Published by the Fort Attaway Preservation Society, Inc., (F.A.P.S.) a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of Rome, Georgia’s Fort Attaway.  Please bear with us as we try to establish a standard format for our Battle Report!

Back in November 2003, after our September meeting with the big wigs from the Georgia DOT, the Federal Highways Administration and the Georgia DNR-Historic Preservation Division, the Fort Attaway Preservation Society received a very thick report from the Georgia DOT. This very thick report was supposed to be the narrative that is part of the Georgia DOT's so far minimal efforts in their preservation of Fort Attaway. The Georgia DOT's in-house historian Mark Grindstaff, in his attempt to write this narrative, turned to discrediting many years of honest research that had been conducted by professionals in Rome's community; professionals such as attorney Dan Roper (the DOT's own lawyer), researcher David Slay and the beloved, late Gilbert Smith. Grindstaff claimed that Rome's historians had not used a rigorous methodology in their research and that many of their proposed conclusions were speculation. These derogatory statements were the introduction to the narrative and then Grindstaff spent the rest of the 1/2 inch thick narrative merely pondering and mulling over the many facts that exist on Fort Attaway. Not only did Grindstaff  turn around and write a narrative that did not provide any real data or conclusions on where he thought the fort was situated or how big its boundary is, but in his efforts he proved that the GDOT have not conducted a sufficient enough study to make decisions on this precious historic resource, and therefore do not have the grounds to just dig up something they haven't got concrete knowledge about.

F.A.P.S. responded to the Georgia DOT and Mark Grindstaff in a very short three page letter that merely stated this:

May we remind the Georgia DOT, according to the section 106 preservation law, that it is not the local historians’ legal responsibility to conduct a complete and exhaustive study of Fort Attaway; it is the GDOT’s responsibility. If Mr. Grindstaff was so confident in his research why was a conclusion on the location of the fort not provided in the narrative? How effective is the GDOT narrative as part of the solution to prevent damages to the fort if they are still speculating on its location? The large amount of speculation in this narrative plainly shows that the GDOT is irresolute in its Section 106 review.

Not only was this letter sent to the Georgia DOT, but also to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) who are the "federal watchdog" over the Federal Highways Administration. The ACHP's response to this letter was that they agreed with Mr. Fowler, and that correct boundaries on the fort need to be decided upon before the project should move forward. We're gaining ground!

Battle Report 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Home         News Articles          Support        Press Releases       Petition

Produced by:
 Fort Attaway Preservation Society, Inc.
1202 Desoto Avenue, Rome, GA 30165  (706) 234-0537
fortattaway@fortattaway.com