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 Missouri

Washington, DC 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

State of Missouri 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Washington, DC 

March 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 and January Ruck, Reporting; Matthew Borders, Historian; Kristie Kendall, 

Program Assistant 

Battlefield Surveyor(s) Connie Langum, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield 

Respondents Craig Asbury, Kirksville Battlefield; Lois Bowman, Wright County Historical 

Society; Walter Busch, Fort Davidson State Historic Site; Michael Calvert, Civil War 

Roundtable of Western Missouri; Janae Fuller, Battle of Lexington State Historic Site; 

Daniel Hadley and Alinda Miller, Lone Jack Historical Society; Tom Higdon, Russ Hively, and 

Jim Ridenour, Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association, Inc.; Scott House, Cape 

Girardeau Historic Preservation Commission; Cindy Lynch, Columbus Belmont State Park; 

Carole Magnus, Foundation for Historic Preservation; Mary Ellen McVicker, Scholar; Pam 

Myers, Battle of Carthage State Historic Site; Jeff Patrick and Gary Sullivan, Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield; Paul Rorvig, Ph.D., University of Central Missouri; John Rutherford, 

Springfield-Greene County Library; Daniel Smith, Monnett Battle of Westport Fund, Inc.; 

Melanie Smith, City of Kirksville; Arnold Schofield, Mine Creek State Historic Site. 

The ABPP would like to thank especially Ted Hillmer, Superintendent of Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, William J. Bryan, Director of Missouri State Parks, Natalie Franz of the 

Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service, and Barbara Wyatt of the National 

Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, for their assistance in preparing this 

report. 

Cover: Six-pounder guns stand at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, in the approximate position of Captain 

Henry Guibor's Missouri State Guard Battery during the first Confederate assault against Bloody Hill at the 

battle of Wilson’s Creek. Photograph by Danny Shortt, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 2004. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

METHOD STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 11

RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS .................................................................................................... 11 

QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................... 15 

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF MISSOURI’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS .................... 17

QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS ........................................................................................................... 17 

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 19 

REGISTRATION ........................................................................................................................... 20

STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 22 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................................................... 25 

ADVOCACY ............................................................................................................................... 26

INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES ........................................................................... 29

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 118

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS .............................................. 118 

APPENDIX B. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS ........................ 119 

APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ............................................. 120 

APPENDIX D. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................... 123 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 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 FY2005 and FY2007. 

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 Missouri for use by Congress, federal, state, and local government agencies, 

landowners, and other interest groups. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 4 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 5 

Synopsis 

There are 29 CWSAC battlefields in the State of Missouri. Historically, these battlefields 

encompassed nearly 175,000 acres.1

 Today, more than 95,000 acres survive (approximately 

55 percent), retaining sufficient significance and integrity to make many of the battlefields 

worthy of preservation.2

 

At present, only 5,600 acres3

 (approximately 6 percent) of the surviving historic landscapes 

are permanently protected. Federal agencies own and manage nearly half, some 2,400 

acres, of the permanently protected battlefield land in Missouri. The largest single federal 

holding is Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, a unit of the National Park System. The 

National Park Service owns about 1,970 acres at Wilson’s Creek, but other portions of the 

battlefield remain unprotected outside of the park’s boundaries. While not designated for 

their historic value, three other federal holdings have been set aside for conservation 

purposes and uses compatible with the goals of historic landscape preservation. The US 

Fish and Wildlife Service manages land at Boonville and Fort Davidson for wildlife 

conservation, and the USDA Forest Service holds additional land at Fort Davidson within 

the Mark Twain National Forest. 

The State protects almost as much historic battlefield land as the Federal Government. 

Two state agencies, the Missouri Department of Conservation and the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources (through Missouri State Parks) collectively own and 

manage more than 2,200 acres at seven different battlefields: Carthage, Fort Davidson, 

Hartville, Kirksville, Lexington I, Lexington II, and New Madrid/Island No. 10. The 

State of Kentucky owns another 160 acres of the Belmont battlefield, the boundaries of 

which encompass land on the Kentucky side of the Mississippi River. 

The Civil War battlefields discussed in this report lie within the boundaries of 25 Missouri 

counties, and 6 counties in other states. Despite this geographic distribution, few local 

governments have become stewards of the battlefields in their jurisdictions. The local 

governments of the City of Cape Girardeau, Jackson County, and Kansas City have set aside 

a total of 52 acres of battlefield land for public appreciation, all prior to 1993. Only two 

local governments have acquired Civil War battlefield land since the 1993 release of the 

CWSAC’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. In 1998, the City of Ironton passed 

a revenue bond to buy Shepherd Mountain, a defining topographic feature of the Fort 

Davidson battlefield. The city purchased 600 acres within the Study Area and today 

manages the land as a natural area. Kansas City Parks and Recreation has acquired over 

120 acres within the Byram’s Ford Study Area as part of the Big Blue Battlefield Park and 

manages the land as an historic resource. 

 

Only a few nonprofit organizations have taken on the responsibilities of owning, 

maintaining, and interpreting Civil War battlefield land in Missouri. The Monett Battle of 

Westport Fund, Inc. in Kansas City, the Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association, Inc., 

the Foundation for Historic Preservation in Fredericktown, and the Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield Foundation have been active in promoting and protecting resources at their 

respective battlefields. 

 

1

Using GIS software and accounting for overlapping areas, ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the 29 battlefields in Missouri 

represent 174,319.12 acres. Of that total, 28,721.23 acres fall into other states (15,114.14 acres in Tennessee; 11,796.82 acres in 

Kentucky; 1,015.33 acres in Illinois; and 794.96 acres in Kansas). 

2

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

Missouri battlefields represent 95,302.18 acres. Of that total, 21,165.73acres lie in other states (12,153.97acres in Tennessee; 8,505.43 

acres in Kentucky; and 506.32 acres in Kansas). 

3

 This figure includes 160 acres of the Belmont battlefield owned by Kentucky State Parks. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 6 

Private landowners have also begun to protect battlefield land. At Wilson’s Creek, a 

private family has voluntarily placed conservation easements on 172 acres of historic land 

outside of the National Battlefield’s boundary. A local land trust holds the easements in 

perpetuity and monitors the condition of the properties. The easements, executed in 2003 

and 2006, are the first ever placed on Civil War battlefield land in Missouri. Many other 

states provide tax credits for private property owners who donate conservation easements 

that will permanently protect historic land. Further exploration of this powerful 

preservation tool is appropriate in Missouri.4

 

In summary, there are 95,000 acres of battlefield land in Missouri (and neighboring states) 

that remain unprotected, despite the fact that these landscapes have good integrity and 

include significant military features. The 150th anniversary of the Civil War is at hand. 

Missourians have joined the nationwide commemoration and reexamination of the war. 

Public attention and political will are focused on Missouri’s role in the war, the war’s 

lasting impact on Missouri’s citizens, and cultural tourism efforts to promote the state’s 

Civil War sites. Yet for all this activity, 21 of the state’s most important Civil War 

battlefields remain vulnerable to destruction. The permanent protection of Missouri’s Civil 

War battlefields will ensure a lasting legacy of historical knowledge, open space, and 

sustainable tourism revenue. Ideally, if significant attention and resources can be focused 

on land preservation, sesquicentennial initiatives will help secure that legacy. 

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. Nationwide, the CWSAC identified 50 first tier or top priority battlefields; 

two, Fort Davidson and Newtonia I, are in Missouri. The CWSAC viewed these 

battlefields as the most historically significant of the war, the most endangered in 1993, 

and having a “critical need for action.” 

The CWSAC assigned five more Missouri battlefields to the second tier, those considered 

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

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

The third tier included battlefields “that already have substantial historic land under 

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

Seven were in Missouri. 

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

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

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

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

suitable for interpretation, museums, and commemoration.”5

 In 1993, the CWSAC 

determined that 15 Missouri battlefields had been substantially compromised by post-war 

development. 

 

4

At the time of this writing, Missouri Senate Bill 381 is pending in the Missouri General Assembly. If passed into law, it would 

authorize the use of conservation easements to preserve “the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real 

property,” among other purposes. The bill recognizes conservation easements as valid legal tools to preserve land, but it does not 

address potential state tax incentives for the donation of conservation easements. 5Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1993, 22- 23.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 7 

During its assessment for this study, the ABPP determined that Missouri’s two top priorities 

from 1993 are in less need of immediate protection. The historic landscape of the Fort 

Davidson battlefield is now fragmented, although significant portions are protected, 

including the Fort Davidson State Historic Site. Some additional land protection is still 

desirable at Fort Davidson, but the opportunity for comprehensive landscape protection 

has no longer exists. The landscape of Newtonia II retains much more integrity, but 

threats to the landscape are slow to develop, making the battlefield a long-term 

protection opportunity. 

Table 2. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Second Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

II Comprehensive 

Preservation Possible 

5 Battlefields

Carthage (MO002) 

Fredericktown (MO007) 

Lexington I (MO006) 

Lone Jack (MO015) 

Newtonia I (MO016)

Jasper County 

Madison County 

Lafayette County 

Jackson, Johnson, and Lafayette 

Counties 

Newton County

Two of the five battlefields in the second tier, battlefields with “comprehensive 

preservation” opportunities in 1993, remain good preservation opportunities today—

Carthage and Newtonia I. Carthage is among the most threatened battlefields in 

Missouri. Mining operations have destroyed and continue to consume Core Area land, and 

the recent construction of the US 71 bypass at Kendricktown has also damaged the 

landscape. Preservation advocates at all levels of government and in the private sector 

should view Carthage as in need of immediate protection. Newtonia I remains in good 

condition and is experiencing only minor development pressure. It remains an excellent 

candidate for comprehensive landscape protection. Both of these battlefields will benefit 

from the development of public-private partnerships that can sustain and increase interest 

in their protection and interpretation. 

At Fredericktown, 450 acres (40 percent) of the historic landscape survives. This land, 

which is primarily in the battlefield’s Core Area, is in the path of development along US 67 

Business between Fredericktown and Millcreek. Development is likely to occur there in the 

next several years. Protection efforts are needed immediately to preserve the Core Area 

and surrounding landscape. 

The two other battlefields in the CWSAC’s second tier are now damaged and fragmented. 

More severely threatened is Lone Jack, where commercial and residential development is 

destroying significant areas of the battlefield. Much of the Lone Jack battlefield is 

located within an Urban Service District of heavily populated and fast-growing Jackson 

County. Remaining farmland is zoned for urban and suburban uses, making it expensive 

Table 1. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – First Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

I Critical Need 

2 Battlefields

Fort Davidson (MO021) 

Newtonia II (MO029) 

Iron County 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 8 

and difficult to acquire for preservation.6 If any significant portion of the Lone Jack

battlefield is to be protected for future generations, coordinated preservation efforts are 

needed now among local, state, and national partners. At Lexington I, most of the 

battlefield landscape has been built up over time. Only 78 acres survive to convey its 

historic sense of place, most of which are already protected within the Battle of Lexington 

State Historic Site. Little else can be accomplished at Lexington I in terms of land 

protection. 

The ABPP’s review of the third tier battlefields in Missouri indicates that five should be 

considered higher priorities for protection by national, state, and local preservation 

entities. Boonville, Dry Wood Creek, Marmiton River, Roan’s Tan Yard, and 

Wilson’s Creek are battlefields where the landscape retains good or excellent integrity 

and faces steady or accelerating changes in land use that threaten to erode that integrity. 

At Liberty and Mount Zion Church, the battlefields are already substantially fragmented 

by modern development. Approximately 1,400 acres of the Liberty battlefield survive, 

including nearly all of the Core Area. Only 470 acres at Mount Zion Church remain. 

Public-private protection efforts are needed immediately if either battlefield is to be 

preserved in any meaningful way. 

 

6

 Jackson County, Missouri, Department of Public Works, “Development Diagram,” 

http://www.jacksongov.org/filestorage/2494/2498/Map-4-DevelopmentDiagram-03-13-2007.pdf, March 2007.

Table 3. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Third Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

III Additional Protection 

Needed 

7 Battlefields

Boonville (MO001) 

Dry Wood Creek (MO005) 

Liberty (MO003) 

Marmiton River (MO028) 

Mount Zion Church 

Roan’s Tan Yard (MO011) 

Wilson’s Creek (MO004) 

Cooper and Howard Counties 

Vernon County 

Clay and Jackson Counties 

Vernon County; Bourbon County, KS 

Boone County 

Randolph and Howard Counties 

Greene and Christian Counties 

Table 4. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Fourth Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

IV Fragmented/ 

Destroyed 

15 Battlefields

Belmont (MO009) 

Byram’s Ford (MO026) 

Cape Girardeau (MO020) 

Clark’s Mill (MO017) 

Glasgow (MO022) 

Hartville (MO019) 

Independence I (MO014) 

Independence II (MO025) 

Kirksville (MO013) 

Lexington II (MO023) 

Little Blue River (MO024) 

New Madrid/Island No. 10 (MO012) 

Springfield I (MO008) 

Springfield II (MO018) 

Westport (MO027) 

Mississippi County; Hickman and Carlisle 

 Counties, KY 

Big Blue River County 

Cape Girardeau County; Alexander 

 County, IL 

Douglas County 

Howard and Saline Counties 

Wright and Webster Counties 

Jackson County 

Jackson County 

Adair and Macon Counties 

Lafayette County 

Jackson County 

New Madrid County; Lake County, TN; 

Fulton County, KY 

Greene County 

Greene County 

Jackson County; Johnson County, KS
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 9 

The CWSAC placed 15 Missouri battlefields in the fourth tier as severely fragmented or 

lost. The ABPP’s recent evaluation resulted in different conclusions. As was the case in 

1993, six battlefields are beyond hope of meaningful landscape preservation: Cape 

Girardeau, Independence I, Independence II, Springfield I, Springfield II, and 

Westport. These battlefields are within the city boundaries of Cape Girardeau, 

Independence, Kansas City, and Springfield, all of which have experienced considerable 

growth since the Civil War. Interpretation and commemoration of these battlefields is 

appropriate; however, additional landscape preservation opportunities beyond what has 

already been undertaken, no longer exist. 

The ABPP found that Clark’s Mill, which was only partially mapped by the CWSAC, is in 

fact, nearly pristine. After establishing new boundaries for the battlefield based on the 

historic record and consulting aerial photography of the landscape, the ABPP concluded 

that the landscape associated with the battle has changed little since the Civil War. The 

battlefield presents a long-term opportunity for comprehensive landscape protection and 

interpretation. Belmont, similarly, retains good integrity and needs to be the focus of 

long-term protection efforts in Mississippi County. 

At Byram’s Ford, the landscape has been severely altered since the period of significance 

and Kansas City has subsumed the majority of the battlefield. Areas of open space remain; 

however, in the easternmost portion of the Core Area. These areas are owned by the city 

of Kansas City, Missouri and are managed as historic resources. While an archeological 

survey was completed on a portion of the battlefield in 1997, the ABPP recommends that 

future archeological surveys be undertaken on the remaining lands to determine if and 

where defining features (such as road traces) and battle signatures survive. 

The ABPP found six other battlefields—Glasgow, Hartville, Kirksville, Lexington II, 

Little Blue River, and New Madrid/Island No. 10—to be candidates for selective 

landscape protection. Each of these battlefields is fragmented, but not so badly damaged 

that preservation opportunities may be ruled out completely. Glasgow, Lexington II, 

and Little Blue River are imminently threatened by development projects: the expansion 

of an industrial park into Core Area land at Glasgow; the ongoing construction of State 

Highway 13 through Lexington II; and the impending construction of the Little Blue 

Parkway (a 4-lane principal arterial parkway) through the remaining portion of the Little 

Blue River battlefield. Immediate protection efforts are needed to minimize the damage 

to these three battlefields. 

In 1993, the CWSAC determined that one of the most significant battlefields in the nation, 

New Madrid/Island No. 10, had lost its integrity as an historic landscape. It based its 

decision on a survey of several disassociated features spread along the Mississippi River. In 

its survey, the ABPP took a much more comprehensive view of the battle. The Federal 

naval and land operations against the Confederate garrisons at Island No. 10 and New 

Madrid took five weeks to complete. The reduction of those garrisons opened the 

Mississippi River to Federal control as far as Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Tennessee. The 

ABPP’s boundaries of the battlefield reflect that entire operation. The result is a 

battlefield encompassing nearly 56,000 acres. The landscape is predominantly rural, but 

changes in the course of the Mississippi River have dramatically altered the topography 

within the floodplain and have likely washed away significant archeological signatures 

associated with the battle. Despite these changes, the ABPP calculates that 37,200 acres 

retain integrity. The ABPP recommends that future archeological studies be undertaken 

throughout the Study Area to determine if and where battle signatures survive. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 10 

Coordinated land use planning among municipalities in Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky 

will also be necessary to ensure that this nationally significant battlefield landscape 

survives. 

See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for detailed condition assessments and preservation 

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

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

Figure 2. The Anderson House, Battle of Lexington State Historic Site. The house changed hands three times in 

one day during the first day of fighting at Lexington. The structure suffered damage from artillery and rifle 

fire during the battle, some of which is still visible today. Photograph by Connie Langum, 2008. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 11 

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 Missouri battlefields from May 2008 to 

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 

With the exception of Clark’s Mill, Glasgow, and Mount Zion Church, the CWSAC 

established a Study Area and a Core Area for each of Missouri’s principal battlefields in 

1993 (see Figure 3 for definitions). In many states, 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.7

 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.8

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 5). For Clark’s Mill, Glasgow, and Mount Zion 

Church, the ABPP researched and delineated new boundaries. At many of Missouri’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 

 

7

 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007). 8

 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 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 12 

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. 

movements and actions into account.9 It is 

important to note, however, that the Study 

Area and Core Area boundaries are simply 

historical boundaries that describe where 

the battle took place; neither indicates the 

current integrity of the battlefield 

landscape, so neither can be used on its 

own to identify surviving portions of 

battlefield land that may merit protection 

and preservation. 

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 (PotNR) 

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.10 

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.11 

 

9

 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 

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. 10 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.

11 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
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 13 

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 

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.

12 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.”13 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.”14 

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 

 National Park Service, How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

1999), 36-37. 

12 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. 13 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. 14 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 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 14 

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. 

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.15

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.16 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.17 

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 7.)18

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. 

 

15 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. 16 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. 17 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. 18 The ABPP’s surveys and PotNR assessments do not constitute formal action on behalf of the office of the National Register of 

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

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 15 

The ABPP survey information should be reassessed during future compliance processes 

such as the Section 106 process required by the National Historic Preservation Act 19 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.20 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. 

Seven Missouri battlefields—Byram’s Ford, Fort Davidson, Lexington I, Newtonia I, 

Newtonia II, Westport, and Wilson’s Creek—are already listed in the NRHP. None are 

designated as NHLs (see Table 7). The ABPP believes that the NRHP boundaries for Fort 

Davidson, Newtonia I, and Newtonia II should be expanded to more fully reflect the 

historic extent and current integrity of the battlefields (see the Individual Battlefield 

Profiles for a spatial comparison of listed and unlisted lands.) A similar effort is needed to 

recognize the 3,300 acres of historic land at Wilson’s Creek that fall outside of the 

National Park Service unit and are not currently part of the NRHP documentation. 

Including those lands in the NRHP is especially important for use in local land use decisionmaking and federal compliance cases. that the city of Kansas City, Missouri, in 

consultation with Missouri State Historic Preservation Office an expanded NRHP boundary 

may be appropriate. At Byram’s Ford, given the efforts by the city of Kansas City, 

Missouri and the Monett Battle of Westport Fund, Inc. to preserve as much survivng land 

as practicable, an expanded NRHP boundary may be appropriate after consultation with 

the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office. Finally, the ABPP has identified land at 17 

other battlefields in Missouri that is likely eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

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 Missouri, representatives from 16 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 Missouri’s Civil War battlefields. 

 

19 16 USC 470f. 

20 42 USC 4331-4332.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 16 

Figure 4. Byram’s Ford on the Big Blue River was the site of separate engagements during the battles of 

Byram’s Ford and Westport. Today the site is managed by Kansas City Parks and Recreation as part of the 

Big Blue Battlefield Park. Photograph by Monett Battle of Westport Fund, Inc. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 17 

Summary of Conditions of Missouri’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 (NRHP) and that remains to be 

protected (Potential National Register boundary). 

As noted above and as Table 5 illustrates, the Study Areas and Core Areas of Missouri’s 

Civil War battlefields have been established in accordance with ABPP research and field 

survey methodology. 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.21 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. 

In Missouri, Civil War armies waged numerous battles over the same ground (i.e. at 

Byram’s Ford and Westport, at Lexington I and Lexington II, and at Newtonia I and 

Newtonia II). Thus, the total number of battlefield acres in the state is lower than a 

straight tally of the figures in Table 5 would indicate. Calculating for the overlapping 

areas in the battlefields, there are more than 174,000 total Study Area acres, nearly 50,000 

total Core Area acres, and more than 95,000 total acres likely eligible for listing in the 

NRHP.22 See the individual battlefield profiles for more information about the extent of 

and reasons for the established boundaries.

Figure 5. On September 27, 

1864, the Union garrison at 

Fort Davidson successfully 

repulsed attacks by Major 

General Sterling Price’s Army 

of Missouri. The garrison 

abandoned the fort that night 

and set fire to the fort’s 

powder magazine. The 

ensuing explosion left a 

crater, which the Fort 

Davidson State Historic Site 

interprets today. Photograph 

by Connie Langum, 2009. 

 

21 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.

22 Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated, for the 29 battlefields in Missouri, that the Study Areas 

represent 174,319.12 acres, the Core Areas represent 49,670.52 acres, and the PotNR boundaries represent 95,116.52 acres. Not all 

of this land lies in Missouri. 30,086.63 acres of Study Area, 9,321.85 acres of Core Area, and 21,165.73 acres of PotNR land fall 

within other states. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 18 

Table 5. Battlefield Area Statistics in Acres 

   Battlefield Study Area Core Area PotNR 

Boundary 

   Belmont (MO009)* 4,502.29 2,714.00 3,660.45 

   Boonville (MO001) 2,405.72 697.84 1,899.46 

   Byram’s Ford (MO026) 3,353.35 1,328.45 185.66 

   Cape Girardeau (MO020)* 6,292.22 590.41 0.00 

Carthage (MO002) 9,209.83 2,268.47 7,539.72 

Clark’s Mill (MO017) 4,306.18 237.61 4,306.18 

Dry Wood Creek (MO005) 2,927.57 1,239.95 2,927.57 

Fort Davidson (MO021) 4,556.30 1,947.44 1,760.90 

Fredericktown (MO007) 1,105.80 256.28 447.52 

Glasgow (MO022) 1,769.38 737.44 710.40 

Hartville (MO019) 7,654.60 454.31 4,537.45 

Independence I (MO014) 591.86 129.70 0.00 

Independence II (MO025) 6,449.78 2,797.30 0.00 

Kirksville (MO013) 10,708.07 296.60 8,754.17 

Lexington I (MO006) 1,083.26 147.93 77.94 

   Lexington II (MO023) 6,593.74 1,793.09 3,543.31 

Liberty (MO003) 4,206.09 427.64 1,443.53 

Little Blue River (MO024) 8,629.26 4,913.99 2,493.72 

Lone Jack (MO015) 8,645.19 85.62 954.58 

Marmiton River (MO028)* 1,472.51 811.08 1,488.12 

Mount Zion Church (MO010) 2,736.42 64.72 471.95 

New Madrid/Island No. 10 (MO012)* 55,952.28 18,147.53 37,258.06 

Newtonia I (MO016) 2,638.96 861.74 2,213.98 

Newtonia II (MO029) 4,328.24 1,455.05 3,434.04 

Roan’s Tan Yard (MO011) 1,387.58 59.53 1,329.25 

Springfield I (MO008) 849.23 224.25 0.00 

Springfield II (MO018) 4,674.36 1,182.63 0.00 

Westport (MO027)* 11,179.39 5,720.42 0.00 

Wilson’s Creek (MO004) 5,109.74 1,021.26 5,109.74 

  

 

*Battlefield acreage includes land in other states. See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for details.

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 19 

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, many of 

Missouri’s battlefields have retained significant character defining features during the past 

150 years.23 

The 11 sites in the best condition should be the focus of sustained and coordinated 

national, state, and local preservation efforts. Most of these places remain rural and 

relatively unscathed with Boonville, Carthage, Fredericktown, and Wilson’s Creek

being the exceptions. Large-lot residential development at Boonville is steadily 

diminishing the battlefield’s easternmost Core Area. Mining operations have destroyed 

and continue to consume Core Area land at Carthage, and the recent construction of the 

US 71 bypass at Kendricktown has also damaged the landscape. At Fredericktown, 450 

acres of the historic landscape survive, which represents nearly all of the battlefield’s Core 

Area. This area is bisected by US 67 Business. Development along this road is spreading 

between Fredericktown and Millcreek, and will likely consume the battlefield’s Core Area 

within the decade. At Wilson’s Creek, residential development has begun to alter the 

battlefield’s nationally significant landscape. Within the last ten years, dense subdivisions 

have been built within a mile of the northwest corner of the battlefield, and large lot 

estate homes have been built on the eastern portion of the battlefield just beyond the 

boundary of the Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. Unless steps are taken by local 

governments to direct development away from the battlefield, or public-private 

partnerships can be forged to protect historic land outside of the national battlefield, it is 

 

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

degree of archeological integrity associated with subsurface battle deposits. 

 Table 6. Condition Summary 

Condition Battlefield 

Land use is little changed (4) Clark’s Mill (MO017), Dry Wood Creek 

(MO005), Marmiton River (MO028), Roan’s 

Tan Yard (MO011) 

Portions of landscape have been altered, 

but most essential features remain (7)

Boonville (MO001), Belmont (MO009), 

Carthage (MO002), Fredericktown (MO007), 

Newtonia I (MO016), Newtonia II (MO029), 

Wilson’s Creek (MO004) 

Much of the landscape has been altered 

and fragmented, leaving some essential 

features (11) 

Fort Davidson (MO021), Glasgow (MO022), 

Hartville (MO019), Kirksville (MO013), Liberty 

(MO003), Lexington I (MO006), Lexington II 

(MO023), Little Blue River (MO024), Lone Jack 

(MO015), Mount Zion Church (MO010), New 

Madrid/Island No. 10 (MO012) 

Landscape and terrain have been altered 

beyond recognition (7)

Byram’s Ford (MO026), Cape Girardeau 

(MO020), Independence I (MO014), 

Independence II (MO025), Springfield I 

(MO008), Springfield II (MO018), Westport 

(MO027) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 20 

entirely plausible that the park will be surrounded by development within two or three 

decades. 

Eleven other battlefields have been altered to varying degrees, but each still presents 

opportunities for land and resource protection. Five of these battlefields are severely 

threatened. Glasgow, Liberty, Lexington II, Little Blue River, and Lone Jack are all 

currently seeing changes in land use that are incompatible with historic preservation—

mining, highway construction, and industrial, commercial, and suburban development. 

Changes in the course of the Mississippi River have wiped away portions of the New 

Madrid/Island No. 10 landscape, but, in areas where the topography remains unaltered, 

the land is generally rural and open. The river remains the greatest threat to the 

landscape. 

At Byram’s Ford, the landscape of the battlefield has been severely altered since the 

period of significance. The growth of Kansas City has subsumed the battlefield and, with 

the exception of lands within the easternmost portion of the Core Area, the majority of 

Byram’s Ford is now an urban landscape. These remaining open spaces are manged by the 

Kansas City Parks and Recreation as the Big Blue Battlefield Park. In addition, the Monnett 

Battle of Westport Fund, Inc. partners with the city on acquisition, preservation, and 

interpretion at the battlefield. 

Other than what has already been preserved, the destruction of six battlefields—Cape 

Girardeau, Independence I, Independence II, Springfield I, Springfield II, and

Westport—is complete. Growth and development of the cities of Cape Girardeau, 

Independence, Kansas City, and Springfield have transformed the battlefields into urban 

landscapes. Archeological investigations may uncover important subsurface battle 

features in isolated locations, but the opportunity to save the historic landscape is gone. 

Registration 

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

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Registered battlefields 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.24 

As Table 7 indicates, seven of Missouri’s Civil War battlefields have been listed in the NRHP. 

These registered lands total more than 2,500 acres. The ABPP’s assessments indicate that 

another 92,500 acres at 17 battlefields are also likely to be eligible for listing. Ideally, 

 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 21 

Missouri’s Civil War sesquicentennial initiatives will support the preparation of NRHP 

nominations for these battlefields. This detailed form of site documentation will prove 

indispensible to federal project planners, local land use planners, tourism agencies, and 

preservation advocates. 

Table 7. Acres Registered Compared with Acres Potentially 

Eligible to be Registered

Battlefield Designation

ABPP 

PotNR 

Acres 

Existing 

Registered 

Acres *

Acres 

Potentially 

Eligible to be 

Registered

Belmont (MO009) 3,660.45 0.00 3,660.45 

Boonville (MO001) 1,899.46 0.00 1,899.46 

Byram’s Ford (MO026) NRHP 185.66 18.37 167.29 

Cape Girardeau (MO020) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Carthage (MO002) 7,539.72 0.00 7,539.72

Clark’s Mill (MO017) 4,306.18 0.00 4,306.18 

Dry Wood Creek (MO005) 2,927.57 0.00 2,927.57 

Fort Davidson (MO021) NRHP 1,760.90 9.90 1,751.00 

Fredericktown (MO007) 447.52 0.00 447.52 

Glasgow (MO022) 710.40 0.00 710.40 

Hartville (MO019) 4,537.45 0.00 4,537.45 

Independence I (MO014) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Independence II (MO025) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kirksville (MO013) 8,754.17 0.00 8,754.17 

Lexington I (MO006) NRHP 77.94 47.27 30.67 

Lexington II (MO023) 3,543.31 0.00 3,543.31 

Liberty (MO003) 1,443.53 0.00 1,443.53 

Little Blue River (MO024) 2,493.72 0.00 2,493.72 

Lone Jack (MO015) 954.58 0.00 954.58 

Marmiton River (MO028) 1,488.12 0.00 1,488.12 

Mount Zion Church (MO010) 471.95 0.00 471.95 

New Madrid/Island No. 10 

(MO012) 37,258.06 0.00 37,258.06 

Newtonia I (MO016) NRHP 2,213.98 152.30 2,061.68 

Newtonia II (MO029) NRHP 3,434.04 560.00 2,874.04 

Roan’s Tan Yard (MO011) 1,329.25 0.00 1,329.25 

Springfield I (MO008) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Springfield II (MO018) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Westport (MO027) NRHP 0.00 18.37 0.00 

Wilson’s Creek (MO004) NRHP 5,109.74 1,749.91 3,359.83 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 22 

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. 

Less than 6 percent of Missouri’s surviving Civil War battlefield acreage is permanently 

protected. Federal agencies own and manage nearly half, some 2,400 acres, of the 

permanently protected battlefield land in Missouri. The largest single federal holding is 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, a unit of the National Park System. The National Park 

Service owns about 1,970 acres at Wilson’s Creek, but other portions of the battlefield 

remain unprotected outside of the park’s boundaries. 

Congress recently directed the National Park Service to study the possibility of adding the 

Newtonia I and Newtonia II battlefields to the National Park System (Public Law 110-

229). The Newtonia Battlefields Special Resource Study team will assess the national 

significance of the battlefields using National Historic Landmark criteria, and evaluate 

both the suitability and feasibility of establishing an independent unit of the park system 

Table 8. Summary of Battlefield Stewardship in Missouri

Steward Battlefield at Which Land or 

Development Rights are Owned 

Total Acres 

Protected 

Federal Government Boonville, Fort Davidson, Wilson’s Creek 2,414.56

State Government Belmont*, Carthage, Fort Davidson, 

Hartville, Kirksville, Lexington I, Lexington II, 

New Madrid/Island No. 10 

2,267.12 

Local Governments Byram’s Ford, Cape Girardeau, Fort 

Davidson, Little Blue River, Lone Jack, 

Westport 

774.87 

Nonprofit Organizations Byram’s Ford, Fredericktown, Newtonia I, 

Newtonia II, Westport, Wilson’s Creek 

242.25 

Total** 5,698.80 

*The Commonwealth of Kentucky owns the only public land at Belmont. 

** Protected parcels are counted only once, even if a single protected parcel contributes to the preservation of more than one 

battlefield, such as at Newtonia I and Newtonia II. 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 23 

and the desirability of adding a unit to Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. The study is 

ongoing and public comment is encouraged (please visit 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/newtonia for more information). The study is expected to 

conclude in 2012. 

While not designated for their historic value, three other federal holdings have been set 

aside for conservation purposes and uses compatible with the goals of historic landscape 

preservation. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has secured land at Boonville and Fort 

Davidson for wildlife conservation, and the USDA Forest Service holds additional land at 

Fort Davidson within the Mark Twain National Forest. 

The State of Missouri protects almost as much historic battlefield land as the Federal 

Government. Two state agencies, the Missouri Department of Conservation and the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (through Missouri State Parks) collectively own 

and manage more than 2,200 acres at seven different battlefields: Carthage, Fort 

Davidson, Hartville, Kirksville, Lexington I, Lexington II, and New Madrid/Island 

No. 10.

25 The State of Kentucky owns another 160 acres of the Belmont battlefield, 

including the Confederate artillery positions on the “Iron Bluffs.” 

In addition, the Missouri Department of Transportation has used Transportation 

Enhancement Funds at Byram’s Ford for acquisition of land within the Core Area of the 

battlefield. 26 While used frequently in other states, this is the first time this valuable 

resource has been utilized in Missouri for battlefield preservation. 

The Civil War battlefields discussed in this report lie within the boundaries of 25 Missouri 

counties, and 6 counties in other states. Despite this geographic spread, only a handful of 

local governments have become stewards of the battlefields in their jurisdictions. The 

local governments of the City of Cape Girardeau, Kansas City, and Jackson County have set 

aside a total of 52 acres of battlefield land for public appreciation, all prior to 1993. Only 

two local governments have acquired Civil War battlefield land since the 1993 release of 

the CWSAC’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. In 1998, the City of Ironton 

passed a revenue bond to buy Shepherd Mountain, a defining topographic feature of the 

Fort Davidson battlefield. The city purchased 600 acres within the Study Area and today 

manages the land as a natural area. Kansas City Parks and Recreation has acquired over 

100 acres within the Byram’s Ford Study Area as part of the Big Blue Battlefield Park and 

manages the land as an historic resource. 

There are several nonprofit organizations in Missouri focused on battlefield preservation; 

however, only three have taken on the responsibilities for owning, maintaining, and 

interpreting Civil War battlefield land. The Monett Battle of Westport Fund in Kansas City, 

the Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association, Inc., and the Foundation for Historic 

Preservation in Fredericktown have been active in promoting and protecting battlefields, 

but have only been able to protect about 36 acres in total. More work is needed to focus 

the attention of existing nonprofits on battlefield protection in Missouri, and to develop 

new grassroots organizations that can advocate for the battlefields at the local level. 

 

25 The State also owns 408 acres at the Battle of Athens State Historic Site, which it created in 1975 to commemorate the August 1861 

engagement between pro-Union forces and the Missouri State Guard. In 2008, the State purchased 40 acres of the Island Mound 

battlefield, where the First Kansas Colored Infantry became the first black regiment to engage in combat during the Civil War. The 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources expects to open the Islan Mound site to the public before the battle’s 150th anniversary 

in October 2012. Neither the Athens nor Island Mound battlefield was included in the CWSAC’s 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil 

War Battlefields. 26 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), require a portion of state surface transportation funding to be 

dedicated to transportation enhancements, which may include historic preservation projects and the purchase of scenic easements. 

In Missouri, this funding is administered by the Department of Transportation. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 24 

 

Private landowners are beginning to make significant contributions to battlefield 

preservation in Missouri. At Wilson’s Creek, a private family voluntarily placed 

conservation easements on 172 acres of historic land outside of the national battlefield’s 

boundary. A local land trust holds the easements in perpetuity and monitors the condition 

of the properties. The easements, executed in 2003 and 2006, are the first ever placed on 

Civil War battlefield land in Missouri. 

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 Missouri.27 

For each battlefield, Table 9 compares the amount of land permanently protected from 

development against the total amount of land that has integrity but remains 

unprotected.28 This information may serve planners and preservation advocates as a tool 

for prioritizing future preservation initiatives. 

Table 9. Protective Stewardship of Intact Battlefield Land

Battlefield Permanently 

Protected Acres

ABPP PotNR 

Acres 

Unprotected, Intact 

Acres Remaining 

Belmont (MO009) 160.00* 3,660.45 3,500.45 

Boonville (MO001) 10.55 1,899.46 1,888.91 

Byram’s Ford (MO026) 126.62 185.66 59.04 

Cape Girardeau (MO020) 3.00 0.00 0.00 

Carthage (MO002) 7.40 7,539.72 7,532.32 

Clark’s Mill (MO017) 0.00 4,306.18 4,306.18 

Dry Wood Creek (MO005) 0.00 2,927.57 2,927.57 

Fort Davidson (MO021) 1,111.94 1,760.90 648.96 

Fredericktown (MO007) 3.00 447.52 444.52 

Glasgow (MO022) 0.00 710.40 710.40 

Hartville (MO019) 88.40 4,537.45 4,449.05 

Independence I (MO014) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Independence II (MO025) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kirksville (MO013) 609.86 8,754.17 8,144.31 

Lexington I (MO006) 62.50 77.94 15.44 

Lexington II (MO023) 0.00 3,543.31 3,543.31 

Liberty (MO003) 0.00 1,443.53 1,443.53 

 

27At the time of this writing, Missouri Senate Bill 381 is pending in the Missouri General Assembly. If passed into law, it would 

authorize the use of conservation easements to preserve “the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real 

property,” among other purposes. The bill recognizes conservation easements as valid legal tools to preserve land, but it does not 

address potential state tax incentives for the donation of conservation easements. 28 The ABPP culled information about permanently protected lands from questionnaire respondents and numerous partner 

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

battlefield as of 2010. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 25 

Little Blue River (MO024) 6.50 2,493.72 2,487.22 

Lone Jack (MO015) 3.00 954.58 951.58 

Marmiton River (MO028) 0.00 1,488.12 1,488.12 

Mount Zion Church (MO010) 0.00 471.95 471.95 

New Madrid/Island No. 10 (MO012) 1,261.77 37,258.06 35,996.29 

Newtonia I (MO016) 24.50 2,213.98 2,189.48 

Newtonia II (MO02) 24.50 3,434.04 3,409.54 

Roan’s Tan Yard (MO011) 0.00 1,329.25 1,329.25 

Springfield I (MO008) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Springfield II (MO018) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Westport (MO027) 166.62 0.00 0.00 

Wilson’s Creek (MO004) 2,141.26 5,109.74 2,968.48 

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 battlefield. The ABPP did not collect 

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

a wayside exhibit was developed 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 since 1993. 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 indicate that 22 of 

Missouri’s 29 Civil War battlefields offer some degree of public interpretation, eight with 

visitor center facilities. 

 

29 Construction of a Visitor’s Center at the Hartville Battlefield is in progress at the time of this writing. 

Table 10. Interpretation Summary

On-site Interpretation Battlefield

Battlefields with public interpretation, 

including visitors center (8)

Belmont (MO009), Byram’s Ford (MO026), 

Fort Davidson (MO021), Fredericktown 

(MO007), Lexington I (MO006), Lone Jack 

(MO015), Westport (MO027), Wilson’s Creek 

(MO004) 

Battlefields with public interpretation, 

but no visitors center (14)

Boonville (MO001), Carthage (MO002), 

Cape Girardeau (MO020), Dry Wood Creek 

(MO005), Hartville (MO019),29 Independence 

I (MO014), Independence II (MO025), 

Kirksville (MO013), Little Blue River (MO024), 

Marmiton River (MO028), Newtonia I 

(MO016), Newtonia II (MO029), Springfield I 

(MO008), Springfield II (MO018) 

Battlefields with no public 

interpretation (7)

Clark’s Mill (MO010), Glasgow (MO022), 

Lexington II (MO023), Liberty (MO003), 

Mount Zion Church (MO010), New 

Madrid/Island No. 10 (MO012), Roan’s Tan 

Yard (MO011)
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 26 

At 19 battlefields, visitors have physical access to the historic landscape or surviving historic 

features. Most of the accessible land is public land. Visitors can explore more than 1,900 

acres at the National Park Service’s Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield; more than 1,200 

acres at four Missouri Department of Conservation holdings within the New 

Madrid/Island No. 10 battlefield; and more than 600 acres of the Kirksville battlefield 

within the Thousand Hills State Park and the Big Creek and Griffith Memorial Conservation 

Areas. At Fort Davidson, much of the surviving battlefield is accessible at the Fort 

Davidson State Historic Site and on Shepherd Mountain, most of which is owned by the 

City of Ironton and managed as a natural area. In Kansas City, approximately 122 acres of 

the city’s Big Blue Battlefield Park is within the primary Core Areas of Byram’s Ford and 

Westport. In addition approximately 250 acres of the Kansas City’s Swope Park cover 

portions of the Byram’s Ford and Westport battlefields. Although Swope Park is heavily 

developed as an urban park, visitors can still see aspects of the battlefields’ terrain within 

the green space. The Belmont battlefield is accessible on the Kentucky side of the 

Mississippi River at the Columbus-Belmont State Park, where the Confederate earthworks 

are maintained and interpreted. The Missouri side of the battlefield is entirely in private 

ownership; public roads provide the only access to the battlefield. Twelve Missouri 

battlefields—Boonville, Carthage, Cape Girardeau, Glasgow, Hartville, 

Fredericktown, Lexington I, Little Blue River, Lone Jack, Newtonia I, Newtonia II, 

and Springfield I—offer public access to smaller holdings between three and 90 acres. 

At the regional level, interpretation of many of these sites can be coordinated through the 

Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (FFNHA). In 2006, Congress established the 

FFNHA along the border of western Missouri and eastern Kansas.30 The FFNHA is one of 

the largest heritage areas in the nation encompassing 41 counties. This heritage area has 

a broad mission to tell the stories of the Kansas-Missouri Border Wars and changing views 

of American freedom from the 1850s through today. Its historic places and landscapes 

“provide rich opportunities for residents to tell the area’s unique contributions to the 

country’s story of freedom, social values, and human rights.”31 Thirteen CWSAC Civil War 

battlefields lie within the national heritage area: Byram’s Ford, Dry Wood Creek, 

Independence I, Independence II, Liberty, Little Blue River, Lone Jack, Marmiton 

River, and Westport in Missouri, and Baxter Springs, Lawrence, Marais des Cygnes, 

and Mine Creek in Kansas. Within the FFNHA, the growth of new collaborative 

partnerships among federal, state, and local governments, civic organizations, nonprofit 

groups and private individuals, has the potential to significantly increase the amount of 

battlefield land protected and interpreted in Missouri. The need for collaborative work 

with willing landowners and local governments is especially timely at battlefields where 

the historic landscape has good integrity and is privately owned and unprotected, such as 

at Dry Wood Creek, or where the landscape is acutely threatened, such as at Liberty and 

Lone Jack. 

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. 

 

30 120 STAT. 1807, 16 USC 461 note. 

31 Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area, 2009 General Management Plan, Executive Summary, Lawrence, KS, 2009 

(http://www.ffnha-hosting.com/communications-docs/0-Cover_TOC_ExecSummary-web.pdf).
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 27 

 There are eight nonprofit friends groups dedicated to the preservation, interpretation, and 

promotion of 12 Missouri battlefields (see Table 11). Most of these organizations were 

formed after the CWSAC issued its report in 1993. Three groups, the Newtonia Battlefields 

Protection Association, Inc., the Monett Battle of Westport Fund, Inc., and the Foundation 

for Historic Preservation in Fredericktown have been successful in protecting historic 

property at Newtonia I and Newtonia II, Byram’s Ford, Westport, and Fredericktown

respectively. The Lone Jack Historical Society is actively working to raise money in order to 

purchase land at Lone Jack, where the group maintains a soldiers’ cemetery and battlefield 

museum. The remaining friends groups have focused more on battle interpretation, 

including battle reenactments, and logistical support for public events. 

Fifteen more battlefields in Missouri have no local nonprofit groups to advocate for their 

protection. Such friends groups could make especially significant contributions to battlefield 

protection at the nationally significant battlefield of New Madrid/Island No. 10, at the 

nearly pristine landscapes of Clark’s Mill, Dry Wood Creek, Marmiton River, and Roan’s 

Tan Yard, and at the more endangered battlefields of Boonville, Lexington II, and Little 

Blue River. 

These findings are especially important as the sesquicentennial of the Civil War nears in 

April 2011. Like many other states, Missouri is promoting the sesquicentennial for public 

education, community development, and heritage tourism. In April 2010, Governor Jay 

Nixon signed an executive order creating the Missouri Civil War Sesquicentennial 

Commission. “The Commission's purpose is to increase awareness and understanding of 

Missouri’s role in the Civil War; to encourage civic, historical, educational, economic, and 

other entities throughout Missouri to organize and participate in activities to 

commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War; and to foster an inclusive spirit of 

reconciliation that appropriately recognizes the experiences and points of view of all 

people affected by the Civil War and its aftermath.”32 The Commission is in an excellent 

position to spotlight the importance and fragility of Missouri’s battlefield landscapes, and 

to encourage their preservation and interpretation through public-private partnerships. 

 

32 Governor, Executive Order 10-20, Office of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, http://governor.mo.gov/boards/show/MCWS. 

Table 11. Active Battlefield Friends Groups 

Battlefield Friends Group(s) Year Founded

Belmont (MO009) None 

Boonville (MO001) None 

Byram’s Ford (MO026) Monnett Battle of Westport Fund 1975

Cape Girardeau (MO020) Friends of Fort D/Cape Girardeau Parks 

Development Foundation 

1993

Carthage (MO002) None

Clark’s Mill (MO017) None

Dry Wood Creek (MO005) None

Fort Davidson (MO021) Friends of Fort Davidson State Historic Site 1999

Fredericktown (MO007) The Foundation for Historic Preservation 1998

Glasgow (MO022) None

Hartville (MO019) None

Independence I (MO014) Civil War Roundtable of Western Missouri 1994
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 28 

Figure 6. Portions of the Little Blue River battlefield remain relatively rural. Because of its proximity to the 

city of Independence; however, the battlefield is vulnerable to development. Photograph by Connie Langum, 

2008. 

Independence II (MO025) Civil War Roundtable of Western Missouri 1994

Kirksville (MO013) None

Lexington I (MO006) None

Lexington II (MO023) None

Liberty (MO003) Civil War Roundtable of Western Missouri 1994

Little Blue River (MO024) Civil War Roundtable of Western Missouri 1994

Lone Jack (MO015) Lone Jack Historical Society 1999

Marmiton River (MO028) None

Mount Zion Church (MO010) None

New Madrid/Island No. 10 (MO012) None

Newtonia I (MO016) Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association, Inc. 1994

Newtonia II (MO029) Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association, Inc. 1994

Roan’s Tan Yard (MO011) None

Springfield I (MO008) None

Springfield II (MO018) None

Westport (MO027) Monnett Battle of Westport Fund 1975

Wilson’s Creek (MO004) Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield Foundation 1950
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 118

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 15,742.00 acres at 61 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. Funding 

from this program has been sought to protect only one Missouri battlefield, Newtonia II. 

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 

Total 

Acres 

Acquired

Total

CWBLAG

Funds

Total 

Non-Federal 

Leveraged 

Funds 

Total 

Acquisition

Costs

 

Newtonia II I 11.00 $146,050.00 $146,050.00 $292,100.00 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 119

Appendix B. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants 

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

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

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

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

integrate their efforts into a larger battle site protection strategy. In Missouri, the ABPP 

has awarded $140,500.00. 

Grantee Year Project Title Award 

 

Civil War Round Table of 2007 Little Blue River Battlefield National $4,000.00

Western Missouri Register Nomination 

Iron County Historical Society 1994 Resource Documentation at Pilot Knob/ $15,000.00

 Fort Davidson 

Kansas City 1994 Archeological Survey of Big Blue/Byram’s $20,000.00

 Ford Battlefield 

Missouri Department of 1995 Pilot Knob Battlefield Protection Plan $20,000.00

Natural Resources

Monnett Battle of Westport 1992 Revising Byram’s Ford Battlefield Protection $24,000.00

Fund, Inc. Plan 

Newtonia Battlefields 1999 Newtonia Battlefields Protection Plan $22,500.00

Protection Association, Inc. 1994 Historic Resources Survey of Newtonia $15,000.00

 Battlefields 

 1994 Newtonia Battlefields Archeological Survey $20,000.00

Total ABPP Planning Grants to Missouri Battlefields as of FY2010 $140,500.00

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 120

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''; 

 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 121

 ``(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. 

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

 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 122

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

 (4) in subsection (e)-- 

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

 that follows through the period and inserting ``on 

 September 30, 2008.''; and 

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

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

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 123

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.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

name), or Other (describe). 

Parcel Acres Owner Easement Year Cost Source 

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

 Private/$250,000 

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

 BFI/$21,000 

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

• If yes, describe 

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

• Number of Acres owned/held 

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

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri 124

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 
125

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

Final DRAFT – State of Missouri

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