Franklin Franklin Battlefield Walking Tour (11-30-15)

Yeah, I'd say it's a little disconcerting, too, since trained archaeologists were the ones who found the foundation, as well as various tools and implements related to a cotton gin. I was at the site, and watched as they uncovered it. The foundation of the school (Wall and Mooney and later BGA) was found earlier in a different location. The soot and bricks were well west of the gin foundation.

As for Moscow's map, I had to accept the fact that when the main Federal trench line was uncovered in that area last year that his map was incorrect. I can be stubborn and think otherwise, but the evidence is to the contrary. Let's face it, he drew the map AFTER the gin was torn down, and he was simply off by 30-40 feet. He was dead on with the Carter House and the road, but he simply misplaced the line and thus, it seems, the gin, too. Perhaps you think the Federal line isn't really the Federal line either, even though it was loaded with military artifacts.?

As to other foundations that were found, and were not investigated, I have no idea what that is a reference to. It sounds like second hand info or just speculation. Again, I spent days at the site during the dig with Larry McKee who headed it up and know as well as anyone what was found.
Yep, I don't question that a foundation was found. I saw it myself, but I do know that the same stone foundation of the gin house was disassembled and used in the construction of the school. I also know the school didn't have the same dimensions or shape of the gin house.

My concern was that what was uncovered was a slightly "L" shaped foundation. By all accounts, the gin house was apparently square. 36 feet by 36 feet if I recall (probably wrong). Anyhow, that didn't fit the dimensions or shape of the foundation that was uncovered.

I went to the site a few days after it was uncovered just to check it out, and my own eyes saw heavy soot in and around the entire foundation. Naturally, it appeared that something that had been there burned at some point. I was later told by someone in the state archaeological department that what appeared to be soot was coal remnants from a coal furnace that later ran the gin. The problem is, they don't dump coal in and around the entire building when you get a delivery. It just seemed odd to me. My eyes saw clear evidence of a fire and soot. What we do know is the gin didn't burn, but the school house did. I was kinda blown away when I saw such evidence of a fire, and I took pictures with my phone. Unfortunately they didn't turn out great, but it was clear that something had burned there a long time ago.

I'm sure Moscow had forgotten the exact location/angles of the trenches by the time the map was drawn. When you stand behind the archaeologically exposed trench line, it actually makes more sense than Moscow's drawing. The angle that the 1st Kentucky had on the fields to the south and southwest would have devastated any troops in the open - and they were ALL in the open! Great field of fire from that point.

I personally noticed another spot on the ground west of the site (I believe this might be what they supposed to be the school house), but they didn't investigate it nearly as much as the other uncovered site. I simply saw two slight trenches. I just wish both sites had been fully investigated to absolutely ensure that the supposed site is in fact the Gin House. Lastly, even though Moscow's map may or may not have been sketched by him before the gin was taken down, we just don't know WHEN he actually recorded the information that was used for the map. After all, he wanted to turn the place into a sort of tourist attraction at one time, and he may have recorded the distances early on - or maybe not. Regardless, of which foundation was found, luckily we do know "about" where it was - whether gin house or school house give or take a few yards.
 
My concern was that what was uncovered was a slightly "L" shaped foundation. By all accounts, the gin house was apparently square. 36 feet by 36 feet if I recall (probably wrong). Anyhow, that didn't fit the dimensions or shape of the foundation that was uncovered.

Moscow said is was square, in 1905. The foundation is slightly less than square, about 30 ft by 38 ft. That actually matches what photos show, especially when you compare front and side shots.
 
Yep, I don't question that a foundation was found. I saw it myself, but I do know that the same stone foundation of the gin house was disassembled and used in the construction of the school. I also know the school didn't have the same dimensions or shape of the gin house.

Actually I don't think of either of us know that for certain. What was found were sub-surface stone footers, not the pillars that the gin actually sat on. So the latter were certainly dissembled, but again, the evidence is that the footers were left, and that is what was found. Yes, the dimension(s) of the school was not the same, it was much larger than the foundation that was uncovered.
Really though, we can only assume that the school house was larger. I've never read a "good" description of it. It seems like a saw an old photograph of it a long time ago, but don't remember where I saw it.
 
I went to the site a few days after it was uncovered just to check it out, and my own eyes saw heavy soot in and around the entire foundation. Naturally, it appeared that something that had been there burned at some point. I was later told by someone in the state archaeological department that what appeared to be soot was coal remnants from a coal furnace that later ran the gin. The problem is, they don't dump coal in and around the entire building when you get a delivery. It just seemed odd to me. My eyes saw clear evidence of a fire and soot. What we do know is the gin didn't burn, but the school house did. I was kinda blown away when I saw such evidence of a fire, and I took pictures with my phone. Unfortunately they didn't turn out great, but it was clear that something had burned there a long time ago.

It was coal and soot residue. Coal burns - yep. And we know Moscow concerted the gin to steam power in the early 1880s - note the smokestack that is not present in early photos and then is visible in later images.

Moreover, the soot you saw west of the gin was indeed likely soot from the fire that burned the Wall and Mooney school. And considering the school burned AFTER the gin was torn down it is entirely likely some of it got spread around inside the old gin foundation. But that doesn't mean the foundation isn't that of the gin. Also, it was the professionals, the archaeology team, that determined it was the gin foundation.
 
I personally noticed another spot on the ground west of the site (I believe this might be what they supposed to be the school house), but they didn't investigate it nearly as much as the other uncovered site. I simply saw two slight trenches. I just wish both sites had been fully investigated to absolutely ensure that the supposed site is in fact the Gin House. Lastly, even though Moscow's map may or may not have been sketched by him before the gin was taken down, we just don't know WHEN he actually recorded the information that was used for the map. After all, he wanted to turn the place into a sort of tourist attraction at one time, and he may have recorded the distances early on - or maybe not. Regardless, of which foundation was found, luckily we do know "about" where it was - whether gin house or school house give or take a few yards.

Those were crosscuts of the foundation that is almost certainly that of the school. The foundation was COMPLETELY different than that of the gin, i.e. more like fill stones rather than big support stones. And there was coal, soot, and brick all over. In fact, more brick than anything.
 
5966451213_27dd14a2a6_b.jpg
 
Look at the extension on the back of the old school in the second pic, sort of hidden by the small tree. I would bet money that the two foundation that were found just west of the gin foundation are part of that extension. Look at the terrain - that matches, too.
 
Franklin left an indelible impression when I visited there 3 years ago. Something about the place; standing on Winstead Hill and looking across the valley, and imaging 20,000 Rebs advancing across the two miles to a fortified position.
This place ranks way up there with me and should not be missed.
 
Franklin left an indelible impression when I visited there 3 years ago. Something about the place; standing on Winstead Hill and looking across the valley, and imaging 20,000 Rebs advancing across the two miles to a fortified position.
This place ranks way up there with me and should not be missed.
Me too! Even though so much of the battlefield is built over the story of the battle was mesmerizing. Of course, my tourgide was Eric Jacobsen, no one cares more about that battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Will you please give me the names of those books. I would like to read them. My gg grandfather and his brother survived the battle of Franklin, so anything on Franklin is of interest to me.
51qrrfHJwAL._SY200_QL15_.jpg
51BZZTA6WYL._SY200_QL15_.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 51qrrfHJwAL._SY200_QL15_.jpg
    51qrrfHJwAL._SY200_QL15_.jpg
    3.4 KB · Views: 33
  • 51BZZTA6WYL._SY200_QL15_.jpg
    51BZZTA6WYL._SY200_QL15_.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 32
Those were crosscuts of the foundation that is almost certainly that of the school. The foundation was COMPLETELY different than that of the gin, i.e. more like fill stones rather than big support stones. And there was coal, soot, and brick all over. In fact, more brick than anything.
When did Mooney school come into being? Why was it on the ground where the battle had taken place?
 
Back
Top