Your point is that Henry County has based the site of the battle on current day roads. How could someone who claims to be a historian mess that up?

I'm still reading through it but I have to say that this is very convincing.

Excellent work, Larry.

Are you telling me we spent 8 million on a battlefield that was not a battlefield? Who is responsible for this mistake?

THANK GOD SOMEONE IS TAKING UP THIS CAUSE FOR TAXPAYING CITIZENS EVERY WHERE! BJ MATHIS AND HER MERRY BAND OF NEO-CONFEDERATE RACE BAITERS HAVE ROBBED THE TAXPAYERS FOR THEIR OWN PATHETIC PRO-SLAVERY WET DREAMS!

LARRY, I WOULDN'T HAVE EXPECTED THIS FROM YOU. YOU HAVE EARNED A RENEWED RESPECT FROM TAXPAYING CITIZENS EVERYWHERE!

I got a packet of information from a source who refused to identify himself. It appeared he had an ax to grind, so I initially blew it off. Based on the allegations I did my own research, as indicated in the analysis. I became convinced.

I have no ax to grind with preservationists. My sole intent is to report facts as supported with real deeds, land lot maps and studied historical accounts.

I read Larry Stanley's 24 page analysis with interest. I have a few comments in response.

First, I was in error in characterizing the events prior to August 20 as merely a skirmish. I would use different words if I was writing it today.

Second, when I talk about the importance of the August 20 battle, I am referring to all of the events in the battlefield on that day. That is National Park Service procedure for battlefield analysis. So, the significance would stretch from the events in Clayton County, where the Union Artillery were positioned, to several miles to the east of Nash Farm at Walnut Creek, where the combatants "rested" at days end. The battle is by no means confined to Henry County's 204 acres. Most of it remains unexplored. THAT is the point on which Mr. Stanley and I would likely both agree. Exploration of other parts of the Lovejoy battlefield is ongoing and will continue through 2008. It is a tangled mess of 4 battles that overlapped on the landscape and unraveling the tangle is a lengthy process. The events at the Dorsey house were certainly important military actions, which I discussed briefly in my Flint River Basin Archaeological Survey report.

Contemporary maps of the battlefield are limited in what they are able to tell us. We examined the various maps at our disposal to our best ability. The truth is the maps have many inaccuracies and lack detail to overlay them with 100 percent accuracy on the modern landscape. Archaeology helps to reconstruct the landscape, but only a portion of it has been reconstructed at present.

I stand convinced that the LAMAR Institute's 2007 survey did locate the primary clash of the two Cavalry groups, or "Ground Zero" for the August 20th action. The fact that that particular part of the day's event only lasted a few minutes does not diminish its historical significance. This is evident from reading the biographies and post-war accounts of many of those battle hardened cavalrymen who participated in it. I encourage interested people to obtain and read our full report that was given to the Henry County. I hope to revise that document (with improvements and addressing various comments and constructive criticisms) in 2008 for wider public release. Thanks Mr. Stanley for pointing out some of its weaknesses.

I had to search for the map that the Lamar Institute used in their study.

I would like to know why you requested the hand drawn map of the battle site instead of using the map with locations already marked by the author of "Sherman's Horsemen" or why didn't you include them both in your report. Is it because the map from the author of "Sherman's Horsemen" puts the battle in front of the Dorsey property, which is in Clayton County?

Mr. Stanley's paper presents many unanswered questions by the leaders of the county that pushed the purchase of the land.

To all concerned golfers out there ...its ok that the commission bought that histerical
battlefield, at least they did heed my suggestion and we now have a county owned gold course,,,oops I meant golf course. Does any know when we can expect to book a tee time? And if the position is open I would love to apply as club pro. Just think now we can .
leave the commission meetings and still make an 11 o'clock foursome.
Wow and to think that it only cost us 17 million, Boy if we had not made that purchase now we probably would not have been able to buy if we had waited until we could really afford to pay for it some other savey buyer would have bought it right out from under us. I know that I feel much optomistic about the financial future of Henry county with all these useful purchases the commissinors are making.Its kinda like the unnamed park in district 5 that you have to go thru a subdivision to get to.
Man we need some more million dollar deals like that. Maybe SPLOST 1V will take care of those kind of deals.
Don
PS
Jason I am just having fun LOL

Man, what a fiasco. What a waste.

Mr. Elliott,

Thank you for posting these comments. It was not my intention to impugn the work of the Lamar Institute or you personally. It is specific statements that I believe deserve attention, especially since Mr. Pollard has repeated them (or has been quoted) in several publications and websites. I have no doubt that yours is work of integrity. My comment on page 9 of the analysis, "... a purpose other than strict historical analysis," was not intended to challenge your motives, but those of the County.

That the area was embroiled in military action from July through November is well documented. Whether canister, shell or rifle artifacts may be located at Nash - or elsewhere across the Clayton and Henry counties - is not the point of my analysis. In fact I would be surprised to fail at locating such artifacts in many and varied locations.

I am a bit surprised that you

stand convinced that the LAMAR Institute's 2007 survey did locate the primary clash of the two Cavalry groups, or "Ground Zero" for the August 20th action.

Or,

The battle is by no means confined to Henry County's 204 acres. Most of it remains unexplored. Exploration of other parts of the Lovejoy battlefield is ongoing and will continue through 2008. It is a tangled mess of 4 battles.

Or that the target area of

significance would stretch from the events in Clayton County, where the Union Artillery were positioned, to several miles to the east of Nash Farm...

The County positioned this property to its citizens as the site of a major, significant battle ground. The overlay map of the Charge at the county website (and page 8 of my analysis) clearly depicts the current 2007 path of McDonough Road as the ground across which the Charge was made, names the Nash farm as the position of Ross's 3rd Texas, and fails to conform to Capt. Burns's depiction of troop placements.

That road, in that location and current NE to SW path, did not exist in 1864.

It is true that Thompson E. Nash bought property in land lots 90, 103 and 122 on March 8, 1847. (When Clayton County was formed in 1858, ALL these land lots remained in Henry on its western border with Clayton, with 122 as the southern-most) There is no argument that T. E. Nash owned the property purchased by Henry County. I must, however, take issue with statements by the county that the Kilpatrick Charge ran over Ross's Texans at the Nash property. The statement the "deserted plantation" was owned by T. E. Nash does not stand up to scrutiny.

The historical marker at Nash Farm says, "Nash Farm Battlefield. Every published reference to Nash says the Kilpatrick Charge met the 3rd Texas at that site. Yet, the county holds onto later military actions on September 3-5 as reason for the historical significance of the property.

Even the retreat of Hardee's Division through Lovejoy in November as Sherman was leaving Atlanta could explain artifacts in the area - but those events are not mentioned by th county.

As time allows I plan to investigate specific claims by the county in regard to the September 3-5 engagements. Based on the evidence found in relation to August 20th, I do not know whether I will find evidence of campsites and "resting places" or actual battle engagements.

In addition to the analysis I published, please accept the following information as constructive and helpful to your updates:

Clayton County Deeds are important to my analysis to show who actually owned property along McDonough-Fayetteville Road, and particularly at the intersection of Lee's Mill Road.

* Book J, page 154. William Tillman to William Crawford. 8-23-1837, 202.5 acres. Dist 6, Lot 133
* Book C, page 502. S. G. Dorsey to Idah Dorsey. 3-24-1883, 250 acres. Dist 6, Lot 123, 134
* Book G, page 130. Idah Blalock to J. S. (Joseph) Dorsey Trust. 4-20-1894, 250 acres. Dist 6, Lot 123, 134

Noting that McDonough(-Fayetteville) Road ran west to southeast from S. G. Dorsey's house at a slight southerly angle, it is safe to plot the course of that road in the very southern portion of land lot 124, and continuing through the top portion of land lots 133 and 134. The mapped location of Babbs Mill also provides a reference point for plotting the path of the 1864-McDonough Road. The deeds listed above prove property ownership by the Crawford and Dorsey families for the known path where Kilpatrick's Charge encountered Ross's Texans. It was well south of the Nash property.

That road placement would position the John Dorsey house in land lot 123 on Lee's Mill Road, and southwest of the Nash property. Based on the "History of Clayton County," this house was nearly in sight of the Crawford-Dorsey house. The location of the John Dorsey house is consistent with property ownership by the Dorsey family.

That road location is consistent with descriptions of the battle orders. Based on the Ruger map, the Burns sketch and every historical reference, the 1864-McDonough Road was the path of Kilpatrick's Charge. It therefore places the location of Young's Confederate cannon at the intersection of McDonough-Fayetteville Road and Lee's Mill Road.

The Ruger map may, as you suggest, "have many inaccuracies and lack detail to overlay them with 100 percent accuracy." However, that is the map we find in the Official Atlas of the Civil War. Mr. Ruger's work includes many battlefields and engagements across the entire theatre of the war. It is no doubt the most reliable cartographic evidence available.

It is the Ruger map that specifically describes the intersection of Babbs Mill Road with Lee's Mill Road. That was the site of T. E. Nash's property in land lot 122, subsequently purchased by Henry County. That location is shown north and east of the John "Dawsey" Dorsey house. The map evidence, combined with property deeds, moves the actual engagement to the southwest of the Nash property.

You said, "Contemporary maps of the battlefield..."

The Ruger map is not unique in its depiction of the intersection of Babbs Mill Road with Lee's Mill Road, or the intersection of McDonough-Fayetteville Road with Lee's Mill Road to the southwest. Maps alone cannot provide the full story. For that we must apply all available descriptions, histories, land deeds, Union and Confederate accounts of the engagements, etc. to arrive at a geographical location. The potential for inflation of troop strength or who was more or less courageous in battle is tangential to the issue of a land purchase. Location is the key factor of concern.

Thanks, Mr. Elliott, for telling the world that you want to conintue drawing a paycheck from Henry County for "exploration" of property that was not the battle site.

Your best response was that maps, land deeds and history books are unreliable and your Archaeological Project is needed. That is what I call dedication to "The Cause."

At the Lamar Institute website "Activities" page it says ,

locate, map, and gather baseline information on all aboriginal mound sites in the Oconee River valley of central Georgia.

Unless you mean "baseline" is the minimal information needed for a starting point of real study. In that case you can remain convinced that Nash Farm was really 1000 yards to the South from where it is today.

Answer Stanley's analysis with the same depth that it was presented! Or just tell BJ she got caught.

In Mark Pollard's own words:

If you connect all the dots on a map of the 33 battles that were fought in the Atlanta Campaign, the last dot would end at the Nash Farm Battlefield in Western Henry County, located near Lovejoy. On any preservation map of the Atlanta Campaign, the battlefield dots start in north Georgia but mysteriously end at Kennesaw Mountain. Nothing was ever set aside at Peachtree Creek, the International city of Atlanta, Ezra Church, Utoy Creek or Jonesboro, the home of “Gone With the Wind.” These battlefield dots are all missing. Battlefield preservation of these sites are all lost. But at last, the Nash Farm Battlefield located 23 miles south of Atlanta has been awakened after being asleep for over 140 years. These 204 acres of prime battlefield was the last stopping point and the final acreage that could have been saved from the Atlanta Campaign. My expertise of this subject comes from 30 years of heavy experience in the field of Civil War Relic Hunting. This land is all that is left from the Atlanta Campaign and what’s so ironic is the fact that the Atlanta Campaign “officially ended here.”

Treasurefish.com, a website about Civil War Relic Hunting describes it as:

- You would much rather dig a rusty horseshoe than a pocketful of new quarters
- Finding a bullet lodged in a piece of wood is a dream come true
- Your bathroom sink gets completely stopped up at least every 6 months with dirt
- You'll always go home happy if you can at least dig up a single Enfield 3-ringer
- The greatest thing you could ever find is a belt buckle

I guess only amatuers use maps and books. The professionals just report what they are paid to say.

Thank you for vindicating a
lot of hardworking people
who put a lot of time and
effort into a project that
took several years of our
lives to work on the story
of the incursions a Lovejoy.
I have no axe to grind, but
did want the truth to be
told. Many of those who
worked on the project 27
years ago are no longer with
us. But their tireless
work will not be forgotten.
Again thank you,
The Doctor.

So let's say for argument sake that the county hid behind falsehoods in order to obtain the land. Now what? What are you going to do besides post a 24 page document on a blog (assuming you have not already sent this to the papers)?

Jamie,

This analysis was an academic endeavor. As it turned out, the artifacts located at the Nash property are easily explained by Union cannon fire in August; or even the November 1864 retreat of Hardee's Division through Lovejoy when Sherman was leaving Atlanta. In no case was this place described as a battlefield.

I was among the Nash defenders from the start. For me it was a matter of preservation. Seeing other national sites like Gettysburg come under encroaching development, and believing that Civil War history did in fact include this area it seemed a rational position for me to take.

In the beginning we were told that impact fees would be used for the purchase. It sounded good since the county must maintain a zero-balance annual budget and there would be no direct hit to the general fund.

Use of impact fees would have violated state law. So the money was presented as a "loan" against the General Fund Reserve. This scenario changed the impact of the purchase and it got even worse when the actual cost went to $8 million - a direct hit on taxpayers.

A plea was made for federal funding for Nash. Here is an excerpt from a March 2006 county press release:

While in Washington, Chairman Harper met with U.S. Representatives Lynn Westmoreland and David Scott and the staffs of Senators Isakson and Chambliss. He also had the opportunity to meet with Senator Chambliss at the airport. During these meetings, they discussed three transportation improvement projects: the expansion of the I-75/I-675 interchange to include more lanes, Bruton Smith Parkway aesthetic improvements and the widening of US 23/GA 42 north of McDonough as well as the Veterans Wall of Honor, Nash Farm Battlefield, and a seamless, wireless, integrated criminal justice information system for the County.

The county hired the lobbying firm of Holland & Knight at $10k per month. During the first fiscal year it represented the County, fiscal year 2007, Holland & Knight LLP successfully obtained $250,000 in the House-passed version of the Transportation, Treasury, HUD bill for the County's Bruton Smith Parkway project. In addition, the County's Veterans Wall of Honor was included in the Senate Appropriation Committee-passed version of that same bill for an amount of $200,000. But none of the spending bills were passed by the full Congress.

Go back to this site's post about Nash funding.

The point is that fiscal responsibility is important. Combining parks with transportation logically gives the impression that wants are equal to needs Creative accounting and prioritizing Nash in line with transportation for federal earmarks is beyond the pale.

What's next? Who knows, but this is an election year.

A few more comments:

The current history and archaeology project at Lovejoy/Jonesboro Road is being conducted/funded by Georgia DOT, an engineering company, and a CRM firm in Athens. It is entirely out of the hands of Henry County administrators. And out of the LAMAR Institute's involvement. The GDOT agenda is to move/widen the road and minimize impact (avoid or conduct mitigative efforts ) to important Civil War resources in the vicinity. Stay tuned for their results, expected in 2008.

Our interpretation of the historic roads and dwelling sites shown on Ruger's map (and other maps on file at the National Archives/College Park, Maryland) is that Jonesboro Road follows an ancient route with very little deviation. From Lovejoy and for several miles the road rides the ridge crest, as did most early routes. Our findings meshed quite well with David Evans' predictions from his superlative historical research. I am puzzled by some of the comments that put our findings at odds with his analysis.

No, they didn't. Evans map specifically puts the fighting in front of the Dorsey home, not on the Nash property.

Mr. Elliott, Please reference the other maps on file at the National Archives. I am interested in reviewing other sources.

The present-day roads do not coincide with Ruger's even in appearance. Nor do they coincide with descriptions of Griffin-Jonesboro Road or McDonough-Fayetteville Road in Evans.

Also please account for your interpretation of locations of
(1) the John Dorsey house in LL 123;
(2) the actual location of intersections of Lee's Mill Road with (a) Babbs Mill Road and (b) McDonough-Fayetteville Road and (c) Old Griffin Road; and
(3) any differences in road paths/routes that may exit between Ruger and today.

Can you respond to the differences between the County's battle map and the Burns sketch?

i.e., Confederate led horses & caissons blocking the narrow road behind Young's cannon (Evans) vs. the county showing 2 Confederate cavalry units in that location.

Or the description of wooded area, then two rows of fences, and then barricades depicting Ross's line "half way across the field."

If the present-day location shown for Young's cannon is correct, please tell me what else is wrong with the Ruger map.

I was reading your fine expose' about the Nash Farm problems. I would like to add another problem that surfaced back in October 2007 that is related to this matter. I was notified by family that a Civil War Military Marker was placed on the grave of Mr. J.P.S. Nash.

The problem with this is that "his grave was already well marked with a very large headstone." The V.A. doesn't make markers for graves that are already marked. Someone involved and what I have been told is that a Mr. Pollard Civil War Historian for Henry County and the Commissioner for the area were involved in this placement. I have been in the process of notifying the V.A. about this placement.

Also, I have read on the Henry County website about Nash Farm and saw a photo of what is supposed to be Mr. Nash. The material said he was a Captain CSA. The marker placed in October says he was a Sgt. CSA when the records of Mr. Nash from the war indicate he was a Corporal CSA. I showed the photo to a professor at West GA College and was told that it appears to be a photo of President James A. Garfield and family. Photo's of the Garfield era show that it is the late President. The material in the background even has part of an eagle wing. The photo is of him and his family circa 1881.

With all these questionable items I see a problem with Henry County government. My question is why did the County Commission not do a follow-up check on the information they were provided with? The government usually has a oversight committee to do followup work on projects presented to them.

Also, I remember my father telling me that Rev. Nash lived in front of the County Line Church and that John Nash lived behind him and had made butter and dairy products that were sent to Atlanta especially around the turn of the century. Well, I hope that this matter will be resolved with a good outcome for the people of Henry County.

Col. Nash

Thanks, Col. Nash. Please note the [Update] I placed at the top of the original post.

An 1877 map commissioned by the US Secretary of War shows the same exact locations for both the Crawford & Dorsey houses.

Just another ancient map.... this one pre-dates the creation of Clayton County and the era of the War.

Mr. Elliott said, "Our interpretation ... is that Jonesboro Road follows an ancient route with very little deviation."

Online research using the University of Georgia’s Hargrett Rare Book & Manuscript Library produced several maps of Georgia. Specifically of interest to this discussion is Map 1851 B6, Bonner's pocket map of the state of Georgia.

Close inspection (using on-screen magnification) reveals the west and southwestern section of Henry County in 1851.

This map shows a north-south road, the Macon & Western Railroad and very similar road configurations as depicted in the 1877 Ruger map.

The road crosses a corner of a Land Lot in a NE to SW path, turns due south before crossing two roads, and then angles toward the railroad.

Comparing the 1851 & 1877 maps, the Nash property was still NE of the John Dorsey house.

We received an email from a family member of one of our members about The Nash Farm Battlefield & Calvary Charge that has been described on your blog and the Henry Co. webpage. We can provide information about the true largest calvary engagement in Georgia during Sherman's March to the Sea. The action occurred on Dec. 4, 1864 near Waynesboro, Ga in Burke Co. between Gen. Hugh J. Kilpatrick and the CSA Calvary under elements of Gen. Joseph Wheelers Calvary in which the Union commander launched what was reported as the largest calvary charge of the war. There were many casualties in this engagement between both sides but the CSA forces had to withdraw. This information is from records of the war located in the volumes of the War of the Rebellion at the Library of Congress in Washington DC. From what we gather Henry Co is taking the calvary engagement at Lovejoy Station in Clayton Co. for their own. This engagement between Minty and Ross at Lovejoy did occur near a place known as the Crawford-Dorsey Plantation in Clayton Co. not Henry Co. This mis-information being spread about Nash Farm is not good for Historical Accuracy and is misleading to students of local schools who might be learning about the Civil War in their area and are not getting the true story. Again we do not understand why Henry Co. would want to take our history for theirs. As the anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War approaches all we can guess from this action is that it is for some type of monetary gain on their part. We have worked many hours over the years to be accurate with our research into the calvary battle near Waynesboro. This led to the Union Army moving further and quicker to the Savanah area. We hope that this information will help get your problem resolved.

Thanks
The President of the Burke
County Civil War Historical
Society founded in 1970

I have just read the response by the Burke Co Civil War Historical Society which my cousin John is a member and our family thanks you very much. I have submitted a request for an investigation into these matters with the Veterans Administration in Washington especially about the bogus headstone for JPS Nash in which the government paid for and had shipped. The General Accounting of this incident will be done by an investigative committee. The information on the website will be used against any entity involved. I am will versed in the workings of these investigations as I am retired from Adjudant General's Office and I have had to conduct many proceedings involving similar circumstances.

It's always a pleasure:
Col. Nash

Hello again Mr. Stanley & Mr. Pye.
I told you that I would be watching. I have looked at the blogs entered above and agree. I have been in touch with some others who were involved with the research of the Lovejoy area many years ago and they support what you are doing completely. Being a Ph.D. of History gives one some latitude in these matters. The truth is out there and many folks are finally being remembered who should be remembered. Again I will be watching with interest in this subject.

The Doctor