Here’s a fantastic preservation opportunity from the American Battlefield Trust. Land from three Rev War sites is in play, including a crucial acre at Great Bridge, VA–site of the Patriot militia’s 1775 victory over Lord Dunmore’s forces. Every dollar you give will net an 80-to-1 match!
Tag Archives: battlefield preservation
It seems like we’ve lost so many towering, venerable historians over the past year or two. On September 15, the eminent Civil War authority Ed Bearss passed away at the age of ninety-seven.
Bearss began his career with the National Park Service at Vicksburg in the 1950s, where he helped discover the wreck of the gunboat Cairo. In 1981 he became the NPS chief historian and occupied that position until 1994. He was the author of a number of books on the Civil War (particularly the war in Mississippi) and received nearly every accolade there is for battlefield interpretation and preservation, including the inaugural Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Battlefield Trust.
His battlefield tours were legendary. Over the course of his career, he guided thousands of visitors across the ground where the Union endured its ordeal by blood and fire, and continued to do so at an age when most public historians are decades into retirement. His vivid, dramatic, and eloquent style of narration brought these landscapes to life, and made him one of the most memorable commentators from Ken Burns’ Civil War series.
Bearss was not only a student and interpreter of military history, but a combat veteran himself. He enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1942 and fought in the Pacific Theater, where he was badly wounded by machine gun fire.
He inspired and influenced generations of students, scholars, and enthusiasts, and I doubt we will see his like again.
Every visit I’ve made to Guilford Courthouse has been a little bittersweet. I’m always delighted to be there and enjoy the National Park Service’s superb interpretation, but also upset at how much of the ground around the park has been smothered by development.
That’s why this opportunity from the American Battlefield Trust comes as such good news. It’s a chance to turn back the development clock at Guilford while also securing land at the small but significant battleground of Hanging Rock in South Carolina:
At Hanging Rock, generous battlefield preservationists like you have already secured 141 acres. These 30 acres in the part of the battlefield where the initial Patriot attack began will add significantly to the land we have saved there already.
At Guilford Courthouse, the half-acre tract at stake may be small, but it’s part of a larger strategy to deal with the modern development crowding in on this battlefield from all points of the compass. Our plan is to buy up plots of battlefield land – including small ones and those with non-historic structures on them like this one – remove all non-historic structures and restore the battlefield. The Guilford Courthouse National Military Park has generously agreed to take responsibility for demolishing and removing the house on this plot, a considerable cost that we would typically need to cover.
Best of all, matching fund opportunities will allow us to buy these 31 acres for less than a fifth of their full value! That’s right, we have a $5.20-to-$1 matching opportunity to buy these $475,000-worth of Revolutionary history for just $91,250.
Click here and pitch in as much as you can.
More good news for preservationists and Rev War buffs! A few years ago the Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina initiated an effort to identify the location of the Battle of Cane Creek, where Charles McDowell’s Whigs faced off against Patrick Ferguson’s Tories in September 1780. An archaeologist has linked the battlefield to a tract of land in eastern McDowell County, and the Foothills Conservancy has acquired the property.
Cane Creek wasn’t a large engagement, but it was an important prelude to the critical Battle of King’s Mountain. McDowell’s men headed west after the Cane Creek fight to take refuge among the Watauga settlers of present-day East Tennessee. Soon afterward, of course, refugees and overmountain settlers alike mustered and marched east for a showdown with Ferguson’s Loyalists.
I’m very glad to hear of the Foothills Conservancy’s success. It’s a wonderful Christmas present for those of us interested in the Southern Campaign.
Here’s some great news on a preservation fight this blog has been tracking for some time.
The Civil War Trust told The Associated Press it has an agreement to buy nearly 15 acres of land across from Princeton Battlefield State Park for $4 million. The group has raised $1.4 million to buy the land from the Institute for Advanced Study and will now begin fundraising for the rest, spokesman Jim Campi said.
The Maxwell’s Field site is where historians believe George Washington’s charge first struck British lines during the Battle of Princeton in January 1777. The land will be donated to the state to become part of the park.…
“This landmark agreement will enable us to preserve one of the defining moments in American history,” said James Lighthizer, president of the Civil War Trust.
The institute donated 32 acres to the state in the 1970s for the development of the park, said spokeswoman Christine Ferrara.
“We are confident that this new plan and partnership will enhance the experience of the park for all who visit,” said Robbert Dijkgraaf, director of the institute.
Supporters of preservation say the tract is one of the most endangered historic sites in the nation, noting it’s where Washington’s successful charge helped raise morale and arguably saved the American Revolution.
Roger Williams, secretary of the Princeton Battlefield Society, said that the compromise gives the group and historians the ability to “interpret the battle to be able to give a sense of what happened on this land.”
Today is the 239th anniversary of Washington’s victory at the Battle of Princeton. Unfortunately, it’s also a day in which Princeton Battlefield is under threat. Despite concerns from preservationists, historians, hydrologists, and now state lawmakers, the Institute for Advanced Study shows no signs of slowing down in its effort to build faculty housing at the site.
Why not commemorate the battle’s anniversary by taking a few minutes of your time to help protect the place where it happened? Here are a few easy things you can do.
- Donate to the Princeton Battlefield Society. These folks have been at the forefront of the effort to keep the battleground intact.
- Join the Civil War Trust’s advocacy campaign by signing their letter to Gov. Christie. (Yep, the CWT defends Rev War sites, too!)
- Contact the Institute for Advanced Study and let them know that you’re one of the many folks who oppose their construction project.
- Support the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its work on behalf of Princeton Battlefield and other special places.
- If you’re in the area, pay a visit to the site. Higher visitation makes it easier for people who care about historic sites to make a case to the powers that be that these places are worth protecting.
Here’s the latest news in the ongoing effort to preserve Princeton Battlefield. Looks like the Institute for Advanced Study might have ignored some important environmental restrictions, which could impact the construction that threatens the battleground:
Members of a Senate committee said they want to get to the bottom of whether wetlands are on a site where the IAS is preparing to build 15 units of faculty housing on about six acres of its land adjacent to Battlefield State Park.
Sens. Bob Smith (D-17), Linda R. Greenstein (D-14) and Kip Bateman (R-16), all members of the senate Environment and Energy committee, sent a letter to DEP commissioner Bob Martin asking him to put a hold on the project until the committee hears from the DEP on the wetlands issue. For its part, the DEP said it does not issue stays, something that was up to a judge to do.
The letter went out the same day that Bruce I. Afran, the lawyer for the Princeton Battlefield Society, and other advocates went before the committee arguing that there are wetlands on the development site, an area they say is of historic value given that fighting took place during the battle of Princeton in January 1777.
In his remarks before the committee, Mr. Afran said that Amy S. Greene, a hydrologist, was retained by the IAS to do a wetlands survey in 1990, a report that found wetlands in the middle of where the IAS is planning to build. A subsequent survey in 1999, by another firm for the IAS, found no wetlands in the same area.
Mr. Afran contended that the IAS did not disclose to the DEP the original 1990 survey indicating the presence of those wetlands when it sought clearance from the agency for its housing project.
To him, that represented “a pattern of deception” to conceal the information from the DEP, which, in 2000, granted the IAS a “letter of interpretation” saying there are no wetlands in the construction area.
Mr. Afran said that in 2011, the Battlefield Society had hired Ms. Greene to contest the IAS application before the then-regional Princeton Planning Board. Her survey found the same wetlands that she originally had identified in 1990. Ms. Greene also testified at Monday’s hearing to support her findings.
He also said that a 2012 soil report by the IAS engineer also found wetlands but that the IAS did not turn over the information to DEP.
For his part, Sen. Bateman said the DEP revisited the site a few weeks ago and claim it sticks to its original interpretation.
“This issue, I would think, would be either black or white,” he said. “Either the wetlands are there or they’re not.”
Yeah, you’d assume this would be a pretty straightforward question. Then again, you’d also assume people would have enough decency not to build faculty housing on an important Rev War battleground.
Those disappearing wetlands aren’t the only thing shady about this whole affair:
The Battlefield Society came close to defeating the project when it went before the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission in January. A commissioner, Mark Texel, director of the state Park Service who is Mr. Martin’s representative on the board, initially abstained from the vote, which led to the development failing.
He changed his mind a month later, moved to have the DRCC reopen the matter and then voted for it. At Monday’s hearing, Mr. Afran claimed that Mr. Texel did so based on “political pressure.”
Mr. Afran claimed that in September Mr. Texel, in the presence of Mr. Afran and two other people, said he was sorry for the revote that he had asked for but explained that he had gotten a call from Mr. Martin’s office.
“He made it clear to us that he was pressured into that revote decision by the commissioner’s office,” Mr. Afran told reporters after the hearing.
“We’re disputing that characterization of the conversation, and it’s just hearsay,” said DEP spokesman Larry Hanja.
Note also that the IAS turned down a $4.5 million offer from the Civil War Trust to secure the land in question. These guys are serious. Good thing the Princeton Battlefield Society is showing just as much tenacity as the people who are out to churn up priceless historic ground.
Here’s the latest news in the long, drawn-out dispute over proposed faculty housing at the Rev War battlefield. Unfortunately, it’s not the good kind of news, but the Princeton Battlefield Society is going to keep fighting the good fight.
Judge Jacobson’s decision upheld the approval that Princeton’s Planning Board gave the Institute last year for an amended version of the project, which had first been approved in 2012. The IAS wants to build 15 units, clustering eight townhouses and seven single-family dwellings on a seven-acre parcel. The Battlefield Society says the houses would be on land where American and British soldiers fought during the Revolutionary War in 1777.
The Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission blocked the project in 2012 because of its encroachment on a stream corridor, and the IAS tweaked the plans to slightly shrink the footprint. It was that amended application that the Planning Board approved last year. The Battlefield Society said that because of the amendments, the project is essentially new and the IAS should have to start over. The Planning Board did not agree, and Judge Jacobson concurred.
As part of the ruling, Judge Jacobson issued a temporary delay on any start of construction to allow time for the Battlefield Society to appeal.
“We respect Judge Jacobson’s opinion, but we do not believe she’s correct,” Mr. Afran said. “And we believe there are serious failings in what the Planning Board did three years ago and again [in 2010]. They refused to hear relevant evidence. This decision is an error and it ignores all of the duties of the Planning Board to protect historical sites.”
I wish the PBS good luck in the appeal process, and a tip of the hat for their effort to keep this battleground intact.
While I was on the road the past couple of weeks, a heck of a brouhaha erupted over historical memory, specifically the place of the Confederate flag, Confederate monuments, and the Confederacy generally in contemporary American life.
I was getting snippets of all the arguments on Twitter, but I didn’t really have time to make my usual rounds of the historical blogosphere. In fact, over the last few weeks, I haven’t been thinking about American history or historical memory as much as I usually do. Instead, I’ve been enjoying the company of old friends, gorging on good food, visiting places oriented toward non-historical subjects, and going to the movies. (Well, I’ve actually been going to the same movie, over and over again.)
To tell you the truth, I was pretty glad I had other things to distract me, mostly because I was already weary of the whole thing as soon as I got wind of it. If you follow the intersections of history, politics, culture, and current events long enough, then you can usually predict the lines along which arguments of this sort are going to run.
The only thing that’s surprised me about this latest Confederacy kerfuffle has been the speed at which it became so widespread. Usually these debates play out within the context of one particular town or organization trying to figure out what to do with a monument or a flagpole, and the only people who take an interest are the local media, a few heritage groups, and those of us who blog about historical stuff. With this round, though, it seems like everybody’s in the fray.
Well, for whatever it’s worth, here’s my take.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be uncomfortable about seeing a Confederate battle flag on the grounds of a state capitol, or any other space where it’s implied that a sitting government is wholeheartedly endorsing the ideals on which the Confederacy was founded. The secessionists were quite explicit about why they were doing what they did, and they did it because they felt slavery was threatened if they remained in the Union. Slavery was simply the Confederacy’s raison d’être.
This is not to say that every Confederate soldier enlisted or fought to uphold slavery, still less that the desire to preserve slavery and white supremacy lay behind every thought and action of white southerners in the Civil War era. Nor is it to say that descendants of Confederate soldiers have no business remembering and honoring their ancestors. But it is to say that without slavery, there would have been no Confederacy.
It is therefore not at all inappropriate to keep statehouse flagpoles Confederate flag-free.
Am I, then, opposed to the display of Confederate flags in any context other than the exhibition of artifacts in museums? No, I’m not. I don’t see anything wrong with using the battle flag to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers, or in certain other commemorative settings. Indeed, I thought the W&L students’ demand to remove the flags from Lee Chapel was a bit much, and I said so at the time.
Nor do I agree with every position that supporters of Confederate de-flagging have taken in the recent brouhaha. As a preservationist, I’m generally opposed to moving longstanding Confederate monuments. To me, monuments are more of a historic preservation issue than anything else. We maintain old structures and works of public art because they have intrinsic historic value, not because we agree with the statements made by their creators.
I think my opinion on old Confederate monuments squares up pretty well with Andy Hall’s post from yesterday, which I heartily commend to your attention:
While I adamantly support the authority of local governments to make these decisions, I’m not sure that a reflexive decision to remove them is always the best way of addressing the problems we all face together. Monuments are not “history,” as some folks seem to believe, but they are are historic artifacts in their own right, and like a regimental flag or a dress or a letter, they can tell us a great deal about the people who created them, and the efforts they went to to craft and tell a particular story.
I think we need to be done, done, with governmental sanction of the Confederacy, and particularly public-property displays that look suspiciously like pronouncements of Confederate sovereignty. The time for that ended approximately 150 years ago. But wholesale scrubbing of the landscape doesn’t really help, either, if the goal is to have a more honest discussion about race and the history of this country. I’m all for having that discussion, but experience tells me that it probably won’t happen. It’s much easier to score points by railing against easy and inanimate targets.
Furthermore, I’ll go ahead and state that I think some of the actions taken in response to this latest round of controversy have been downright asinine. Banning Civil War video games because the pixelated Confederates are carrying Confederate flags? That was like something out of The Onion. (What are video game Confederate troops supposed to carry? A banner with the Cobra emblem?)
I’ll also happily go on record to denounce vandalism aimed at historic monuments in all cases whatsoever. It’s not that I don’t understand why these monuments can still arouse strong feelings. It’s just that, as a preservationist, I cannot get behind any effort to deface historic structures, property, or artworks.
But, as I said, I think it’s eminently reasonable to remove the Confederate flag from state capitols. And to self-professed defenders of Confederate heritage who are rushing to keep those flags flying, to set up new flags on private property, or to buy up Confederate flag merchandise just to prove a point, I have a proposal. It echoes an argument I made on this blog five years ago.
Why not direct that energy and money elsewhere and really preserve some heritage? Instead of defending reproduction flags and buying Confederate emblem merch, use your time and money to preserve actual Civil War land and artifacts.
Sure, you can start a petition urging legislators to keep a piece of synthetic fabric flying from a pole on the statehouse grounds…or you can start a petition urging them to pass legislation keeping historic ground intact, and to fund the facilities where actual relics are conserved and treated.
You can spend thousands of dollars setting up ginormous Confederate flags on private land just to give de-flaggers the middle finger…or you can give that money to an organization that will purchase endangered battlefield land where real Civil War soldiers fought and died.
You can hold a rally to demand that a historic symbol be displayed out of reach and free of any context whatsoever…or you can support museums and archives where genuine historic artifacts are kept in stewardship for all of us and our descendants to enjoy.
Let me submit that the stuff of “heritage” isn’t flying from a modern flagpole or emblazoned on the roof of a toy car. It’s on battlefield land that’s threatened by development, and it’s sitting in underfunded museums and archives that need money to keep it in intact.
As someone born and raised in the South—someone who loves the South and the people who live here, someone would not live anywhere else—I’d much rather see our historic sites and artifacts preserved so that Americans of all ages, sections, races, backgrounds, and political persuasions can enjoy them and learn from them than see a reproduction flag hanging from a pole.
Wouldn’t you rather rally to keep the real, raw material of history around?
Here’s an update on the ongoing preservation issue at Princeton. You might recall that the Institute for Advanced Study’s initial plan to build faculty housing on land adjacent to the battlefield got shot down because it encroached on a local drainage.
The institute later received approval for a revised building plan, but preservationists claim the planned construction still threatens land involved in the battle.
Now comes news that an archaeological survey on the site found artifacts associated with the battle, supporting the preservatonists’ argument that the land in question is historically significant.
The fact that archaeologists hired by the institute itself have noted the historical importance of the ground ought to indicate that putting buildings there is a bad idea. But it looks like the institute is moving forward anyway.
If you’ve been to Guilford Courthouse, you’ve seen the impact that encroaching development can have on a Rev War battlefield, and how much harder it is to understand and interpret sites that are suffocated by buildings. Americans deserve to have the places where their country was born kept whole.