Nash Farm Battle Not OVer

The Henry Daily Herald published an article, County official and historian defend Nash Farm, on February 22, 2008. The article was a 'foolow-up' to the investigative report aired on WSB-TV on February 18th.

This letter is in regard to the Nash property controversy. The evidence refutes stories published by Henry County at their battlefield website and calls into question certain aspects of the LAMAR Institute report. The county’s overlay maps, troop positions and engagement details are not supported by the seventeen historical references cited in my analysis. In each case details are dramatized or misstated, and locations moved east or north in order to place focus onto the Nash property.

The allegation my analysis was prompted by friendship with any political candidate is insulting. Last fall when I spoke with Mr. Mobley about his campaign, Mrs. Mathis had already endorsed his candidacy. I am not working for either campaign. It is regrettable that Mrs. Mathis chose to politicize rather than refute the facts and details of my analysis.

The county has not conferred upon me an official title. I do not reside on county property or hunt relics. I do not write dramatized stories about the perils of war, or receive compensation from the county. Nor am I seeking elected office. Perhaps my credentials are not sufficient to challenge the County’s version of history.

My analysis cites established historical texts, official records and maps, portions of the LAMAR report and Mr. Evans’ book “Sherman’s Horsemen” to prove location, distance and direction of troop placements near Lovejoy. The 60-page analysis has been published at a local website for two months, and is also available in printed form.

I am seeking reversal of the designation as a battlefield. The integrity of the board of commissioners is at stake. It is therefore incumbent upon the County to refute my analysis, not with compensated opinion, but with established historical documentation.