Anonymous
The Downtown Florence Haunted History of the Shoals Ghost Walk, taken on October 17, 2026, was an experience draped in sensationalism and commercialism, designed for an audience seeking entertainment with minimal hints of historical grounding. Led by Debra Glass (who commented that this was her 22nd year leading the program), the walk advertised itself as a flagship tour, passing through “the haunted historic district and hidden courtyards of Florence, Alabama” (1). Borrowing from the tour’s webpage, visitors would be educated on the city’s “most haunted restaurant,” the final destination point for “the meanest man who ever lived in Florence” (Tom Clark), a Civil War hospital still haunted by its victims (Pope’s Tavern), and the homes of “famous residents whose ghosts still walk the halls of their past lives.” Unfortunately, little more information on the tour–distance expected, a mapped route, procedure expectations, etc.–was provided digitally other than an expected timeframe of 90 minutes for the tour and an initial meeting location. The webpage also served as the homesite for the Haunted History of UNA Ghost Walk and the Haunted History of Sheffield Ghost Talk, which demonstrated similar limited information boxes. Social media platforms for the tours (Facebook, primarily) presented the same information, accompanied only by a greater array of commercialization efforts and holiday-inspired memes. Together, the hosting collective (Haunted Histories of the Shoals) advertised (and continues to advertise) its presence through physical posters, social media advertisements in the forms of posts, and through word of mouth, drawing in visitors with eye-catching, sensationalist verbiage that requires in-person attendance to uncover more about the thematic narrative.
The tour began at 7:30 p.m. at the W.C. Handy statue on the corner of Tombigbee Street and Seminary Street. By 7:15 the space had already grown crowded, and the final visitor count for the tour seemed to end at a count of 40 to 50. The atmosphere was energetic, although brought down slightly by the colder weather and the lack of open seating or resting spaces. No cover against the elements was available, either. Fortunately, most of those present appeared to be college-aged students and parents with little physical difficulties–although a few older visitors had rollators they sat on–and who possessed the funds to buy weather-appropriate clothing. One visitor even brought their dachshund–dressed thematically in a Halloween costume. It should be noted that this tour occurred the same day as a UNA football game, the excitement of which had stirred a greater range of visitors to the city looking for entertainment following the match. While waiting to check in, the group was heckled by an intoxicated individual waiting at the red light, and in walking the tour, a number of inebriated individuals shouted sometimes-unwelcoming remarks towards the group.
An admission table was brought out by Debra Glass and an assistant (a conveniently light folding table and chair) ten minutes before the official starting time and gathered visitors were encouraged to come forward, showing their pre-paid tickets and receiving a square ghost sticker that marked them. Comparatively high pricing certainly limited who could participate ($12 for students alone), however, the sizing of the crowd meant that newcomers could easily join without paying. As a downside to such, if the tour was financially supported according to a visitor count (as is the case with some city-supported museums), this number is prone to significant underrepresentation.
Upon completion of the admission process, Debra Glass stood on a folding ladder at the corner. From this vantage, she began the tour by introducing herself by name and the length of time she had engaged with the program. She then dove into a personal anecdote for her interest in the subject, recounting a ghostly encounter with the former owner of a piano lesson shop off Tennessee Street. This 20 minute introduction concluded with a promotion for her newest publication, available for purchase at the end of the tour. Glass did use a handheld microphone to amplify her voice, but for those near the back of the crowd, hearing was sometimes a challenge, and her standing next to the street corner meant passing traffic routinely interrupted her speech with honks, roaring engines, or other disruptive/deafening sounds. Despite these inhibitions, Debra Glass spoke with a steady pace, her words following a relatively unaccented speech pattern and using vocabulary easily understood by laymen. Her voice did not waiver, suggesting confidence in her approach, and she also interacted with the crowd, using a ‘call and response’ initiative to gather insights into the audience. Her general behavior demonstrated openness, an active interest in her subject, and she interjected certain points with humor that kept the crowd entertained even while standing still.
Debra Glass’s presentation helped to enhance the emotional nature of the tour, yet the affective influence of the surrounding environment proved a contentious factor for overall enjoyment. Emphasized by Jennifer Ladino in her publication, Memorials Matter, over landscapes: “We [tourists] “read” a landscape, we follow its cues and rhythms and pacing, we detect the tone of a place” (2), and disconnected elements can affect “our affective itinerary,” creating a sense of affective dissonance and/or alienation that leaves visitors unsettled or disengaged. The environment against the tour guide was one primary element in this tour, yet additional challenges were also apparent. Regarding language accessibility, this tour was/is only offered in the English language, limiting the array of visitors who might have found the tour engaging otherwise, and culturally, Glass’ openness, while to locals might appear friendly, was done aggressively at points, unsettling to more conservative groups. She also discussed a number of the stories and the people attached throughout the tour with slightly calloused language, sometimes violent and otherwise inappropriate for younger audience members or those uncomfortable with gory details. These aspects of the tour were not made clear in the digital informational platforms before payment had been procured. Equally such, Glass ended most segments of speech with a referral to her book for purchase, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere that pressured visitors towards financial contribution.
The tour itself followed a similar process as the introduction, with visitors following in one large group to the next meeting point, at which Debra Glass stood upon a folding ladder and addressed the group. Each location began with a personal anecdote–some story describing how Glass had grown to know this particular ghost narrative and then immediately read more into the history. She named no particular source for her information, although it was noted that most information appeared to have been drawn from word of mouth, stories passed along in informal conversation. One might consider this a very loose interpretation of oral interviewship, but Debra very rarely admitted a name to those sources, so it is difficult to say for certain the validity of such claims. The truth of Glass’ words saw no external support along the roadside as well, as there were no material artifacts or information panels that could be read. One had to assume that the tour guide was a credible and reliable source of information, despite a lack of formal education, and apparent experience only in having presented without training or review for over two decades. Unfortunately, from having personally read into some of the history, such as with the story of Tom Clark and Pope’s Tavern, elements that Glass presented as historical fact have been recognized amongst academia as urban legend and unfounded in the historical record. Following along with the tour required a level of suspension of belief (especially for the supernatural aspects), and a persistent acknowledgement in the back of the mind to not believe everything being told. Debra Glass did not encourage outside investigation, but for those aware of the historic literature covering some of the stops, this became a forced necessity. This in turn was quite exhausting and diminished some of the enjoyment from the tour.
John Barnes, in his discussion of the Bear River Massacre and changes to its commemoration, makes points applicable to Glass’ tour: what is commemorated in monuments (or in this case, in tours) is not always accurate to modern understandings and does not always encompass the entirety of perspectives involved. “Although the “facts” of the event are the same…how those facts are understood, remembered, and commemorated has changed,” and Barnes challenges that “commemoration shows that people and communities often place…those traits and ideals by which they define themselves” (3). Debra Glass’ presentation approached history as a spectacle, a means to earn income while turning the lives of both criminals and innocents into amusement points. Her speech was at points interjected by personal religious beliefs that cast judgement onto the narratives, and her sometimes callous speech around victims of Tom Clark or from the Civil War (alongside her final statements for visitors to check out her new publication at the end of the tour) presented a view prioritizing financial gain and modern-lens judgement against proper historical understanding. Similarities could be made here to Chudzinski’s article discussing Bryant’s Grocery and Meat Market, where the narrative has been effectively monopolized by one leading party–a tour guide who acts as an expert on the material–and thereby spreads a sensationalist narrative–the truth held hostage behind a sensationalized barrier. Like the story of Emmett Till, both the covering up of uncomfortable elements–and the oversharing of other elements–created a constant tension that “softened and silenced episodes of trauma and cruelty” that otherwise threatened notions of local and American exceptionalism or pride (4).
Added on to the verbal side of the tour, the environment throughout the tour was also problematic. Similar to the introduction, most tour stops ended on street corners backed by central Florence roads and prime crossing points for pedestrians. Stops did not go into the homes or historic sites, instead stopping across the street and being showcased through pointing. While this makes sense, not being able to go near the sites did make actually interacting with the historical location a bit difficult, and experience was once again, reliant entirely upon Debra Glass’ words and accounts. The streetside corners meant hearing Debra could be challenging, and visitors were often pressed close together on narrow sidewalks, unable to approach closer for better hearing or seeing. The downtown landscape did help showcase a lived-in atmosphere, but the concrete and brick walls surrounding visitors left much to be desired visually.
For one desiring a sensationalist, emotionally-driven and “creepy” tour, Debra Glass’ walk was effective, but it fell short for anyone seeking actual historic understanding or information about Florence itself. The tour shapes a perception of the city as almost laughable, lacking in any non-dramatic backstory, and this can lead to a harmful image that detracts from other historical sites or facilities and promotes sometimes incorrect narratives/local legends. For locals who may know the history better, this can be avoided in part, but for outsiders to the town, there is a lack of follow up or alternative educational sites/panels that clarify some of these narratives. The tour would do well to host a disclaimer, or at least encourage visitors to recognize that this is an emotion-driven tour and not one dedicated to absolute historical accuracy or education. Unlike the ghost tour of Colonial Williamsburg, which introduced the stories from the mouths of historical actors, and had sources to back up the credibility, Debra Glass’s Downtown Florence Haunted History of the Shoals Ghost Walk presented as an entertaining passage of time, such as a hay ride or a safari trip, effective in that sense, yet dismissive in its historical mission.
Sources:
(1) Debra Glass, “Haunted History of the Shoals Ghost Walk Tour,” ShoalsGhostWalk, accessed October 24, 2026, https://www.florenceghostwalk.com/.
(2) Jennifer Ladino, Memorials Matter: Emotion, Environment, and Public Memory at American Historical Sites (University of Nevada Press, 2019), 20-24.
(3) John Barnes, “The Struggle to Control the Past: Commemoration, Memory, and the Bear River Massacre of 1863,” The Public Historian 30, no. 1 (2008): 103, https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2008.30.1.81.
(4) Adrienne Chudzinski, “Confronting Uncomfortable History: Emmett Till and Contested Memorials on the American Landscape,” Blog of the American Studies Journal, October 26, 2022, https://amsj.blog/2022/10/26/confronting-uncomfortable-history-emmett-till-and-contested-memorials-on-the-american-landscape/.
