Talk:Natchez Trace

Questions in the Lewis section

This section mentions "manic depression," a term not extant during Lewis' lifetime. Thus, it is either incorrect factually or it is an anachronistic term for an earlier condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.180.27 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Should wikipedia articles contain questions in the text? Granted, instigating research and debate are noble, but it seems out of place in this article. S. Randall 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this necessary in the article? "(highly improbable, given the difficulty of [re]loading muzzle-loading firearms, especially after being wounded)" Although this may be true, it is more like speculation & opinion and as such shouldnt be in the article. I also agree about articles not asking questions. It seems out of place in the article. 208.137.139.5 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the "Death of Meriwether Lewis" section is too lengthy for this article - the detailed discussion is longer than that in the main article on Meriwether Lewis, where protracted description and discussion of his death belongs. Here, it is UNDUE WEIGHT, given that the article is about the Natchez Trace, not Lewis. Most historians concur that his death seemed a suicide and related to his personal issues, not to conditions along the Trace. I believe this section should be drastically shortened, and material added to the main article on him, as editors see necessary based on that article.Parkwells (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin

In the case of the Trace, bison travelled north to find salt licks in the Nashville area. After Native Americans first began to settle the land, they began to blaze the trail further -- I admit I have not read the book cited, Crutchfield, James A. (1985). The Natchez Trace: A Pictorial History, but it seems highly unlikely to me that anyone could possible know that the Natchez Trace existed at all before Native Americans settled the region over 10,000 years ago. Perhaps it was created by Natives heading to the salt licks to hunt the animals there, who knows? I rather doubt Mr. Crutchfield knows. Pfly 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After Native Americans first began to settle the land, they began to blaze the trail further, until it became a relatively well-worn path traversable by horse in single file. This seems to imply that Native Americans settled the area while in possession of horses. This would mean that they settled the area after encountering European explorers because horses were not present in pre-Columbian North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmax (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

removed material

I removed the following passages from the article, for reason of their being unsourced and non-encyclopedic. Another editor noted a suspicion of possible copyvio in an edit that, oddly restored one or both of these, which i had previously removed. Here they are. If anyone could find where they are copied from, if they are, or if anyone could find sources to support adding any of this or similar material to the article, that would be great. But, I do challenge this unsourced material. It is wikipedia policy that unsourced material can and should be challenged and removed from articles.

The passages:

Bushwhackers, bibles, and boats Despite its brief span of use by Americans, the Trace served an essential function for years. It was the only reliable land link between the eastern States and the trading ports of Mississippi and Louisiana. This brought all sorts of people down the Trace: itinerant preachers, highwaymen and traders were just a few.

The circuit preachers were some of the most notable of the lot. Unlike its physical development, the "spiritual development" of the Trace started from the Natchez end and moved up. Several Methodist preachers began working a circuit along the Trace as early as 1800. By 1812 they claimed a membership of 1,067 Caucasians and 267 African Americans.

The Methodists were soon joined in Natchez by other Protestant religions, including the Baptists and Presbyterians. The Presbyterians and their offshoot, the Cumberland Presbyterians, were the most active of the three. They claimed converts among Native Americans, too. The Presbyterians started working from the south; the Cumberland Presbyterians worked from the north, as they had migrated into Tennessee from Kentucky.

As with much of the unsettled West, banditry freely occurred along the Trace. Much of it centered around Natchez Under-The-Hill, as compared with the tame sister of Natchez atop the river bluff (the current Natchez). Under-the-Hill, where Mississippi River steamboats docked, was a hotbed for gamblers, prostitutes and drunkenness. The rowdiest of them all were the Kaintucks, the wild frontiersmen from upriver who came in on the steamboats and flatboats loaded with goods. They left the goods in Natchez in exchange for pockets full of cash, and summarily treated Natchez Under-the-Hill as what could be generously called an early 1800s Las Vegas, Nevada.

Worse dangers lurked on the Trace itself in the wilderness outside city boundaries. Highwaymen such as John Murrell and Samuel Mason terrorized travelers along the road. They operated large gangs of organized brigands in one of the first examples of land-based American organized crime.

Mystery of Meriwether Lewis Meriwether Lewis, of the Lewis and Clark Expedition fame, met his mysterious end while traveling on the Trace. Lewis had stopped at Grinder's Stand near current-day Hohenwald, Tennessee for rest. Distraught over the state of his financial affairs, disappointment from jilted loves, frustration from editing his journals, and unsatisfied as governor of Louisiana, he rested for the evening. He asked the owner of the stand for gunpowder. Intimidated by his behavior, she gave it to him. A few hours later, two shots rang out in the night—Lewis had apparently shot himself twice, once in the head and once in the chest. He lived until the next morning when he cut his own arms and legs open with a razor and bled himself to death.

A few years after his death, rumors of murder began to spread. Conspiracy theories surrounding that night in Grinder's Stand circulated in academia. In 1996 James E. Starrs, a professor at George Washington University, attempted to procure permission to exhume Lewis' remains for study, to put the mystery to rest. Although his efforts were supported by several researchers and 160 descendants of Lewis, the National Park Service (NPS), which oversees the grave site in Hohenwald, denied permission. A court later ruled that the exhumation was justified, but the NPS has successfully resisted pressure to exhume Lewis' remains.

Today, Grinder's Stand and the city of Hohenwald are part of Lewis County, Tennessee, which was named for Meriwether Lewis.

--doncram (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, contrary to your reading of my edit summary, I did NOT find any evidence that this material was copyvio. (I was suspicious, but did not find evidence to support my suspicion.) My note said I would have deleted it IF it was copyvio, but it isn't. This content is valid and sourced (see the list of references and ELs on this article); it just doesn't have inline citations. (The lack of inline citations is the reason for the "inline" template at the top of the article.)

I am once again restoring the content that you deleted, for reasons given earlier. Repeated pot-stirring, such as your repeated removal of large sections of this article, squanders volunteer time that might otherwise have been spent productively in improving articles. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What a crock! You who called for reinforcements to involve as many others as you could, into a stirred up / false issue about the disambiguation now at Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation). As if you care about squandering editors time! Hah! --doncram (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Both the Bushwhackers and Lewis sections have been in the article with little change since written by the original author in 2003, and so are sourced to the Davis and Crutchfield books listed under References, although I agree in-line citations would be preferable. I also see no reason to suspect a copyvio. The "Bushwhackers" section is especially valuable, showing life along the trace, and doesn't seem especially controversial or obviously incorrect, so should be restored. The "Lewis" section is more about Meriwhether Lewis than the trace itself, imo: He didn't die because of the trace, at least not directly, and his death didn't affect the trace. Since this section doesn't mesh precisely with the info about his death at his article, it might be better to cut it down to a sentence or two containing links to Meriwhether Lewis and Grinder's Stand, but I don't object if someone else wants to put it back as is. Station1 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See my discussion above. The death of Meriwether Lewis is given too much discussion in this article, which is about the Trace. Most historians agree that his death was related to personal reasons, not conditions or bandits along the Trace. The detailed discussion of his death and controversy should go into the main article about him, not here.Parkwells (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

inclusion / merger of NRHP information

There are seven distinct National Register listings named "Old Natchez Trace", presumably each covering a part of the historic Natchez Trace, which might be covered in detail in separate article(s) or included in here. They are currently identified in Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation). For each one, possibly a great deal could be written, justifying a separate article, or possibly they could just be covered in a separate section here. Either way, they are distinct places that need clear identification in a disambiguation page, even if some of the topics point to a section within this article or a separate combined article on the vestiges of the Old Natchez Trace, today. I personally would lean towards not burdening the historic Natchez Trace article with too much detail about the modern, currently still extant vestiges of the historic trail. Those vestiges are important, of course, like a museum on a topic is important, but one does not necessarily merge the museum article with the article on the direct topic. I wonder what other editors prefer. I may try adding a section or two here but would welcome comments. --doncram (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding a short sentence or two near the end mentioning that these listings exist is fine, and is preferable to a hatnote and unnecessary dab page with only redlinks, since some people might mistakenly click on it and be disappointed. I agree with not burdening this article with too much detail, but there's not much to say that specifically applies to these listings anyway - just location and possibly a year. Station1 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Station1 that a very brief discussion of the various NRHP listings would be an appropriate addition to this article, but not a hatnote or links to other articles.

Separate articles about the individual NRHP listings would be inappropriate. However, the fact that portions of the Trace are NRHP-listed should be mentioned in this article. Elsewhere (at Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)) I reported what I learned about most of those 7 listings when I read the 5 nom forms that are available online. The entire Tennessee portion of the Trace (earlier I said it was also the Alabama part, but I was mistaken on that point) is listed. Most of the other listings are for short segments (for example, 600 ft) of the original Trace that were (and presumably still are) adjacent to interpretive stops on the Natchez Trace Parkway, where back in the mid-1970s the National Park Service wanted to spend money for protection/preservation (in all cases, less than $1000 per site) and apparently had to get the site listed on the National Register in order to justify the expenditure. Additionally, one or two of the listings were for sites where there was a potential conflict between preservation and road-building. All but one of the 5 individual locations appeared to have no particular uniqueness beyond the presence of a tourist parking area (that is, there is no indication that they are the only preserved sections of the original trail or are exceptional in any other way; they just happen to be where motorists can park their cars and look at a section of the original trail). The one exception is a site where there was not only some original trail, but also there had been an Indian agency building adjacent to the Trace for less than 15 years back in the earliest years of the 19th century. That building site is an archeological site. Apparently it was listed so the NPS could get money to investigate the archeological site. Writing individual articles about these individual NRHP listings would be tantamount to writing articles about individual exits on the Interstate (although you can be sure that there are participants in WP:ROADS who would like to do that, and I wager that there is more unique information suitable for inclusion in a stand-alone exit article than there would be in a stand-alone article about one of these NRHP listings). --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Some of what Orlady writes here is speculation, of course. Upon a bit of further consideration, I think the actually factual detail given by Orlady here about these specific places should be included in separate articles about the NRHP places, rather than burdening the page about the historic Natchez Trace. It would give undue emphasis in the Natchez Trace article, to spend words and sentences on defining the areas of the smaller NRHP listings. The Natchez Trace article can just mention simply that portions are covered in NRHP listings without being specific. And the hatnote disambiguation is just right, for giving readers who actually are looking for the NRHP places or for other meanings. Station1's concern that readers would be disappointed upon finding their way to the dab page is misplaced, i think; if someone is looking for one of the NRHP places they will be able to ascertain from the dab page whether or not there is an article about it, and now there are some starter articles for some of them, too.

Orlady has made it abundantly clear in many other discussions, that she does not care for detailed articles about NRHP places, and she is usually not willing to help develop them. That's fine. I may or may not start and develop all of these, using NRHP documents. Further development can be left for other editors who do like to visit, take pics, and develop material using reliable sources. Enough already, though; more is being written on talk pages than is going into actual development of these articles! :) --doncram (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned about giving these NRHP listings undue weight by adding more than a couple of sentences to this article (and very rightly so; I applaud you for that), then why not start an article called List of NRHP sites related to the Old Natchez Trace or something similar? Then you can write as much as want about the seven listings, and link to it from this artcle, either with a short sentence or two, or as a stand-alone See Also entry. Station1 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Natchez Trace (310-2A)

I tried my hand at Old Natchez Trace (170-30) and Old Natchez Trace (310-2A), including adding a pic for the latter. The latter is a very short article, which is not likely to have a huge readership but it serves a certain purpose. I am sure it will be of interest to some locals, and that it will help some interested readers find their way to the actual place, and then perhaps some new pics will be added. Having the separate articles works well with linking from county NRHP list-articles, but I do see merit in your suggestion to have a combined article with a section for each one of the seven. I bet if I had created an article at the suggested name, though, that there would have been heated objections. And, either way, there still is need for the disambiguation page covering these multiple places named "Old Natchez Trace", whether it links to separate NRHP articles or to sections in a combo article. Anyhow, knock on wood, I hope this is stable now. --doncram (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that that is likely to be the extent of what you can say about this site that is specific to that site. This can easily be included as a new section in the main article that is focused on existing sites of the original roadbed that have been preserved. A better reader experience can be had by integrating it into the main article. --Polaron | Talk 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that what i wrote about site 310-2A, which covers 1,250 feet of some main or side branch of the original trace, is about all that can be covered about that site. Except I think it likely a local wikipedian or a visitor will add pics within the next year or two, and thereby provide additional visual and other information about the current state of the site. Also it is possible that a local historical society or someone local will be able to contribute some more specifics about the site. But I don't think that including this into the main Natchez Trace article will work. Some combination of editors Station1, Orlady, and Polaron, has created a new list-article at Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Editor Bms4880 has just commented at Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) that the separate list-article's content should be merged in here, if i understand correctly. Does anyone agree? Wouldn't that give undue weight to NRHP names and numbers and 1,250 foot lengths and so on? I don't think that can or should be combined into this Natchez Trace article. Mention of it should be worked in somehow though. --doncram (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of these interpretive stops accessible from the parkway with only a few of them being on the NRHP. If a list of these stops is made, then the NRHP sites would fit right with that list in and would not give undue weight in the context of being part of a more complete list. We can even reduce the list size by including only those stops where access to the Old Trace is possible. --Polaron | Talk 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a list of all the stops on the parkway is appropriate to include in this or any other article. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Sunken Trace" photo

"Sunken Trace" at milepost 41.5, in Mississippi

I found a National Park Service page showing very small scale similar photo to the photo at right, with NPS identifying it as being at milepost 41.5, which is in Mississippi. That is my source and reason for relabelling the photo and moving it out of the NRHP infobox about a Tennessee-only NRHP listing. I added the National Park Service information, with link to its webpage, to the Wikimedia commons description for the Sunken Trace photo. Hope this is helpful to clarify what this nice photo is about. --doncram (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You may well be correct; they do look similar. But without a reliable source or confirmation from the photographer, it's still speculation or OR. So better to use the photographer's caption for now. Good to move it out of the infobox though. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several sites known as "Sunken Trace" throughout the length of the parkway. There is definitely at least one such site in Tennessee. However, in the absence of further information, it is probably best not to use it in the infobox. --Polaron | Talk 12:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hatnote disambiguation

An editor has removed, perhaps more than once, hatnote disambiguation "Old Natchez Trace redirects here. For other uses, see Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)". After several days of discussion, is it disputed whether or not several places named "Old Natchez Trace" exist? I think it has been well enough documented that there are multiple places of that name. It seems like vandalism or something bad to delete the mention. If there is some possibly legitimate reason, please discuss to some consensus before removing all link to disambiguation. --doncram (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hatnotes are used for providing links to unrelated articles of the same name. It is quite clear that these other NRHP sites are related to this article. A link from the main text or in the See also is what is called for in this case. Disambiguation per se is not what you want here but simply a link to the article where the individual sites are discussed. --Polaron | Talk 12:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[EC -- written and originally added as a new section before seeing Doncram's and Polaron's notes above] A user keeps adding a hatnote to point to Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) for "other uses" of "Old Natchez Trace." The hatnote is inappropriate. All of the alleged "Other uses" are in fact parts of the Natchez Trace, and thus are appropriate for discussion and linking in the body of this article. No hatnote is needed here because these are not different topics.

For comparison, consider the disambiguation pages linked from hatnotes at New York City. They do not point to parts of the city (such as Manhattan) or to entities that use "New York City" (or "NYC" or "New York, New York") as part of their name (such as New York City Ballet). Rather, they point to other topics (such as songs, ships, and brand names) that use the term as their name (or acronym). This is not the situation for Natchez Trace and the topics listed at Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

map request

article could use a map. i don't have time right now to do it but i can look for free one later. 98.92.184.97 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)