Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan...DRAFT Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan DRAFT vii BATTLEFIELD RESOURCES The Jenkins’ Ferry Battleﬁ eld is composed

Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan

GRANT COUNTY, ARKANSAS

(GA 2255-12-007)

DRAFT

PREPARED BY

MUDPUPPY & WATERDOG, INC.VERSAILLES, KENTUCKY 40383

PREPARED FOR

FRIENDS OF JENKINS’ FERRY BATTLEFIELD

SHERIDAN, ARKANSAS 72150

FUNDED BY

AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

WASHINGTON, DC 20005

JULY 31, 2013

DRAFT Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan DRAFT

Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan

GRANT COUNTY, ARKANSAS

(GA 2255-12-007)

DRAFT

PREPARED BY

JOSEPH E. BRENT

MARIA CAMPBELL BRENT

MUDPUPPY & WATERDOG, INC.129 WALNUT STREET

VERSAILLES, KENTUCKY 40383859-879-8509

PREPARED FOR

FRIENDS OF JENKINS’ FERRY BATTLEFIELD

165 GRANT 81SHERIDAN, ARKANSAS 72150

870-942-2936

FUNDED BY

AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1201 EYE STREET, NW (2255)WASHINGTON, DC 20005

202-354-2023

JULY 31, 2013

This material is based upon work assisted by a grant from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Any opinions, fi ndings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the Department of the Interior.


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................v

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................vi

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

I. The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry ...................................................................................7

II. The Cleared Fields in the Saline Bottom...............................................................38

III. KOCOA Analysis .................................................................................................48

IV. The Battlefi eld Today ...........................................................................................63

V. Cultural and Natural Resources .............................................................................68

VI. Previous Preservation Activities ..........................................................................76

VII. The Planning Process .........................................................................................82

VIII. Preserving the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld ..........................................................90

IX. Interpreting the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld ...........................................................113

X. Recommended Actions .........................................................................................126

XI. Bibliography ........................................................................................................132

Appendix 1 – Applying for Battlefi eld Land Acquisition Grants ..............................137

Appendix 2 – National Heritage Areas ......................................................................146

Appendix 3 – Resources for Technical Support .........................................................148


ii

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Project location .......................................................................................................52 Battlefi eld location ..................................................................................................63 Red River Campaign as envisioned by Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks ...................84 Rear Admiral David D. Porter, U.S. .......................................................................95 Major General Nathanial Banks, U.S. ...................................................................96 Major General Frederick Steele, U.S. ....................................................................97 Steele’s route during the Camden Expedition .........................................................108 Major General Sterling Price, C.S. .........................................................................119 General Edmund Kirby Smith, C.S. ......................................................................1210 Brigadier General James F. Fagan, C.S. .............................................................1311 April 29, 1864 – First Engagement .......................................................................1512 Brigadier General Frederick Salomon, U.S. .........................................................1713 Lieutenant Colonel Cyrus Mackay, U.S. ..............................................................1814 Brigadier General Samuel Rice, U.S. ...................................................................1815 April 30, 1864 – Col. Colton Greene’s attack .......................................................2016 Brigadier General James C. Tappan, C.S. .............................................................2117 April 30, 1864 – Assault of Tappan’s Brigade ......................................................2318 Brigadier General Thomas J. Churchill, C.S. .......................................................2419 April 30, 1864 – Assault by Hawthorne’s Brigade ..............................................2520 Brigadier General Mosby Parson, C.S. .................................................................2721 April 30, 1864 – Assault of Parsons Missouri Brigade .........................................3022 Major General John G. Walker, C.S. .....................................................................3223 April 30, 1864 – Assault of Walker’s Texas Division ...........................................3424 Detail of Venable map ...........................................................................................3525 1864 map drawn by Richard Venable ...................................................................4026 Richard Venable and other Confederate offi cers...................................................4127 Edwin C. Bearss’s map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld ......................................4228 Joe Walker’s map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld ...............................................4329 2013 map of the fi elds in the Saline bottom .........................................................4730 2009 American Battlefi eld Protection Program Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld map....5031 1864 Venable map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld ..............................................5132 Key Terrain Features .............................................................................................5333 Observations and Fields of Fire ............................................................................5634 Cover and Concealment ........................................................................................5835 Obstacles ...............................................................................................................6036 Avenues of Approach and Retreat .........................................................................6237 The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld Core and Study Area as defi ned by the 2009 American Battlefi eld Protection Program survey .................................................6538 View of the Burning Field area .............................................................................6439 Military road (Dallas County 409) in the southern portion of the battlefi eld .......6640 General area of the Union line in Saline River bottom .........................................67


iii

41 Tulip Methodist Church Cemetery........................................................................6942 Guesses Creek .......................................................................................................6943 Cannonball House site ..........................................................................................6944 1990s photograph of Giles house ..........................................................................7045 Site of the Giles house ..........................................................................................7046 Military road (Dallas County 409) in Dallas County ...........................................7047 Rufus Taylor house ...............................................................................................7048 Cox Creek .............................................................................................................7149 Saline River bottom ..............................................................................................7150 Saline River ...........................................................................................................7251 Old Jenkins’ Ferry landing road ............................................................................7352 Cultural and Natural Resources map 1 of 3 ..........................................................7453 Cultural and Natural Resources map 2 of 3 ..........................................................7554 Cultural and Natural Resources map 3 of 3 ..........................................................7655 UDC Monument at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park .......................................................7756 Jenkins’ Ferry State Park.......................................................................................7857 Core Area and National Historic Landmark boundaries .......................................8058 Interpretive signage at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park ..................................................7959 Alberta Harper, Maria Brent and Jerrell Harper in the Saline River bottom ........8360 Hayes Swayze, Tommy Green, Brenda Stuckey, Maria Brent and Richard Jenkins tour the battlefi eld .......................................................................8461 Attendees of the fi rst community meeting in Sheridan, Arkansas ........................8662 A portion of the military road in Dallas County ...................................................8963 Water in the Saline River bottoms in June 2013 ...................................................8964 Military road in Dallas County .............................................................................9165 Jenkins’ Ferry State Park preserves over 40 acres of the battlefi eld .....................9266 The Jenkins’ Ferry Gallery at the Grant County Museum ....................................9367 Fort Diamond in Camden, Arkansas is a city park and open to the public ...........9468 Guesses Creek in the First Engagement Site ........................................................10069 Phillips Trail, the old military road, in Dallas County ..........................................10070 This gate marks the site of the Cannonball House. .............................................10071 This concrete porch is all that remains of the Giles house...................................10072 Priority Parcels for the April 29, 1864, First Engagement Site ............................10373 Cannonball House, ca. 1967 .................................................................................10174 Core Area of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld ...........................................................10475 The cleared fi elds in the Saline bottom are now covered in hardwoods. ..............10576 A hunting camp located on the battlefi eld. ............................................................10577 Priority Parcels of the April 30, 1864, Main Engagement Site .............................10978 Planted pine in the vicinity of the Burning Field. .................................................11079 priority Parcels of the May 1, 1864, Burning Field ..............................................11280 Interpretive panel at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park, 1 of 3 ..........................................11581 Interpretive panel at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park, 2 of 3 ..........................................115


iv

82 Interpretive panel at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park, 3 of 3 ..........................................11583 Mock-up of tour stop sign for proposed driving tour ...........................................11684 Route of proposed driving tour .............................................................................11885 Primary interpretive locations. ..............................................................................12186 Location of proposed interpretation in Saline River bottom ................................125


v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank the following individuals for assisting with this project.

Mark Christ, Community Outreach Director, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program

Shayla Albey, Park Planner/Historic Preservation Specialist, Arkansas State ParksJeff King, Chief Park Planner, Arkansas State ParksMitchell Johnson, Real Estate Offi cer, Arkansas State ParksRandy Roberson, Manager of Planning and Development, Arkansas State Parks

Kenneth Bolden, Board Member, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eldAlberta Harper, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eldJerrell Harper, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Tommy Green, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Richard Jenkins, Co-Chair, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Ron Kelley, Co-Chair, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Brenda Stuckey, Secretary/Treasurer, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Hayes Swayze, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Roy Wilson, Board Member, Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Randy Yarberry

Steve Davis, Mayor of LeolaMissy Emberton, Deputy Assessor, Grant County Assessor Offi ceKemp Nall, Grant County Judge ExecutiveBecky Nichols, Executive Director, Grant County Chamber of CommerceKristy Pruitt, Grant Count Assessor Lindsey Stanton, Director, Grant County MuseumJoe Wise, Mayor of Sheridan


vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld Preservation Plan was funded by the American Battlefi eld Protection Program in 2012 (GA-2255-12-007) and the planning process was initiated by the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld with assistance from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program in 2013. Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. of Versailles, Kentucky, was chosen in a competitive bidding process to complete the plan.

BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry began on April 29, 1864, when the vanguard of Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith’s Confederate army caught Gen. Frederick Steele’s Union army south of Leola, Arkansas. The Union forces held off the Confederates that day, allowing the Union army to escape into the Saline River bottom. On April 30, 1864, Union infantry repulsed a succession of Confederate attacks, which allowed the Union army to continue its retreat to Little Rock unmolested. Their failure at the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry lost the Confederates any chance they may have had to capture the Union army or retake Little Rock.

JENKINS’ FERRY BATTLEFIELD TODAY

The 8,700-acre Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld (AR016) is located in Dallas and Grant counties, Arkansas. The battlefi eld is mostly wooded and retains excellent integrity. For the purpose of this plan, three areas of signifi cance were defi ned:

April 29, 1864, First Engagement Site – Along Dallas County 409/Grant County 1April 30, 1864, Main Engagement Site – Roughly between Leola, Cox Creek, SR

46 and the Saline River in Grant County. May 1, 1864, Burning Field – Approximately two miles north of the community

of Dogwood at the intersection of SR 46 and SR 291.

THE CLEARED FIELDS

At the time of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry there were three cleared fi elds along the military road in the Saline River bottom where the main engagement took place. Over the years the ownership and the names of these fi elds has been disputed and maps produced giving the fi elds different names. The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld wanted ownership of these fi elds verifi ed as part of the planning project. After a thorough review of the available historic documents it has been determined that the fi elds should be called from south to north: Carver/Jenkins, Dortch and Tucker.


vii

BATTLEFIELD RESOURCES

The Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld is composed of both cultural and natural resources. Natural resources that help defi ne the battlefi eld landscape include ridgelines, bottom land, rivers, wetlands and creeks. There are very few extant cultural resources associated with the battlefi eld but there is high probability of a intact archeological deposits.

PAST BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION EFFORTS In the 1960s, Arkansas State Parks purchased 36.35 acres of battlefi eld land and leased 3.65 acres that contained the north side Jenkins’ Ferry crossing from the Sheridan Masonic lodge. This is the only battlefi eld land that has been preserved. Other preservation or commemorative activities include:

United Daughters of the Confederacy erected a monument in 1928.In 1970, just over 26 acres of the battlefi eld were listed in the National Register of

Historic Places.In 1993, the battlefi eld was identifi ed by the Civil War Sites Advisory

Commission Survey as one of the nation’s most signifi cant.In 1994, 1,900 acres were listed as part of the Camden Expedition National

Historic Landmark.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This plan identifi es 8,709.33 acres to be preserved at three discontiguous locations: the April 29, 1864, First Engagement Site; the April 30, 1864, Main Engagement Site; and the May 1, 1864, Burning Field. The individual parcels at each of the three sites are ranked as high, medium and low priority. Purchase in fee simple is recommended for all high priority land. Medium and low priority land can be preserved through a combination of purchase and conservation easements.

APRIL 29, 1864, FIRST ENGAGEMENT SITE

Twelve parcels totaling 1,386.58 acres are identifi ed for preservation. High priority parcels total 590 acres. 354.08 acres are ranked medium priority.442.5 acres are ranked low priority land.


viii

APRIL 30, 1864, MAIN ENGAGEMENT SITE

Fifty-one parcels totaling 6,106.060 acres are identifi ed for preservation.High priority parcels total 1,790.750 acres.2,251.3 acres are ranked medium priority.2,054.010 acres are ranked low priority.

MAY 1, 1864, BURNING FIELD

Three parcels totaling 1,216 acres are identifi ed for preservation.All 1,216 acres are ranked high priority.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, 2013-2014

APPLY FOR ABPP FUNDING

The grant cycle for the American Battlefi eld Protection Program usually begins in the fall. Apply for funding to conduct an archeological survey.

BEGIN A DIALOGUE WITH LANDOWNERS

Share the plan with landowners and enlist their support. Make them aware that their land is part of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld, that it is signifi cant historically, and why it’s important to preserve it.

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES

Take advantage of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Historic Preservation Foundation of Arkansas, and the American Association for State and Local History and the information they have available on a wealth of preservation and interpretation topics.

CREATE NEW PARTNERSHIPS

The opportunity for partnerships exists. Reach out to organizations and individuals. Ask them to help you and work with you to preserve the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.

EMBRACE THE CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry sesquicentennial commemoration is an opportunity to garner publicity and broaden your base of support. Invite elected offi cials, Arkansas State Parks, and potential partners to participate or attend.


ix

INVESTIGATE CREATING A CAMDEN EXPEDITION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Meet with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program to discuss creating a Camden Expedition National Heritage Area. Reach out to those with similar interests to develop a strategy and then reach out to your congressman and U.S. senators.

CREATE A BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY DRIVING TOUR

A simple driving tour will allow visitors to experience the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry in more depth than is now possible, and the tour signs will inform residents that there is a signifi cant Civil War battlefi eld in their county.


1

Introduction


2

INTRODUCTION

The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld initiated this planning project in 2012 when they submitted a grant application for funding to the American Battlefi eld Protection Program (ABPP). In 2013, the ABPP awarded the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld a grant (GA-2255-10-011) to develop a battlefi eld preservation plan for the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry (AR016).

The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld selected Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. to prepare the preservation plan. Over the course of the project Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. traveled to Arkansas four times to conduct research, visit the battlefi eld, hold community meetings, and meet with the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld and stakeholders. The project has been both interesting and exciting as more and more information on the battlefi eld has been gathered. The visits to the battlefi eld brought an understanding of the landscape that can only be obtained by walking the terrain with experienced guides. The members of Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld continued to discover new information over the course of the project, information they freely shared.

For years, the 1993, Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report of the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds was the baseline of information for sites that the ABPP funded. That information is now 20 years old. The resurvey of the Commission battlefi elds was completed in 2009 and the report, Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds, is in draft form. To ensure that the information in this plan is as up-to-date as possible, the authors used data from the draft update report as well as the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission data.

THE BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY

In the spring of 1864, Union forces in Louisiana and Arkansas set in motion a two-pronged attack on the Confederates in the Trans-Mississippi. The goal of this campaign was to capture Shreveport, Louisiana, and the abundant cotton crop in the region, which could be used to fuel mills on the east coast. The campaign, called the Red River Campaign in Louisiana and the Camden Expedition in Arkansas, was a failure. Confederate forces turned the Union advance back. The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was the last battle of the Camden Expedition.

In late April 1864, the Union army under Gen. Frederick Steele was retreating from Camden and marching back toward Little Rock, where much needed rations for its men and forage for its animals could be obtained. The Union army was trying to reach


3

the Saline River crossing on military road known as Jenkins’ Ferry. Soon after the lead elements of the army arrived on April 29, 1864, Union engineers built a pontoon bridge across the Saline. The main battle was fought on April 30, 1864, between Union infantry holding the Saline River bottom and Confederate infantry and cavalry desperately trying to rout the Union forces so that they could crush Steele and retake Little Rock. The Confederates failed. Once across the pontoon bridge on May 1, 1864, the Union quartermaster burned hundreds of wagons and the army marched on to Little Rock.

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was not so much a defeat for the Confederates as a missed opportunity. Perhaps technically the Confederates won the battle as they held the fi eld at the end of the day. However, they failed to trap and destroy Steele, and the Union army escaped and continued on to Little Rock. It was a bloody and brutal battle fought in the most inhospitable of conditions.

THE BATTLEFIELD

For the purposes of this plan, the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld is defi ned as three discrete locations associated with three signifi cant events: the site of the fi rst engagement on April 29, 1864; the site of the main engagement on April 30, 1864; and burning fi eld where Steele ordered the wagons burned on May 1, 1864. All of these locations fall within the 2009 Study Area and are vital to understanding the battle and its outcome.

The April 29, 1864, engagement is where the Confederates made contact with the retreating Union army for the fi rst time since leaving Camden three days earlier. The fi ghting on Guesses Creek where the Confederate vanguard engaged the Union rearguard was the fi rst signifi cant action of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The Union army was strung out on the road for miles between the engagement site and the Saline River bottom. If the rearguard had been pushed aside the Union army might have been routed. But the rearguard held its ground and the battle for Arkansas was not won that day.

This fi rst engagement site is located near the Dallas-Grant County line just south of Leola, Arkansas. The Confederate line was on a ridge west of Guesses Creek. The Union line was on a ridge east of the creek and the military road, which crossed the Guesses Creek fl oodplain en route to the Saline River.

In the early morning hours of April 30, 1864, Confederate cavalry led the fi rst of fi ve major assaults on the Union line in the muddy bottoms of the Saline River. The Confederates could not dislodge the stubborn Union infantry and fi nally withdrew; allowing Gen. Frederick Steele’s army to cross the river and destroy the pontoon bridge.


4

The main engagement site is in the Saline River bottom, just north of Leola, Arkansas, in Grant County. The southern boundary is formed by AR 229 and a ridge line in the south. An open area just west of Cox Creek roughly forms the western boundary. The Saline River is the northern boundary and SR 46 and wetlands just beyond defi ne the eastern boundary. The 1,900-acre National Historic Landmark boundary is within this area.

The next day, the Union army burned over 200 wagons and abandoned all of the army’s lame and exhausted animals and marched for Little Rock. The place where the wagons were burned has become known as the “Burning Field.” This action ended the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry.

The burning fi eld is located approximately four miles north of the Saline River in Sections 28 and 33, T6S R14W, just west of SR 46 in Grant County. The exact location of the archeological remains of the burning fi eld has not been determined (Figures 1& 2).

The latest available data states that the battlefi eld covers just over 7,796 acres. As noted above, 1,900 acres are within the National Historic Landmark boundary. Only 40 acres of the battlefi eld have been preserved. The State of Arkansas owns 36.35 acres at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park and has a 99-year lease on another 3.65 acres. This battlefi eld retains excellent integrity and every effort should be made to preserve it.


5

G R A N T

D A L L A S

Jenkins’ Ferry State Park

Leola

PrattsvillePoyen

Dogwood CrossRoads

Grapevine

Cedar Branch

Prague

Center Grove

Providence

Sheridan

Ico

Tulip Carthage

167

270

46

46

46

46

229

229

229

48

35

35 190

167

35

270

291

291

270

229

222

9

0 1 2 3 4 5

MILES

A R K A N S A S

Project Location

Project Location Grant and Dallas Counties, Arkansas

Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield, Figure 2

Figure 1: Project location


6


Leola

Dogwood

Tulip Carthage

D A L L A SG R A N T

Main Engagement April 30,1864

First EngagementApril 29, 1864

Wagons BurnedMay 1, 1864

Tulip Methodist Cemetery

229

48

48

46

46

229

222

22946

291

48

8

0 1 2 3

MILES

Figure 2: Battlefi eld location


7

The Battle of jenkins’ Ferry


8

THE BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY

THE CAMDEN EXPEDITION

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was the last battle of the Camden Expedition―a two-pronged offensive undertaken by the Union army in the Trans-Mississippi as part of the Red River Campaign. The Red River Campaign was part of a larger Union strategy to capture four important Confederate cities: Richmond, Atlanta, Mobile and Shreveport. The stated objectives of the campaign were to capture Shreveport, invade Texas, cripple Confederate resistance west of the Mississippi River, seize cotton land, and prevent Mexican Emperor Maximilian from sending troops into the region. In large part, however, the campaign was about securing cotton for mills in New England (Figure 3).1

The campaign was the brainchild of Major General Henry W. Halleck, then general-in-chief of the Union army, and required the coordination of three departments and the navy. Gen. Nathaniel Banks had 18,150 men. He borrowed 10,000 infantry from Major General William T. Sherman, which came to Louisiana under the command of Brigadier General Andrew J. Smith from Mississippi. This gave Banks nearly 30,000 soldiers. The naval arm of the expedition was under the command of Rear Admiral David D. Porter (Figure 4) and consisted of 13 ironclads, four tinclads and several other armed vessels. It was a formidable force.2

1 Ludwell H. Johnson, Red River Campaign: Politics & Cotton in the Civil War, The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, 1993, pp. 49-78 and 80.2 Michael J. Forsyth, The Camden Expedition of 1864 and the Opportunity Lost by the Confederacy to Change the Civil War, McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina, 2003, pp. 6-7 and Johnson, Red River Campaign, pp. 99-100.

Figure 3: The Red River Campaign as envisioned by Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks.


9

The Red River Campaign began on March 12, 1864, when Union Major General Nathaniel Banks (Figure 5) left Simmesport, Louisiana. A reluctant partner in this sweeping campaign, Major General Frederick Steele, received an order three days later from the new Union army general-in-chief, Major General Ulysses S. Grant.

Grant ordered Steele to “Move your force in full co-operation with General N.P. Banks’ attack on Shreveport. A mere demonstration will not be suffi cient. Now that a large force has gone up Red River it is necessary that Shreveport and the Red River should come into our possession.”3 By March 27, Banks had reached Alexandria and was halfway to his goal of Shreveport, the Confederate capital of the Trans-Mississippi. In spite of Grant’s order, the Arkansas portion of the campaign did not get underway until March 23.

Steele had valid reasons for opposing the campaign (Figure 6). He knew that by the time the Red and Ouachita rivers were navigable, the bottoms would

3 U.S. War Department, Th e War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Offi cial Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC, 1880-1901, Series I, Vol. XXXIV Part I, p. 616, hereaft er cited as O.R.

Figures 4-5: Rear Adm. David D. Por-ter, U.S.(left) and Maj. Gen. Nathaniel Banks U.S. (right).

Figure 6: Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele, U.S.


10

be virtually impassable. His cavalry was in bad shape due to overwork and a lack of forage. His supply lines out of Little Rock would be stretched thin and vulnerable to attack by Confederate guerrillas. Steele had only about 16,000 troops in his entire command, and they were spread from Pine Bluff to Little Rock to Fort Smith. In addition, Steele was involved with the Lincoln administration’s plan for creating a loyal government in Arkansas. Elections for that government were scheduled for March 14 and he wanted to see the project through.4

Given no choice but to follow Grant’s orders, Steele stripped Little Rock of all but 4,000 troops and marched south. As a result of his reluctance to undertake the offensive, his army of 8,500 was ill-supplied. Steele ordered Brigadier General John M. Thayer to bring his 3,500-man division from Fort Smith and rendezvous with him at Arkadelphia on April 1. Steele ordered Colonel Powell Clayton, the commander at Pine Bluff, to distract the Confederates. To that end, Clayton intercepted and defeated a Confederate detachment at Mt. Elba in Cleveland County, east of Steele’s line of march (Figure 7).5

4 Ira D. Richards, “The Camden Expedition, March 23-May 3, 1864,” MA Thesis, University of Arkansas, 1958, pp. 9-12.

5 Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, pp. 73-74.

Figure 7: Steele’s route during the Camden Exposition

Ouachita River

Little Missouri

River

Red River

Arka nsas River

Ouachita River

Saline River

Hot Springs

Little Rock

Pine BluffArkadelphia

Spring Hill

Washington

Camden

El Dorado

Rockport

Monticello

Elkin’s Ferry

Prairie D’Ane

Marks’MillsPoison

Spring

Jenkins’Ferry

Steele’s Route

The CamdenExpedition

© Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc., 2013


11

Steele arrived in Arkadelphia on March 29. The poorly provisioned Union soldiers had been eating half rations almost since they left Little Rock on March 23. After spending two days in the Clark County seat, Steele pushed forward without linking with Thayer. With his cavalry in front, Steele began moving his infantry and supply train south along the military road in the general direction of Washington, then the Confederate capital of Arkansas.6

Between April 2 and April 4, as Steele moved toward the Little Missouri River, he fought a series of engagements with Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby’s cavalry north of the river. Steele forced his way across the river at Elkin’s Ferry despite Confederate Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke’s attempt to stop him. By the time Thayer fi nally caught up with Steele on April 9, the purpose of the expedition had essentially come to an end. The Confederates had defeated Banks at Mansfi eld, Louisiana, on April 8. He won a battle at Pleasant Hill the following day but panicked and began his retreat to Grand Ecore, Louisiana, ending the campaign.7

After the fi ghting at Elkin’s Ferry, Confederate Major General Sterling Price (Figure 8) moved north from Camden, adding his cavalry to Marmaduke’s and swelling the Confederate numbers to around 7,000. Even with the addition of Price’s men, Steele and Thayer’s combined Union force outnumbered the Confederates by about 5,000 men. The two forces clashed on April 10 at Prairie D’Ane.8

The Confederates were convinced that Steele’s target was Washington. Steele had no intention of going to Washington; he only wanted to make Price believe that he was. Steele planned to pull the Confederates in the direction of Washington and then march east for Camden. After two days of fi ghting, including a rare night assault, Price

6 Robert L. Kerby, Kirby Smith’s Confederacy: The Trans-Mississippi South, 1863-1865, Columbia University Press, New York, 1972, p. 300 and Thomas A. DeBlack, With Fire and Sword: Arkansas 1861-1874, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 2003, p. 110.

7 Kerby, Kirby Smith’s Confederacy, pp. 301-308.

8 Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, pp. 92-93.

Figure 8: Maj. Gen. Sterling Price C.S.


12

withdrew toward Washington, hoping to draw Steele out. Steele seized the opportunity to move east. A rearguard action fought at Moscow Church allowed Steele to make good his escape and ended the action at Prairie D’Ane. Neither side lost many men during the fi ghting but Steele had bested Price at Prairie D’Ane.9

Steele spent eleven days in Camden, arriving on April 15, 1864. He still had no knowledge of what had happened to Banks’ expedition in Louisiana. Camden proved a safe harbor, but Steele’s army was still low on food and forage. Learning that there was corn near Poison Spring, on April 18 Steele sent 177 wagons and 670 soldiers with artillery to get it. The Confederates were waiting. The Union army lost 175 wagons and 301 soldiers and gained nothing.10

On April 20, 150 wagons arrived from Pine Bluff bringing much needed rations. The following day Steele learned that Maj. Gen. Nathaniel Banks’ army had been defeated

and was moving away from Shreveport. On April 22, Steele added 61 of his surviving wagons to the wagons of the supply train and sent it back out toward Pine Bluff with an escort of 1,200 men and four pieces of artillery. On April 25, Brigadier General John F. Fagan and Brig. Gen. Joseph O. Shelby’s Confederate cavalry caught that force at Marks’ Mill. The Confederates captured all 210 government wagons and at least 1,300 soldiers. The Battle of Marks’ Mill forced Steele’s hand. He knew he had to abandon Camden and return to Little Rock.11

The day Steele marched into Camden Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith (Figure 9) left Shreveport with three infantry divisions. He planned to destroy Steele’s army and to march into Little Rock and St. Louis and free Arkansas and Missouri from Union control. They were

9 Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, p. 99 and J.H. Atkinson, “The Action at Prairie De Ann,” The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Vol. XIX, No. 1, Spring 1960, p. 50.

10 Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, pp. 108-116. 11 Edwin C. Bearss, Steele’s Retreat from Camden & the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, reprint edition, Civil War Roundtable Associates, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1990, pp. 42-79.

Figure 9: Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith, C.S.


13

grand plans. Kirby Smith ordered Brig. Gen. James F. Fagan to get between Steele and Little Rock, wreck Union supply lines, and slow their march. Fagan failed (Figure 10). He could not get across the Saline River and on April 29, 1864, while Steele’s army fought its way into the Saline bottoms Fagan was in Arkadelphia looking for supplies. Fagan failed to fi nd Steele and his veterans were not available when Kirby Smith needed them most.12

THE ENGAGEMENT OF APRIL 29, 1864Steele’s army slipped out of Camden on April 26, 1864, moving along Princeton Road toward Jenkins’ Ferry. The army marched north, passing through Princeton and on to Tulip, where it took the military road north. In the early afternoon of April 29, 1864, just as it was beginning to rain, Steele arrived on the outskirts of

Leola, then Sandy Springs. Colonel Adolph Engelmann’s Third Brigade drew the assignment of guarding the rear of Steele’s beleaguered army as it pushed north toward Jenkins’ Ferry.13

On the afternoon of April 29, the Union army, probably numbering around 10,000, was strung-out between Leola and Guesses Creek in northern Dallas County when the Confederates fi nally caught them. Skirmishing began between lead elements of the Confederates and the 6th Kansas Cavalry. Word passed to Col. Engelmann that contact had been made and that the enemy was approaching in large numbers. Engelmann formed a line with two companies of the 40th Iowa, two of the 43rd Illinois and two artillery pieces to slow the Confederate pursuit as the rest of the army—infantry, cavalry, artillery, Contraband refugees and hundreds of wagons—moved north on the road to Jenkins’ Ferry on the Saline River.14

Colonel Colton Greene in his after-action report states that he caught Steele’s rearguard between Princeton and Tulip. It is unclear where the skirmishing began. It may have

12 Gary Dillard Joiner, “Fred Steele’s Dilemma and Kirby Smith’s Quest for Glory,” in Mark Christ, editor, “The Earth Reeled and Trees Trembled:” Civil War Arkansas 1863-1864, The Old State House Museum, Little Rock, Arkansas 2007, pp. 98-99. 13 Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, p. 122 and DeBlack, With Fire and Sword, p. 115.14 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 723.

Figure 10: Brig. Gen. James Fagan, C.S.


14

begun somewhere between Princeton and Tulip or north of Tulip. The reports are fuzzy and their understanding of the geography of the area might also be fuzzy. Regardless, it seems very clear that an intense engagement began the afternoon of April 29. Colonel William L. Jeffers 8th Missouri Cavalry, Major Robert C. Wood’s 14th Missouri Battalion and Samuel S. Harris’s Missouri Battery formed the Confederate vanguard that caught up with Engelmann’s rearguard on the military road somewhere south of Sandy Springs.15

Engelmann’s main concern was holding the Confederates at bay long enough for Steele’s army to make its way across the Saline River. Perhaps 1,000 Contraband—Freedom Seekers—left Camden and other places along the line of march and found themselves in a desperate situation as the Confederate army closed in. The old military road from Tulip follows the top of a ridge through north Dallas County before it falls into the bottoms formed by Guesses Creek. There may well have been a running battle on the ridge between whichever Confederate cavalry units were on the north edge of the pursuit and the 6th Kansas Cavalry. Riders from the Kansas Cavalry kept Engelmann informed, allowing him to deploy on a broad plateau near the Chapman house, better known as the Cannonball House, about three-quarters of a mile east of where the old military road makes a 90-degree turn down into the Guesses Creek bottom.16

Engelmann sent skirmishers down the ridge and engaged the Confederates as Col. Jeffers deployed his artillery on the ridge west of the bottom. Harris’s four guns opened fi re and at least one Confederate round went through the gable end of the Chapman house. Two pieces of the Springfi eld Light Artillery, which Engelmann calls Vaughn’s Battery in his report, unlimbered near the Chapman house and returned fi re. This thin Union line kept up a “deliberate and effective” fi re. Engelmann stymied the Confederate pursuit as the vanguard was too small to take on infantry and artillery (Figure 11).17

Engelmann formed a second line made with the 43rd Illinois, 27th Wisconsin and four guns of the Springfi eld Light Artillery but did not specify where the second line was formed. Given the terrain, the best place would have been on the knoll where the Giles house stood east of the military road. This location would have allowed the Union infantry to deploy on both sides of the road with the artillery unlimbered in the center. A line here would have forced the Confederates to come up the road out of the bottom under fi re. It would have made them advance slowly and cautiously, buying more time for

15 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 834. 16 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 670 and Elwin L. Goolsby, “The Lost Houses of Jenkins Ferry,” Grassroots: Journal of the Grant County Museum, August, 1999, p. 2. 17 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, pp. 723-724 and Bearss, Retreat from Camden, p. 112.


15

Figure 11: April 29, 1864 - First Engagement


16

the Union army to get into the Saline River bottom. Engelmann leapfrogged his brigade along the military road, forming lines and fi ring artillery and small-arms as he moved ever-closer to the river bottom.18

All afternoon it rained. One Wisconsin soldier recalled, “Rain commenced to fall about 12 a.m., and poured incessantly all day and all night. I never saw it rain harder than it did that night.”19 The chaplain of the 29th Arkansas described the weather as his regiment marched for Jenkins’ Ferry: “A very black cloud was fast rising, coming from the north-west to meet us, and so with the thunder’s crash, and the lightning’s blinding fl ash – in full march we pressed on through the falling torrent with the blackness of night around us.”20

Steele knew his time was limited. He rushed the pontoon wagons ahead and before 4:30 p.m. on April 29 the India rubber bridge was in place across the Saline. Shortly afterward wagons, artillery and cavalry began crossing.21 Getting the Union army through the Saline bottoms in good weather would have been time consuming enough, doing it in pouring rain with the Confederates nipping at its heels almost defi es description. Jacob Haas of the 9th Wisconsin described the scene at the river on the afternoon of April 29 in his diary:

Fear and trembling was upon the faces of the white people and more so upon those of the slaves who fl ed with us. We were in the morass and the enemy upon us. We mudled [sic] on until we were in the deepest mud and water and close to the swollen Saline River. We made Bivouk [sic] on a small farm. With darknes [sic] the cannonade ceased. We had to wait until under great diffi culty the Pioneers made a bridge across the river. Then our large train, artillery and all that could walk and crawl crossed the river. Rain had been and was still pouring continually. We had slept a little lying on fence-rails. We had nothing to eat and had marched 21 miles.22

18 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p.724.19 Mark H. Knipping, A History of the 27th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment in the War of the Rebellion, 1862-1865, http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/WI.She27thVol, 2001, p. 101. 20 “Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry Was Fought On April 30, 1864,” The Advocate (Fordyce, Arkansas), March 30, 1938. The article was written by Dr. J.M. Brown, Chaplain of 29th Arkansas and originally published in 1902.21 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 669.22 Jacob Haas Diary, unpublished manuscript in the possession of Michael Wilson of Broomfi eld, Colorado.


17

The small farm Jacob Haas mentions may well have been the unfi nished house of John Carver near the ferry. According to Carver’s Southern Claims Commission deposition the Union engineer dismantled his house and log kitchen and used the wood to build the pontoon bridge.23

Skirmishing continued until nightfall. As Steele’s army disappeared into the bottom, Engelmann ordered Lieutenant Colonel Adolph Dengler to take two guns of the Springfi eld Light Artillery and his regiment, the 43rd Illinois, and hold “. . . the last part of the high ground before the road enters the Saline bottom.”24 This ground is just below the high ridge where Jane Jenkins’ house stood and near a cleared fi eld that Jenkins and her son-in-law John M. Carver probably planted. This was the last Union line on April 29. By the time Dengler deployed his men it was getting dark. Confederate cavalry pushed ahead and tested the Union line and determined it too strong to carry and withdrew. The battle in the Saline bottom would wait until the next day. During the night, the 33rd Iowa relieved Dengler’s regiment. Both sides got what sleep they could in the ceaseless rain blowing across the battlefi eld.25

THE BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY, APRIL 30, 1864Brigadier General Frederick Salomon (Figure 12) was charged with holding the Confederates with his infantry while the Union cavalry, artillery, and wagons crossed the river. On April 29, while the rearguard engaged and occupied the Confederates, Salomon assessed the terrain and decided to redeploy his command. He pulled back, out of the range of the Confederate artillery, and placed the infantry between a slough on the east—his left fl ank—and Cox Creek

23 Deposition of John M. Carver, Claimant, Claim No. 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 6-7.24 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p.730.25 A.F. Sperry, History of the 33D Iowa Infantry Volunteer Regiment, 1863-6, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1999, pp. 97-98; Clement A. Evans, editor, Confederate Military History, Vol. 9: Missouri, Confederate Publishing Company, Atlanta, Georgia, 1899, p. 166 and O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 730. In many accounts the aforementioned Jenkins’ fi eld is called Jiles’ fi eld and the 1864 map drawn by Capt. R.M. Venable labels it Wilder’s fi eld. Members of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld have conducted a great deal of deed research that determined who in 1864 owned the land associated with the cleared fi elds. While this research helps pin down who owned the land in 1864, it will only add to the confusion on the part of historians researching the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry in the future. See Chapter 2 for a detailed account.

Figure 12: Brig. Gen. Frederick Salomon, U.S.


18

on the west—his right fl ank. The movement shortened the Union line and forced the Confederates to attack within a narrow, fl ooded space, which negated their numerical superiority.26

Salomon could not have chosen a better defensive position. Two days of rain and a two-mile long supply train had rutted the road into the bottom. The rain saturated the ground, leaving the bottom fi lled with standing water. Salomon located his line along a slight rise in the bottom, which gave his men the advantage of holding in a relatively dry area while forcing the Confederates to attack through the mud and water, breaking the momentum of their assaults.27

Once the two sides disengaged the night of April 29, Colonel Cyrus Mackey (Figure 13), commander of the 33rd Iowa, brought his regiment forward to relieve the 43rd Illinois in the rear of Steele’s army. Mackey reported that his men were within “speaking distance” of the enemy. The colonel pulled his regiment off the ridge and placed most of the men on the edge of the Jenkins/Carver fi eld to the north. Here they

would remain until Brigadier General Samuel Rice (Figure 14) rode to the rear of Steele’s army and ordered them to move further north. The gray light of day was just fi ltering through the forest canopy as the wet, hungry Iowans began to shift position. Brig. Gen. John S. Marmaduke ordered Col. Colton Greene to push forward and determine the strength of the enemy. On a wet April 30, Greene’s Missouri cavalry opened the battle of Jenkins’ Ferry.28

26 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 689.27 Joe Walker, Harvest of Death: The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, Arkansas, N.P., 2011, pp. 64-65.28 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, pp.702 and 829.

Figure 14: Brig. Gen. Samuel Rice, U.S.

Figure 13: Col. Cyrus Mackay, U.S.


19

Greene pushed the 3rd and 4th Missouri cavalry off the ridge and into the bottom. The Missourians encountered the 33rd Iowa’s skirmishers, drove them in, and initiated a general engagement. As the Iowans fell back Rice brought up the 50th Indiana and formed a new line, slowing the Confederate advance while he created a second line in the belt of trees beyond a cleared fi eld owned by the Dortch family. Rice’s fi rst line hammered away at Col. Greene’s Missourians and slowly withdrew to the new line that Rice had established north of the Dortch fi eld. When the 33rd Iowa and 50th Indiana reached the second line Rice’s brigade opened a heavy fi re on Greene’s two cavalry regiments. This was enough for the Missourians, who retreated back to the swale upon realizing that they were no match for a Union infantry brigade (Figure 15).29

Rice at last had his men in the place he wanted them. He sent two of Engelmann’s regiments and the 33rd Iowa to the rear to get what breakfast they could and arranged his defensive line. The 27th Wisconsin replaced the 33rd Iowa. He lined up the 50th Indiana, 9th Wisconsin and the 29th Iowa in the trees just beyond the Dortch fi eld. Captain Edward Ruegger of the 9th Wisconsin recalled preparing for the Confederate assault:

We then retreated, formed the battle line at the end of the woods, and in a short time we had a whole line of fortifi cations made out of old stumps, fence rails and everything possible, close at hand. There we lay – awaiting the oncoming enemy.30

Steele busied himself with getting his army across the river, leaving the defense of the crossing to his subordinates. During the night Steele held a council of war and informed Brig. Gen. Frederick Salomon that his division would take charge of the Union defense in the Saline bottom. Salomon and Rice chose their positions and when Greene’s cavalry arrived stopped its advance cold. On the brow of the ridge overlooking the Saline bottom, Confederate generals Sterling Price, Edmund Kirby Smith and Thomas J. Churchill conferred at what was probably Jane Jenkins’ house. At this point, about 7:30 a.m., it was clear that Steele, while in full retreat, still had fi ght in him and that Greene’s cavalry was no match for the Union infantry in the bottom. Churchill’s men had made a series of hard

29 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 697 and Walker, Harvest of Death, pp. 64 and 65. Note the name Dortch is used here for the second cleared fi eld behind which the Union army set up its main line of defense. This fi eld is unnamed on the 1864 Venable map. Bearss called it the Cooper fi eld, which is what General Sterling Price called it in his after-action report; Walker calls it the Groom fi eld. Research conducted by members of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld has determined that this cleared fi eld was owned by Sigual A. Dortch in 1861. Again, future researchers are cautioned to read the accounts of the battle carefully as the differing names given to the fi elds can be confusing. 30 Captain Edward Ruegger, “Five Weeks of My Army Life,” Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 37, Number 3, Spring 1954, p.167.


20

Figure 15: April 30, 1864 - Col. Colton Greene’s attack.


21

marches from Camden to the edge of the Saline bottom. Wet, tired and hungry, they had just sat down to build fi res when word came to move out.31

Kirby Smith missed his best chance of bagging Steele when Fagan’s cavalry failed to cut off his retreat. Now determined to push Steele into the Saline, Kirby Smith threw Churchill’s Division into the fi ght. Brigadier General James C. Tappan (Figure 16) pulled one company out of each regiment in his brigade as reserve and then Lieutenant Colonel William R. Hardy’s 19th/24th Arkansas Infantry (Consolidated), Colonel Robert Shaver’s 27th/38th Arkansas Infantry (Consolidated), and Colonel Hiram Grinstead’s 33rd Arkansas Infantry moved down the ridge into the bottom.32

The weather continued as it had the day before―it rained. Tappan’s brigade passed through the timber on the north edge of the Jenkins/Carver fi eld and into the

Dortch fi eld, where they struggled through mud and water toward the Union line. Tappan had Hardy on the left, Shaver on the right, and Grinstead in the rear. The infantry passed through Col. Greene’s thin skirmish line, dividing the cavalry in two, and continued toward the tree line on the edge of the fi eld.33

Hardy and Shaver pushed in the Union skirmishers and charged to the edge of the fi eld, where they were met by a terrifi c volley of musket fi re. Several accounts mention that the lead elements of Tappan’s brigade were dressed in Union uniforms, some mention they were driving sheep. The Confederates hoped this ruse would fool the Union soldiers but it fooled no one. An Arkansas soldier described the assault on the Union line:

“. . . [W]hen we had got in thirty paces of the edge of the timber a destructive fi re was opened up on us from a solid line of the enemy posted behind trees and logs in the edge of the timber.”34

31 Ruegger, “Five Weeks of My Army Life,” p.167; Forsyth, The Camden Expedition of 1864, p. 157 and O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 801.32 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 801.33 Silas Claborn Turnbo, History of the Twenty-Seventh Arkansas Confederate Infantry, Arkansas Research, Conway, Arkansas, 1988, p. 187. 34 Turnbo, History of the Twenty-Seventh Arkansas Confederate Infantry, p. 187.

Figure 16: Brig. Gen. James C. Tappan, C.S.


22

Tappan’s two consolidated regiments stalled in the face of the Union brigade.35

After a 20-minute delay, he called Grinstead forward. The 33rd Arkansas, without skirmishers in front, charged the Union line. The maneuver spelled disaster.36 A Wisconsin soldier recalled the attack:

Our entire Brigade soon was in line and under increasing fi re. The rebels came closer. Now they were in strong numbers on the small clearing and came closer every second. The rolling of the guns sounded like a continuous thunderstorm.37

The 33rd Arkansas went into the engagement with over 200 men. As a result of the attack they lost nearly half their strength. including Col. Grinstead. Regimental surgeon Dr. J.N. Bragg remembered the assault:

Two-hundred and twenty men could not last long before an army corps, after a few minutes trial, with the loss of ninety-two killed and wounded, including Col. Grinstead shot dead. The regiment fell back in disorder.38

Tappan’s battered brigade fell back to a swale behind a slight rise that crossed the fi eld and called for support. From there the Confederates continued fi ring at the Union line. Tappan had been in combat with Salomon’s line for 45 minutes before Hawthorne’s Brigade arrived on the fi eld.39

After Tappan’s initial assault Rice shuffl ed his troops. Fearing that the Confederates would try to turn his right fl ank by placing men west of Cox Creek, Rice moved two companies of the 29th Iowa along with a detachment of casuals under Captain Marmaduke Darnell, 43rd Indiana, to the west side of the creek to protect his fl ank.40

35 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p.802; Bearss, Steele’s Retreat From Camden, p. 124 and Walker, Harvest of Death, pp. 70-71.36 Dr. J.N. Bragg, “The Battle of Jenkins Ferry,” in M.A. Elliott, The Garden of Memory: Stories of the Civil War as told by Veterans and Daughters of the Confederacy, reprint edition, The Hurley Co., Inc., Camden, Arkansas, 1976, p. 12.37 Jacob Haas Diary.38 Bragg, “The Battle of Jenkins Ferry,” p. 13. 39 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 802.40 Bearss, Steele’s Retreat From Camden, p. 126. “Casuals” apparently refers to men who had been with Steele’s Second Brigade but who were, for one reason or another, not at Marks’ Mill where many of the 43rd Iowa were killed, wounded or captured.


23

Figure 17: April 30, 1864 - Assault by Tappan’s Brigade.


24

In the lull, Colonel Robert Shaver reformed his 27th/38th Arkansas and hit the 50th Illinois, which was on the end of the Union line. At fi rst the Arkansas troops made headway, pushing the Union line and nearly fl anking it. To plug the gap Rice ordered the 33rd Iowa, who had moved into the cleared fi eld closer to the river to eat breakfast, forward. The Iowans threw their weight into the fi ght and the two regiments overwhelmed 27th/38th Arkansas and Shaver fell back (Figure 17).41

Brigadier General Thomas J. Churchill (Figure 18) called up his second brigade, having thrown his fi rst at the Union line without making much headway. Brigadier General Alexander T. Hawthorne commanding the 29th, 34th and 35th Arkansas infantry regiments, followed Tappan’s line of march, coming off the ridge and crossing the Jenkins/Carver fi eld and then marching into the Dortch fi eld, where they passed through Tappan’s Brigade, which had sought shelter in the swale behind the low rise. Hawthorne threw his command at the Union line with the same result as Tappan.42

When Hawthorne’s Brigade pushed into the Saline bottom, Kirby Smith sent a regiment of dismounted cavalry across Cox Creek. The cavalry was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel H.G.P. Williams, formerly of General Dockery’s Brigade. Williams crossed the creek where he encountered the small detachment of soldiers Rice had placed there. Williams’ men overwhelmed the Union soldiers, pushing them north and threatening the Union fl ank (Figure 19).43

Lieut. Col. Williams reported, “I had moved about 1,000 yards when my skirmishers engaged those of the enemy, and my line continued to advance, the engagement soon became general.”44 Williams’ advance posed a real threat to Salomon’s line. Realizing the danger, Brig. Gen. Rice ordered additional troops across the swollen creek. Two companies of the 40th Iowa, the 43rd Illinois and two companies of the 2nd Kansas, an African American regiment, plunged into the waist deep water, formed lines, and met

41 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, pp. 805and 703 and Walker, Harvest of Death, pp. 75-76.42 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, pp. 800 and 802 and Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, pp. 158-159.

43 Bearss, Steele’s Retreat From Camden, p. 130 and O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 808.44 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 808.

Figure 18: Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Churchill, C.S.


25

Figure 17: April 30, 1864 - Assault by Hawthorne’s Brigade.


26

Williams.45

Williams succeeded in reaching the Union right fl ank. The 9th Wisconsin received fi re from across the creek and one company turned and fi red a volley at the men plaguing them. As the Wisconsin regiment fi red two companies of the 2nd Kansas crossed the creek and joined in the fi ght. Jacob Haas of the 9th Wisconsin described the action in his diary:

Then without command our company A turned and fi red into the dark timber from where the bullets came. Some said they were our troups [sic] but we did not believe it. Soon we heard command, saw the rebels and now strong fi ring ensued from both sides. The rebs made ready to come across the ditch, when suddenly the negroes came to our aid. Part of the negroes crossed the ditch and met the rebels. These now fl ed persued [sic] by the colored soldiers.46

The reinforced Union line proved too strong for Williams. He withdrew and crossed to the east side of the creek. Williams’ foray west of Cox Creek was Kirby Smith’s only attempt to fl ank the Union right.47

Hawthorne’s role in the engagement is clouded by confusing and absent reports. Regardless of the spin put on the action in the after-action reports by the Confederate commanders, nothing changed the fact that Churchill bogged down. Hawthorne’s assault into the Saline bottom failed to dislodge Salomon. Now, after several hours of fi ghting, the whole of Churchill’s Division was mired behind the swale in the Dortch fi eld. It had been a hard day and it was not yet noon. Both sides described the fi ghting as fi erce. Churchill called it “desperate and beyond description.”48 A soldier in the 27th Wisconsin wrote “The fi ghting on the right and centre was now dreadful; a continual roar of musketry.”49

The Union line held against everything that Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Churchill threw at them. The Union soldiers, who had endured defeats at Poison Spring and Marks’ Mill and the long retreat from Camden, had gained confi dence. Probably for the fi rst time since they had deployed in the Saline bottom, the Union soldiers believed they might defeat

45 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 725.46 Jacob Haas Diary.47 Richards, “The Camden Expedition,” p. 127. 48 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 800.49 Knipping, A History of the 27th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment, p. 109.


27

their foe.

When Churchill bogged down, Gen. Sterling Price ordered Brigadier General Mosby M. Parsons’ division of Missourians forward (Figure 20). This time the Confederates took artillery with them in hopes of breaking the stubborn Union line. Price ordered Parsons to take a position on Churchill’s right and advance on the Union line. As Parsons began to deploy he encountered Churchill, who desperately needed help on the left and center. Parsons gave him Brigadier General John B. Clark’s brigade and moved the brigade under Colonel Simon Burns to the Confederate right. Colonel Lucien C. Gause’s Arkansas brigade, which had only been marginally engaged in Hawthorne’s assault, fi lled

the gap between Clark and Burns in the center of Parsons’ line.50

An hour after Parsons arrived on the ridge overlooking the Jenkins/Carver fi eld, the infantry and artillery began to move. Lesueur’s and Ruffner’s batteries accompanied Parsons’. Captain A.A. Lesueur brought his artillery, two 6-pounder and two 12-pounder howitzers, down the muddy and rutted military road. He positioned the guns to aid the Confederate right, but the mud made it diffi cult to operate them. When, after fi ring only fi fteen rounds, his infantry support abandoned him, Lesueur wisely withdrew to the high ground above the Jenkins/Carver fi eld. Captain S.T. Ruffner was not so lucky.51

At fi rst the artillery was effective—at least one portion of the Confederate line drew within 100 feet of Rice’s line. As the newly reinforced attack began to make headway, Salomon brought up his reserves. Parts of Engelmann’s Brigade and Brig. Gen. John M. Thayer’s Frontier Division came forward. With the redeployment Rice had the 29th Iowa and the 9th Wisconsin on the right, reinforced by the 2nd Kansas. The center of the Union line was held by the 50th Indiana and the 33rd Iowa, reinforced by the 1st Arkansas. On the Union left were the 12th Kansas and the 27th Wisconsin, reinforced by the 14th Kansas.52

As Parsons’ Confederates moved into the bottom some of Churchill’s regiments, who had

50 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, pp. 782, 808 and 806.51 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 816.52 Forsyth, The Camden Expedition, pp. 162-163 and Bearss, Steele’s Retreat From Camden, pp. 134-135.

Figure 20: Brig. Gen. Mosby Parsons, C.S.


28

exhausted their ammunition, began to pull out. As the 38th Arkansas walked back to the ridgeline, their commander, Col. R.G. Shaver, watched Parsons’ command push around his depleted regiment. The Union line had been stabilized, resupplied and strengthened in the lull between the end of Churchill’s assault and Parsons’. The infl ux of fresh Union troops proved pivotal in the next phase of the battle.53

Parsons’ Confederates encountered evidence of the battle as they arrived in the Dortch fi eld. The wet fi eld, rutted by wagons and the constant movement of men, slowed the march. An offi cer in an Arkansas regiment that was pulling out of the bottom described the assault:

When the Missourians passed into the fi ght, the roar of small arms was renewed and the noise of the reports of the guns from both sides was deafening and the battle ground was enveloped with smoke.54

By the time Parsons’ attack was underway all of Steele’s army except the infantry and one section of artillery had crossed the Saline River on the pontoon bridge. While that was good news, Steele could not withdraw his infantry while under the pressure from Kirby Smith’s veterans. In order to successfully withdraw, the Union infantry had to defeat the Confederates.55

Rice and Salomon now controlled the Saline bottom. The Confederates had been removed from the west side of Cox Creek. The Union soldiers west of the creek could now turn their fi repower into the fl anks of any Confederate line that advanced through the Dortch fi eld. Three Union regiments held the gap between the slough and the fi eld. The main Union line consisted of eight regiments stacked two deep and it was into this battle-tested line that Parsons’ Missourians headed.

Brig. Gen. John B. Clark’s brigade on the Confederate right ran into trouble. As he pushed past the swale his line came under fi re from Union solders west of Cox Creek and from the main Union line behind the makeshift breastworks. Clark reported, “. . . [M]y front was perfectly naked of any protection for my command in its advance upon the enemy, and the whole face of the open ground swept by heavy front and fl ank fi res from the enemy’s lines . . .”56 Clark, hoping to charge across the Dortch fi eld and into the Union barricade, hit a wall of lead.

53 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 805.54 Turnbo, History of the Twenty-seventh Arkansas Confederate Infantry, p. 192.55 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 677.56 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 811.


29

The Confederate artillery that came in with Parsons found the going tough. The condition of roads slowed the advance and hindered the movement of the guns. Early in the fi ght Capt. A.A. Lesueur withdrew, leaving Capt. S.T. Ruffner’s three guns the only Confederate artillery on the fi eld. Earlier, Ruffner had abandoned one of his guns as it became stuck in the muddy bottom. The Confederate artillery was less than 200 yards from the Union line, and though in canister range it was in a precarious position. Colonel Samuel Crawford of the 2nd Kansas sent a courier to Brig. Gen. Rice asking for permission to charge the battery. Rice agreed, sending both the 2nd Kansas and the 29th Iowa.57

The Union regiments on the right opened fi re on the Confederate artillery. The 9th Wisconsin and the 2nd Kansas fi red volleys at Ruffner’s gunners, bringing down horses and men. Some reports say that the infantry fl ed, leaving the artillerymen alone to face the Union assault. The 2nd Kansas fi xed bayonets and the whole Union line surged forward. The Kansas regiment, all the while yelling “Remember Poison Spring!” overwhelmed the battery. The weight of the two infantry regiments proved too much for the Confederate right, which held for about thirty minutes before retiring.58

The scene at the Confederate guns was one of carnage. The enraged soldiers of the 2nd Kansas exacted revenge for what the Confederates had infl icted upon their sister regiment at Poison Spring. Fifty years later Col. Crawford recalled, “. . . in passing the battery the bayonet was freely used . . .” Contemporary Confederate reports echoed Crawford’s recollections. Crawford unapologetically told a captured Confederate offi cer what his men had done and why. As long as the Confederate government refused to treat black Union soldiers as prisoners of war his men would reciprocate in kind. The brutality between Confederates and United States Colored Troops in the Trans-Mississippi would continue to escalate as the war went on (Figure 21).59

Colonel Simon P. Burns’ brigade on the Confederate right made more headway, hitting the Union skirmishers and pushing them back into their main line. One observer reported that “The fi ring began to get farther away, and it was evident that the Missourians were

57 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 812 and Walker, Harvest of Death, pp. 90-92.58 Ruegger, “Five Weeks of My Army Life,” p. 168; A.A. Stuart, Iowa Colonels and Regiments: Being a History of Iowa Regiments in the War of the Rebellion, Mills & Co., Des Monies, Iowa, 1865, p. 451; Samuel J. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, reprint edition, Kansas Heritage Press, Ottawa, Kansas, 1994, p. 124 and O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 811.59 Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 124 and Walker, Harvest of Death, pp. 94-96.


30

Figure 21: April 30, 1864 - Assault of Gen. Mosby M. Parsons’ Missouri Brigade.


31

rolling the tide of battle back.”60 The momentum of the Confederate assault hit the 33rd Iowa and the 12th Kansas, driving them back in a panic. Col. Cyrus Mackey of the 33rd Iowa was wounded and forced from the fi eld and Major Cyrus Boydston took command. For perhaps the fi rst time that day the Union line was in disarray.61 Colonel John A. Garrett of the 40th Iowa reported, “So many of our engaged line were retreated in disorder and haste.”62

Garrett’s regiment and Colonel Conrad Krez of the 27th Wisconsin were ordered to fi ll the gap on the Union left caused by the retreat. The fi ghting in the bottom had become general as Parsons’ Missourians made an all-out effort to break the Union line and destroy Steele’s army. One Wisconsin soldier reported, “Several charges were made and each time the rebs were driven back with great slaughter.”63 Another wrote, “Bullets whizzed around us and mud splashed over us. Our men feared we would all be killed but as far as I know only one was seriously wounded.”64

At last Parsons’ men reached their limit and the line of Missouri troops were pushed back. When the Confederates on the left and center began to fall back Price ordered Parsons to pull back and regroup. At that point Brig. Gen. Samuel Rice seized the initiative and attacked, pushing the Confederates back another 300 yards. After fi ghting all morning Churchill and Parsons had gained nothing. Neither Confederate attack had enough weight to break the Union line, and each time they threatened a Union fl ank Salomon managed to fi nd men to fi ll the gap and restore the line.65

But the Confederates were not done. At long last the Texas division arrived. They had marched up the military road past the devastation of the previous day, past trees damaged by artillery and small arms, downed fences, clothing and other accouterments scattered along the road side—sure signs they had at long last caught up with Steele. Major General John G. Walker’s Division had marched 240 miles since leaving Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, on April 10 (Figure 22).66

60 Bragg, “The Battle of Jenkins Ferry,” p.13.61 Sperry, History of the 33D Iowa Infantry, p. 105.62 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 740.63 Knipping, History of the 27th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment, p. 109.64 Jacob Haas Diary. 65 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 690.66 Joseph Palmer Blessington, The Campaigns of Walker’s Texas Division, reprint edition, State House Press, Austin, Texas, 1994, p. 248 and Evans, Confederate Military History, Chapter XIV, p. 135.


32

Prior to Walker’s assault the Confederates had discovered a second road leading into the Saline River bottom. They hoped, though it seemed that no one examined the road, that it would bring two of Walker’s brigades into the battlefi eld behind the Union line. It did not. The road along which Brigadier General Horace Randel and Brigadier General William R. Scurry’s brigades marched was called “Old Cunningham Road” on the 1864 Venable map. On a good day it led to the ferry. On a bad day, and April 30 was a very bad day, it led to the slough, where Gen. Salomon’s Union soldiers waited. If anything, Walker’s attack faired worse than all the rest.67

As Randel’s and Scurry’s soldiers made their way down “Old Cunningham Road,” Brigadier General Thomas N. Waul brought his brigade off the ridge and into the bottom, following the well worn route established earlier in the day. Waul arrived fi rst, sending his skirmishers ahead, where they met the Union soldiers in the Dortch fi eld. The skirmishers drove the federals back to the line in the woods on the edge of the fi eld. Waul stopped to assess the situation, and what he saw he did not like.

They had also a strong force nearly at right angles with the right of their main line, in position under the high banks of a deep bayou that skirts the Jenkins’ Ferry road, directly on the edge of the fi eld and commanding the left fl ank, and enfi lading any force that might enter the fi eld in front of the main line. The enemy’s left extended a considerable distance beyond the fi eld, forming an obtuse angle, inclining toward our right and commanding a large portion of the fi eld.68

Waul advanced and his brigade was caught in a storm of small-arms fi re. The Union soldiers across Cox Creek and behind the breastworks unleashed fi re that staggered the Texans. Parsons and Churchill advanced from the rear in support of Walker’s Division. Parsons somehow managed to get around Waul’s right and found no one to fi ght. Burns’ brigade of Parson’s Division engaged the enemy. As the fi ghting progressed in the front, Scurry and Randel emerged from the Confederate right much further to the east than anyone expected. As the Texans tried to rearrange their lines all three brigade

67 Richard Lowe, Walker’s Texas Division C.S.A.: Greyhounds of the Trans-Mississippi, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2004, pp. 221-222.68 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 817.

Figure 22: Maj. Gen. John G. Walker, C.S.


33

commanders were shot. Scurry and Randel were mortally wounded and confusion ensued.69

During the initial assault by the Texans Brig. Gen. Samuel Rice, who along with Brig. Gen. Frederick Salomon had tactical command of Steele’s rearguard, was wounded. As he rode toward the front he was shot in the ankle and left the fi eld. The bullet forced part of his spur into his leg. The wound proved fatal and he died in Iowa on July 6, 1864.70

For another hour the Texans and the rest of the Confederate army slugged it out with Steele’s rearguard. As had been the case all morning long, the stubborn Union soldiers would not be moved. Kirby Smith’s Texans, like his Arkansans and Missourians, had failed. At noon Salomon decided to pull out. Steele approved Salomon’s plan and the retreat resumed. The Confederates simply let Steele slip away. The fi ght was out of them (Figure 23).71

Salomon carried out the wounded who could be moved and left the rest in a house on the west edge of the northernmost cleared fi eld. The house had been used as a fi eld hospital all day and the Union surgeons stayed at their patients’ sides, where they were later captured by the Confederates. Captain J.B. Wheeler, Steele’s chief engineer, reported that by 2:05 p.m. all of the infantry had crossed the pontoon bridge. He held it open for another 45 minutes, allowing walking wounded and stragglers to cross. Then under orders from Steele, Wheeler destroyed the bridge.72

The Venable map shows two houses in the Tucker fi eld: the Widow Tucker House, perhaps the home of Mary Ann Tucker, and one simply labeled Enemy hospital. It is unclear if there were actually two houses in the bottom. Years later, Mary Ann Tucker remembered that her house had been a hospital and that Union soldiers were left there for several weeks after the battle. She also recalled that she and Lucinda Carver cooked for the wounded men while they were at her house (Figure 24).73

The Union army climbed into the bottom on the north side of the Saline River. The road on the south side of the river was bad, but the road on the north side was worse. Capt

69 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, pp.817 and 810 and Lowe, Walker’s Texas Division C.S.A., pp. 225-226. 70 Chapman Brothers, Portrait and Biographical Album of Mahaska County, Iowa, Chapman Brothers, Chicago, Illinois, 1887, p. 271. 71 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 690.72 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 690 and 677.73 Deposition of Mary Ann Tucker in Claim No. 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 30.


34

Figure 23: April 30, 1864 - Assault of Walker’s Texas Division.


35

Wheeler wrote “[T]hose 2 miles surpass any that I have ever seen, and from the absence of small timber and brushwood it was diffi cult to repair [the road]. . . ”74 Wheeler made do; he broke up wagons for wood to corduroy the road and the exhausted men pushed the rest out of the bottom. Steele sent his cavalry ahead to Little Rock for supplies. His soldiers, who had fought all day with little to eat, needed rations. A Wisconsin captain

wrote “On the other side of the river we went in bivouac and shortly fell asleep – some dreaming of better times, no doubt.”75

On April 30, the army’s wagons stopped about 2.5 miles north of the river. That night, his animals worn out from the long march and lack of forage, Steele ordered all of the wagons burned “. . . except those attached to the different headquarters, the ammunition, and the ambulances . . .”76 A Union soldier wrote, “The road was full of wagons, animals, boxes; full of good things, wagons full of old and new uniforms, barrels of coffee and many other things.”77

Steele’s army, like all Union armies marching through Arkansas, had been joined by a number of Freedom Seekers, which the army called Contraband. Steele sent the ambulances and wagons carrying wounded and Contraband to Pine Bluff. The city provided access to the Arkansas River, and it was a route that the Confederates would be unlikely to follow.78

On the south side of the river, the Confederates faced the task of dealing with the casualties of the battle. For two days, soldiers gathered the dead and wounded. Dr. William M. McPheeters, a surgeon with Sterling Price’s command, visited the Union fi eld hospital where he found 100 wounded men. He then coordinated the removal of the wounded from the fi eld and returned to the hospital, where he worked into the night

74 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 678.75 Ruegger, “Five Weeks of My Army Life,” p. 168. 76 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 681.77 Jacob Haas Diary.78 O.R., Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 670.

Figure 24: Detail of Venable map. (Red circle marks the houses on the map).


36

performing amputations.79

Burial details moved across the Saline bottom, where wet conditions made gathering the dead and burying them challenging. The height of the water table would have made burial diffi cult at best and almost impossible in the conditions the Confederates faced. One soldier recalled seeing new graves that looked like islands in the water. Others reported seeing bloated unburied corpses in the bottom. No doubt the Confederates did what they could before they withdrew to Tulip on May 2, 1864. The Union dead were removed from the battlefi eld in 1868 and reburied at Little Rock National Cemetery. Those Confederates buried in the bottom remain there in unmarked graves.80

Both sides claimed victory. Technically the Confederates won; they held the fi eld and the Union army retreated. But, as the Union army had planned to retreat, it was a hollow victory. The Confederates lost 1,000 killed, wounded and missing of the approximately 6,000 men engaged. The Union army had about 4,000 men in the bottoms; they lost approximately 700 killed, wounded and missing.81

The failure of the Camden Expedition on the part of the Union army was due to poor planning by commanding Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele, who left Little Rock without enough supplies for his column. Steele was reluctant to undertake the expedition; he knew what to expect and probably knew that he would be unable to fi nd supplies in the fi eld. The Confederates had the opportunity to destroy Steele’s army once it had retreated to Camden, and then again while en route from Camden to Little Rock. Their failure is perhaps more signifi cant than the Union failure in the Red River Campaign and the Camden Expedition. The failure of the Red River Campaign was due to the poor leadership of Maj. Gen. Nathaniel Banks. His well equipped army failed to defeat the Confederates at Mansfi eld and then, when it secured a victory at Pleasant Hill, Banks retreated. After Pleasant Hill, Kirby Smith took Major General Richard Taylor’s infantry to Arkansas, which kept Taylor from pursuing Banks and denied him the opportunity to catch and destroy Banks’ army.

Had either of the Union armies been destroyed, the resulting outcry in the North, both among the populace and the press, would have been monumental. A crushing defeat such

79 Cynthia DeHaven Pitcock and Bill Gurley, editors, I acted from principle: The Civil War Diary of Dr. William M. McPheeters, Confederate Surgeon in the Trans-Mississippi, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 2002, p. 15180 Lowe, Walker’s Texas Division C.S.A, p. 227; Pitcock et. al., I acted from principle, p. 152 and Walker, Harvest of Death, p. 123.81 Barry Popchock, Soldier Boy: The Civil War Letters of Charles O. Musser, 29 Iowa, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa, 1995, p. 123.


37

as the loss of Little Rock or the loss of a major fi eld army or armies might have caused serious problems for the Lincoln administration. The Union command might have been forced to shift troops from Georgia to regain control of Arkansas, and Union Louisiana would have been threatened if Banks had been destroyed.

Because of the chronic shortage of soldiers, the Confederacy could not hope to overwhelm the Union armies in the Trans-Mississippi. Kirby Smith took a calculated risk when he took Richard Taylor’s infantry out of Louisiana to try to crush Steele. The gamble failed, and though the Confederates won some battles and saved Shreveport they failed to make any signifi cant change in the strategic situation in the Trans-Mississippi.

The infl ux of former slaves into the United States Colored Troops bolstered Union manpower and drained that of the Confederacy. The Union could afford to maintain the status quo, the Confederacy could not. Confederate forces, empowered by the victories of the Camden Campaign, took the offensive in the summer of 1864, raiding plantations and other Union installations in eastern Arkansas disrupting the Union supply line. These small-scale operations proved successful but did not break the Union strongholds at Helena, Pine Bluff, Little Rock or DeValls Bluff. Sterling Price’s disastrous Missouri Raid in the fall of 1864 spelled the end of any real hope for the Confederates in the Trans-Mississippi.

Photograph credits: All photos Mudpuppy &Waterdog, Inc. except p. 9: Nathaniel Banks, Library of Congress; p. 11: Sterling Price, Alabama Department of Archives and History; p. 12: Edmund Kirby Smith, University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee; p. 13: James F. Fagan, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, Lit-tle Rock, Arkansas; p. 17: Frederick Salomon, Kent Salomon, Manitowoc, Wisconsin; p. 18: Cyrus Mackay, Roger Davis, Keokuk, Iowa; p. 21: James C. Tappan, Phillips County Museum, Helena, Arkansas; p. 27: Mosby M. Parsons, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefi eld.


38

THE CLEARED FIELDS


39

THE CLEARED FIELDS IN THE SALINE BOTTOM

INTRODUCTION

In 1864, there were three or four cleared fi eld in Saline bottom. These fi elds were east of Military Road arranged north to south along the road and each was separated from the other by a tree line. These fi elds are defi ning features of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.

The southern most fi eld is where the engagement on April 29, 1864 ended and where the engagement of April 30, 1864 began. Both sides marched through this fi eld to get into the Saline bottom.

The second fi eld, that is the fi eld just north of the fi rst, is where most of the fi ghting occurred on April 30. The Union main line was in a belt of trees just north of the fi eld and the almost all of the Confederate assaults on that line traversed the fi eld.

The fi eld or fi elds north of the second fi eld were used as a staging areas for Union troops. Prior to the battle during the early morning hours of April 30, 1864, a structure near one of the fi elds was used as Gen. Frederick Steele’s headquarters and it was here that the strategy for the upcoming battle was developed. This same structure or perhaps another nearby structure was used as a hospital.

All of these fi elds are within the Core Area of the battlefi eld. The Core Area is the area of the battlefi eld where the combat occurred. The fi elds have erroneously been called battlefi elds. As noted above these cleared agricultural fi elds are part of the cultural landscape that make up the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. Knowing the position of these fi elds within the Saline bottom is important to understanding how the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was fought.

For the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld who owned these fi elds at the time of the battle is important. It is not germane to the understanding of the battle, but it’s important to them, as they would like the names to be based on the historic record.

THE ISSUES

The only extant map of the battlefi eld from the period was drawn by Captain Richard M. Venable (Figure 25). The map is dated April 30, 1864 and was likely drawn to illustrate the after action reports that Lieut. Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith submitted to the Confederate high command in Richmond, Virginia. There is no date on the map stating when it was drawn, just the date of the engagement. After the battle the Confederates held the fi eld for a day. The Confederate army was regrouping, burying dead and caring for wounded at that time a survey of the battlefi eld could have been made by an engineering offi cer. It is unknown if Capt. Venable was with Kirby Smith’s army. What is likely is that several offi cers drew maps that were part of their after action reports that are not now part of the record. Any or all of these things could have been used to aid in the production of this map.


40

What we do know about Capt. Richard M. Venable (Figure 26) is that he graduated from Hampton-Sydney College and continued his studies at the University of Virginia. When the war broke out he enlisted in Stanard’s Howitzer Battalion, Virginia Light Artillery. As a private on April 26, 1861. He participated at the Battle of Big Bethel, the fi rst land

Figure 25: The 1864 map drawn by Richard M. Venable.


41

battle of the war on June 25, 1861. He remained with the artillery unit throughout 1861. In 1862, he sought and eventually received an appointment with the Confederate Engineers Corps. He passed the examination and was promoted to lieutenant on May 19, 1862. In June he was assigned to the Engineers Corps and sometime there after he was ordered to the Trans-Mississippi.1

On September 21, 1863, he was appointed Chief of the Bureau of Topographical Engineers for the District of West Louisiana and Arkansas. At that time the headquarters of the department was in Shreveport, Louisiana. When Venable signed his parole on July 5, 1865 in Galveston, Texas he held the rank of major. We know that he drew many of the maps from the Trans-Mississippi in the Jeremy Gilmer Collection at the University of North Carolina from which

the Jenkins’ Ferry map was obtained. Save the lack of bends in the Saline River and Cox Creek the map appears to be accurate. However, the names on the agricultural fi elds do not correspond with any of the known landowners in the area. The map does show the location of a house behind the Union line labeled Widow Tucker.2

The Venable map was not found by researchers until recently and prior to its location the best known and most used map was created by Edwin C. Bearss, Historian Emeritus of the National Park Service, in 1961. Bearss had written on numerous battles and is perhaps one of the nation’s best known and respected Civil War historians. Bearss’ book, Steele’s Retreat From Camden & The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry published in 1961 was the fi rst serious study of the Camden Campaign and the battle. Bearss’ map on page 101 shows three cleared fi elds labeled south to north Jiles, Cooper and Kelly (Figure 27).3

1 Michael E. Pilgrim, “A Different View on the War: The Civil War Diary of Richard M. Venable,” Prologue, Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration, Winter 1996, Vol. 28, Number 4, pp. 264-265.2 U.S. War Department, List of Staff Offi cers of the Confederate States Army, 1861-1865, Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC, 1891, p. 170 and Richard M. Venable, Record Group 109, Combined Services Records of Confederate Soldiers Who Served in Organization Raised Directly by the Confederate Government, M258, Roll 0110, Military Unit: Engineers, CSA, T-Y. National Archives and Records Administration. 3 See Edwin C. Bearss, Steele’s Retreat From Camden & The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, reprint edition, Eagle Press of Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1990.

Figure 26: Richard Venable and other Confederate offi cers (Venable is circled).


42

Figure 27: Edwin C. Bearss’ map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.


43

Since the publication of the Bearss book other studies of the campaign and/or the battle have been done. Notably, Michael J. Forsyth’s The Camden Expedition of 1864 and the Opportunity Lost by the Confederacy to Change the Civil War, McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina, 2003 and Richard Lowe, Walker’s Texas Division C.S.A.: Greyhounds of the Trans-Mississippi, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2004. The maps in both of these books are based on Bearss’ 1961 map.

The latest monograph of the battle was written in 2011 by Joe Walker. Walker’s Harvest of Death: The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry created a third map. Walker’s map appears to be a recreation of the Venable map. The difference between Walker’s map and the 1864 map is that Walker named the third fi eld, which he labels Tucker Field. This fi eld is unlabeled on the Venable map, though it is in that fi eld that Venable places the Widow Tucker house (Figure 28).

The issue with the Bearss and Venable maps is not the placement or the number of fi elds along the road, but the surnames attached to each fi eld. Since the 1970s and possibly since the publication of the Bearss book descendants of the families who lived in the bottom in 1864 have been trying to correctly identify the owners of those fi elds.

The only mention of any of the fi elds by name in the after action reports, which are printed in the U.S. War Department publication The War of the Rebellion: The Offi cial Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I is Cooper’s fi eld. Maj. Gen.

Figure 28: Joe Walker’s map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.


44

Sterling Price mentions it on page 782. None of the other 46 reports name any of the open fi elds.

NAMING THE FIELDS

In 1979, M.J. Green, in a letter Dr. Michael Dougan, history professor at Arkansas State University, offers some information on the landownership in the Saline bottom. Green states that Jane Jenkins, a widow in 1864, lived in Section 14 and owned two houses that were occupied by her extended family, which included sons-in-law John M. Carver and Robert Hosea Carver. Green states that it was Robert Hosea Carver’s cornfi eld through which the Confederate launched their attack on April 30, 1863. This is the fi eld Bearss calls the Jiles fi eld. Green states that the Jiles Field should be labeled Jenkins or Carver. He further states that Cooper Field should be Tucker. He is less emphatic about the Kelly Field. Green does mention that a James Kelly owned property in Section 18 but he does not think he lived there in 1864. He also notes that the Jiles family did buy part of the Jenkins property but it was after the Civil War 4

It’s likely that a local contact provided Bearss with the names of the agricultural fi elds when he was preparing his manuscript in 1960-61. The contact may have simply provided information as he knew it and Bearss took that person at his word. As the fi elds are not named in the Offi cial Records and it appears that Bearss had not seen the Venable map, that is the only logical conclusion. In fact, Bearss mentions in the Preface to his book that Piece Reeder, the postmaster of Leola, provided him with battlefi eld guides. It is likely that these guide or Reeder provided Bearss with the names.

The most recent work on the landownership was undertaken in 2013. Richard K. Jenkins and Thomas Green of the Friends of Jenkins Ferry Battlefi eld examined land records and census data to try and determine ownership of the fi elds. Using land patent records and working with a local title company they determined that the names that should be attached to the fi elds from south to north are: Jenkins/Kyle/Carver; Dortch and State of Arkansas. In addition to census records and online land patents Green and Jenkins also checked the Attorney’s Certifi cate of Land Patents, which were available at Stewart Title of Arkansas in Sheridan, Arkansas.5

A claim by John M. Carver against the United States for damages to his property during the Civil War sheds additional light on the agricultural fi elds. On January 16, 1878, Carver fi led a claim with the Southern Claims Commission for damages and loss of property amounting to $1,070.00. In short Carver claimed that the Union army destroyed two of his houses for use in constructing the pontoon bridge and “crosslaying” or

4 M.J. Green to Michael Dougan, February 5, 1979 and M.J. Green to Civil War Times Illustrated, July 1, 1984, copies in possession of the author. 5 “Resent research uncovers new information on ownership of battlefi elds at Jenkins’ Ferry,” The Sheridan Headlight, March 27, 2013.


45

corduroying the road. As well as taking 18 beef cattle; 20 hogs; 400 pounds of bacon; 30 bushes of corn and 5,000 board feet of lumber.6

Carver stated that he lived “3½ miles south west of Jenkins Ferry in Tennessee Township in Grant Co., Ark on the Little Rock and Camden roads.” Carver also stated that prior to the outbreak of the Civil War he lived “3 miles North East of Jenkins Ferry. I was a farmer, moved to my present residence in 1861, in 1864 after the Battle of Jenkins Ferry I moved to Little Rock.”7 Carver stated that “. . . his plantation was 3½ miles South West of Jenkins Ferry Grant Co. Ark 460 acres 30 acres in cultivation the remainder woodlands.” Lucinda Carver, his wife and Jane Jenkins daughter, stated that John Carver earned a portion of this property through his own labor and inherited a part from her mother.8

In April 1864, John Carver owned two houses on the banks of the Saline River at Jenkins Ferry. One house was frame and was completed except for the chimney and the other log, which was to be used as a kitchen. According to the witnesses, neither of the houses were occupied at the time, though the Carver’s were storing bacon and corn on the premises. According to Carver and the other witnesses, which included his wife Lucinda Carver, Mary Ann Tucker and Jane Jenkins, Union soldiers dismantled the houses and used the wood to build the pontoon bridge and/or for corduroying the road.9

In their depositions John M. Carver, Lucinda Carver, Jane Jenkins and Mary Ann Tucker all make note that it was Mary Ann Tucker’s house that was used as Gen. Frederick Steele’s headquarters and as the Union fi eld hospital. John Carver and Jane Jenkins mentioned it when he was discussing his hogs, which roamed as far as her house, which he and his wife note was used as Gen. Steele’s headquarters.10

The mention of Tucker’s house as Steele’s headquarters is an important clue. The Venable map, which is the only one to show house places an number scattered across the battlefi eld. The are two houses on top of the ridge, these are likely the Jenkins/Carver houses. There is a house in the southwest corner of the Wilder fi eld (southern most fi eld); a house in the southwest corner of the Grooms fi eld and two houses on both sides of Military Road near the northwest corner of the unnamed fi eld. The only named structures

6 John M. Carver (78910), M 1407, Southern Claims Commission, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 7 Deposition of John M. Carver Claimant in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, p. 1. 8 Deposition of John M. Carver Claimant in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, p. 5 and Deposition of Lucinda Carver Claimant in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, p. 11. 9 Deposition of John M. Carver Claimant in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 6-7; Deposition of Lucinda J. Carver in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 13-15; Deposition of Jane Jenkins in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 23-25 and Deposition of Mary Ann Tucker in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 31-32.10 Depositions of John M. Carver Claimant and Lucinda J. Carver; Jane Jenkins and Mary Ann Tucker in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp.7, 14, 24 and 30.


46

on the Venable map are Widow Tucker’s and Enemy Hospital here. A fi eld hospital would be by necessity close to the fi ghting, but it would not be in the middle of the fi ghting. Any Union hospital would have to be behind the Union line, thus it could only be one of these two houses, if we assume the map is correct. Even if we do not assume the map is correct there are four witnesses that claim that Mary Tucker’s house was used as Gen. Steele’s headquarters.

Mary Tucker states:

Yes I remember after the Battle of Jenkins Ferry the Union Hospital was made in my house as my residence was about the center of the battlefi eld the Union soldiers were left there several weeks myself and the claimant’s wife [Lucinda Carver] prepared diet such as soup, milk, chicken and other things they could eat. We never asked for or received any pay for it.11

All of the witnesses mention that Tucker’s house was used as headquarters and Tucker goes a step further in stating that her house was also used as a hospital. Based on the evidence that we have from the 1878 Southern Commission Claims record it appears that Mary Ann Tucker was living in a house in the Saline bottom. We do not know if she owned land, but she certainly seems to have been living there and she knew the Jenkins/Carver family.

Based upon the evidence the fi elds in the Saline bottom should be named south to north: Jenkins/Carver; Dortch and Tucker (Figure 29).

11 Deposition of Mary Ann Tucker in Claim No 18910, Southern Claims Commission, pp. 30.

Photo Credits: p. 40 1864 Map of Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina and Fp. 41 Richard M. Venable, Bortz Library, Hampton-Sydney College.


47

Figure 29: 2013 map of the fi elds in the Saline bottom.


48

KOCOA


49

KOCOA TERRAIN ANALYSIS

This chapter examines the defi ning military terrain features of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry utilizing KOCOA analysis, which examines tactical aspects of an area to identify and classify important or defi ning terrain features. Features are classifi ed as one or more of the following: Key Terrain (K), Observation and Fields of Fire (O), Cover and Concealment (C), Obstacles (O), and Avenues of Approach and Retreat (A). These elements can be natural, such as rivers, ridges, lowlands and vegetation or cultural in origin, such as roads, buildings and fortifi cations, and are defi ned by Latschar and Fonzo:1

1) Key Terrain—Key terrain often includes high ground, natural barriers that help with defense such as dense woods or rivers, and strategic points such as road junctions and bridges. It is defi ned as “. . . any locality that affords a marked advantage to whichever combatant seizes, retains and controls it.”

2) Observation and Fields of Fire—These two elements include only natural or cultural landscape points that allow good observation of enemy movements, good communication (such as a signal station) and the acquisition of enemy targets. High ground such as hills and ridge tops, tall buildings, and approaches to entrenched positions would be examples of important observation points.

3) Cover and Concealment—This includes natural or cultural landscape features that provide protection from enemy fi re (cover) and concealment from enemy observation. Walls, buildings, dense woods, sunken roads, embankments, ravines, and military entrenchments are examples of these features.

4) Obstacles—These are natural or man-made landscape elements that impede the movement of military forces. Examples include rivers, walls, fences, dense vegetation, swamps, steep slopes, ravines and fortifi cations.

5) Avenues of Approach and Retreat—These are natural or man-made corridors used to transfer troops to and from the battle area. Roads were the main avenues of approach and retreat during the Civil War, but railroads, navigable rivers, paths, and creek beds also served as such.

In the analysis to follow, the defi ning terrain features associated with the April 30,

1 John Latschar, “Battlefi eld Rehabilitation at Gettysburg,” http://www.nps.gov/gett/parknews/gett-battlefi eld-rehab.htm, 2009, pp. 2-3 and Stephen Fonzo, Documentary and Landscape Analysis of the Buckland Mills Battlefi eld (Va042), Buckland Preservation Society, Gainesville, Virginia, 2008.


50

1864, Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry will be examined and classifi ed as one or more of the fi ve KOCOA elements. Modern U.S. Geological Survey maps and one Civil War-era map will be used to identify the terrain features. Historic documents including the historic map; and the modern battlefi eld survey suggest that the core battlefi eld is more or less bisected by SR 46 and extends to the north just beyond the Saline River and to the south just north of the corporate limits of Leola, Arkansas. On the west, the Core Area extends approximately one-quarter to one-half mile beyond Cox Creek and on the east one-half to one mile beyond AR 46. (Figure 30). These will be the boundaries of the battlefi eld for this analysis, although relevant surrounding features will also be examined.

Figure 30: 2009 American Battlefi eld Protection Program map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.


51

The one period map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld was drawn in 1864 by Capt. R.N. Venable, C.S.A., a cartographic engineer with the District of Louisiana and Arkansas.2 The Venable map shows the defi ning battlefi eld features reported in the after-action reports—the cleared fi elds where the fi ghting took place, the pontoon bridge, the military road, Old Cunningham Road, Cox Creek, Saline River, the slough and several houses in the battlefi eld area (Figure 31).

Based on reconnaissance and interviews conducted by the author, the Venable map appears to be accurate. Traces of the military road survive, and local informants have

2 Jenkins’ Ferry Map, Gilmer Civil War Maps Collection, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Figure 31: 1864 Venable map of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.


52

stated that the cleared fi elds on the map are now covered in deciduous trees; most of the rest of the battlefi eld is in planted pines. The informants, who are local metal detector hobbyists, have found artifacts consistent with heavy battle action in the area that would be the second cleared fi eld and the location on the modern USGS quad map is consistent with the location on the Venable map.

The slough as drawn on the Venable map is no longer extant, nor is Old Cunningham Road. Venable shows Cox Creek as a simple undulating channel. Today, the creek divides into several interwoven channels that form a web across the north end of the battlefi eld. Its present path does not allow the same access to the Saline River from the south as it did in 1864. Today, access to the ferry site from the south is nearly impossible on foot, though the ferry landing on the south side is visible from Jenkins’ Ferry State Park on the north side of the Saline River. These minor differences, however, do not affect reading the battlefi eld on the ground and from the USGS quad map.

KEY TERRAIN FEATURES

The key terrain features of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry are the Saline River bottom, Cox Creek, the Saline River, a slough, and the ridgeline south of the Saline bottoms. There are two possible choke points on the battlefi eld. The fi rst is the area between Cox Creek and the slough, the second is at the pontoon bridge on the Saline River (Figure 32).

Confederate Gen. Mosby Parsons described the battlefi eld: “To the front lay the valley extending to the ferry, 2 miles distant. To the front of the Second Brigade, and about 100 yards distant, was a plowed fi eld about a quarter of a mile square, which was fl anked on the south and east by heavy timber. Still farther to the front and about a quarter of a mile was another fi eld of about the same dimensions as the fi rst, an intervening strip of woods separating the two. This fi eld, as the fi rst, was bounded on the south and east all the way to the river by heavy woods and wet marshes. The main road to the ferry ran along the north side of the fi elds above described, and immediately to the north of and parallel to the road ran a creek or bayou with deep, impassable banks, which were covered on the north side with thick cane and underbrush. This creek emptied into the river at the ferry.”3

The weather was a signifi cant factor in the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The rain exaggerated every advantage created by the terrain and the water courses associated with the battlefi eld. The rains of April 29-30, 1864, made road transportation diffi cult and the standing water across the bottom made any and all movements challenging.

3 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 809.


53

Figure 32: Key Terrain Features - map based on Leola USGS quad map.


54

The diffi culty of moving Confederate artillery clearly demonstrates the role that the weather and terrain played in the bottom on April 30, 1864: “A section of Lesueur’s battery had been brought to support the infantry and placed, at the suggestion of General Marmaduke, in the open fi eld (Cooper’s) and near the edge of the creek. The boggy ground was almost impassible, and it was with great effort that the guns were put in position.”4

The dominant terrain feature is the Saline River bottom. The land falls from a high of 220’ above mean sea level on the ridge to a low of 190’ in the bottom. In the bottom is a low area behind a slight rise that crosses the second cleared fi eld. The Confederates refer to this low area as the swale in their reports. This ground served as a defensive position for the Confederates once they became engaged.

In 1864 the bottom was heavily wooded except for three cleared fi elds which were planted by families living in or near the bottom. The fi elds were east of the military road and between the ridge and the intersection of the military and Old Cunningham roads. All of the cleared fi elds were west of present-day AR 46. Both armies crossed the southernmost fi eld. The Union army set up its defense line in the wooded area between the second and third fi elds. The third fi eld was used by the Federals as a staging area.

Other terrain features include the high ridge on the southern end of the battlefi eld that served as the staging area for the Confederate army as it prepared to launch attacks into the bottom, a slough in the bottom east of the central fi eld, and Cox Creek and the Saline River. The watercourses created and defi ne the bottom and are key terrain features.

On April 29, 1864, Gen. Frederick Steele’s army arrived in the Saline River bottom. The army had been in full retreat since leaving Camden on April 26, 1864. It rained on April 29 and continued to rain overnight and into the next day. Both the river and the creek were high and there was standing water in the bottom. The passage of Steele’s two-mile-long wagon and artillery train rutted the road and churned up the fi elds over which the wheeled vehicles and infantry crossed.

Confederate Gen. Sterling Price commented upon the terrain of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld: “The nature of the ground, swampy, with dense woods and undergrowth, rendered the movements of the troops very diffi cult, and the falling rain increased the

4 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 782.


55

discomfort of men already nearly exhausted by long marches and loss of rest.”5 The Union army had been low on rations for the soldiers and forage for the horses and mules since the expedition began. Now the commanders only wanted to cross the Saline and return to Little Rock. Confederate Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith sought to catch and destroy the army and retake Little Rock. The Confederates caught up with the Union army April 29, 1864, and engaged the rearguard most of the afternoon and into the evening. While Steele’s rear guard held off the Confederate vanguard, Union engineers constructed an India-rubber pontoon bridge across the Saline.

Gen. Frederick Salomon, who was charged with the defense of the Union army, chose a location approximately two miles north of the southern ridge to set his main defense line. This allowed him to use the terrain in the bottom to his advantage. He was able to shorten his front and use the natural features—Cox Creek and a slough—to his advantage: “. . .Salomon formed his line of battle in a good position for defense, the right resting perpendicularly on an impassable bayou, and the left, which was protected by a wooded swamp. . .”6

OBSERVATION AND FIELD OF FIRE

The terrain features that defi ne the battlefi eld also negated any good observation points. From the high ridge on the south end of the battlefi eld offi cers could probably see to the end of the fi rst cleared fi eld but it is very unlikely that they could have seen any further. Between the fi rst and second cleared fi elds was a belt of trees approximately one-half mile wide (Figure 33).

From the high ridge to the Union pontoon bridge on the Saline River is approximately four miles. In the early morning hours of April 30, 1864, Gen. Samuel Rice moved his infantry out of range of the Confederate artillery on the ridge. Rice’s move negated any advantage that the high ground might have held and forced the Confederates to come into the bottom to fi ght the battle. Rice placed his infantry in the belt of trees north of the second cleared fi eld, between Cox Creek and the slough. This position created an excellent fi eld of fi re because the Confederates had to cross an open fi eld to assault the position.

The terrain and the weather conditions limited both observation and fi eld of fi re, as the smoke from the weapons sank in the bottom and the saturated ground made the employment of artillery a risky proposition. Salomon changed his front to give him a

5 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 782.6 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 669.


56

Figure 33: Observations and Fields of Fire - map based on Leola USGS quad map.


57

better defensive position: “I determined to withdraw nearer the river, where my lines would be shorter and my fl anks better protected.”7

Moving the Union line further into the bottom had the desired effect. The Confederates were forced to cross open ground and could not bring their numbers to bear upon the Union line. Union skirmishers met the attackers and then fell back to the main line, creating a excellent fi eld of fi re for the Union infantry. Confederate Gen. James C. Tappan observed his attack on the Union line: “The enemy’s skirmishers were posted on a line about the center of the fi eld, their line of battle being in the woods at the end of the same. My command drove in their skirmishers and became heavily and hotly engaged with their main line.”8

Observation in the bottom was limited to what soldiers and commanders could see from their positions in the open fi elds or in the woods. Fields of fi re were created by lines of infantry fi ring en mass. The advantage that the Union army held in terms of a fi eld of fi re was created by their constricted position.

COVER AND CONCEALMENT

The Union army created a crude breastwork out of trees and logs in the woods on the north end of the second cleared fi eld. The Confederates used the swale and slight rise in the second cleared fi eld as cover and concealment from the Union line in the woods (Figure 34).

Gen. Thomas Waul described the Union breastworks: “After a brisk fi re between my skirmishers and the enemy’s they were driven back in upon their main line, which rapidly fell back to cover in the timber behind logs, rails, and other temporary defenses.”9

In addition to the natural and man-made positions used by the armies, the atmospheric conditions also served to conceal the two sides from one another. The damp air and the thick smoke created a fog that covered the battlefi eld: “Owing to the dense fog and the dense clouds of smoke which hung in the thick woods, many times, opposing lines could only be discovered by the fl ash of muskets.”10

7 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 690.8 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 802.9 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 817. 10 Joseph Palmer Blessington, The Campaigns of Walker’s Texas Division, reprint edition, State House Press, Austin, Texas, 1994, p. 250.


58

Figure 34: Cover and Concealment - map based on Leola USGS quad map.


59

Both sides used the forest and any available natural terrain as cover. Except for the log breastworks created by the Union soldiers, there were no prepared defensive positions on the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. This pitched battle was fought in the open and men individually or in groups sought cover behind trees, slight rises and other features that offered cover and concealment in the wooded bottom and cleared fi elds.

OBSTACLES

The Confederate soldiers faced numerous natural and man-made obstacles as they marched into the Saline bottom to attack the Union army (Figure 35). The weather compounded the obstacles. Two days of rain had saturated the ground leaving streams swollen and standing water in the bottom. The military road that wound through the bottom to the Saline River had been rutted by the passage of the Union army’s wagon train, artillery and cavalry. The passage of the infantry across the clear fi elds caused that ground to become boggy.

The time frame and the condition of the Union army precluded any prepared defenses in the bottom prior to the Confederate attack. The Union army had been marching almost nonstop from April 26 until the evening of April 29, 1864, when it arrived in the bottom. The men’s ability to construct earthworks was limited by time, exhaustion and the lack of rations needed to revive them. The only prepared defensive position was a makeshift log and tree breastwork in the tree line north of the second clear fi eld. This position constituted the only man-made obstacle on the battlefi eld.

Cox Creek and the Saline River also were obstacles for soldiers in the battle and both were critical to the outcome of the engagement. The rise of the river due to the spring rains kept Gen. James F. Fagan from crossing the river and cutting off Steele’s army as he was ordered. He wrote: “I continued for several days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) attempting a crossing of the Saline, but without success.”11 Consequently, Fagan was in Arkadelphia when the battle occurred.

Cox Creek was an obstacle that the Union army overcame. Confederate soldiers crossed Cox Creek and attempted to fl ank the Union army but Gen. Samuel Rice ordered the 43rd Illinois across the creek, checking the Confederate maneuver. “The men, with some hesitancy, plunged into the narrow but swollen stream, the water being 3 to 4 feet deep, fi lling the cartridge boxes of many.”12

11 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 790. 12 O.R. Series I, Vol. XXXIV, Part I, p. 725.


60

Figure 35: Obstacles - map based on Leola USGS quad map.


61

AVENUES OF APPROACH AND RETREAT

Only two roads traversed the Saline bottom, the military road and Old Cunningham Road. The Union army, which had been following the military road from Tulip, Arkansas, followed it into the bottom and bridged the Saline River with an India-rubber pontoon bridge (Figure 36).

The Confederates used both roads to some extent. They followed the military road to the high ridge at the south end of the battlefi eld. From there, they deployed in the fi rst cleared fi eld and then abandoned the road and went into the bottom in line of battle, marching across the fi elds and through the woods. The last attack of the day they used Old Cunningham Road to get a portion of Walker’s Texas Division into position to attack the Union left.

In 1864, neither Cox Creek nor the Saline River was navigable. The historic map does not show any alternate routes through the bottom. The roads and cleared fi eld were the only lines of approach or retreat on the battlefi eld. The Confederates went in and came out using the same routes. The Union army did not contest their withdrawal. The Union army followed the military road into the Saline bottom. Gen. Frederick Steele’s army crossed the Saline on the pontoon bridge, which was then destroyed, and marched unmolested from what is today Grant County back to Little Rock. The Confederate army had no way to cross the swollen Saline River and could not pursue.


62

Figure 36: Avenues of Approach and Retreat - map based on Leola USGS quad map.


63

THE BATTLEFIELD TODAY


64

THE JENKINS’ FERRY BATTLEFIELD TODAY

INTRODUCTION

The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld is located in Dallas and Grant counties, Arkansas. It extends from about two miles southeast of Tulip in Dallas County to about the community of Dogwood in Grant County. The battlefi eld occupies nearly 7,800 mostly forested acres (Figure 37). The main engagement area is located between the Saline River, Cox Creek, SR 46 and a ridge just north of the city limits of Leola, Arkansas. Two other signifi cant areas within the battlefi eld have also been determined to be priorities for preservation. The fi rst is the site of the opening engagement on April 29, 1864, and is south of Leola in Dallas County in Sections 2 and 3, Township 7 South, Range 15 West. Here, on the afternoon of April 29 an artillery duel began an engagement that ended that evening on the ridgeline north of the Saline River bottom just beyond Grant County Road 6.

The second is the portion of the battlefi eld known as the “burning fi eld.” Its exact location has yet to be determined but it is generally located within Sections 33 and 34 Township 5 South, Range 14 West on the Leola quadrangle and Sections 27 and 28 in Township 5 South, Range 14 West on the Prattsville quadrangle (Figure 38).

STUDY AREA

The Study Area of the battlefi eld encompasses some 7,800 acres in Dallas and Grant counties, Arkansas.1 It stretches from approximately two miles south of Tulip and north along Dallas County Road 409 for six miles where it reaches the Grant County line and the road becomes Grant County 1, which it follows into and through Leola. The route of these two roads is the route of the historic military road that Gen. Frederick Steele followed north to Little Rock. From its southern boundary through Leola, the Study Area is approximately one-half mile wide, approximately one-quarter mile on each side of the road. At the main engagement site, approximately one-half mile north of the main town grid of Leola, the Study Area expands reaching a maximum width of about two

1 American Battlefi eld Protection Program, Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds: State of Arkansas, National Park Service, 2010, p. 11

Figure 38: View of the Burning Field area.


65

Figure 37: The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld Study and Core Area as defi ned by the 2009 American Battlefi eld Protection Program survey.


66

and one-quarter miles. The Study Area continues from the main engagement area four miles north to the site where the Union army burned its wagons (Figure 39).

With the exception of the cities of Leola and Tulip the battlefi eld is sparsely populated. Much of the land is in timber, for the most part planted pine. Until 15 to 20 years ago most of the land was owned by timber or paper companies. They have since divested themselves of the land and it is now in the hands of individuals. When the battlefi eld was examined for this planning study in the spring and summer of 2013, active tree harvesting operations were underway. Large portions of the timber lands are leased by hunting clubs.

The Study Area represents the historic extent of the battle as it unfolded across the landscape. It encompasses 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 identifi cation inform the delineation of the Study Area boundary. The Study Area indicates the extent to which historic and archeological resources associated with the battle (areas of combat, command, communications, logistics, medical services, etc.) may be found and protected. Surveyors delineated Study Area boundaries for every battle site that was positively identifi ed through research and fi eld survey, regardless of its present integrity.

The Core Area encompasses the areas of fi ghting on the battlefi eld. Positions that delivered or received fi re fall within the Core Area. Frequently described as “hallowed ground,” land within the Core Area is

often the fi rst to be targeted for protection. The Core Area lies within the Study Area.

Figure 39: Military road (Dallas County 409) in the southern portion of the battlefi eld.


67

CORE AREA

The Core Area of the battlefi eld is bisected by SR 46. It begins in the south about one-half mile east of AR 229A and extends one-quarter mile north of the Saline River. The Core Area was defi ned by the 2009 resurvey of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld as 3,078 acres of which 1,900 acres were listed in the 1994 Camden Expedition National Historic Landmark boundary. This is the area where the signifi cant combat occurred. According to local metal detector hobbyists, all of the battle-related artifacts were found west of SR 46 (Figure 40).

Figure 40: General area of the Union line in Saline River bottom.


68

CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURES


69

CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Cultural and natural resources are the signifi cant extant historic and archaeological resources and natural features that help defi ne the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld landscape. There are six cultural and four natural features in the Study Area (Figures 52-54).

Tulip Methodist Cemetery – This cemetery in the small town of Tulip is associated with Tulip Methodist Church. The Confederate army withdrew to Tulip following the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. Surgeons treated the wounded at several locations in the small town, including the Methodist church. The bodies of Confederate generals Horace Randal and William Scurry, who died of wounds received during the battle, were transported to Tulip with the wounded and buried in the cemetery. Their remains have since been moved to Texas. None of the buildings in Tulip used as hospitals survive (Figure 41).

Guesses Creek – This creek runs northwesterly and roughly parallels the ridgeline that the military road followed from Dallas into Grant County. It was in Dallas County on the ridges bordering Guesses Creek that the April 29, 1864, engagement began. The creek fl ows into Cox Creek about one and one-quarter miles southwest of the Core Area of the battlefi eld (Figure 42).

Site of the Cannonball House – This house sat on a knoll on the east side of the fl oodplain of Guesses Creek and immediately east of the military road (Dallas County 409). Union artillery unlimbered near the house and fi red on the Confederates deployed on a ridge west of Guesses Creek. The house, which stood until 1967, is also said to have been used as a Confederate hospital. A cannon motif worked into a decorative metal gate marks the site (Figure 43).1

1 Elwin L. Goolsby, “The Lost Houses of Jenkins Ferry,” Grassroots: Journal of the Grant County Museum, August, 1999, p. 2.


70

Site of the Giles house – This house site is located on the west side of the military road (Dallas County 409) approximately one-quarter mile north of the Cannonball House. It is thought that the Union army deployed a second skirmish line near this house, allowing the artillery near the Cannonball House to disengage. The house stood until the late1990s (Figures 44-45).

Military Road – Most of the fi ghting associated with the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry took place along or near the route of the military road, which Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele’s army followed from Tulip to and across the Saline River. Dallas County Road 409 and Grant County Road 1 follow the route of the historic road, remnants of which are still extant in the main engagement site (Figure 46).

John Rufus Taylor house – This small house is the only extant antebellum structure on the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. It is a one-story, end-gable frame structure built on piers. The house has a metal roof and is sided with horizontal planks and rolled asphalt siding. Built by Taylor sometime before the Civil War, the house faces the old military road between Leola and the Saline River. Both armies would have marched past the house on the way to the Saline River bottom (Figure 47).2

2 Goolsby, “The Lost Houses of Jenkins Ferry,” p. 3.

Left: Giles house ca. 1985. Right: a log outbuilding at the Giles house site.


71

Cox Creek – This creek helps defi ne the main engagement site of the April 30, 1864, Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The creek fl ows into the Saline River just north of the ferry crossing and site of the Union pontoon bridge. Most of the fi ghting took place on the south side of the creek but both sides sent troops across the creek. Some Union infantry remained on the north side of Cox Creek during the battle, allowing them to enfi lade the Confederate line (Figure 48).

Saline River bottom – Most of the Core Area is in the Saline River bottom, the most dominant natural feature of the battlefi eld. From the ridgeline in the southern end of the battlefi eld the land falls 30 feet as it descends into the bottom. Today, planted pine and hardwoods cover the area, which is crossed by Cox Creek and other unnamed seasonal drainages. The cleared agricultural fi elds that played a signifi cant role in the battle were located in the bottom near the road to the ferry (Figure 49).

Saline River – The river was the main obstacle between the Union army and fresh supplies in Little Rock. There was no bridge. A small ferry operation on the military road was the only crossing in the area. Local tradition holds that Jane Jenkins, who operated the ferry, sank the ferry boat so that the Union army could not use it. Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele’s engineers bridged the Saline River on the afternoon of April 29, 1864, using infl atable India-rubber pontoons topped by wooden planks. By mid-morning the next day all of the Union army except the infantry had crossed the river on the pontoon bridge (Figure 50).3

3 Personal communication Thomas Green, March 13, 2013.


72

Jenkins’ Ferry – In 1864, this ferry on the Saline River was operated by Jane Jenkins, who continued to operate the rope-boat-system ferry until 1895. The ferry was probably in operation until 1928 when the fi rst highway bridge was constructed. The old ferry road is still visible in Jenkins’ Ferry State Park and on the far side of the river from the park (Figure 51).4

4 “Jane McWhorter Jenkins, Pioneer, Ran Ferry Alone for 30 Years,” The Malvern Daily Record, February 5, 1963.


73

Figure 52: Cultural and Natural Resources map 1 of 3. Based on Leola USGS Quad map.


74Figure 53: Cultural and Natural Resources map 2 of 3. Based on Leola USGS Quad map.


75

Figure 54: Cultural and Natural Resources map 3 of 3. Based on Leola USGS Quad map.


76

PREVIOUS PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES


77

PREVIOUS PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry began on the afternoon of April 29, 1864, when the vanguard of the Confederate army under the command of Gen. Sterling Price caught up with the rearguard of Gen. Frederick Steele’s Union army just outside of Leola (then Sandy Springs) in Dallas County, Arkansas. An artillery duel and running engagement ensued that ended on the ridgeline above the Jenkins/Carver fi eld north of Leola. The main battle was fought the next day in the Saline River bottom. Union infantry held off numerous assaults by Confederate infantry and cavalry, allowing Steele’s army to cross the Saline River, destroy their pontoon bridge behind them, and continue their march toward Little Rock. On May 1, 1864, approximately two miles north of the ferry/pontoon bridge site, the Union army burned 200 to 250 wagons and abandoned many exhausted mules and horses in an area that has locally come to be known as the “burning fi eld.” For the purposes of this preservation plan, this action ended the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry.

For 64 years after the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, little in the way of preservation activities occurred. The, in 1928, the Masonic Lodges of Leola and Sheridan purchased 3.65 acres of land on the north side of the Saline River in the SW corner in the NW quarter of Section 8 Township 6 Range 14. The parcel encompassed the site of Jenkins’ Ferry in what later became the Jenkins’ Ferry State Park. That same year, on September 28, 1928, the James F. Fagan and the Jenkins’ Ferry Chapters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy erected a granite monument approximately fi ve feet tall and three feet wide to commemorate the Confederate soldiers’ participation in the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry (Figure 55). The monument reads:

Erected in the memory of the soldiers of the Confederacy, who gave their livesfor the cause at the Battle of Jenkins’Ferry, April 30, 1864, dedicated September19, 1928 by the James F. Fagan andJenkins Ferry Chapters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.We honor their valor and sacrifi ce.

With the installation of the monument the area became a quasi-public park. It is not known if the UDC continued to hold annual ceremonies at the monument, though it seems likely. The marker was installed the same year that the fi rst bridge was constructed across the Saline River. The bridge, located immediately east of the parcel owned by the

Figure 55: The UDC monument at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park.


78

Masonic Lodge, provided easy access to the site.1

Another 33 years would pass before any other preservation activities would be initiated. In 1961, which marked the beginning of the Civil War Centennial, local historians and concerned citizens worked with their state representative to have a state park created. That year, Act 10 of the Arkansas General Assembly created Jenkins’ Ferry Battleground State Park. The state purchased 36.35 acres of land adjacent to and on the opposite side of the river from the parcel owned by the Masonic Lodges of Leola and Sheridan and signed a 100 year lease with the Masons for use of their property.2

That same year, the Grant County Chamber of Commerce hired Edwin C. Bearss to write a book on the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. Bearss, at the time a research historian for the National Park Service working out of Vicksburg National Military Park, completed the fi rst scholarly study of the battle and the Camden Campaign. The book, published in 1966, brought national recognition to the battlefi eld.3

In 1969, the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Offi ce nominated the Jenkins’ Ferry Battleground to the National Register of Historic Places. Four years after the publication of Bearss’ book, in early 1970, 26.35 acres in Jenkins’ Ferry State Park were listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Figure 56). This designation, while only listing a fraction of the battlefi eld, recognized its historic signifi cance.4

In 1993, the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was recognized by the landmark Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) as one of the nation’s most signifi cant and endangered Civil War battlefi elds. The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, established by the U.S. Congress on November 28, 1990, “. . . was asked to identify the nation’s historically signifi cant Civil War sites; determine their relative importance; determine their condition; assess threats to their integrity; and recommend alternatives for preserving and

1 Joe Walker, Harvest of Death: The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, Arkansas, N.P. 2011, p. 138. 2 Jenkins’ Ferry State Park, Arkansas Encyclopedia, http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/ encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1227. 3 Edwin C. Bearss, Steele’s Retreat From Camden & The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, reprint edition, Civil War Roundtable Associates, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1990, p. xiii. 4 Jack E. Porter, “Jenkins’ Ferry Battleground,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, October 27, 1969, on fi le at the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Figure 56: Jenkins’ Ferry State Park


79

interpreting them.”5

Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld was ranked as a Priority III.3 (Class C) battlefi eld. The priority III ranking indicated that the battlefi eld was in need of additional protection. The III.3 Class C ranking indicated that it had good or fair integrity and low threats. In 1993 it was determined that this battlefi eld was relatively safe from development but that additional land could and should be preserved.6

Recognition by the CWSAC means that the battlefi eld is eligible for planning funding from the American Battlefi eld Protection Program. It also means that the battlefi eld is eligible for up to 50% of the appraised value for land purchase through the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the American Battlefi eld Protection Program (ABPP).

A year after the CWSAC survey the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program nominated the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry for listing as a National Historic Landmark. The nomination was undertaken as part of the Camden Expedition National Historic Landmark Study. In 1994, 1,900 acres of battlefi eld were listed as a National Historic Landmark (Figure 57).7 This is the highest designation a historic site can receive: “NHL designation is an offi cial recognition by the federal government of the national signifi cance of historic properties.”8

The only interpretation on the battlefi eld is at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park. Sometime in the 1990s Arkansas State Parks installed three all-weather metal interpretive panels. One panel interprets the April 30, 1864 battle; the others interpret the Saline River and the park (Figure 58). Visitors may access

5 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Civil War Sites Advisory Commission: Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds, Technical Vol. II: Battlefi eld Summaries, Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Washington, DC, 1993, p. 6 and Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Civil War Sites Advisory Commission: Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds, Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Washington, DC, 1993, inside cover.6 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Civil War Sites Advisory Commission: Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds, p. 51.7 Don Baker and Edwin C. Bearss, “Camden Expedition Sites,” National Historic Landmark Nomination, November 29, 1993, form on fi le at Arkansas Historic Preservation Program8 National Park Service National Register Bulletin: How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC, 1999, p. 9.

Figure 58: Interpretation at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park.


80

Figure 57: The red line is the Core Area boundary and the shaded triangle is the National Historic Landmark boundary. Map based on Leola USGS Quad. North is to the top, scale is 1:24,000


81

an audio presentation on the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry via their mobile phone. The program was developed by the Arkansas Department of Heritage and Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission; a sign installed in 2011 tells visitors how to access the program.

After the passage of the Civil War Battlefi eld Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016), Congress directed the American Battlefi eld Protection Program to review the status of the 383 battlefi elds identifi ed in 1993 by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. The law directed the ABPP to collect data on the following for the period between 1993 and the update:

1) Preservation activities carried out at the 383 battlefi elds identifi ed by the CWSAC

2) Changes in the condition of the battlefi elds

3) Any other relevant developments relating to the battlefi elds 9

In the draft Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds the ABPP increased the size of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld and upgraded its priority level to a Priority II Class C (+) ranking. These changes were based on perceived changes in threats to the battlefi eld, its NHL status, and the opportunity for preservation.10

In 2010 The Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld was organized and in 2011 obtained 501(c)(3) status. The organization’s mission is: “to protect, preserve and promote the historical signifi cance of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld through funding and development of educational programs and community outreach efforts, including: tours, re-enactments, research, publications, lectures, workshops and preservation of battlefi eld property.”11

The creation of a not-for-profi t organization allows the citizen-based organization to raise money and begin the process of preserving the battlefi eld. The FOJFB has been working with numerous partners in Grant County and in Arkansas. This project, which was funded by grant received from the American Battlefi eld Protection Program demonstrates that the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld has begun to move forward with battlefi eld preservation efforts.

9 American Battlefi eld Protection Program, Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds: State of Arkansas, National Park Service, Washington, DC, 2010, p. 3.10 American Battlefi eld Protection Program, Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds Draft v. 8 for Peer Review, National Park Service, Washington, DC, 2013, p. 52.11 Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld website, www.jenkinsferry.com.


82

THE PLANNING PROCESS


83

THE PLANNING PROCESS

The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld is historically part of the spring 1864 Camden Campaign. It is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark as part of the Camden Expedition NHL. The battlefi eld retains excellent integrity.

The Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld received a grant from the American Battlefi eld Protection Program to prepare a battlefi eld preservation plan in 2012. In March 2013, the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld retained Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc., a public history consulting fi rm based in Versailles, Kentucky, to prepare the plan.

Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. developed this community consensus-based plan using methodology endorsed by the American Battlefi eld Protection Program that has evolved over the past two decades. This methodology has become the standard for battlefi eld preservation.

Over the course of this project Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. visited Grant County and the battlefi eld in March, April, May and July, 2013. Each trip except the last included tours or inspections of the battlefi eld, meetings with stakeholders and elected offi cials, and ongoing meetings with offi cers and board members of the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld.

MARCH 2013During the fi rst project site visit the week of March 4, 2013, Joseph Brent and Maria Brent of Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc. met with the offi cers and board members of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld and toured the battlefi eld. Hays Swayze, a member of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld and a metal detector hobbyist, led the fi rst day-long tour, a driving/walking tour of the battlefi eld. Jerrell Harper, Alberta Harper and Randy Yarberry, who are also members of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld and metal detector hobbyists, led the second day-long tour. In this case, the group used all-terrain vehicles to access the battlefi eld. This tour covered much of the same ground as the fi rst except that the group was able to get to areas of the battlefi eld that were inaccessible the fi rst day due to wet/rugged terrain (Figure 59).

Figure 59: L-R Alberta Harper, Maria Brent and Jerrell Harper in the Saline River bottom.


84

Seeing the terrain where the battle was fought fl eshed out the accounts in the primary and secondary sources examined prior to the fi eld visits. The Saline bottom, which is a defi ning feature of the battlefi eld and where most of the combat occurred, is located in the Core Area. The fi eld visits were extremely helpful in understanding the terrain and the guides’ knowledge of the battlefi eld provided a very clear picture of the location of battle lines and signifi cant features.

The tours covered the entire battlefi eld, extending into Dallas County where the battle began on April 29, 1864. The old road system and other cultural and natural resources were photographed and their locations mapped. The fi nal tour ended at what is locally known as the “burning fi eld.” This area north of the bottom was the site of the last action of the Union army on May 1, 1864—burning the wagons and sending the wounded and Contraband to Pine Bluff—before retreating to Little Rock.

Before and after the tours Joseph Brent and Maria Brent met with members of the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld. The goals of the project were discussed and meetings with elected offi cials scheduled. Board member Roy Wilson gave a slide presentation of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, which is a talk that he gives to school groups, visitors, service clubs and other interested people.

While in Sheridan, Arkansas, Joseph Brent and Maria Brent, and Richard Jenkins and Brenda Stuckey, chair and treasurer/secretary of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld, respectively, met with Grant County Judge/Executive Kemp Nall and Joe Wise, Mayor of Sheridan. Both were very supportive of the project. The group also met with Becky Nichols, Executive Director, Grant County Chamber of Commerce. The meeting with Ms. Nichols and subsequent meetings at the Grant County Museum helped the authors better understand how the community viewed the battlefi eld and its importance and provided the opportunity to talk about the ways in which a preserved battlefi eld can contribute to the quality of life and economic well being of the Grant County area.

APRIL 2013Joseph Brent and Maria Brent made a second visit to Grant County the week of April 15, 2013. Activities included a follow-up trip to the battlefi eld to examine the ground of the opening engagement of April 29, 1864, and a revisit of the area near the ferry crossing. This fi eld trip confi rmed the location of the artillery duel of April 29, 1864, and located the foundation of the Giles house, which was on the military road and a likely area for troop deployment (Figure 60).

Figure 60: L-R Hayes Swayze, Tommy Green, Brenda Stuckey, Maria Brent and Richard Jenkins tour the battlefi eld.


85

Maria Brent conducted land research at the Grant County Assessor’s Offi ce, locating parcel numbers for parcels in priority areas: the Core Area, engagement of April 29, and the burning fi eld. Working with the clerks in the assessor’s offi ce, the property valuation record cards were printed out. They were later entered into a Microsoft Excel spread sheet. This process was repeated for parcels in Dallas County.

On April 17, Joseph Brent, Maria Brent, Richard Jenkins and Brenda Stuckey met with Arkansas State Parks personnel—Randy Roberson, Manager of Planning and Development; Jeff King, Chief Park Planner; Shayla Albey, Park Planner/Historic Preservation Specialist; and Mitchell Johnson, Real Estate Offi cer—and Mark Christ, Community Outreach Director, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park to discuss the project. Both state parks and the historic preservation program are stakeholders in the project. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) conducted the 2009 resurvey of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battlefi elds in Arkansas and prepared the National Register and NHL nominations for the site. Arkansas State Parks owns just over 36 acres of the battlefi eld, the only land that has been preserved, and has expressed interest in improving and enlarging Jenkins’ Ferry State Park.

The meeting introduced the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld to representatives of two state agencies that will be instrumental in helping them achieve their goals of preserving and interpreting the battlefi eld. It demonstrated to FOJFB that the state has an interest in the battlefi eld and provided contacts for the relatively new group that will prove useful in the future.

Arkansas State Parks provided a document developed by Jay S. Miller, former Chief of Interpretation for Arkansas State Parks, outlining a master plan for the Jenkins’ Ferry State Park. The plan called for the purchase of additional land and developing more interpretation. The proposed land purchase was based on the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission map. An interpretive trail outlined in the plan would take visitors from the ridges at the south end of the main engagement area through the location of the cleared agricultural fi elds to the Saline River. The master plan was never fully developed but the concepts outlined deserve further consideration.

As a part of the project, a presentation was made to the Sheridan Rotary Club at the request of Grant County Judge/Executive Kemp Nall. Joseph Brent used Power Point to present the history of the battle and to outline the purpose of the project and its goals. Some 50 Rotarians and guests attended and the local press covered the meeting.

FIRST COMMUNITY MEETING

The fi rst community meeting was held April 16, 2013, at the Sheridan Community Center. The meeting was advertised through a front page article in the Sheridan Headlight


86

on April 10, 2013, and the Friends of Jenkins’s Ferry Battlefi eld website. About 30 people attended the meeting. PowerPoint was used to present a brief history of the battle; introduce the attendees to the American Battlefi eld Protection Program, who funded the project; to discuss what a preservation plan is, and what it would and would not do; and to briefl y outline the benefi ts of Civil War sites preservation (Figure 61).

After the presentation the attendees were asked four questions to gage their understanding of the preservation process and to guide the planning process.

1. What are the benefi ts of preserving the battlefi eld?The fi rst question was designed to get the group to think in terms of preservation and economic development. The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld is a new organization and its previous activities have been focused on research, interpretation and events.

The responses to the question demonstrated that those attending understood the historic signifi cance of the battlefi eld, the benefi ts of preservation and the battlefi eld’s potential as an economic development engine for Grant County and demonstrated enthusiasm for undertaking the battlefi eld’s preservation.

Preserving the battlefi eld preserves history

A preserved battlefi eld can generate revenue for city and county governments

You preserve a signifi cant battlefi eld, one worthy of preservation

You give all of the people who saw the fi lm Lincoln a chance to visit the battlefi eld the Lincoln character mentions in the opening scene

Preserving the battlefi eld creates a resource for education

Preserving the battlefi eld will allow people to know its size, terrain and signifi cance

A preserved battlefi eld will be a source of pride for the community and tells visitors that residents care enough about their history to preserve it

Figure 61: Attendees of the fi rst community meeting at the Sheridan Community Center.


87

The preservation effort could unify the communities in the county

A preserved battlefi eld will make history real for young people and could spark a life-long interest in history

A preserved battlefi eld will be a great resource for visitors and will generate tourism

2. What challenges will the preservation effort face?The idea of undertaking a project as large as preserving thousands of acres of land is daunting. The greatest concern was where funding for the effort could be secured. Other answers focused on Jenkins’ Ferry State Park as a partner and the issues with interpreting a larger park. Some answers demonstrated a misunderstanding of the preservation process. As with most groups, their focus tended to be interpretation rather than preservation.

The response regarding limited access refl ects the fact that much of the land is privately owned and leased to hunting clubs. Deer season generally runs from September until February and it would be unsafe to have visitors on or near much of the battlefi eld during that period.

Access to the land is limited

Lack of funding

Lack of funding in the long term – for staffi ng, upkeep and maintenance

Problems in interpreting the battlefi eld caused by seasonal fl ooding

The dangers posed by hunters 3. How can those challenges be overcome?Attendees were asked how the challenges identifi ed in the previous question might be overcome. While some of the responses were humorous, others demonstrated an understanding of the kind of effort that will be needed to move the preservation project forward.

They acknowledged the need to grow the not-for-profi t organization membership base and to develop partnerships in the community and with state legislators. The answers demonstrate that those attending understand that one organization alone can not preserve the battlefi eld, but that they must reach out to the community and beyond for support

Pray a lot

Outlaw guns


88

Community involvement — raise support for the preservation effort by demonstrating its benefi ts to the community

Get the support of local governments and citizens by expanding the membership base of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld throughout the county and beyond

Garner the support of state legislators

4. What partners will be essential in the preservation effort?Partnerships are essential to any preservation effort. The attendees were asked to name groups and individuals that might become partners in the preservation of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld.

The answers refl ect an understanding of the need for broad-based partnerships. The list includes individuals, organizations and businesses, state and federal agencies and national organizations.

The community

State senators and congressmen

The American Battlefi eld Protection Program

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program

Will Stephens family (local philanthropists; the family funded the community center where this meeting took place)

Local schools

Grant County Museum

Arkansas State Parks

Local businesses

Descendents of the families here in the 1860s

Descendents of Union soldiers who fought in the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry

The Civil War Trust

Wal-Mart, through their community grant program

MAY 2013A third site visit was made toward the end of May. This follow-up visit included trips to the battlefi eld, rechecking house sites, and the military road and its association with the ridge in the southern end of the Core Area. Hayes Swayze and Thomas Green served as guides, the tour also visited extant remains of the historic road bed within the battlefi eld and a house site (Figure 62).


89

In addition the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld historian Roy Wilson led a 3.5-mile tour across the battlefi eld beginning at the ridge in the south and exiting just south of the Saline River. Mr. Wilson has been leading tours across the battlefi eld for a number of years and the onsite tour helped tie the information he provided in his earlier slide presentation to the ground in the Saline River bottom (Figure 63).

Discussions with Grant County Judge/Executive Kemp Nall confi rmed that Grant County does not have planning and zoning and the county has no comprehensive plan. The City of Sheridan does have zoning, but none of the battlefi eld is in or near the city limits. The lack of land use planning is not uncommon in the rural south. Outside of larger urban centers, or counties that include those centers, in the southern tier of the U.S. there is very little land-use planning.

JULY 31, 2013Copies of the draft were sent to the American Battlefi eld Protection Program, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and Arkansas State Parks for review.

AUGUST 2013Joseph Brent and Maria Brent traveled to Sheridan the week of August 5 and presented the draft Preservation Plan for the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld at the second community meeting, which was held August 6, 2013 at the Sheridan Department of Parks and Recreation Community Center. Joseph Brent facilitated the meeting, which was attended by XX individuals. Attendees received a handout outlining the major points of the plan, which were explained in a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation was followed by a question and answer period. Joseph Brent told those present that copies of the plan would be available at the Grant County Museum and Grant County Public Library for a minimum of 45 days if they wished to review and comment on the plan. Copies of the draft plan were also delivered to the Friends of Jenkins Ferry Battlefi eld on August 6.

Comments from the public agencies, the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld and the public were incorporated into the fi nal document.

Figure 62: A portion of the military road in Dallas County.

Figure 63: Water in the Saline River bottom in June 2013.


90

PRESERVING THE BATTLEFIELD


91

PRESERVING THE JENKINS’ FERRY BATTLEFIELD

The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld is an important part of the history of our nation, the state of Arkansas and Grant County. It has existed along the ridges and in the bottomland for nearly 150 years. Local historians, metal detector hobbyists and Civil War enthusiasts know of this battlefi eld, but there is only one sign at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park to alert the would-be visitor to the existence of this signifi cant Civil War site.

In 1864, a traveler in Leola, then Shady Spring, could follow the military road to Little Rock. On the way, the road traversed the Saline River bottom to Jenkins’ Ferry. Traces of that road still exist in the bottom. The agricultural fi elds are gone, grown up in hardwoods. The virgin forest from which those fi elds were carved has been replaced by planted pine. These changes are minor in the larger scheme of things. The battlefi eld remains and can be read by those who take the time to examine the landscape and subtle variations in topography and understand what they meant to the soldiers fi ghting in the muddy fi elds on April 30, 1864 (Figure 64).

The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld merits preservation, and not only because events in the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the Civil War are underrepresented. The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was the last battle of the nationally signifi cant Camden Expedition. It is not a story for the faint of heart; it was an ugly, brutal battle. All battles are, but this one featured atrocities on both sides, the horror of Civil War was played out on a personal level between men and the races. The recent movie Lincoln included a scene featuring the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry which retold what the violence was about. In the words of our 16th president “It is altogether fi tting and proper that we should do this.” As we near the 150th anniversary of the battle it is inspiring that an organized effort to preserve this battlefi eld has begun.

Exactly 40 acres of this 7,800-acre battlefi eld are protected—36.65 acres belong to Jenkins’ Ferry State Park; 3.35 acres are leased by Arkansas State Parks from the Sheridan Masonic Lodge. The park preserves the site of Jenkins’ Ferry; however, none of the fi ghting occurred within the park boundaries (Figure 65).

Figure 64: The military road in Dallas County.


92

Why preserve a Civil War battlefi eld? Preserving a Civil War battlefi eld is not just the right thing to do, it makes solid economic sense.

A Civil War battlefi eld – whether protected and open to visitors or preserved by a private owner as open space – can be a signifi cant component of a community’s economy, yielding economic, cultural and environmental benefi ts.1

According to the Civil War Trust publication Blue, Gray and Green: Why Saving Civil War Battlefi elds Makes Economic Sense, a preserved Civil War battlefi eld is an asset to the surrounding area. The battlefi eld, once preserved and interpreted, can also be an asset to the business community. Tourists who visit pay for services locally. Those purchases translate into jobs and higher incomes for residents, and more tax revenue for state and local governments.

The driving force behind the economic engine is Civil War travelers, who tend to be middle-aged, affl uent and better educated. These visitors have more leisure time and more disposable income than other vacationers. They spend more money and stay longer than the average leisure traveler. They are very discriminating, often coming to an area specifi cally to visit a Civil War battlefi eld and they often visit a place just for its history.

The Civil War Trust study demonstrated that over half of the travelers visited a place because there was a battlefi eld. On the same visit they often visited nearby Civil War and historic sites and tended to recommend sites to their friends. Being part of a regional, statewide or national Civil War trail will improve the prospect for visitation. The Civil War traveler often visits multiple sites on any given trip.

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry was historically part of the March-May, 1864, Camden Expedition and has been listed as part of the Camden Expedition National Historic Landmark. All of the battlefi elds and some of the earthworks in Camden associated with this campaign are extant. Working with other sites to create a Camden Expedition Trail would be an excellent catalyst for bringing Civil War visitors into the area.

1 Frances H. Kennedy and Douglas R. Porter, Dollar$ and Sense of Battlefi eld Preservation: The Economic Benefi ts of Protecting Civil War Battlefi elds, The Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC, 1992, p. 1.

Figure 65: The Jenkins’ Ferry State Park preserves 40 acres of the battlefi eld.


93

How does this translate into dollars and cents? According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the average heritage tourist spends $50 per person per day and stays an average of two days. If 20,000 people visit the battlefi elds over the course of a year it would generate $2 million for the local economy (Figure 66).

In order to have a Civil War battlefi eld that will draw visitors to the area the land, at least some of it, has to be preserved. For

a site to draw people and keep them in the area for any length of time a portion of the battlefi eld must have public access. That is, there must be someplace where people can experience the battlefi eld—walk the fi elds and see the area as the soldiers saw it. This is the experience that will bring heritage tourists. In order to create this experience landownership is required.

CULTIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Banding together with like-minded individuals and groups locally, across the state, region and nation is the key to a successful preservation effort. Forget about county lines (Grant County did not even exist at the time of the Civil War). Often there is competition between adjoining counties and between the county seat and other towns in the county. Keep in mind that visitors don’t pay attention to city and county boundaries. If they come to see the battlefi eld they want to see it all.

Reach out to local government offi cials. Make sure all of the appropriate offi cials are aware of this plan. Local offi cials in Grant County, Sheridan and Leola are supportive of the project. Keep them informed. Reach out to state representatives and state senators. Jenkins’ Ferry State Park receives funding from the state; the general assembly determines who gets those funds and how much and how they will be used. If local members of the legislature want to see Jenkins’ Ferry State Park expanded it can happen.

Grant County is currently in the Southeast Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail (SEACWHT) yet all but one of the remainder of the Camden Expedition sites are in the Southwest Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail (SWACWHT). Working with SWACWHT is another partnership opportunity. This eighteen-county region encompasses Prairie D’Ane, Elkins’ Ferry, Moscow Church, Poison Spring, Camden, and the site of the April

Figure 66: Civil War tourists can visit the Grant County Museum, but unfortunately there is little access to the battlefi eld.


94

29, 1864 engagement that opened the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The rest of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld and the Battle of Marks’ Mill are part of the SEACWHT.

In the 1990s Jay Miller, the former Director of Interpretation for Arkansas State Parks, wrote a brochure called The Red River Campaign in Arkansas. This simple brochure was designed to get Civil War travelers to Poison Spring, Marks’ Mill and Jenkins’ Ferry state parks. Now is the time to reach out to organizations working to preserve and interpret these sites and others associated with the Camden Expedition. A new umbrella organization might be organized that could seek funds for land preservation and interpretation.

The Arkansas Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission is another excellent partnership opportunity. Next year is the sesquicentennial of the Camden Campaign. The Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld are already working toward getting a historical marker and hosting a reenactment. Imagine the impact the sesquicentennial could have on the region and the state if all of the Camden Campaign sites coordinated their activities and worked together to make these events as good as

they could be. Coordinate your efforts with the Arkansas Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission and other efforts to promote Camden, and the battles of Poison Spring, Marks’ Mill, Prairie D’Ane, Elkins’ Ferry and Moscow Church (Figure 67).

Preserving the fi rst new battlefi eld land in over 50 years would be the perfect way to commemorate the Civil War sesquicentennial. The partnership the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld has established with the American Battlefi eld Protection Program should be expanded. There are many projects that the ABPP will fund—additional research, interpretive planning and archaeology all fall under categories funded through the battlefi eld grant program. Perhaps most importantly, the ABPP funds land purchase, granting 50% of the appraised market value of land in the battlefi eld Core or Study areas.

The Civil War Trust is a national not-for-profi t that has more experience preserving battlefi eld land than any other organization in the country. The CWT can help with land protection and have staff that specializes in land purchase and fi nancing. Establishing a relationship with the Civil War Trust will, literally, pay benefi ts for years to come.

Figure 67: Fort Diamond in Camden, Arkansas, is a city park and open to the public.


95

The Central Arkansas Land Trust is another potential partner. Its mission is to “. . . preserve, study, and manage these properties in order to enhance their conservation, and to ensure their environmental, scientifi c, educational, and recreational features in perpetuity.” This organization, headquartered in Hot Springs, is affi liated with the Land Trust Alliance. The CALT also holds easements.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has information on programs that preserve agricultural land. One, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, may be an option for properties slated for easement protection. There is federal funding attached to this program.

The Forest Legacy Program, a national program, might be used to help secure battlefi eld land. The program “. . . purchases land and establishes conservation easements to protect environmentally important forests.” Contact the local forestry professional to see if this program would work or could be tailored to work as a part of the preservation package for the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.

Explore the possibility of creating a Camden Expedition National Heritage Area. National Heritage Areas are a “grassroots, community-driven approach to heritage conservation and economic development. Through public-private partnerships NHA supports historic preservation, natural resource conservation, recreation, heritage tourism, and educational projects.”2

National Heritage Areas are designated by Congress as places where natural, cultural, and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important landscape. Through their resources, National Heritage Areas tell nationally important stories that celebrate our nation’s diverse heritage. The National Park Service acts as a partner in the Heritage Area, providing technical, planning, and limited fi nancial assistance but the decision-making authority rests with local people and organizations. Through annual Congressional appropriations, each Heritage Area is authorized to receive up to $1 million annually for a set period of time, although appropriations of $150,000 to $750,000 are more typical.

Work with your U.S. Congressman and Senators to create and introduce the authorizing legislation to create a Camden Expedition National Heritage Area. If realized, it would bring the Campaign sites together like nothing that has ever been done.

2 National Heritage Areas, www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/FAQ/


96

The Camden Campaign meets the National Heritage Area criteria. The landscape has nationally distinctive natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources that together tell a unique story about our country. That the Camden Expedition already has obtained National Historic Landmark status should help propel the legislation.

LAND PROTECTION OPTIONS

As a general rule, there are only two ways to protect battlefi eld land: purchase in fee simple or with a conservation easement. The best way to protect land and to guarantee access and the opportunity to interpret it is to own the land. Ownership insures control. A combination of purchase and a conservation easement insures protection of the property in perpetuity.

EasementEasements offer the means to preserve land without owning it. This option keeps the land on the tax rolls, though generally at a lower tax rate. Easements can be purchased from the landowner or the landowner can donate the easement. Two types of easements could be pursued—Historic Preservation or Conservation Easements and Agricultural Conservation Easements. Both require landowner consent and some funding is available for both options. In Arkansas it is necessary for property to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places for the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program to hold the easement. That will not be a problem for the over 1,900 acres of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld that are listed.

A conservation easement protects battlefi eld land in perpetuity, that is, forever. The easement would be attached to the deed and would remain with the land in the event it is sold.

Conservation easements allow landowners to preserve or limit current and future uses of their farms and forests. Under certain circumstances, they can provide substantial tax benefi ts for landowners and/or allow landowners to convert some of their equity into cash. They provide an attractive option for landowners and land trusts because they allow landowners to retain ownership while foregoing the rights to future development. Thus, through conservation easements, landowners can achieve conservation or preservation aims while retaining limited rights to continued use of their property for themselves and for future generations. To do so, conservation easements should be carefully tailored to fi t individual circumstances and should be made fl exible enough to accommodate changes in farm and forest practices and conditions. In


97

addition, tax incentives are contingent both upon individual landowner circumstances and a properly structured easement. Landowners are strongly encouraged to retain competent professionals to assist them through the process.3

Easements should not be viewed as an alternative to the purchase of priority land or land necessary for interpretive purposes. It is often necessary to own land in order to develop an interpretive program that allows people access to the resource. Easements are most often used to protect large tracts of land that will not necessarily be used for on-site interpretation. Using easements to protect viewshed is common at battlefi elds where there is open land. Over much of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld the viewshed is limited due to heavy forestation but using easements to provide a buffer for priority land is an excellent use of this preservation tool.

Purchasing Battlefield LandThe best way to protect land is to buy it in fee simple. The combination of purchase and easement insures that the property will be protected and used in the way that respects the resource. Funding through the Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund, which is the source of money for the Civil War Battlefi eld Preservation Program can be used to buy easements. The Civil War Trust has helped in the past to protect battlefi eld land in Arkansas. Because the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld qualifi es for the LWCF funding, it is likely that the Civil War Trust will be willing to assist any organization working to protect the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies are available to help states and local communities acquire and preserve threatened Civil War battlefi eld land. The American Battlefi eld Protection Program administers the LWCF grant program.

Civil War Battlefi eld Acquisition Grants are only awarded to state and local governments. If the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld wants to apply for LWCF monies to purchase battlefi eld land it would have to do so in partnership with Grant County government or the State of Arkansas.

LWCF Civil War Battlefi eld Acquisition Grants provide 50% of the appraised value of the property. The funding must be matched dollar-for-dollar with non-federal monies. The

3 Christopher D. Clark, Larry Tankersley, George F. Smith and Daniel Starnes, Farm and Forest Land Preservation with Conservation Easements, Southern Regional Water Program, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2007, p. 10.


98

grant funding is awarded through a competitive application process. The LWCF funding will pay for fee simple purchase of land or the acquisition of permanent, protective easements. In order to be eligible a battlefi eld must be listed in the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds (1993). The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry is listed in that report and its priority ranking was upgraded in the Draft of the Update to Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds. See Appendix 2 for more information on this program.

Other Preservation Tools Developing good relationships with landowners opens the door to other tools that might prove helpful in preserving the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld: right of fi rst refusal, options and bargain sales.

RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL

A right of fi rst refusal is a legally binding agreement that specifi es a given timespan during which the holder of the agreement has the opportunity to purchase the land at a price determined by the landowner. It is a very effective proactive tool. Obtaining a right of fi rst refusal insures that the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld or its partners are given the opportunity to purchase the property when it comes up for sale. Beginning a dialogue with the landowners and developing a rapport with them makes it more likely that the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld would be able to obtain a right of fi rst refusal option on priority battlefi eld land. Having this option also gives the organization more time to put together the necessary funding.

OPTIONS

Options are another tool that can be used when a willing landowner has been identifi ed. The purchase of an option would provide the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld time to raise the money to purchase the land. The purchase of an option insures that the land will not be sold for the length of the option while the funds are being raised. However, if the funds cannot be raised within the prescribed time the cost of the option is lost. The good news is that the cost of the option can be applied to the cost of the land.

BARGAIN SALE

The purchase of land at a price below fair market value is called a bargain sale. If the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld purchased land at a bargain sale the owner would be entitled to state and federal tax deductions for a charitable contribution. This type of sale is dependent upon the seller’s willingness to take a loss in order to get the tax benefi t. The tax deduction is based on the difference between fair market value and the selling price.


99

A conservation easement must be placed on all property purchased using Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program can hold an easement on battlefi eld property only if that property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

EMBRACE THE PLAN

A plan helps the preservation partners fi nd the best way to preserve a battlefi eld. It identifi es areas that should be protected and offers ideas and recommendations on how that can be accomplished. Having a plan demonstrates to landowners, potential partners and funders that the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld is committed to and prepared to undertake the challenge of preserving one of Arkansas’ most signifi cant Civil War battlefi elds.

PRIORITY LAND FOR PRESERVATION

This preservation plan targets three discontiguous areas where signifi cant actions took place: the site of the fi rst engagement on April 29, 1864; the main engagement area of April 30, 1864; and the May 1, 1864, burning fi eld. The parcels to be protected have been prioritized as high, medium and low priorities. The higher the priority, the closer the parcel is associated with combat or other signifi cant military action, such as the burning fi eld. A list of the priority parcels is included with the description of each area; maps showing parcel locations are below.

This plan identifi ed 8,709.33 acres to be preserved. Approximately 3,500 acres is in the Core Area of the battlefi eld, the remainder is in the Study Area. The choice of the three sites was made in consultation with the board of the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld and upon the examination of the historical record. Parcels have been assigned high, medium or low ranking but if the opportunity to acquire a lower priority parcel arises— it comes up for sale or someone wishes to donate it or have a conservation easement placed on it—that opportunity should be pursued. Any opportunity to preserve any battlefi eld land should be taken, no matter what the priority of a particular parcel.

BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY – THE FIRST ENGAGEMENT SITE The First Engagement Site is located in north Dallas and south Grant counties. The April 29, 1864, engagement began as skirmishing between the lead elements of the Confederate army and the rearguard of the Union army. The action quickly became an artillery duel and then turned into a running fi ght that ended in the early evening on the edge of the Saline River bottom.


100

The initial engagement was fought across the Guesses Creek fl oodplain with both sides fi ring artillery from the ridges above, the Confederates from the west side of the creek and the Union from the east. The military road, which the Union army had been following from Tulip, Arkansas, bisected the engagement area.

The natural features that defi ned the engagement remain. The ridges remain and Guesses Creek meanders between them northeast toward Leola (Figure 68). The route of the old military road remains, though it goes by several names: south of its intersection with Dallas County 409 near the site of the Cannonball House it is Phillips Trail (a private road); then it is Dallas County 409 to the Grant County Line, where it becomes Grant County 1. The road is not paved until it reaches Leola (Figure 69).

The site of the Cannonball House is on a broad plateau on the east side of Dallas County 409 (Figure 70). In this area and to the west the Union army formed their line, unlimbered their artillery, and fi red on the Confederates. There are perhaps 160 acres east of Dallas County 409 that are in pasture, including the house site; the rest is wooded, most in planted pine.

Approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the Cannonball House, on the west side of Dallas County 409, is the site of the Giles house (Figure 71). This is thought to be the area where the Union rearguard formed its second line. The area where the house stood and the yard that once surrounded it is open.

Figure 68: Guesses Creek in the First Engagement Site.

Figure 69: Phillips Trail, the old military road, in Dallas County.

Figure 71: This concrete porch is all that remains of the Giles house.

Figure 70: This gate marks the location of the Cannonball House.


101

The First Engagement Site retains excellent integrity and should be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It is worthy of preservation, and if preserved and interpreted would help tell the story of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry.

Threats This area of the battlefi eld is not highly populated, though it is near the small town of Leola. Increasingly, fi ve-to-ten acre residential house sites are being carved out of the area. Though much of the land is still in large parcels of timber, it is no longer owned by paper or timber companies but by individuals who may be more interested in or willing to sell house sites along road frontage. As this becomes more common it will whittle away the battlefi eld.

Much of the area is in planted pine that will eventually be harvested. Cutting trees and removing timber damages the ground to some degree, and has the potential to negatively impact archeological deposits. Phillips Trail, a private road, is protected by a locked gate, and very little metal detecting has been done in this area of the engagement site.

Priority ParcelsThere are twelve parcels totaling 1,386.58 acres associated with the First Engagement Site (Figure 72). The high priority parcels are in what for this plan has been designated the Core Area of the engagement site (Figure 72). Though not designated Core Area when it was resurveyed, it is believed that this is the area where fi ghting occurred in the early afternoon of April 29, 1864. The high priority parcels encompass some 590 acres. This land should be purchased in fee simple. The 354.08 acres of medium priority and 442.5 acres of low priority land is that within one-quarter to one-half mile of the Core Area. It is recommended that this property be protected with conservation easements.

Figure 73: The Cannonball House ca.1967. From Goolsby”The Lost Houses of Jenkins Ferry,”Grass-roots: Journal of the Grant County Museum, August 1999.


102

First Engagement Site Priority Parcels

Parcel Identifi er County Parcel No. Total Acres High

Priority Acres Medium

Priority AcresLow

Priority Acres

1 Dallas 001-04871-000 432.500 40.000 80.000 312.500

2 Dallas 001-04872-001 170.000 80.000 40.000 50.000

3 Dallas 001-04875-000 22.900 22.900

4 Dallas 001-04875-001 7.100 7.100

5 Dallas 001-04880-000 40.000 40.000

6 Dallas 001-04881-000 314.080 160.000 154.080

7 Dallas 001-04882-000 40.000 40.000

8 Dallas 001-04885-000 80.000 80.000

9 Dallas 001-04886-000 120.000 80.000 40.000

10 Dallas 001-04888-000 40.000 40.000

11 Grant 001-07991-000 80.000 80.000

12 Grant 001-07993-000 40.000 40.000

Total 1386.580 590.000 354.080 442.500


103

23

1110

34 35

T6N R15W

T7N R15W

1

2

34

56

7

8

9

10

1112

High priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority

11 Section Number

4 Parcel Identifier

Parcel Boundary

Core Area boundary

Section line

GRANT COUNT Y

DALLAS COUNT Y

1Grant Co

409Dallas Co

The militaryroad

409Dallas Co

Figure 72: Priority Parcels in the April 29, 1864, First Engagement Site.


104

BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY – MAIN ENGAGEMENT SITE

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry began in the early morning hours of April 30, 1864, and lasted into the day. Union soldiers in the Saline River bottom held off numerous assaults by Confederate cavalry and infantry before they crossed the river, burned their pontoon bridge, and continued their retreat to Little Rock.

The main engagement site as defi ned by the 2009 resurvey of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battlefi elds completed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (now in draft form) determined that the Core Area is approximately 2.14 miles wide and stretches about 3.25 miles, from a ridgeline in the south to just north of the Saline River (Figure 74). For the most part the Core Area is in the Saline River bottom.

The area is wooded, with both planted pines and hardwoods. Traces of the old military road are extant. Other than scattered deer stands, logging roads, and a modern hunting camp, there are no cultural features in the bottom (Figures 75 and 76). It is likely, however, that there are archeological remains associated with the houses mentioned in

Figure 74: Core Area of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld (outlined in red) as defi ned by the American Battlefi eld Protection Program in 2009.


105

battle accounts. Metal detector hobbyists have hunted the battlefi eld for the past 40 years and, from conversations with them it is estimated that several thousand artifacts have been removed.

ThreatsThe most signifi cant long-term threat to the battlefi eld is residential development. Sheridan is 34 miles from Little Rock and 25

miles from Pine Bluff. Leola is 50 miles from Little Rock and 39 from Pine Bluff. A bypass around Sheridan, which has considerable traffi c congestion during peak drive times, is nearing completion. This road will make living in Grant County and working in Little Rock or Pine Bluff more appealing to commuters. It is an easy commute from Sheridan to Little Rock via U.S. 167, a four-lane highway that intersects I-430 just south of Little Rock. Sheridan is connected to Pine Bluff by U.S. 270, a four-lane highway that intersects with I-530 at Pine Bluff.

A number of people already make the drive from Sheridan to these cities and that number will increase with road improvements. Little Rock is the largest city in Arkansas, and Pine Bluff the ninth largest. Both offer a wide range of employment opportunities that cannot be found in Grant County. However, Grant County offers a slower pace of life, a rural setting, and lower taxes than Little Rock or Pine Bluff, which would make living there appealing to many individuals. In the long-term it is likely that Grant County will become a bedroom community to Little Rock and Pine Bluff, which will put pressure on the battlefi eld area in terms of both residential and associated commercial development.

Much of the battlefi eld is in planted pine that will eventually be harvested, causing some degree of damage to the ground. There are no prepared earthworks associated with this engagement; the tree and log breastworks that the Union army built disappeared long ago. It’s unlikely that logging activity would permanently harm the battlefi eld but it will probably damage archeological resources.

Much of the land in this part of the battlefi eld is leased to hunting clubs. The leases are

Figure 75: The cleared fi elds in the Saline bottom are now covered in hardwoods.

Figure 76: A hunting camp located on the battlefi eld.


106

annual arrangements; they are profi table for the landowner and popular with hunting clubs. One lease in the battlefi eld has a house and outbuildings built by one such club. The fact of these leases, their profi tability to the landowners and the tradition of the hunting clubs are issues that will have to be taken into consideration during the preservation/land purchase process.

Priority ParcelsIt is recommended that 51 parcels totaling 6,106.060 be preserved in this area of the battlefi eld. This is substantially more land than the Core Area of 3,078.09 acres defi ned in the 2009 resurvey. The recommended area includes parcels that create a buffer outside of the Core Area and will preserve viewshed (Figure 77).

The Core Area as defi ned above is bisected by SR 46. After visiting the battlefi eld with several metal detector hobbyists it was determined that combat was confi ned west of SR 46. The historic route of Old Cunningham Road, which Confederate soldiers used to access the bottom in the fi nal assault on the Union line, is believed to be east of SR 46 and helps defi ne the Core Area.

The highest priority land is between the ridgeline at the south end of the main engagement, Tucker fi eld in the north, Cox Creek on the west and SR 46 on the east. This is the hallowed ground, the area of the most intense fi ghting. In this area are 29 parcels totaling 1,790.750 acres of high priority battlefi eld land. The purchase of this property would preserve and make it possible to interpret the most signifi cant portion of the battlefi eld, including most of the NHL boundary.

Nineteen parcels totaling 2,251.3 acres of land are medium priority. Some are in the 2009 Core Area boundary and the 1994 NHL boundary but are east of SR 46. These parcels should be considered the highest priority of this second tier and should probably be purchased in fee simple. Twelve low priority parcels, 2054.010 acres, should be protected with conservation easements.


107

Main Engagement Site Priority Parcels


Priority AcresMedium

Priority AcresLow

Priority Acres

1 Grant 001-06468-000 39.710 39.710

2 Grant 001-06468-002 133.500 133.500

3 Grant 001-06468-003 83.300 83.300

4 Grant 001-06468-004 259.000 259.000

5 Grant 001-06469-000 47.800 47.800

6 Grant 001-06470-000 47.720 47.720

7 Grant 001-06471-001 342.130 342.130

8 Grant 001-06471-003 24.000 24.000

9 Grant 001-06471-004 60.000 60.000

10 Grant 001-06471-005 90.000 90.000

11 Grant 001-06473-000 14.870 14.870

12 Grant 001-06529-000 250.710 160.000 90.710

13 Grant 001-06529-001 315.000 160.000 155.000

14 Grant 001-06531-000 91.390 91.390

15 Grant 001-06531-001 240.000 120.000 120.000

16 Grant 001-06532-000 48.170 48.170

17 Grant 001-06533-000 110.000 110.000

18 Grant 001-06533-001 146.850 146.850

19 Grant 001-06534-000 622.420 320.000 302.420

20 Grant 001-06536-000 600.000 40.000 560.000

21 Grant 001-07702-000 640.000 160.000 160.000 320.000

22 Grant 001-07703-000 80.000 80.000

23 Grant 001-07704-000 40.000 40.000

24 Grant 001-07705-000 40.000 40.000

25 Grant 001-07706-000 40.000 40.000

26 Grant 001-07706-001 40.000 40.000

27 Grant 001-07707-000 120.000 120.000


108

Main Engagement Site Priority Parcels



Priority AcresLow

Priority Acres

28 Grant 001-07708-000 40.000 40.000

29 Grant 001-07709-000 40.000 40.000

30 Grant 001-07710-000 40.000 40.000

31 Grant 001-07711-000 110.080 110.080

32 Grant 001-07711-001 9.920 9.920

33 Grant 001-07712-000 40.000 40.000

34 Grant 001-07713-000 480.000 80.000 40.000 360.000

35 Grant 001-07714-000 40.000 40.000

36 Grant 001-07715-000 37.680 37.680

37 Grant 001-07715-001 39.830 39.830

38 Grant 001-07716-000 3.180 3.180

39 Grant 001-07716-001 36.820 36.820

40 Grant 001-07763-000 26.000 26.000

41 Grant 001-07764-000 49.000 49.000

42 Grant 001-07806-000 80.000 80.000

43 Grant 001-07807-000 40.000 40.000

44 Grant 001-07808-000 40.000 40.000

45 Grant 001-07809-000 80.000 80.000

46 Grant 001-07810-000 60.000 60.000

47 Grant 001-07813-000 116.400 116.400

48 Grant 001-07813-001 38.580 38.580

49 Grant 001-07820-000 10.000 10.000

50 Grant 001-07821-000 2.000 2.000

51 Grant 001-07822-000 80.000 80.000

Total 6106.060 1790.750 2251.300 2064.010


109

Insert Map (Figure 77) Here


110

BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY – THE BURNING FIELD

After the Union army crossed the Saline River on April 30, 1862, they struggled for two miles through the worst terrain that Gen. Frederick Steele’s Chief Engineer, Capt. Junius Wheeler, had ever seen, before making camp on high ground. The Confederates did not pursue the Union army, which allowed Steele’s force to regroup. That night the Union army burned over 200 wagons and an unknown quantity of surplus supplies. They continued on to Little Rock the next day with 200 wagons of what had begun as an 800-wagon supply train. The wagons had been whittled down over the course of the campaign: Steele lost 177 at Poison Spring, 61 at Marks’ Mill, and 92 when the army crossed the Ouachita River on April 26, 1864.4

It is unclear where exactly the wagons were burned, and if they were driven into a fi eld and burned or burned in the road. It is also unclear how many were destroyed earlier. By the time Steele’s supply train arrived at the Saline bottom it had been reduced to 470 wagons, and more were lost before it crossed the river. Capt. C.A. Henry reported that wagons were broken up to help corduroy the road on the far side of the Saline, but he does not state how many. Regardless, 200 or so wagons would occupy a great deal of space. These were large vehicles—each was ten feet long and three-and one-half feet wide and could haul 5,000 pounds. It took six horses or mules to draw each one.

The area known as the burning fi eld is north of the Dogwood community at the intersection of SR 46, Grant County 8, and SR 291. Local informants put the burning fi eld in the vicinity of Sections 28 and 33, Township 5 South, Range 14 West. Most if not all of this property is in planted pine (Figure 78).

ThreatsThe threats to the burning fi eld are the same as those for the main engagement site.

Priority ParcelsThere are ten parcels of land in the two sections designated as the burning fi eld, a total of 1,216 acres. The issue is that no one knows exactly where in those sections the wagons were burned. Because an exact location has yet to be determined it is diffi cult to prioritize

4 O.R., Vol. XXXIV, Series I, Part I, pp. 608-681.

Figure 78: Planted pine in the vicinity of the Burn-ing Field.


111

the parcels. One of the recommendations made in Chapter 10 is that an archaeological investigation be conducted of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. That investigation would include a search for the burning fi eld (Figure 79).

At this point, the entire area identifi ed as the burning fi eld is high priority. Once an archaeological survey has been completed those working to preserve the battlefi eld may choose to focus on the land that contains the archaeological resources as the highest priority parcels.

Burning Field Priority Parcels



Priority AcresLow

Priority Acres

1 Grant 001-06316-000 640.000 640.000

2 Grant 001-06373-000 556.800 556.800

3 Grant 001-06375-000 19.260 19.260

Total 1216.060 1216.060


112

222120

29 28 27

343332

Moore’s ChapelCemetery

Dogwood

291

46

46

8Grant Co

High priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority 11 Section Number

2

2

3

1

Parcel Identifier

Parcel Boundary

Section line

Figure 79: Priority Parcels for the May 1, 1864, Burning Field.


113

INTERPRETING THE BATTLE


114

INTERPRETING THE BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY

The mission of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld is “to protect, preserve and promote the historical signifi cance of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld through funding and development of education programs and community outreach efforts, including: tours, re-enactments, research publications, lectures, workshops and preservation of battlefi eld property.” Interpreting the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry and making it possible for visitors to experience the battlefi eld fi rsthand fulfi lls an important component of the Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld’s mission.

It is not within the scope of this project to develop an interpretive program for the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. Recommendations for interpreting the battle in the short-term and the direction the interpretive program might take in the future are outlined for consideration, until such time as a comprehensive interpretive plan can be developed for the battlefi eld.

THE VALUE OF INTERPRETATION

Interpretation will help the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld fulfi ll its mission to preserve, protect, maintain and interpret the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld by generating support for the organization and its programs. The purpose of any interpretive program is to inspire people to go from curiosity: What is this all about?— to awareness: I’ll think about it — to understanding: I think I care — to care about: I want to help— to care for: I will help — to stewardship: I will work to protect and preserve this place. The connections visitors make to the battlefi eld through interpretive experiences can lead them to take action.

Some might question whether interpretation can really make a difference. Jay Miller, former Chief of Interpretation with Arkansas State Parks, saw fi rsthand what effective interpretation can do. Old Davidsonville State Park, a small historic site in northern Arkansas, has river access, a small fi shing lake, two dozen campsites, a visitor center with exhibits about the history of the site, and a small gift shop. The park was failing until 1995, when the site hired its fi rst full-time interpreter. In one year, programs increased from twenty-two to 109 and visitor contacts from 1,524 to 10,410. Park visitation jumped from 28,342 to 78,119 and revenue increased from $7,407 to $23,522.1 Old Davidsonville State Park is not an isolated example. A good interpretive program can transform a site and attract fi nancial, volunteer, political and administrative support.

EXISTING INTERPRETATION Presently, only 40 acres of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld are open to the public, all at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park. Less than four acres are accessible to the visiting public, the

1 Larry Beck and Ted Cable, Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture, Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, Illinois, p. 135.


115

rest of the park is south of the Saline River and access is diffi cult at best. All is subject to seasonal fl ooding. These issues can be overcome, but they must all be taken into consideration.

Three panels and an audio component available via cell phone at the park interpret the battle. The fi rst panel, Jenkins’ Ferry State Park, discusses the park itself and mentions the battle (Figure 80). The second, Red River Campaign (Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry), interprets the April 30, 1864 battle (Figure 81). The third panel, The Saline River Bottom, discusses the natural history of the river and bottoms and also mentions the battle (Figure 82). The audio tour is devoted to the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The monument erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy recognizes the battle and the Confederate soldiers who fought and died there. This is the only interpretation on the battlefi eld proper.

Even if there were no issues with access or fl ooding at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park, the interpretation does not offer the kind of experience that Civil War tourists want. The battle began over fi ve miles south

of the park and ended four miles to the north. Visitors want to see and experience the battlefi eld, and to walk the hallowed ground.

The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld engage in a number of activities that make the public aware of and interpret the battle. They sponsor local events and have a presence at those sponsored by others. They give presentations to schools, youth groups and adult organizations. They are planning a large event for the sesquicentennial of the battle. The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld has a good relationship with local newspapers and the press releases and features they submit appear regularly.

Figures 80-82: The three interpretive panels at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park.


116

Recommended ActionsTo generate youth interest in the history and the battlefi eld resource, the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld might start a junior Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld for children between the ages of seven and sixteen. Holding periodic living history and costumed events at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park—Jenkins’ Ferry Days—would help get people out to the battlefi eld. Other actions the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld might take that could have a profound effect are to develop a Teaching with Historic Places lesson plan and a simple driving tour of the battlefi eld that requires no land purchase.

TEACHING WITH HISTORIC PLACES

Education is an important facet of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld’s mission. Creating interest in the battle and instilling a sense of the importance of the past in young people helps create the stewards of tomorrow. Developing a Teaching with Historic Places lesson plan that meets Arkansas curriculum standards helps teachers integrate the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry into their core curriculum.

Teaching with Historic Places (TwHP) is a program of the National Park Service’s Heritage Education Services offi ce. The program is rooted in the belief that real historic places generate excitement and curiosity about the people who lived there and the events that occurred there. Based on sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Teaching with Historic Places promotes places as effective tools for enlivening traditional classroom instruction.

Teaching with Historic Places lesson plans turn students into historians. They study primary sources, historical and contemporary photographs, maps, and other documents, and then search for the history around them. Students enjoy a historian’s sense of discovery as they learn about the past by actively examining historic places to gather information, form and test hypotheses, and piece together “the big picture.” By seeking out nearby historic places, students explore the relationship of their own community’s history to the broader themes that have shaped this country.

NUMBERED-POST DRIVING TOUR

A numbered-post driving tour of the battle is a simple and relatively inexpensive way to interpret the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry in the short-term. Numbered posts or simple signs identify each stop (Figure 83). The visitor stops at a small pull-off or a public parking area and reads the narrative in the brochure.

Tour brochures would be available at the Grant County

Figure 83: Mock-up of tour stop sign for proposed driving tour.


117

Museum, Grant County Chamber of Commerce, and on the Friends of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry website. Advertise the tour by placing brochures in highway rest areas and visitor centers, local businesses, and motels and other accommodations in Grant and surrounding counties. Funds to produce and print the brochure are available from the Arkansas Sesquicentennial Commission and the Arkansas Humanities Council.

The nine-stop driving tour outlined below begins at the Grant County Museum in Sher-idan. On leaving the museum, visitors will be directed to drive south of Leola and into Dallas County to the site of the Cannonball House and the fi rst engagement of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The tour ends at Moore’s Chapel Cemetery, where the burning fi eld will be interpreted (Figure 84).

The most signifi cant issue with establishing the tour is parking. Each stop must be placed where the visitor can safely pull over to read the brochure. The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld will have to work with landowners to obtain permission for tour stops to be placed on their property and, if necessary, for simple graveled pull-offs to be created.

TOUR STOP 1 – GRANT COUNTY MUSEUM, SHERIDAN

The museum’s Jenkins’ Ferry Gallery exhibits feature maps, artifacts and panels interpreting the April 30, 1864, Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. The exhibits provide an overview of the battle that will help visitors better understand what they see on the driving tour.

TOUR STOP 2 – ENGAGEMENT OF APRIL 29 AND THE CANNONBALL HOUSE The action that began the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry could be interpreted at a pull-off at or near the site of the Cannonball House. An artillery duel was fought between Union troops on the ridge upon which the visitor would be parked, and Confederate troops who occupied the ridge to the west. The brochure could include a photograph of the Cannonball House and briefl y recount the engagement and the story of the cannonball that was shot through the structure.

TOUR STOP 3 – ENGAGEMENT OF APRIL 29: THE SECOND UNION LINE NEAR THE GILES HOUSE This stop, at a pull-off at the site of the Giles house, would interpret the second Union line and the leapfrogging action the Union army used to hold off the Confederate vanguard until their army reached the Saline River bottom. The brochure could feature a photo of the Giles house, which was standing at the time of the battle.

TOUR STOP 4 – RUFUS TAYLOR HOUSE This stop would interpret the only extant Civil War-era house on the battlefi eld area. The brochure would tell visitors that the Taylor house was typical of houses in the area, which were modest and not the stereotypical “plantation” house. A short history of the Taylor family might also be included.


118


Leola

Dogwood

D A L L A SG R A N T229

46

46

229

46

291

8

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry Driving Tour1. Grant County Museum: Jenkins‘ Ferry Gallery2. Engagement of April 29 and the Cannonball House3. Engagement of April 29: Second Union line4. Rufus Taylor House5. Taylor Cemetery: Family farms become a battleground6. Confederate Staging Area7. The Main Engagement 8. Jenkins’ Ferry State Park: Pontoon bridge and ferry crossing9. The Burning Field and retreat to Little Rock

0 1 2 3

MILES


Prattsville

Dogwood CrossRoads

Sheridan

16746

46

35

270

291

1

Figure 84: Route of proposed driving tour.


119

TOUR STOP 5 – TAYLOR CEMETERY: FAMILY FARMS BECOME A BATTLEGROUND

Taylor Cemetery provides an opportunity to interpret some of the families—Taylor, Jenkins, Carver, Dortch and others—that lived in the area at the time of the battle. If permission cannot be obtained to place a pull-off at the Taylor house, the cemetery could be an alternate stop and motorists instructed at Tour Stop 4 to look at the house as they pass it.

TOUR STOP 6 – CONFEDERATE STAGING AREA

A pull-off on Grant County 6, on the ridge before the road desends into the Saline River bottom, would interpret the end of the battle on April 29, 1864, and the beginning of the battle on April 30, 1864, when the Confederates used this high area as a staging ground.

TOUR STOP 7 – THE MAIN ENGAGEMENT

The April 30, 1864, Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry can be interpreted from an existing pull-off on SR 46, where there are plans to place a historical marker. The brochure would describe the terrain, weather conditions, and battle in the Saline River bottom during the day of April 30, 1864.

TOUR STOP 8 – JENKINS’ FERRY STATE PARK: PONTOON BRIDGE AND FERRY CROSSING

The Union pontoon bridge and Jenkins’ Ferry will be interpreted at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park. The brochure will augment, not repeat, the existing interpretation at the park (the panel and the cell phone audio). Visitors will be urged to leave their cars and look at the historic ferry crossing and road and the United Daughters of the Confederacy monument erected in 1928.

TOUR STOP 9 – THE BURNING FIELD AND THE RETREAT TO LITTLE ROCK Visitors will stop at the parking area at Moore’s Chapel Cemetery to learn about the decision to burn the wagons and their contents, how many wagons were burned and spent horses and mules turned loose, and the decision to send the wounded and the Freedom Seekers to Pine Bluff.

INTERPRETING THE MAIN ENGAGEMENT IN THE BOTTOM In 2004, Jay Miller, then Chief of Interpretation for Arkansas State Parks, outlined a series of trails interpreting the April 30, 1864, Main Engagement in the Saline River bottom. Miller proposed three pedestrian loop trails taking visitors into the bottom and the area of the cleared fi elds. The trails would intersect a low-maintenance driving trail that would meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards.2 The following outline uses Miller’s plan as a starting point. It assumes that the necessary land has been obtained for the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld to construct trails and install interpretation after receiving clearance from the State Historic Preservation Offi ce.

A larger on-site interpretive program will defi ne the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry as beginning on the high ground in the south end of the site and ending at the river. This plan envisions

2 Jay S. Miller, “Jenkins’ Ferry, A Plan,” Draft master plan concept, Arkansas State Parks, Little Rock, Arkansas, December 6, 2004, Copy in possession of the author.


120

four primary interpretive locations, a multi-use trail with fi ve interpreted sites, and four pedestrian trails.

Primary Interpretive LocationsThe main engagement and the Union escape across the Saline River will be interpreted at four locations not subject to seasonal fl ooding that can be visited by the public year-round. These locations will be fully accessible, meeting ADA guidelines (Figure 85).

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE LOCATION 1 - THE HIGH GROUND

The engagement of April 29, 1864, ended on this high ground and the main engagement the following day began here. On April 30, 1864, Confederate generals stood on this ground and directed fi ve major assaults into the bottom, hoping to break the Union line and capture the Union army. Waysides would interpret the battle from the Confederate perspective, their strategy and why they failed to overcome the Union defense.

PRIMARY SITE 2 - THE MAIN ENGAGEMENT

The Union army in the bottom was outnumbered but Union strategy forced the Confederates to attack in a narrow area, making it impossible for them to use their larger numbers to their advantage. Union forces successfully repulsed fi ve attacks. The Confederate forces pulled back and the Union infantry in the bottom turned toward Jenkins’ Ferry. Waysides would interpret the main engagement from the Union perspective, their response to the Confederate attacks and the successful strategy that enabled them to reach the Saline River.

PRIMARY SITE 3 - THE UNION ARMY CROSSES THE SALINE

While the Union infantry held the Confederates at bay, the rest of the Union force—the cavalry, artillery and supply train—and the African American refugees that accompanied it, began crossing the Saline River. They used a bridge constructed of wood salvaged from nearby buildings and some of the Union wagons, supported by India-rubber pontoons. After the Confederates withdrew, the Union infantry crossed the Saline. Interpretation at Jenkins’ Ferry State Park would focus on the construction and use of the pontoon bridge.

PRIMARY SITE 4 – THE BURNING FIELD

After crossing the Saline River, the Union army struggled through the bottoms on the north side of the river. Two miles north they fi nally reached high ground. Here the Union army burned over 200 wagons. The wounded and the Freedom Seekers were detached from the main force and put on the road to Pine Bluff. The rest of the army marched toward Little Rock. Interpretation would address events at the burning fi eld and the Freedom Seekers, also called Contraband, who had followed the army.


121


Leola

Dogwood

46

229

46

291

8

6

2

3

4

1

Primary Interpretive Locations1. The High Ground2. The Main Engagement 3. The Union Army Crosses the Saline4. The Burning Field

0 1

MILE

Figure 85: Primary interpretive locations


122

Interpretation in the BottomVisitors will access the battlefi eld in the bottom via a graveled multi-use trail and four pedestrian trails. Five locations along the multi-use trail will interpret the military action in the bottom. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program will review and approve construction plans to ensure that the cultural resources in the bottom are not compromised by trail-building activities. The proposed archeological project should locate the most signifi cant cultural resources, providing the information necessary so as to avoid negatively impacting the resources.

The Saline River bottom presents a number of challenges to building and maintaining trails. Because road and trail surfaces must be able to tolerate periodic fl ooding, simple graveled surfaces will probably be best. There has been mention of constructing a boardwalk through the bottoms. While it might be possible, such an undertaking would be very expensive to construct and maintain and would impact the visual integrity of the battlefi eld needlessly. Fortunately, there are a number of options for interpretive signage that can tolerate being submerged.

At times, fl ooding will render the trails in the bottom inaccessible. Visitors should be made aware of this on the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld website, in the tour the brochure and in promotional materials. The Chamber of Commerce should also be notifi ed when the trails are closed. In the interest of safety, visitors should also be told that poisonous snakes are common in the bottom and that they should be alert to their presence and should wear appropriate footwear.

MULTI-USE TRAIL WITH FIVE INTERPRETIVE LOCATIONS The multi-use trail, for use by pedestrians and vehicles, will follow or parallel the route of the military road. As Miller recommended in 2004, the trail should be wide enough only to allow a vehicle and pedestrian to safely share it; the forest should come up to its edges. Removing only those trees necessary will also minimize disturbance. Construction will have to be done in such a way that it does not damage the historic road trace. The trail should be gated so that it can be closed off when the park is closed and/or the water is too high for access.

The web of streams, sloughs and ponds south of the Saline River makes it impractical to take the multi-use trail all the way to the river and the site of Jenkins’ Ferry. Construction would require building a number of bridges or culverts and would have an adverse affect, destroying or altering habitat in this environmentally sensitive area.

The multi-use trail will begin west of Primary Site 1, where Grant County 6 drops into the Saline River bottom, and will pass through the location of the three cleared fi elds before diverging from the military road north of the Tucker fi eld and exiting on SR 46 at Primary Site 2 (Figure 86).


123

As envisioned by Miller, fi ve locations in the Saline River bottom will each be interpreted with one or more waysides. The interpretation at these sites will offer a more detailed look at the battle and the factors that infl uenced its outcome. Small parking areas will allow visitors to exit their vehicles to read the waysides and, if desired, explore the area on the pedestrian loop trails. The waysides should be fully accessible.

SITE 1 – THE BOTTOM OF THE HIGH GROUND

The engagement of April 29, 1864, ended in this location. A Union regiment remained a few hundred yards northeast of this location overnight and was withdrawing when the Confederates attacked the next morning, beginning the main engagement.

SITE 2 – CARVER/JENKINS FIELD

The Carver/Jenkins fi eld is the southernmost of the three cleared fi elds in the Saline River bottom. One company of Union infantry held this fi eld on the morning of April 30, 1864. Confederate cavalry attacked, setting the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry in motion.

SITE 3 – DORTCH FIELD

The Dortch fi eld is the second and most signifi cant of the three agricultural fi elds. Between each cleared fi eld was a wooded area. The Union line was in the woods north of Dortch fi eld. Confederate soldiers marched across the fi eld and attacked. Almost all of the fi ghting in the battle took place in this fi eld.

Site 4 – Tucker FieldThe Tucker fi eld is the third and northernmost of the three cleared fi elds. This fi eld was used as the Union staging ground and a house near the fi eld was used as Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele’s headquarters and as a fi eld hospital.

SITE 5 – NORTH OF TUCKER FIELD AND SOUTH OF JENKINS’ FERRY LANDING

This location might interpret the construction of the pontoon bridge, the weather and the extreme diffi culty that Union engineers and soldiers had in moving the wagons across the bottom.

PEDESTRIAN TRAILS Four low-maintenance pedestrian loop trails will allow visitors to experience the battlefi eld and the terrain more intimately. These trails also present an opportunity for additional interpretation not only of the battle, but the natural and cultural history of the Saline River and the bottoms, which could draw visitors with interests outside of the Civil War. Three trails will depart from sites along the multi-use trail; the fourth will depart from the parking area at Primary Site 2, where the multi-use trail ends.

THE GRANNY JENKINS TRAIL

This trail will begin and end at the parking area at Site 2: the Carver/Jenkins Field and will loop through the area the fi eld occupied. Interpretation will focus on the civilian story—what the area was like in 1864, the families that lived here, how they lived, and the impact the battle had on their lives.


124

THE DORTCH TRAIL

This trail will begin and end at the parking area at Site 3: The Dortch Field, where the heaviest fi ghting of the main engagement took place. Looping through the area the fi eld occupied and to Cox Creek, it will focus on the military action, the location of the Union and Confederate lines, the impact of the weather, and the natural features that played a role in the battle—Cox Creek, the swale and the slough.

THE TUCKER TRAIL

Interpretation on this trail will address Maj. Gen. Frederick Steele’s use of the Mary Tucker house as his headquarters, the Union fi eld hospital here and the area as the Union staging area. The trail will begin and end at the parking area at Site 4: The Tucker Field.

THE SALINE RIVER BOTTOMS TRAIL This trail will begin at the parking area at Primary Site 2 and will go north as far as practical. It will explore in more detail the obstacle the bottoms posed for the Union and Confederate armies and will discuss the natural history of this rich ecosystem.


125

11 12 7

17181314

24 19 20

46

229

466

Grant Co6Grant Co

Leola

Saline River


1864Cleared Fields

Cox Creek

Core Area

1

Pedestrian Loop Trails

Multi-use Trail

1

2

3

45

2

3

Primary Site

Primary Site

Primary Site

Figure 86: Location of proposed interpretation in the Saline River bottom.


126

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS


127

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This plan outlines a strategy for preserving the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld based on best practices developed by the American Battlefi eld Protection Program, which have been used successfully across the nation.

APPLY FOR ABPP FUNDING

The next ABPP-funded project that the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld should pursue is an archeological survey. Archeological projects require landowner permission and provide an opportunity to build relationships with landowners based on trust and friendship. Archeology is popular with the public and will garner good publicity, reinforcing the signifi cance of the battlefi eld resource with the public. The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld should apply to the ABPP in the next grant cycle for funding to undertake a professional archeological survey. Research questions should include the location of the houses on the battlefi eld in 1864; battle lines associated with the April 29, 1864, First Engagement Site; and the location of the burning fi eld.

FORM PARTNERSHIPS

A coalition of concerned citizens, elected offi cials and state and federal agencies must come together for the battlefi eld preservation effort to work. The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld is a new organization; this is its baptism by fi re. The organization has stepped forward and made it known that it wants to lead. Keep an open dialogue with Arkansas State Parks and work with them to develop a strategy for park expansion. Bring the Civil War Trust into the conversation. Let them know what you are doing and ask them to help you work with Arkansas State Parks to expand the park. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has been involved with the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld for years. They are a signifi cant partner and can provide technical assistance and act as a liaison with other state and federal agencies.

GET TO KNOW THE LANDOWNERS

The Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld is composed of thousands of acres owned by a number of individuals and companies. Some own hundreds of acres, others only a few. Reach out to the landowners. Share the plan with them and make them aware that their land is part of the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld, that it is signifi cant historically. Let them know that it’s important to preserve this land for future generations. Tell them why it is important and how preservation can benefi t the county.

MAINTAIN MOMENTUM

Next year is the sesquicentennial of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. Plans are already in place for a reenactment and Ed Bearss is scheduled to be in town for the event. The plan will be in hand and the community will be excited. Use the excitement and positive publicity to your advantage. Press forward with the preservation effort. Reach out to your partners and other Camden Expedition National Historic Landmark sites to develop regional tours and marketing initiatives.


128

Preserving a battlefi eld is a long-term project, one that may span decades. The actions below will help the battlefi eld preservation project move forward. They follow a general seven-year timeline, but if an opportunity arises to accomplish an action listed several years ahead do not hesitate to do so. It is important to take the initiative, be proactive and seize opportunities when they present themselves.

2013-2014APPLY FOR ABPP FUNDING

The grant cycle for the American Battlefi eld Protection Program usually begins in the fall. Apply for funding to conduct an archeological survey.

BEGIN DIALOGUE WITH LANDOWNERS

In order to conduct the archeological survey landowner permission must be obtained. This is a great opportunity to meet the landowners and get them involved in a positive way with the project.

BECOME MORE PROFESSIONAL

The Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld is an all-volunteer organization. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and/or Historic Preservation Foundation of Arkansas offer courses and workshops in basic historic preservation. The American Association for State and Local History, a national not-for-profi t, also offers courses, webinars, and inexpensive technical leafl ets that can help in everything from fundraising to interpretation. Take advantage of these organizations and learn the language of preservation.

CREATE NEW PARTNERSHIPS

The preservation of a battlefi eld is a daunting undertaking and at fi rst glance might seem impossible. It’s not. It has been done elsewhere and can be done at the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld. The opportunity for partnerships exists. Reach out to organizations and individuals. Ask them to help you and work with you to preserve the Jenkins’ Ferry battlefi eld.

EMBRACE THE CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL

The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry sesquicentennial commemoration is an opportunity to garner great publicity and broaden your base of support. With Ed Bearss on the program this event will draw a big crowd. Invite elected offi cials, Arkansas State Parks, and other current and potential partners to participate or to simply come and enjoy the commemoration. Use the event to educate and inform.

INVESTIGATE CREATING A CAMDEN EXPEDITION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

Meet with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program to discuss creating a Camden Expedition National Heritage Area. Reach out to Arkansas State Parks the Nevada County Economic Development Offi ce, the Ouachita County


129

Historical Society and others with a stake in the battlefi elds to develop a strategy and then reach out to your congressman and U.S. senators.

CREATE A BATTLE OF JENKINS’ FERRY DRIVING TOUR

A simple numbered-post driving tour will allow visitors to experience the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry in more depth than is now possible. This tour can use existing public rights-of-way, or work with businesses and landowners to create small pull-offs to safely let motorists drive the length of the battlefi eld from Leola to the burning fi eld.

2015-2016The sesquicentennial comes to an end and the run-up to the bicentennial begins. Continue to build relationships with stakeholders, landowners and the community. Market the battlefi eld as part of the Camden Expedition.

END THE SESQUICENTENNIAL ON A HIGH NOTE

Use the momentum and interest generated by the last year of the Civil War sesquicentennial to preserve hallowed ground. As each parcel of land is purchased issue a press release and have a public event to celebrate the closing.

APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL ARKANSAS CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL MARKERS

Apply to the Arkansas Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission to have a marker placed at or near the burning fi eld and another to mark the site of the April 29, 1864, fi rst engagement of the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry.

CONTINUE PARTNERSHIP BUILDING

Continue to work with partnerships that have been established over the past few years and seek out new partners to fi nd creative ways to preserve and interpret the battlefi eld. A broad coalition will help strengthen the preservation effort. Partnerships are the lifeblood of any preservation effort. It is too hard, and too ineffi cient to go it alone.

CREATE AN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE

Foster a new generation of preservationists by enlisting local educators to help develop a Teaching with Historic Places lesson plan and introducing it into the local 8th-grade curriculum.

CREATE A CAMDEN EXPEDITION TRAIL ORGANIZATION

The sesquicentennial is over but the momentum and interest it generated remain. Use it to create a new group that will work together to build a greater regional presence. A Camden Expedition Trail organization could develop trail signage and an attractive multiple-page brochure to promote and market the trail.


130

BEGIN TRACKING VISITORS

Nothing gets the attention of elected offi cials like economic development. By now efforts to promote the battlefi eld have matured and a driving tour and other interpretation are in place. Work with the Grant County Chamber of Commerce to track visitors who request information about the battlefi eld and Civil War sites and report numbers to the local city and county governments. Conduct informal surveys of visitors at the state park and at events to generate data on how long people stay and what local establishments they patronize.

INVITE THE CIVIL WAR TRUST The Civil War Trust has traveled across the Mississippi River for its annual meeting. Invite them to come to Arkansas and highlight the Camden Expedition for their 2016 meeting. The battlefi elds are pristine and it would be an opportunity to garner more support for the preservation effort.

APPLY FOR ANOTHER ABPP GRANT

Take note of what has been accomplished over the past three years and determine what project or projects that ABPP funding might aid. Possibilities include an interpretive plan, additional archeology, and a National Register boundary expansion to include the burning fi eld and the April 29, 1864, fi rst engagement site.

CONTINUE REACHING OUT TO LANDOWNERS

The landowners are the stewards of the land and it’s through them that battlefi eld land will be preserved,;it’s important to continue to reach out to them. Invite landowners to serve on the board of the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld or to become otherwise involved in an advisory capacity.

DEVELOP FOUR ANNUAL BATTLEFIELD-RELATED EVENTS

Each year have a living history event, a lecture, a reenactment or an immersion tour or other events to bring people to the battlefi eld. These activities help keep the battlefi eld project alive for the people of the community, keep the preservation effort in the news, and maintain momentum.

2017-2021TAKE STOCK OF WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED TO DATE

Take an opportunity to look back at what has been accomplished in the last fi ve years. Evaluate the status of the battlefi eld project. If every goal has been accomplished set new ones and push ahead. If progress did not meet expectations try to determine why and adjust strategies to compensate.


131

TALK TO THE COMMUNITY

Hold a community meeting with the focus on the place of the battlefi eld in the community. Ask those attending how they use the battlefi eld and if they perceive it as a community asset. If the response is positive fi nd out what more can and should be done to use, develop and promote it inside and outside of the community. If the response is negative, ask what should be done to make the battlefi eld an asset.

It’s diffi cult to look too far into the future of this battlefi eld. There are a number of variables that might change the course or type of action that might best be used to aid the preservation process. If Arkansas State Parks takes the lead, the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld might become a fundraising and support organization. If the preservation of the battlefi eld falls to the Friends of Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld the focus and actions shift dramatically. Everything needed to preserve the battlefi eld is in place, now is the time to move forward.


132

BIBLIOGRAPHY


133

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Battlefi eld Protection Program. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Com-mission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds Draft v. 8 for Peer Review. National Park Service, Washington, DC, 2013.

American Battlefi eld Protection Program. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds: State of Arkansas. National Park Service, Washington, DC, 2010.

Atkinson, J.H. “The Action at Prairie De Ann.” The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Vol. , XIX, No.1, Spring 1960.

Baker, Don and Edwin C. Bearss. “Camden Expedition Sites.” National Historic Landmark Nomination. November 29, 1993, on fi le at Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, Arkansas.

“Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry Was Fought On April 30, 1864.” The Advocate (Fordyce, Arkansas), March 30, 1938.

Bearss, Edwin C. Steele’s Retreat from Camden & the Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry. Reprint edition. Civil War Roundtable Associates, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1990.

Beck, Larry and Ted Cable. Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, Illinois.

Blessington, Joseph Palmer. The Campaigns of Walker’s Texas Division. Reprint edition. State House Press, Austin, Texas, 1994.

Bragg, Dr. J.N. “The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry.” in M.A. Elliott, The Garden of Memory: Stories of the Civil War as told by Veterans and Daughters of the Confederacy. Reprint edition. The Hurley Co., Inc., Camden, Arkansas, 1976.

Chapman Brothers. Portrait and Biographical Album of Mahaska County, Iowa. Chapman Brothers, Chicago, Illinois, 1887.

Clark, Christopher D. Larry Tankersley, George F. Smith and Daniel Starnes. Farm and Forest Land Preservation with Conservation Easements, Southern Regional Water Program, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2007.

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission: Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Washington,


134

DC, 1993.

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission: Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefi elds, Technical Vol. II: Battlefi eld Summaries. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Washington, DC, 1993.

Crawford, Samuel J. Kansas in the Sixties. Reprint edition. Kansas Heritage Press, Ottawa, Kansas, 1994.

DeBlack, Thomas A. With Fire and Sword: Arkansas 1861-1874. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 2003.

Evans, Clement A., editor. Confederate Military History, Vol. 9: Missouri. Confederate Publishing Company, Atlanta, Georgia, 1899.

Fonzo, Stephen. Documentary and Landscape Analysis of the Buckland Mills Battlefi eld (Va042). Buckland Preservation Society, Gainesville, Virginia, 2008.

Forsyth, Michael J. The Camden Expedition of 1864 and the Opportunity Lost by the Confederacy to Change the Civil War. McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina, 2003.

Friends of the Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefi eld website. www.jenkinsferry.com.

Goolsby, Elwin L. “The Lost Houses of Jenkins Ferry.” Grassroots: Journal of the Grant County Museum, Sheridan, Arkansas, August, 1999.

Green, M.J. to Civil War Times Illustrated, July 1, 1984. Copy in possession of the author.

Green, M.J. to Michael Dougan, February 5, 1979. Copy in possession of the author.

Green, Thomas. Personal communication, March 13, 2013.

Haas, Jacob Diary. Unpublished manuscript in the possession of Michael Wilson of Broomfi eld, Colorado.

“Jane McWhorter Jenkins, Pioneer, Ran Ferry Alone for 30 Years.” The Malvern (Arkansas) Daily Record. February 5, 1963.

Jenkins’ Ferry Map. Gilmer Civil War Maps Collection. Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Jenkins’ Ferry State Park. Arkansas Encyclopedia. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1227.


135

Johnson, Ludwell H. Red River Campaign: Politics & Cotton in the Civil War. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, 1993.

Joiner, Gary Dillard. One Damn Blunder From Beginning to End: The Red River Campaign. SR Books, Lanham, Maryland, 2003.

Kennedy, Frances H. and Douglas R. Porter. Dollar$ and Sense of Battlefi eld Preserva-tion: The Economic Benefi ts of Protecting Civil War Battlefi elds. The Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC, 1992.

Kerby, Robert L. Kirby Smith’s Confederacy: The Trans-Mississippi South, 1863-1865. Columbia University Press, New York, 1972.

Knipping, Mark H. A History of the 27th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment in the War of the Rebellion, 1862-1865. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/WI.She27thVol, 2001.

Latschar, John. “Battlefi eld Rehabilitation at Gettysburg,” http://www.nps.gov/gett/parknews/gett-battlefi eld-rehab.htm, 2009.

Lowe, Richard. Walker’s Texas Division C.S.A.: Greyhounds of the Trans-Mississippi. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2004.

Miller, Jay S. “Jenkins’ Ferry, A Plan.” Draft master plan concept. Arkansas State Parks, Little Rock, Arkansas, December 6, 2004. Copy in possession of the author.

National Heritage Areas. www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/FAQ/

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC, 1999.

Pilgrim, Michael E. “A Different View on the War: The Civil War Diary of Richard M. Venable.” Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration, Winter 1996, Vol. 28, No. 4.

Pitcock, Cynthia DeHaven and Bill Gurley, editors. I acted from principle: The Civil War Diary of Dr. William M. McPheeters, Confederate Surgeon in the Trans-Mississippi. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 2002.

Popchock, Barry. Soldier Boy: The Civil War Letters of Charles O. Musser, 29th Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa, 1995.


136

Porter, Jack E. “Jenkins’ Ferry Battleground.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. October 27, 1969, on fi le at the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, Arkansas.

“Recent research uncovers new information on ownership of battlefi elds at Jenkins’ Ferry.” The Sheridan (Arkansas) Headlight, March 27, 2013.

Richards, Ira D. “The Camden Expedition, March 23-May 3, 1864.” MA Thesis, University of Arkansas, 1958.

Ruegger, Captain Edward. “Five Weeks of My Army Life.” Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 37, No. 3, Spring 1954.

Southern Claims Commission. M1 407: Petition submitted by Carver, John M., Claim No. 18910. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.

Sperry, A.F. History of the 33d Iowa Infantry Volunteer Regiment 1863-6. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1999.

Stuart, A.A. Iowa Colonels and Regiments: Being a History of Iowa Regiments in the War of the Rebellion. Mills & Co., Des Moines, Iowa, 1865.

Turnbo, Silas Claborn. History of the Twenty-Seventh Arkansas Confederate Infantry. Arkansas Research, Conway, Arkansas, 1988.

U.S. War Department. The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Offi cial Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC, 1880-1901.

U.S. War Department. List of Staff Offi cers of the Confederate States Army, 1861-1865. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washington, DC, 1891.

Venable, Richard M., service record. M258, Roll 0110, Military Unit: Engineers, CSA, T-Y. Record Group 109, Combined Service Records of Confederate Soldiers Who Served in Organizations Raised Directly by the Confederate Government. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.

Walker, Joe. Harvest of Death: The Battle of Jenkins’ Ferry, Arkansas. N.P., 2011.


137

APPENDIX 1 APPLYING FOR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS

BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS* To Preserve America’s Endangered Civil War Battlefields

*As authorized by the American Battlefield Protection Act (16 USC 469k)

Guidelines and Application Instructions The National Park Service (NPS) makes available funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to help States and local communities acquire and preserve threatened Civil War Battlefields. The Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants (CWBLAG) are administered by the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) and awarded through a competitive process. Each grant requires a dollar-for-dollar non-Federal match. Grants are available to purchase 1) land in fee simple or 2) permanent, protective interests in land (easements) at Civil War Battlefields listed in the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s (CWSAC) 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. Foremost consideration is given to application packages for acquisition proposals at battlefields defined as Priority I or II sites in the CWSAC Report. The CWSAC Report and a listing of battlefields’ priority status can be found at on the Web at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/cwsac/cwstab7.html Potential applicants should carefully review the following guidelines before preparing an application package. The ABPP also encourages applicants to contact the ABPP staff before submitting an application package. Who May Apply? Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants will be awarded to units of State and local governments. In any case where a private non-profit organization seeks to acquire battlefield land with assistance from this program, that organization must apply in partnership with a State or local government agency sponsor. The government agency may then subgrant the Federal funds to the non-profit organization. In any case where a local government or a private non-profit organization acquires land or an interest in land with assistance from this program, it must convey a perpetual protective easement on the land to the State Historic Preservation Officer or other governmental agency acceptable to the National Park Service, in accordance with the “Administrative and Funding Requirements” set out below. What is Funded? Grants must be used to acquire battlefield land or to acquire a permanent, protective interest (i.e., a perpetual protective easement) in battlefield land. Additional costs associated with the acquisition – such as appraisal costs, survey fees, title insurance, and other closing costs – are also eligible grant costs. Grant funds cannot be used for acquisition of interests in land that is already permanently protected. Eligible battlefields are those listed in the CWSAC’s 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. Proposals for purchases at CWSAC Priority I and II sites will be given highest consideration. Eligible acquisitions should lie within the “core” areas of CWSAC battlefields (CWSAC “core” and “study” area maps are available from the ABPP). Proposals to acquire land outside of the “core” area but within the “study” area are eligible, but will be considered a lower priority than proposals to purchase “core” area land only. Land lying entirely outside of the CWSAC “study” area is not eligible for assistance from this program. If the land to be acquired lies partially within the “study” area and partially outside the “study” area, a majority (more than 50%) of the land must be within the “study” area in order for the proposal to be eligible for funding.

No lands located within the legislative boundaries of National Parks may receive funding through this program. When Are Grants Awarded? Ordinarily, the NPS will award the grant as “last money in” prior to acquisition of battlefield land or a protective easement. This means the grant will provide the final funds necessary to close on the property or interest in property. However, if a non-profit organization has borrowed money to acquire land to prevent its imminent sale for development, and if the land in question is not then protected by public ownership or by a perpetual protective easement, a State or local government may apply on behalf of the non-profit organization to retire the debt. Grant assistance for the retirement of such debt must result in either public ownership of the land or public ownership of a perpetual, protective easement, in accordance with the other terms of this guidance. The fact of such prior purchase creates no additional priority for funding assistance from the NPS.

Administrative and Funding Requirements Matching Share Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants may be used to pay up to 50% of the total cost—the

sum of both the cost of the land or protective easement to be purchased and any necessary fees—of the real estate transaction. A dollar-for-dollar non-Federal match is required. Non-Federal matching share may be in cash, loans (see below), landowner donations of lands or interests in lands (also partial donations, such as bargain sales that reduce the cost of the acquisition below its fair market value), or any combination thereof. Federal appropriations or other Federal grants may not be used to match Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants. Other Federal grants, however, may be part of the overall financing package, as long as non-Federal monies are used to match the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant portion of the transaction.

Matching funds should be “in-hand” or otherwise committed at the time that the application package is submitted to the NPS. The NPS will accept application packages from applicants who have not yet secured their matching share, but it reserves the right to provide such applicants with a conditional response pending the availability of matching funds within a specified period of time. Parties committing matching funds must provide a letter to the applicant verifying their contribution. If third parties will not commit matching funds without the leverage provided by this grant, applicants must provide a letter from potential funding sources guaranteeing that receipt of a Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant will release matching funds. Applicants who have not yet secured matching funds must submit a specific, credible plan for raising the necessary matching funds in a timely manner (usually within 120 days of award of Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant). The plan must identify potential sources of funds and include a proposed schedule for securing funds or commitments of funds. For the purposes of this program, applicants may use a loan as non-Federal match. However, if the loan is secured by the land to be acquired, the lending institution must agree, in writing, that it will subordinate its own interest in the property to the terms of the grant, especially the 6(f)(3) "non-conversion" and protective easement requirements. (See “Legal Requirements” below.) The applicant must include this explicit, written agreement from the lending institution in the application package. (This provision is not required if the loan is secured by means other than the land to be acquired or if the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant will retire the entire debt.)

Legal The American Battlefield Protection Act (ABPA) of 1996, as amended (16 USC 469k), Requirements authorizes this grant program. The ABPA allows Land and Water Conservation Fund

monies to be used to provide the Federal share of the cost of acquiring interests in eligible Civil War battlefield land. The ABPA requires that any interest in land acquired under this program “…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)).” Section 6(f)(3) requires that any land acquired with these funds be preserved and not converted to other uses without the express written consent of the Secretary of the Interior.

All grantees must agree to record with or in the deed and record in the easement (as applicable) the following:

1) That the property was acquired with assistance from Federal Land and Water Conservation Act funds pursuant to the American Battlefield Protection Act (16 USC 469k);

2) That the property, therefore, is subject to the provisions of Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Act;

3) That the property, therefore, may never be converted to other than preservation uses without the written approval of the Secretary of the Interior;

4) That in the event of a breach of the requirements of Section 6(f)(3) (unauthorized conversion), the only remedy is immediate compliance with Section 6(f)(3); and

5) That grant funds cannot be repaid to the NPS to nullify the requirements of Section 6(f)(3).

Because the Section 6(f)(3) “non-conversion” clause governs the use of the land but is not necessarily sufficient to protect the historic features of the battlefield, the NPS also requires additional legal assurances that the battlefield land will be preserved appropriately. In cases where a State government agency will acquire and manage the property, the State must enter into a letter of agreement with the NPS. The letter must assert that the State will hold the property forever, allow for public access, maintain and protect the historic features and landscape, restrict development to that needed for interpretation and visitor access, and pursue site development only after appropriate environmental and cultural studies are completed to inform best possibilities for low impact design and construction. If the agency is other than the State Historic Preservation Office, the letter must also state that pre-development site planning (such as surveys to identify significant landscape and historic features, and archeological investigations) and final construction designs are subject to approval by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The letter must also acknowledge the 6(f)(3) restrictions on the property. This letter will be recorded with the deed for the property and will run with the land in perpetuity. In all other cases, grantees or subgrantees must encumber the title to the acquired battlefield property with a preservation easement, in favor of and enforceable in court by the State Historic Preservation Officer, or by another government agency acceptable to the NPS, in perpetuity. Both the letters of agreement and easements must acknowledge Section 6(f)(3) restrictions and must be sent to the NPS for review and approval prior to their execution and recordation.

The fundamental purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is to help acquire and/or develop public outdoor recreation areas. Accordingly, grantees must provide for public access to lands or interests in lands acquired with assistance from this program, subject to necessary and reasonable measures on the part of the grantee to protect the historic features of the battlefield from damage or loss. Where the grantee will place an

easement on the property, the grantee must include language in the easement that indicates the type and degree of public access to be made available to the property. At a minimum, lands purchased with LWCF funds must be visible from public rights-of-way.

Appraisals Before the NPS will release grant funds, the NPS must receive and approve a property

appraisal to the NPS that supports the proposed acquisition cost. The appraisal must be completed within 180 calendar days of the signing of the contract to purchase the property. The cost of the appraisal is an allowable cost for this grant.

In September 2006, the Department of Interior’s Appraisal Services Directorate

established requirements for reviewing appraisals funded through grants-in-aid within the Department. In accordance with these new requirements, Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant grantees must consult DOI’s Appraisal Services Directorate before selecting an appraiser for the project. The DOI Appraisal Services Directorate will work with grantees

to find an “assignment qualified” appraiser in a timely fashion and guide grantees through the appraisal and review process. The DOI Appraisal Services Directorate can be found on the Web at http://www.nbc.gov/Appraisalservices/

The DOI Appraisal Services Directorate will only accept appraisals completed by a professional appraiser licensed and certified in accordance with Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), as amended, in the State where the appraised property is located. Appraisal preparation, documentation, and reporting must be made in conformance with the standards and practices of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA), as codified in 49 CFR 24.103, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP Standards 1 and 2) published by the Interagency Land Acquisition Conference. These standards are available from the Department of Justice on the Web at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/land-ack/

Grant Grantees may not charge costs for administering the project to the grant or to the Administration required matching share.

Application Package Application packages must be submitted in hard copy. The ABPP will not accept faxed or e-mailed application packages. The ABPP will not act on incomplete application packages. The NPS will accept application packages from government applicants or, where applicable, from the proposed non-profit sub-grantee. Each application package must include the following elements: 1) Cover Sheet/Check List Applicants must complete the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Cover Sheet/Check List (attached) with an original signature of an authorizing official within the applicant’s organization. The name of the battlefield and its priority listing should be written as they appear in the 1993 CWSAC Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields [http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/cwsac/cwstab7.html]. 2) Standard Form 424 – Application for Federal Assistance Applicants must complete Standard Form 424 (SF424). The responsible official of the government sponsor must sign this form. SF424 can be found on the Web at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/grants/LWCF/LWCFSF424.doc 3) Certification Letter – Acknowledgement of 6(f)(3) and Matching Fund Disclosure Applicants must provide a letter, signed by or on behalf of the head of the agency or organization (or their designee), certifying the accuracy of the information included in the application package. This letter must acknowledge that the applicant understands that Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 applies, in perpetuity, to the land proposed for purchase using LWCF funds, and that the applicant accepts the perpetual land use restrictions of Section 6(f)(3). The letter must also disclose all sources of secured matching funds making up the required non-Federal match. In the letter, the applicant must certify that the non-Federal matching funds are either “in-hand” or otherwise committed at the time of application. Parties committing matching funds must provide a letter to the applicant verifying their contribution. These letter(s) must be included with the application package. If third parties will not commit matching funds without the leverage provided by this grant, applicants must provide a letter from potential funding sources guaranteeing that receipt of a Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant will release matching funds. Applicants who have not yet secured matching funds must submit a specific, credible plan for raising the necessary matching funds in a timely manner (usually within 120 days of award of Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant). The plan must identify potential sources of funds and include a proposed schedule for securing funds or commitments of funds. For the purposes of this program, applicants may use a loan as non-Federal match. However, if the loan is secured by the land to be acquired, the lending institution must agree, in writing, that it will subordinate its own interest in the property to the terms of the grant, especially the 6(f)(3) "non-conversion" and conservation easement requirements. The applicant must include this explicit, written agreement from the lending institution in the proposal package. (This provision is not required if the loan is secured by means other than the land to be acquired or if the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant will retire the entire debt.) 4) Statement of Threat Applicants must include a statement that demonstrates the nature, extent, and level of severity of the threat(s) to the battlefield. Explain how and to what extent the proposed acquisition addresses and mitigates the described threat(s). In cases of minimal threats, provide a compelling reason for why the acquisition of the property at this time is the most appropriate preservation strategy for the battlefield.

5) Battlefield and Parcel Map Applicants must document that the proposed acquisition lies within the battlefield’s CWSAC “core” and/or “study” area. Include a USGS 1:24,000 scale, 7.5 minute topographic map (or similar) marked with the boundaries of the battlefield’s “core” and “study” areas and marked with the boundary of the parcel(s) to be acquired. Contact the ABPP to confirm “core” and “study” area boundaries. Applicants may submit a GIS shapefile of the parcel boundary instead of a paper map. If submitting GIS data, applicants must ensure that the parcel shapefile includes Federal Geographic Data Committee compliant metadata and can be read with ESRI ArcGIS 9. 6) Willing Seller Applicants must demonstrate in writing that the owner of the property to be acquired is willing to sell or donate the land at an agreed-upon price. Acceptable documentation includes a signed contract or contingent contract to buy the land, or a signed letter from the owner indicating willingness to enter into such a contract at a specified price.

7) Government Sponsor/Grantee Non-profit applicants must include a letter from the State or local government sponsor indicating its agreement to receive and administer the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant for the proposed acquisition. 8) Agreement to Hold Easement In cases where the State will not take ownership of the land to be acquired, applicants must include a letter from the appropriate State Historic Preservation office (or other government agency acceptable to the NPS) indicating its agreement to hold the required preservation easement in perpetuity. 9) Schedule for Acquisition Applicants must include a schedule for completion of the acquisition, noting final tasks and closing date.

* AANN AAPPPPLLIICCAATTIIOONN PPAACCKKAAGGEE IISS NNOOTT CCOOMMPPLLEETTEE UUNNLLEESSSS IITT MMEEEETTSS AALLLL OOFF TTHHEE AAPPPPLLIICCAATTIIOONN

PPAACCKKAAGGEE RREEQQUUIIRREEDD EELLEEMMEENNTTSS ((SSEEEE AABBOOVVEE))**

Application Deadlines Applicants may submit their proposals to the NPS at any time. The NPS will review all complete application packages as they are received. The NPS will notify applicants for projects at Priority I and II battlefields of its decision within 30 days of receipt of a complete application package. The NPS will notify applicants for projects at Priority III and IV battlefields of its decision after it considers pending Priority I and II application packages but no later than 120 days after receipt of a complete application package. If an applicant at a Priority III or IV battlefield gives a compelling reason to expedite a decision on an application package, the NPS may agree to do so. Where to Send Applications Via Commercial Overnight Service or Courier Service Kristen McMasters National Park Service 1201 Eye Street, NW - 2255 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 354-2037

Via U.S. Postal Service (Including Priority and Express Mail)* Kristen McMasters American Battlefield Protection Program National Park Service Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW - 2255 Washington, DC 20240-0001

*Note: U.S. Postal Service mail will be irradiated as a precaution before it is delivered. The irradiation process can cause significant delays in delivery. It will also damage materials such as photographs. Contacting the ABPP Please address questions and requests to Kristen McMasters, American Battlefield Protection Program, at 202-354-2037, [email protected] or Elizabeth Ries American Battlefield Protection Program at 202-354-2215, [email protected]

Cover Sheet (this page must be filled out, signed, and included with the grant application package or the application package will be considered incomplete)*

Applicant: Government Sponsor: Date: Battlefield: CWSAC Priority Number (1993): Property to be Purchased: Tax Parcel(s): Total Acreage: County/City: State: Type of Purchase: In Fee Simple Easement Organization/Govt. Agency to Own Property In Fee Simple: Govt. Agency to Hold Conservation Easement: Total LWCF/CWBLAG Requested Amount: Total Matching Funds: Total Purchase Price:

Check each box below to signify that the item is included in the grant proposal. Signed and completed SF424 Letter that 1) certifies accuracy of application information, 2) acknowledges 6(f)(3), and 3) discloses

sources of non-Federal matching funds

Also, if applicable: Third party letter(s) verifying matching fund contribution Potential funding sources letters guaranteeing that receipt of a Battlefield Land Acquisition

Grant will release matching funds Plan for raising necessary matching funds in a timely manner, if funds not yet secured

identifies potential funding sources includes proposed schedule for securing or commitments of funds.

Lending institution agreement to subordinate interest in property (if loan secured by land to be acquired)

Statement of threat

USGS 1:24,000 scale, 7.5 min topographic map showing battlefield boundaries and parcel boundaries and/or GIS shapefile of parcel boundaries with FGDC compliant metadata

Documentation of owner willingness to sell at a specific, agreed-upon price. Either a

signed contract or contigent contract to buy land or a signed letter from owner indicating willingness to enter into contract at a specified price.

Letter from State or local government agreeing to sponsor and administer the grant

Letter from State Historic Preservation Office or other approved government agency agreeing to hold

easement in perpetuity (if applicable) Schedule for completion of acquisition including,

final tasks closing date

Signature of Authorizing Official (Applicant) Date

*The ABPP will not act on incomplete grant application packages. Application reviews (both 30-day and 120-day determinations) will begin only after the ABPP receives a complete grant application package with an original signature of an

authorizing official within the applicant’s organization (see pages 5-6 above for more information).

Land and Water Conservation Fund/Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Grantee Responsibilities Check List

Grant Agreement If the ABPP (the grantor) awards a Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant, the receiving agency (the grantee) will be required to complete several tasks. These tasks will be outlined in the final grant agreement. Required Documentation The grantee must submit the following documentation to the ABPP for review and approval. Signed real estate contract Completed appraisal made in conformance with the standards and practices of the Uniform

Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA), as codified in 49 CFR 24.103, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP Standards 1 and 2)

Draft conservation easement

Draft letter of agreement from State (if conservation easement is not applicable)

Once the ABPP has approved the above documentation, the ABPP will release the grant funds not sooner than 15 days prior to closing on the property. The ABPP will not release grant funds until all of the above documentation has been approved. Within 45 days of the land acquisition closing date the grantee must provide the ABPP with the following documentation: Copies of property deed and any documents attached to the deed demonstrating that the

Section 6(f)(3) provision and conservation easement (if applicable) have been recorded in the land records

Copy of executed and recorded easement (if applicable) as pre-approved by the ABPP

Easement includes LWCF and 6(f)(3) acknowledgement Easement includes public access stipulations

Final letter of agreement from State if conservation easement is not applicable Records that demonstrate in what manner and to what extent the public has access to the

protected property

Once these documents are approved by the ABPP, the grant is complete.


138

APPENDIX 2NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

146

What are NHAs?

National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are

designated by Congress as places where

natural, cultural, and historic resources

combine to form a cohesive, nationally

important landscape. Through their

resources, NHAs tell nationally important

stories that celebrate our nation’s diverse

heritage. NHAs are lived-in landscapes.

Consequently, NHA entities collaborate

with communities to determine how to

make heritage relevant to local interests

and needs.

NHAs are a grassroots, community-driven

approach to heritage conservation and

economic development. Through public-

private partnerships, NHA entities support

historic preservation, natural resource

conservation, recreation, heritage tourism,

and educational projects. Leveraging funds

and long-term support for projects, NHA

partnerships foster pride of place and an

enduring stewardship ethic.

Benefits of NHAs

Some of the long-term benefits of NHA

activities include:

Sustainable economic development –

NHAs leverage federal funds (NHAs

average $5.50 for every $1.00 of federal

investment) to create jobs, generate

revenue for local governments, and

sustain local communities through

revitalization and heritage tourism.

Healthy environment and people –

Many NHAs improve water and air

quality in their regions through

restoration projects, and encourage

people to enjoy natural and cultural sites

by providing new recreational

opportunities.

Improved Quality of Life –Through

new or improved amenities, unique

settings, and educational and volunteer

opportunities, NHAs improve local

quality of life.

Heritage Areas 101

Education and Stewardship – NHAs

connect communities to natural, historic,

and cultural sites through educational

activities, which promote awareness and

foster interest in and stewardship of

heritage resources.

Community Engagement and Pride –

By engaging community members in

heritage conservation activities, NHAs

strengthen sense of place and community

pride.

The NHA Program

NHAs further the mission of the National

Park Service (NPS) by fostering community

stewardship of our nation’s heritage. The

NHA program, which currently includes 49

heritage areas, is administered by NPS

coordinators in Washington DC and seven

regional offices - Anchorage, Seattle, San

Francisco, Denver, Omaha, Philadelphia and

Atlanta - as well as park unit staff.

NHAs are not national park units. Rather,

NPS partners with, provides technical

assistance, and distributes matching federal

funds from Congress to NHA entities. NPS

does not assume ownership of land inside

heritage areas or impose land use controls.

NHA Facts

Forty-nine NHAs have been designated

by Congress since 1984. Each NHA is

created through individual federal law.

NHA designation recognizes the national

importance of a region’s sites and history.

Through annual Congressional appropriations,

NPS passes funds to NHA entities. Although

most entities are authorized to receive up to

$1 millon annually over a set period of time,

actual annual appropriations range from

$150,000 – $750,000.

The financial assistance component of the

program is secured with legal agreements,

accountability measures, and performance

requirements for NHA entities.

NHA designation does not affect private

property rights.

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Paddlers on the Schuylkill River outside Philadelphia, PA. Schuylkill River National Heritage Area coordinates the annual Schuylkill River Soujourn - a 7-day, 112 mile guided canoe and kayak trip, which provides a wealth of learning opportunities for participants. D. Creighton Photo.

National Heritage Areas

PLACE-BASED, COMMUNITY-DRIVEN CONSERVATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

April 2012

The National Heritage Areas

National Heritage Area Program Office

1201 “Eye” Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.354.2222

For more information visit

www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas

ALABAMA – Muscle Shoals National Heritage

Area

ALASKA – Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm

National Heritage Area

ARIZONA – Yuma Crossing National Heritage

Area

COLORADO – Cache La Poudre River

Corridor Sangre de Cristo National Heritage

Area South Park National Heritage Area

CONNECTICUT – *Quinebaug and Shetucket

Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor (CT,

MA) *Upper Housatonic Valley National

Heritage Area (CT, MA)

FLORIDA – *Gullah/Geechee Cultural

Heritage Corridor (FL, GA, NC, SC)

GEORGIA – Arabia Mountain National

Heritage Area Augusta Canal National

Heritage Area *Gullah/Geechee Cultural


IOWA – Silos and Smokestacks National

Heritage Area

ILLINOIS – Abraham Lincoln National

Heritage Area Illinois & Michigan Canal

National Heritage Corridor

KANSAS – * Freedom's Frontier National

Heritage Area (KS, MO)

LOUISIANA – Atchafalaya National Heritage

Area Cane River National Heritage Area

MARYLAND – Baltimore National Heritage

Area *Journey Through Hallowed Ground

National Heritage Area (MD, PA, VA, WV)

MASSACHUSETTS – Essex National

Heritage Area *Freedom's Way National

Heritage Area (MA, NH) *John H. Chafee

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor (MA, RI) *Quinebaug and

Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage

Corridor (CT, MA) *Upper Housatonic

Valley National Heritage Area (CT, MA)

MICHIGAN – MotorCities National Heritage

Area

MISSISSIPPI – Mississippi Delta National

Heritage Area Mississippi Gulf Coast

National Heritage Area Mississippi Hills


MISSOURI – * Freedom's Frontier National

Heritage Area (KS, MO)

NEVADA – *Great Basin National Heritage

Area (NV, UT)

NEW JERSEY – Crossroads of the American

Revolution National Heritage Area

NEW HAMPSHIRE –*Freedom's Way National

Heritage Area (MA, NH)

NEW MEXICO – Northern Rio Grande National

Heritage Area

NEW YORK – *Champlain Valley National

Heritage Partnership (NY, VT) Erie Canalway

National Heritage Corridor Hudson River

Valley National Heritage Area Niagara Falls


NORTH CAROLINA – Blue Ridge National

Heritage Area *Gullah/Geechee Cultural


NORTH DAKOTA – Northern Plains National

Heritage Area

OHIO – Ohio & Erie National Heritage

Canalway National Aviation Heritage Area

PENNSYLVANIA – Delaware & Lehigh National

Heritage Corridor *Journey Through Hallowed

Ground National Heritage Area (MD, PA, VA,

WV) Lackawanna Heritage Valley Oil Region

National Heritage Area Rivers of Steel National

Heritage Area Schuylkill River National

Heritage Area Path of Progress National

Heritage Route

RHODE ISLAND – *John H. Chafee Blackstone

River Valley National Heritage Corridor (MA,

RI)

SOUTH CAROLINA – *Gullah/Geechee

Cultural Heritage Corridor (FL, GA, NC, SC)

South Carolina National Heritage Corridor

TENNESSEE – Tennessee Civil War National

Heritage Area

UTAH – *Great Basin National Heritage Area

(NV, UT) Mormon Pioneer National Heritage

Area

VERMONT – * Champlain Valley National

Heritage Partnership (VT, NY)

VIRGINIA – *Journey Through Hallowed


WV) Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National

Historic District

WEST VIRGINIA – *Journey Through Hallowed


WV) Wheeling National Heritage Area

National Coal Heritage Area

*Denotes NHA that spans multiple states.

Skipper Russell, Seasonal Produce Farms, NC. Blue Ridge National Heritage Area provided funds to the Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP), which links new farms to available land and stimulates farm tourism. ASAP photo.

Students collecting water quality samples along the Quinebaug River as part of the Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program administered by Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor.

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area mobilized community members to raise funds needed to operate and maintain two Arizona state parks, including the Yuma Territorial Prison State Park (pictured here).

http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas


139

APPENDIX 3 RESOURCES FOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

148

SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR STATE AND LOCAL HISTORY http://www.aaslh.org American Battlefield Preservation Program http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/ Arkansas Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission http://www.arkansascivilwar150.com/ Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism

http://www.arkansas.com/

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/ Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department – Recreational Trails Program http://www.arkansashighways.com/recreational_trails.aspx Blue & Gray Magazine http://www.bluegraymagazine.com/ Civic Tourism http://civictourism.org/ Civil War News http://www.civilwarnews.com/ Civil War Trust

http://www.civilwar.org Cultural Heritage Tourism http://www.culturalheritagetourism.org/ Historic Preservation Foundation of Arkansas

http://preservearkansas.org/ National Association for Interpretation http://www.interpnet.com National Council for the Social Studies http://www.socialstudies.org/ National History Day, Inc

http://www.nationalhistoryday.org National Trust for Historic Preservation http://www.preservationnation.org/

Teaching with Historic Places

http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/twhp

USDA Rural Information Center – Historic Preservation Resources http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/preserve.html Walton Family Foundation

http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/

Documents

Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan...DRAFT Jenkins’ Ferry Battlefield Preservation Plan DRAFT vii BATTLEFIELD RESOURCES The Jenkins’ Ferry Battleﬁ eld is composed