntsville, CSS Nashville, CSS Morgan [CS] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 6,061.92 acres 

The ABPP expanded the 1993 Study and Core Areas to include the 

Blakely and Tensaw Rivers and the Confederate ships' actions to 

support the fort. Also added were fields of fire from the Federal 

batteries north of Spanish Fort. Federal approach routes from the 

east and south were added to the Study Area and the approach route 

from Spanish Fort was widened across Bay Minette to reflect the 

military’s need for multiple crossing points. 

Potential National 4,640.65 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 2,020.00 acres 

 Historic Bakeley Authority, 1,600.00 acres, fee simple 

 Forever Wild Land Trust, 420.00 acres, fee simple 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

 147.31 acres 

Publicly Accessible Lands 2,167.31 acres

Historic Bakeley Authority, Historic Blakeley State Park 

 1,600.00 acres 

Forever Wild Land Trust, Blakeley Addition Tract, 420.00 acres 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, W.L. 

Holland Wildlife Management Area, 78.25 acres 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, MobileTensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area, 69.06 acres 

Management Area(s) Historic Blakeley State Park 

 Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area 

 W.L. Holland Wildlife Management Area 

Friends Group(s) Historic Blakeley Foundation

Preservation Activities 9 Legislation 

Since 1993 9 Planning Projects 

9 Research and Documentation 

9 Advocacy 

9 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories

9 Fundraising 

9 Interpretation Projects 

9 Land or Development Rights Purchased 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 31 

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s) 

Since 1993 9 Driving Tour

9 Living History 

9 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

9 Visitor Center 

9 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

9 Website: 

http://www.blakeleypark.com

Other 

Condition Statement Portions of the landscape have been altered, but most essential 

features remain. 

 Fort Blakely remains in relatively good condition. Approximately 

44 percent of the battlefield is managed by the Historic Blakely 

Foundation as the Historic Blakeley State Park. An additional 

three percent is also protected within the W.L Holland and 

Mobile-Tensaw Wildlife Management Areas. The remaining 

battlefield lands are owned by timber companies and private 

individuals. The primary threat to the battlefield is residential and 

commercial development. Reevaluation of the existing NRHP 

documentation and nomination of the remaining battlefield 

landscape to the NRHP would be appropriate preservation actions 

at Fort Blakely. 

Historical Designation National Register of Historic Places (Blakeley, 1974) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 32 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 33 

Mobile Bay (AL003) 

Location Mobile and Baldwin Counties 

Campaign Operations in Mobile Bay (1864) 

Battle Date(s) August 2 – 23, 1864 

Principal Commanders Rear Admiral David G. Farragut, Major General Gordon Granger [US]; 

Admiral Franklin Buchanan, Major General Dabney H. Maury [CS] 

Forces Engaged West Gulf Blockading Squadron and U.S. Army forces near Mobile [US]; 

Buchanan’s Flotilla (CSS Tennessee, gunboats Selma, Morgan and Gaines), 

Fort Morgan garrison, Fort Gaines garrison, and Fort Powell garrison [CS]. 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 36,916.74 acres 

The 1993 Study Area was adjusted to conform to the bathometric 

maps of Mobile Bay and contours of the islands at the time of the 

engagement. It was expanded to the northwest to include the 

bombardment of Fort Powell by the West Gulf Blockading Squadron 

gunboats and the ironclad Chickasaw, and west along Dauphin Island 

to include the landing areas of Granger's infantry and artillery. 

The 1993 Core Area was expanded around Fort Gaines and Fort 

Morgan to include the full range of the naval and land-based gun 

bombardment of those fortifications. Also included was the 

bombardment of Fort Powell. The Core Area was expanded north of 

Fort Morgan to include the action against the Confederate gunboat 

Selma, and the full extent of Farragut's fight with the CSS Tennessee. 

Potential National 34,927.42 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 949.98 acres

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 637.49 acres, fee simple 

Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board, 184.76 acres, fee simple 

Alabama Historical Commission, 127.73 acres, fee simple 

Publicly Accessible Lands 949.98 acres

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, 

637.49 acres 

Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board, Dauphin Island Audubon Bird 

Sanctuary, 160.00 acres

Alabama Historical Commission, Fort Morgan State Historic Site, 

 127.73 acres 

Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board, Fort Gaines Municipal Park, 

24.76 acres 

Management Area(s) Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge 

 Dauphin Island Audubon Bird Sanctuary 

 Fort Morgan State Historic Site 

Historic Fort Gaines 

Friends Group(s) Friends of Fort Morgan 

Preservation Activities Advocacy

Since 1993 9 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 34 

Leaching and calcification are beginning to 

damage severely Fort Morgan’s brick masonry. 

Photograph by Kathleen Madigan 2009. 

Standing seawater inside the walls of Fort Gaines. 

Photograph by Matthew Borders 2009. 

 Fundraising 

9 Interpretation Projects 

Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

9 Planning Projects 

9 Research and Documentation 

9 Other 

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s)

Since 1993 9 Driving Tour 

9 Living History

9 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

9 Visitor Center 

9 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

9 Website: 

 http://www.azaleacity.com/fortmorgan/information.htm 

http://www.dauphinisland.org/fort.htm 

 Other 

Condition Statement Portions of the landscape have been altered, but most essential 

features remain. 

Ninety-two percent of the Mobile Bay Study Area is 

water. The open waterways of Mobile Bay remain much 

as they were at the time of battle. With the shorelines of 

Dauphin Island to the west and Mobile Point to the east, 

any on-looker approaching the mouth of the bay from the 

water can appreciate the barrier islands and their two 

forts as strong positions of defense. The land portions of 

the battlefield retain varying degrees of integrity, with 

areas around Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines being the best 

preserved. 

The major threat to the land portion of the battlefield is 

erosion caused by natural forces in the Gulf of Mexico and 

Mobile Bay. In addition, development on Dauphin Island 

is beginning to overwhelm what little is left of the 

landscape. The two primary land-based defining features 

of Mobile Bay, Fort 

Morgan and Fort Gaines, also face serious threats. The 

eastern end of Dauphin Island is eroding and beginning to 

undercut Fort Gaines, bringing water up and in to the 

walls of the fort. Fort Morgan suffers from extensive 

damage to the brick masonry due to leaching and 

calcification caused by the elements. If these threats are 

not mitigated, both forts will suffer irreversible damage. 

The primary threat to submerged resources associated with 

the battle of Mobile Bay, is dredging. The USS Tecumseh

shipwreck, a National Historic Landmark (NHL), has a 

Shipwreck Management Plan to aid in the prevention of 

adverse affe cts from dredging. Other submerged resources 

such as Fort Powell and the Confederate piling obstructions 

at the mouth of the bay have no such protection.25 

 

25 West, W. Wilson, Jr., USS Tecumseh Shipwreck Management Plan, Naval Historical Center, Washington D.C., 1996 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 35 

In addition, natural gas drilling platforms both within and outside of 

the bay impact the viewshed from Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines. 

 

Preservation efforts at Mobile Bay should concentrate on 

recognition of underwater resources, mitigation of threats to the 

two masonry fortifications, reevaluation of the existing NRHP/NHL 

documentation, and nomination of the entire battlefield landscape 

to the NRHP. Because the majority of the battlefield is water, any 

future preservation efforts will need to recognize the bay’s role as a 

primary feature of the battle. 

Historical Designation National Register of Historic Places (Fort Gaines, 1976) 

 National Register of Historic Places (U.S.S. Tecumseh, 1975) 

 National Historic Landmark (Fort Morgan, 1966) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 36 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 37 

Selma (AL007) 

Location Dallas County 

Campaign Wilson’s Raid in Alabama and Georgia (1865)) 

Battle Date(s) April 2, 1865 

Principal Commanders Major General James H. Wilson [US]; Lieutenant General Nathan B. 

Forrest [CS] 

Forces Engaged Cavalry Corps, Military Division of the Mississippi [US]; Cavalry 

Corps, Department of Alabama, Mississippi, and East Louisiana; 

General Daniel W. Adams' state reserves; citizens of Selma who 

volunteered to man the defenses [CS] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 16,158.29 acres 

 The 1993 Study Area was expanded to the north to include Federal 

troop movements, engagement areas, and routes of approach. Also 

included was the Confederate withdrawl route to the east towards 

Burnsville, and the flight across the Alabama River to the southwest. 

 The 1993 Core Area was expanded to the north and east to include 

fields of fire and areas of fighting outside of the Confederate 

fortifications. 

Potential National 0.00 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 0.00 acres 

Publicly Accessible Lands 0.00 acres 

Management Area(s) None 

Friends Group(s) April 1865 Society 

Preservation Activities 9 Advocacy 

Since 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories 

 Fundraising 

 Interpretation Projects 

 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

 Planning Projects 

 Research and Documentation 

 Other 

Public Interpretation Brochure(s)

Since 1993 Driving Tour

9 Living History 

 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

 Walking Tour/Trails 

 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

 Website 

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

DRAFT – State of Alabama 38 

Condition Statement Landscape and terrain have been altered beyond recognition. 

 Selma has lost integrity as an historic landscape. The growth of 

the City of Selma since the Civil War has destroyed the battlefield. 

Although there is no opportunity for meaningful landscape 

preservation, commemorative and interpretive opportunities are 

possible and appropriate. 

Historical Designation None 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 39 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 40 

Spanish Fort (AL005) 

Location Baldwin County 

Campaign Mobile Campaign (1865) 

Battle Date(s) March 27 – April 8, 1865 

Principal Commanders Major General E.R.S. Canby [US]; Brigadier General Randall L. Gibson [CS] 

Forces Engaged Army of West Mississippi [US]; Spanish Fort garrison [CS] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 3,742.16 acres 

The ABPP expanded the 1993 Study and Core Areas to the northwest 

to include fields of fire from Forts Tracy and Huger (CSA). In addition, 

the Study and Core Areas were expanded to the south-southeast to 

include the Union hospital, headquarters, and earthworks. A small 

amount of the Core Area was removed on the southwest edge to 

follow better the 1865 shoreline. 

Potential National 0.00 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 347.22 acres 

Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area, fee simple 

Publicly Accessible Lands 347.22 acres 

Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area 

Management Area(s) Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area 

Friends Group(s) None 

Preservation Activities Advocacy

Since 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories

 Fundraising 

Interpretation Projects 

Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

 Planning Projects 

Research and Documentation 

 Other 

Public Interpretation Brochure(s)

Since 1993 Driving Tour

 Living History 

 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

 Website 

 Other 

Condition Statement Landscape and terrain have been altered beyond recognition. 

Spanish Fort has lost integrity as an historic landscape. The 

growth of the town of Spanish Fort has destroyed the battlefield. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 41 

 Although there is no opportunity for meaningful landscape 

preservation, commemorative and interpretive opportunities are 

possible and appropriate. 

Historical Designation None 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 42 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 43 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants 

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (PL 107-359) amended the American 

Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 469k) to authorize a matching grant program to 

assist States and local communities in acquiring significant Civil War battlefield lands for 

permanent protection. Most recently, Congress showed its continued support for these 

grants through its reauthorization of this program within the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11). 

Eligible battlefields are those listed in the 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War 

Battlefields prepared by the Congressionally chartered Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

(CWSAC). Eligible acquisition projects may be for fee interest in land or for a protective 

interest such as a perpetual easement. 

Since 1998, Congress has appropriated a total of $38.9 million for this Civil War Battlefield 

Land Acquisition Grants (CWBLAG) Program. These grants have assisted in the permanent 

protection of more than 16,600 acres at 67 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. To date, 

$84,100 has been used at Fort Blakely to protect permanently 67.28 acres. Given the 

remarkable success of battlefield land and easement acquisition in other states, these 

grants can help protect historic lands at Athens, Day’s Gap, and Fort Blakely in the 

future. 

Although all of the battlefields listed in this update are eligible to apply for CWBLAG 

funding, applications to protect land that retains integrity (within PotNR boundaries) will 

be the most competitive. 

Battlefield CWSAC 

Priority 

Acres 

Acquired 

CWBLAG 

Funds

Total 

Non-Federal 

Leveraged Funds 

Total 

Acquisition 

Fort Blakely 3 67.28 $84,100.00 $85,055.00 $169,155.00
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 44 

Appendix B. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants 

Since 1992, 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. ABPP has awarded $87,612.00 to 

Alabama’s Civil War battlefields. 

Grantee Year Project Title Amount 

Alabama Historical Commission 2007 Fort Morgan Masonry Condition $37,800.00 

 and Repairs Assessment 

Alabama Historical Commission 1994 Mobile Bay Plan $25,000.00 

Alabama Historical Commission 1992 Fort Morgan Archeological $5,500.00 

 Research and Conference 

East Carolina University 1992 Survey Shipwrecks at Mobile Bay $19,312.00 

Total $87,612.00 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 45 

Appendix C. 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))-- 

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

 ``appropriations''; and 

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

 ``subsection''; 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 46 

 (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. 

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

DRAFT – State of Alabama 47 

 ``(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 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 48 

Appendix D. 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.) 

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 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 49 

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 

DRAFT – State of Alabama 50 

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