Mark Snell Opinion Letter

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether or not DeSoto Hill is the site of Fort Attaway and, if so, will any encroachment by the railroad onto Desoto Hill adversely impact the historical integrity of the fort.

An exhaustive on-site study (attachment 1) by historical consultant David Chuber, a recognized authority on permanent- and field-fortifications of the Civil War era, provides sound evidence that DeSoto Hill was, in fact, the site of Fort Attaway.  Field analysis based on his extensive knowledge of Civil War fortifications, weaponry, and tactics; archaeological evidence (both terrain features and artifacts); and primary source documentation (particularly General Jefferson Davis’s report in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (Series I, Vol. 38, pt. 1, p. 629) place the site of the fort on DeSoto Hill. 

The Georgia Department of Transportation has stated that the site qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places, thus admitting that DeSoto Hill is the site of the fort. Their elementary metal detector survey (of the area to be disturbed by the railroad) yielded no Civil War artifacts, so the determination was made that there was little, if any, Civil War-era activity in that area. The GDOT historian even questioned whether DeSoto Hill was the site of Fort Attaway.  Since many relic hunters had scoured Fort Attaway over the years, it is not surprising that the archeologist who conducted the survey did not find any Civil War artifacts.  Mr. Chuber spoke with several relic hunters who showed him the artifacts they recovered and also identified where they found them (attachment 2).  Relic hunters undoubtedly had found many more artifacts over the years, but the artifacts that were shown to Mr. Chuber are indisputable evidence of military combat and occupation. 

According to Chuber, the man-made terrain features (infantry trenches and artillery positions) coupled with the types of artifacts recovered in and around those features  (bullets, shell fragments, military buttons, etc) are sound evidence that the site in question is undoubtedly Fort Attaway. The features and recovered artifacts extend to the base of the hill that would be disturbed by construction and excavation. The National Park Service’s guidelines (attachment 3) for selecting the boundaries of historic properties state that, when determining the boundary of the site, “Use the extent of above-ground resources and surrounding setting to define the boundaries of the property. For archeological resources, consider the extent of above-ground resources as well as the distribution of subsurface remains identified through testing when defining the boundaries of the property.” It further states that, when defining the boundary, “use an area of modern development or disturbance that represents the limit of the eligible resource.” Since artifacts have been found along the slope that ends at the railroad tracks, this “modern disturbance” quite naturally should define the northern boundary of Fort Attaway.  Therefore, any encroachment onto DeSoto Hill would destroy any existing cultural artifacts and undoubtedly would violate the historic boundary of Fort Attaway.

Mark A. Snell, Ph.D.

Research Professor of History and

Director, the George Tyler Moore Center

     for the Study of the Civil War

Department of History

Shepherd University