Tag Archives: historic sites

The continuing threat to the Princeton battleground

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Revolution, Archaeology, Historic Preservation, Museums and Historic Sites

A walk in Jamestown

For the last post, we took a stroll around the place where England’s American empire came to an end.  Just a short distance away, at the other end of the Colonial Parkway, is the place where it started.

If you haven’t been to Jamestown since the 400th anniversary, you’ve missed out on a lot.  Last week was my first visit in a long time, and they’ve added so much stuff that it almost seemed like a different site.

The visitor center exhibit is packed with archaeological materials…

IMG_1532

…the fruit of many years’ worth of excavations, which are still ongoing.  (Check out this nifty interactive map for info on what they’ve found so far.)

IMG_1536

In addition to the visitor center displays, there’s a new museum in the park called the “Archaearium,” which sits atop the site of the statehouse.

IMG_1545

You can see the statehouse foundations through glass windows in the Archaearium floor.

IMG_1550

Excavators found these items inside one of the fort’s wells, and the exhibit designers mounted them in a way that illustrates their positions in situ.  It’s pretty neat.

IMG_1548

The most powerful exhibit in the Archaearium is a gallery with the remains of some of Jamestown’s dead, including “Jane,” a girl of about fourteen whose bones bear the traces of cannibalism.  Photography is forbidden in that part of the museum, but you can get some more info on Jane here.

The Tercentenary Monument is still there…

IMG_1535

…along with the site’s only remaining seventeenth-century structure, a church tower.

IMG_1556

The current church alongside the tower is a 1907 reconstruction, but seventeenth-century foundations are visible inside.

IMG_1537

There’s also a partial reconstruction of one of the earlier churches, a “mud and stud” building erected within the original fort walls in 1608.  John Rolfe married Pocahontas on this site in 1614.

IMG_1555

John Smith gazes out across the James River…

IMG_1557

…while Pocahontas stands near the reconstructed fort with arms outstretched in what looks like a gesture of welcome.  Hardly the most accurate depiction of what Powhatan’s daughter would have looked like when Jamestown’s settlers first encountered her, but still a nice piece of commemorative sculpture.

IMG_1538

Historians long thought that the site of the original, triangular fortification built by the first settlers was lost to the river.  As it turned out, that wasn’t the case.  The original fort site was right there near the church tower the whole time, although erosion carried away any traces of one of the corner bastions.  Cannons mark the site of the other two.  Only one of the bastions pointed inland; the others faced south toward the river, since the first settlers were more worried about Spanish ships than marauding Indians.

IMG_1558

What should have concerned them more than either were disease and starvation.  Crosses mark some of the early burials in and around the fort, bearing testimony to the fact that, in its first years, Jamestown—whatever else it eventually meant for the history of America—was above all else a deathtrap.

IMG_1553

The colony eventually outgrew the triangular fort and expanded eastward along two streets beside the river.  Walking trails take you past the reconstructed foundations of some of these later buildings.

IMG_1560

Near the park entrance are the remains of the glasshouse, one of many failed attempts to make the colony profitable before tobacco took off.

IMG_1566

In a reconstructed glasshouse nearby, interpreters demonstrate seventeenth-century glass-blowing techniques.

IMG_1571

Jamestown has the highest concentration of critters per acre of any historic site I’ve visited.  Geese enjoy hanging out by the river…

IMG_1551

…and turtles are pretty common, too.  I met this fellow taking a stroll beside the fort site.

IMG_1543

I also ran across herons, lizards, a muskrat, a deer, and bugs…lots and lots and lots of bugs, especially on Island Drive, where so many flying insects pelted the car windows that it sounded like driving through a hailstorm.

IMG_1534

It’s a little ironic that Jamestown is teeming with life today, given that so many of its settlers went to an early grave.

IMG_1565

4 Comments

Filed under Archaeology, Colonial America, Museums and Historic Sites

A walk in Yorktown

For those of us who are crazy about early American history, there aren’t many places better for spending a few days than Virginia’s Historic Triangle.  Jamestown and Yorktown—the two places where England’s colonial experience in the future U.S. began and ended—are right there within a short distance of each other, with Colonial Williamsburg in between.

I just visited the triangle for the first time in over a decade, where I kicked things off with a stroll around Yorktown.  Here are a few highlights.

British redoubt #10, captured by a party under Alexander Hamilton on the night of October 14th and incorporated into the Americans’ second parallel:

IMG_1509

Redoubt #9, assaulted by the French on the same night:

IMG_1511

Grand French Battery:

IMG_1512

The Moore House, where officers from both the Allied and British armies met to negotiate the terms of surrender:

IMG_1513

Surrender Field, where the British laid down their arms:

IMG_1515

Site of the French artillery park:

IMG_1516

An untouched earthwork that survived the siege:

IMG_1518

The Victory Monument:

IMG_1519

One side benefit of visiting the battleground is getting some spectacular views of the York River:

IMG_1521

In the town, a few structures that were present during the siege are still standing, such as Gov. Thomas Nelson, Jr.’s house:

IMG_1522

Nelson’s home took fire during the siege.  The cannonballs embedded in the walls are twentieth-century additions…

IMG_1523

…but the effects of the originals are still evident:

IMG_1524

Before the war, Yorktown was an important tobacco port.  Here’s the custom house:

IMG_1525

Grace Episcopal Church dates from the 1600s and is still in use:

IMG_1526

Leave a comment

Filed under American Revolution, Colonial America, Museums and Historic Sites

On the lack of NPS sites devoted to Reconstruction

The National Park Service is undertaking an effort to identify appropriate sites for commemorating and interpreting the history of Reconstruction.  Two participants in the study note that, as of now, the NPS “has not a single site dedicated to that vital and controversial period.”

There’s no denying that Reconstruction is a critically important period that doesn’t get much public attention.  The issues Americans grappled with during Reconstruction are both fundamental and timely.  As the article notes, they include “debates over the meaning of equal protection of the law, over the right to vote, and over the limits of presidential and congressional authority, both in peacetime and in war.”

Over the years, especially during the sesquicentennial, I’ve heard a lot of people bemoan the fact that the Civil War gets a lot more attention than the messy, unglamorous period that followed it.  The drama of the war years has a lot more inherent sex appeal than Reconstruction.  And Appomattox provides a kind of narrative closure that you don’t get with the unfinished business of the 1870s.

But I submit that it’s not just the prejudices of popular memory that have given us so many Civil War parks without a single Reconstruction one.  The thing about agencies that are charged with preserving and interpreting historic sites is that they’re inevitably going to devote most of their resources to those aspects of history linked to specific points on a map.  This is not a shortcoming of such agencies; it’s just a by-product of what they’re set up to do.

Wars, after all, tend to turn ordinary pieces of ground into battlefields, and battlefields are the kinds of historic sites that are naturally suited to preservation, interpretation, and commemoration.  There were plenty of Reconstruction-era developments that were as significant to American history as the Battle of Shiloh, but it’s harder to find sites associated with those developments that you can point to and be able to say, “This is where it happened.”

I can’t think of too many locations where you could tell the Reconstruction story in a holistic fashion, along the lines of the comprehensive approach to the Civil War you get at the new Gettysburg visitor center.  One such site would be Andrew Johnson’s home in Greeneville, TN, which is already under NPS stewardship.  The site of the Colfax Massacre might be another ideal location, but I don’t know how much is left there to preserve and interpret.

Ultimately, I think the fact that there’s been no Reconstruction national park until now has as much to do with these practical issues as it does with Americans’ predilection for forgetting the messy and discouraging chapters of their history.  The NPS isn’t an all-purpose historical interpretation agency.  Its historical activities are linked to places, and some events are just naturally more suited to this sort of location-specific interpretation than others.

Leave a comment

Filed under History and Memory, Museums and Historic Sites

Two easy things you can do right now to support Tennessee history

Okay, here are two quick things I’d like everybody reading this blog to do.

First, as you may recall, we’re doing a special fundraising drive on behalf of Marble Springs State Historic Site this year in commemoration of the bicentennial of Gov. John Sevier’s death.  We’ve just set up a new, super-easy way to contribute to this campaign at GoFundMe, so if you haven’t made a donation yet, please take a minute to do so.

Of course, you can still contribute via PayPal at the Marble Springs website or by sending a check in the mail.  If you can’t afford $200, feel free to contribute whatever you can.  We’ll gladly accept donations of any size.  When it comes to small historic sites, every contribution makes a big difference.

It’s a tough economic climate for smaller historic sites and museums, and some of the funding sources we regularly depend on are shrinking, so I strongly encourage everybody who loves Tennessee history, the American Revolution, and preservation to pitch in.

Second, there’s a historic home here in Knoxville in danger of being lost to development.  You can show your opposition to demolishing this historic property by adding your signature to the petition at Change.org.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appalachian History, Historic Preservation, Museums and Historic Sites, Tennessee History

Twenty houses and ten observations

To be honest with you, I’m just burned out on this Civil War Sesquicentennial thing, so let’s set aside the obligatory Appomattox post, unwind a little, and take a look at this listicle of twenty historic houses to visit in Tennessee.  Here are my observations, for whatever they’re worth:

  1. The Carter Mansion is right there near the top.  Well done.  (I’m quite fond of the Carter Mansion, you know.)
  2. Blount Mansion made the list.  Good.
  3. No Marble Springs on the list.  Home of Tennessee’s first governor.  Put it on the list, already.
  4. Tipton-Haynes made the list, and it has a Sevier association.  This mitigates some of my vexation over the omission of Marble Springs.  Not all of it, but a little.  Actually, Sevier would probably be totally miffed to see Tipton’s home and Jackson’s home on the list when his own home is omitted.
  5. More eighteenth-century homes on the list than I expected, which is nice.
  6. No Andrew Johnson home on the list.  Homes of two other Tennessee presidents listed, but no Johnson.  What gives?
  7. Not one, not two, but three houses associated with the Battle of Franklin on the list.  That’s more than the number of John Bell Hood’s functional limbs.  Pick either the Carter House or Carnton, for crying out loud.
  8. Technically, I suppose Graceland is a historic home, but I think we all know it’s not a real historic home, right?  Judging by the supermarket tabloids, we can’t even be sure the guy who lived there is dead.
  9. The Lincoln quote at the top of the site is a worthy sentiment, but I doubt he actually said it.
  10. You know what could’ve replaced one of those Battle of Franklin houses?  Sgt. York’s home.  That would’ve been cool.

1 Comment

Filed under Museums and Historic Sites, Tennessee History

The latest in anti-preservation follies and fallacies

Donnie Johnston of Fredericksburg’s Free Lance-Star has decided to let us all know how sick he is of all this hallowed ground from the Civil War.

Mike Stevens of the Central Virginia Battlefield Trust penned an eloquent and measured response to Johnston’s rant, which you can read at the Emerging Civil War blog.

For my part, I note that Johnston indulges in the anti-preservationist’s favorite logical fallacy: the straw man argument.  Anti-preservationists are seemingly incapable of engaging with actual preservationist arguments.  Instead, they have to reduce things to the most asinine mischaracterizations imaginable:

Everywhere a Union or Confederate soldier set his chamber pot is now declared “hallowed ground.”
You can’t build a store because there may be a Minié ball somewhere in the ground. Housing developments get axed because some farmer once plowed up a rusty bayonet in that field. You can’t construct a road because some soldier once fired a cannon from that spot.
This is all getting absurd.

Yes, that does sound absurd, and the reason it sounds absurd is because it’s a gross caricature of the actual situation.

Why people are so adamant about glorifying war—any war—is beyond me. Ask anybody who ever fought in one and they will tell you that war is indeed hell.
People kill other people in wars. They blow their heads off—literally. They disembowel fathers and sons and brothers with cannons and mortars.
Soldiers lose their arms, their legs, their feet and their hands in wars. You want to glorify that?

No, actually, I don’t want to glorify that.  I do, however, want to make sure the places where it happened remain available for future generations to draw meaning and information from them.  And it’s worth noting that the men who actually experienced those battles led some of the earliest efforts to set aside the sites where they happened.  They didn’t see anything inappropriate about commemorating the war.

The Civil War began because big landowners in the South wanted to keep black people enslaved. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but slavery was what that conflict was all about. You want to glorify slavery?

Certainly not, but I think the war that brought about its end might merit some commemoration.  It was kind of a big deal.

Now we want to save every inch of ground trod upon by every Federal and Confederate. Why? Well, partly so that re-enactors can line up, fire blank shells and show us what the war was like.

Actually, the NPS doesn’t permit reenactments on its battlefields.  But don’t let the facts get in your way.

Enough is enough. We don’t glorify World War I or World War II or even the Revolutionary War, where we won our independence. It is only the Civil War that seems to excite us.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, dude, but they actually do commemorations at World War I, World War II, and Revolutionary War battlefields, too.

The Civil War is over. Let’s move on. The good earth was put here for us to use, not to glorify because one man killed another man at some particular spot.

Preserving historic battlegrounds doesn’t mean we’re “glorifying” war, any more than setting aside Auschwitz as a historic site means we’re glorifying genocide.  There’s a difference between commemoration and glorification, and I just don’t get some people’s inability to make that simple distinction.

But maybe I’m making too much out of a conflict that tore the nation apart, ended slavery, and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.  We could really do something about our national shortage of big-box stores and fast food franchises, if only we could develop some of that prime real estate all those Civil War soldiers were inconsiderate enough to die on.

4 Comments

Filed under Civil War, Historic Preservation, History and Memory