Battlefield preservation

Friday also included my final visit to the decrepit old visitor’s center at Gettysburg. We made a brief stop there, and I took advantage of it to get one last look around the old dump. The place is long past its prime, crowded, dark, dingy, and obsolete. But I’ve spent a lot of time in that building, and it carries some good memories. The place may be a dump, but I will miss it.

The old VC never should have been built where it was, and it will be nice to see that portion of the battlefield restored to its 1863 appearance. The new one looks really nice–it’s quite large, and it looks like it’s going to be a state of the art facility. Time will tell.

But it won’t be the old dump.

Continue reading

My good friend Mike Nugent passed this along:

Important!

The Perryville City Council still has to vote on this development. You can voice your opposition by calling city hall at 859-332-8361. They’re keeping a log of all calls. The City Council will vote on this Issue on April 3. Call today and urge your like minded friends to call too!

If you care about battlefield preservation, pick up that phone and make the call.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Mike.

Continue reading

There is apparently a very significant threat to the very pristine battlefield at Perryville:

Development eyed near Kentucky’s biggest Civil War battlefield

By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press Writer

LOUISVILLE, Ky. –Homes and businesses may someday fill the landscape on a stretch of pristine property once within earshot of cannonfire from Kentucky’s bloodiest Civil War battle.

Landowner Pete Coyle envisions turning the approximately 34-acre tract on the edge of Perryville into a housing subdivision along with an assisted living center and limited commercial development.

A national Civil War preservation group is so worried by the proposed development that it placed the Perryville battlefield site on a list of the nation’s 10 most endangered Civil War battlefields.

The designation this week comes amid a rezoning proposal that would clear the way for the development.

The proposal won approval recently from a sharply divided Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Commission but still must win backing from the Perryville City Council. Perryville Mayor Anne Sleet said Friday that she hasn’t made up her mind on the plan.

The development in the central Kentucky town about 85 miles southeast of Louisville would be visible from hilltops about a mile away at the battlefield, where more than 7,500 Union and Confederate soldiers were killed, wounded or missing after five hours of fighting in October 1862. A Confederate withdrawal after the battle secured Kentucky for the Union.

The Perryville battlefield – which includes nearly 670 acres that have been preserved – has long been considered a historic gem because of little or no modern encroachments. The battlefield draws about 100,000 visitors yearly and has been the site of two national Civil War re-enactments this decade.

“When you’re here, you’re in 1862,” said Chris Kolakowski, executive director of the Perryville Enhancement Project, a preservationist group. “I could take any veteran of the Battle of Perryville … out to the ground that they fought on, and they would be able to recognize where they were.”

The property wasn’t the site of fighting but was a key transportation route as troops marched toward battle and some came back bloodied and wounded to be seen at makeshift hospitals, he said.

Kolakowski said he’d prefer that the property remain undeveloped, but there’s a bigger concern – an adjoining 52-acre rural tract closer to the battlefield.

That property is also owned by Coyle, who has had talks with the state about a possible conservation easement to protect the 52 acres from development. Coyle said he hopes an agreement can be reached, but added, “anytime you’re dealing with the state with budgets, you never know.”

The talks come at a time when Kentucky lawmakers are putting together the state’s next spending plan while grappling with a nearly $900 million projected revenue shortfall over the next two years.

“We are supportive of preserving this property, and we very much want to work with the landowner on it,” said Gil Lawson, a spokesman for the state Commerce Cabinet, which includes the state parks department.

“However, with the current state budget situation, funding for parks is very limited.”

The rural property is separated from the battlefield park by a 50-acre tract owned by someone else.

Coyle envisions the subdivision becoming a haven for empty-nesters and retirees. The addition of just over 50 homes, the assisted living center and commercial development on a couple of lots would be a boon to the historic town of about 800, generating new tax revenue in a community with little growth opportunity, he said.

“There’s no other place to build in the city,” he said. “So this is kind of a salvation for the city.”

James Lighthizer, president of the Civil War Preservation Trust, sees it differently. He said the rezoning applications threaten the “historical integrity of the area.”

It was the first time that the trust, a nonprofit battlefield preservation group, added the Perryville battlefield to its annual list of the nation’s most endangered Civil War battlefields.

Kenneth Noe, an Auburn University history professor who has written a book about the battle, said he was “floored” to see the Perryville battlefield added to the endangered list.

“I can’t think of anyone who has done a better job of preserving a battlefield than the people of Perryville and Boyle County,” he said.

He’s worried about the proposed development and even more concerned about the precedent it might set. “It could have national implications,” he said. “If it can happen at Perryville, it can happen anywhere.”

Kolakowski said it would be the first major residential development on the end of Perryville closest to the battlefield. “Do we want to see it stay agricultural? Yes,” he said. “But we’re realistic enough to know that may or may not be a possibility.”

The property includes a strip of land that was a road used by the Confederates to move soldiers to the front, haul supplies and transport wounded troops to hospitals. Coyle said he wants to see that strip turned into a hiking and biking trail that would lead from town to the battlefield.

The development would be visible from a couple of hills at the battlefield, including one where Confederate artillery was positioned and soldiers moved to attack Union lines further west, Kolakowski said.

“The way the terrain is out here, anything within about two or three miles of the park is going to be visible and is going to impact the vista and be an intrusion on the landscape,” he said.

Still, Kolakowski sounded conciliatory in discussing Coyle’s development plans, with his bigger concern being safeguarding the 52 rural acres from development.

“It’s his property,” Kolakowski said. “We’re trying to balance his desire to develop it with preservation needs. We’re trying to strike the best balance.”

Coyle said he’d like to see an outcome in which the 52 rural acres are left undeveloped.

“There was blood shed there; people being carried back from the battlefield to the hospitals,” he said. “It’s still hallowed ground.”

It is indeed hallowed ground, and I sincerely hope that this ground is preserved and left undeveloped.

By the way, for those who have never been to Perryville, it’s a Kentucky state park, not a national park, but nearly the whole battlefield is preserved, and the state has done a nice job of interpreting the field.

Ken Noe, I know you read this blog, and I see that you were quoted in the article. Is there anything you would like to add?

Continue reading

For the first time in years, there is money in the Federal budget for land acquisition at Gettysburg. From today’s issue of The Hanover Evening Sun newspaper:

Battlefield bucks: Gettysburg Park could get $2.2M for expansion
By ERIN JAMES
Evening Sun Reporter
Article Launched: 02/06/2008 10:42:44 AM EST

For the first time in eight years, the Gettysburg National Military Park could receive federal money to buy and preserve privately owned property within the park’s 6,000-acre boundary if the president’s 2009 budget for the country’s national parks is approved by Congress as it is proposed.

The budget is not yet law, but it includes $2.2 million for land acquisition within Gettysburg’s park.

The last time the Park Service received land-acquisition funds was in 2001, when the federal government committed more than $5.98 million.

Since that time, the Park Service has been under mounting pressure to preserve some of the remaining 20 percent of land within the park’s boundaries that is not already owned by the park, said spokeswoman Katie Lawhon.

“It’s been a concern for a long time,” she said.

Land-acquisition funds can be used to directly purchase privately owned property within the park from a willing seller or to purchase easements on privately owned land so that its owner cannot develop the property.

There are still 86 privately owned tracts – as large as 90 acres and as small as a half-acre – within the park’s boundaries. Some properties are used mainly for agricultural purposes while others are the sites of houses built in the 1960s or ’70s, Lawhon said.

The proposed budget also increases the park’s operating costs by $689,000 over the 2008 budget for operating costs, Lawhon said.

With that money, the park could begin to fill positions that have been vacant since funding was significantly decreased about 10 years ago, Lawhon said.

A 10.6-percent increase for operating costs in 2008 made it possible for the Park Service to fill seven of 16 vacancies. If the 2009 increase is approved, the park may be able to fill the remaining positions, she said.

“We’re starting to dig our way out of that hole,” she said.

About 90 percent of the park’s operating budget pays for the salaries of its employees, so a cut in operating funds translates into a cut in positions, Lawhon said.

Over the years, the park dealt with that problem by not replacing personnel who retired or left, she said.

“It would be completely random about which positions would become vacant,” she said.

The remaining vacant positions include two park rangers, two preservation workers, one human-resources assistant, two park guides and one tractor operator, she said.

The 2009 budget proposal was released to the public late Monday.

It also includes a $161 million increase in operating costs for national parks nationwide, according to a press release from the National Parks Conservation Association.

The advocacy group praised the increase but also criticized a funding cut to other park programs.

Lawhon said the Gettysburg park is “pleased” with the proposed budget but that the park would welcome even more of an increase.

“We still have some funding needs,” she said.

Contact Erin James at ejames@eveningsun.com.

HISTORY:

Land acquisition funds

1997: $0

1998: $2.95 million

1999: $1 million

2000: $1.6 million

2001: $5.98 million

2002: $0

2003: $0

2004: $0

2005: $0

2006: $0

2007: $0

2008: $0

2009: $2.2 million (proposed)

It’s not as much as I might hope for, but it certainly beats that big zero that we’ve had to live with for several years now.

Continue reading

The following article appears in today’s issue of The Culpeper Star-Exponent newspaper, and it’s some of the very best preservation news that I’ve heard in a VERY long time. Congratulations to the Brandy Station Foundation and the Civil War Preservation Trust, and, of course, Bud Hall, who has devoted the last twenty years of his life to saving this battlefield, for a job VERY well done:

‘The vortex of hell’

“Practically nothing has been protected at Fleetwood Hill,” Campi said. “Fleetwood Hill is certainly one of the most dramatic battles, so protecting land there has been a priority of ours for some time.”

Hopefully, the second sale will go through, and some of the most historically significant, and most heavily fought-over ground in all of Virginia will be saved forever.

Continue reading

I know that what I’m about to say won’t sit well with some of my friends/peers in the preservation community. As I have said here previously, I very much take a pragmatic approach to battlefield preservation, recognizing that not every inch of battlefield land can possibly be preserved. Given that fact, I believe that it makes sense to pick preservation fights wisely.

This post stems directly from an excellent comment posted here today by Charles Kann. I got to thinking about Charles’ post and, after responding to him, decided to expand my response into a full-blown post here. Again, I know that what I’m about to say will rankle some of my colleagues in the preservation community, but it can’t be helped. This is something I feel strongly about.

There’s been a lot of discussion–blowing and cussing, in many instances–about proposals to build a Target store on the site of Camp Letterman in Gettysburg. Camp Letterman, named for the chief medical officer of the Army of the Potomac, was the main U.S. Army military hospital in Gettysburg, developed AFTER the battle. The land where Camp Letterman sat was not part of the battlefield proper and did not see any significant fighting. It also happens to be located on U.S. Route 30 (also known as the York Pike), and is PRIME commercial development land. Part of it has already been developed for commercial usage.

It therefore seems obvious to me that the remaining portion of the Camp Letterman site was bound to be developed sooner or later. It had little to do with the actual battle; what happened there was post-battle. Consequently, I don’t feel particularly strongly about its preservation. If it was bound to be developed sooner or later, why wasn’t that site chosen for the new visitor’s center? It might not have been preserved perfectly, but at least some of it would have been preserved in a fashion that emphasized its historic past, and it would not have placed the new visitor’s center on important battlefield ground in the form of Kinzie’s Knoll. It seems to me that a great opportunity was lost to do something to recognize the historic nature of that ground and to make it possible to have some commemoration of what happened there was lost.

Just a thought. I know that the good folks of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association are vehemently opposed to the development of the Camp Letterman site. I respect their activities a great deal; this organization is solely responsible for saving the important Daniel Lady Farm site. However, I tend to find its somewhat extreme point of view of resisting EVERY development idea to be counterproductive. I know that they will not agree with me on this issue.

I just think that preservation needs to be pursued pragmatically, not as a crusade. I view this as a prime example of how a pragmatic approach might have accomplished something important for battlefield preservation. It’s entirely possible that I will get hate mail for this post–and I hope I don’t–but this is something that I firmly believe.

Continue reading

An important but all too often overlooked portion of the 1862 Maryland Campaign is the September 19-20, 1862 fight at Shepherdstown Ford. In a hard-fought and bloody action, the men of the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry, with its novice ieutenant colonel, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, saw its first combat.

I’ve been to the site once. A portion of the battlefield is preserved, as it was fought along the banks of the Potomac River. This means that some of the fighting took place on the towpath to the C & O Canal, which is part of a national park that is the steward of the canal. Thus, much of the important ground on the north (Maryland) side of the river is safe.

The ground on the south (West Virginia) side of the river is another story altogether. It’s all in private hands, and it’s endangered. The ground is largely floodplain, which means it can’t be built upon, but the question is whether the land can be purchased for a reasonable price. The good folks from the Shepherdstown Battlefield Preservation Association are doing some excellent work to purchase and preserve the land, and so is the Save Historic Antietam Foundation, one of the oldest and most effective preservation groups operating out there, is working with them.

In addition, Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia has introduced legislation before Congress to require the National Park Service to perform studies to determine whether the Shepherdstown Ford battlefield meets the criteria to become part of the national battlefield park at Antietam. Let’s hope that this legislation passes and that this particular battlefield is forever preserved.

Kudos to everyone working hard to preserve the Shepherdstown Ford battlefield.

Continue reading

There is a proposal to build a huge indoor water park in the Gettysburg area, four miles south of the battlefield park’s southern boundary and near the gigantic Boyd’s Bears place that is already extant. They have proposed to build the sort of place with tubes and slides, all of that sort of stuff. That it’s to be an indoor facility means it will be open year-round. From what I can see, the developers have not suggested building it near or on the battlefield proper, so it won’t infringe upon any particular battlefield viewsheds.

There are some folks who take the attitude about this sort of thing that the NRA takes: we can’t possibly do anything that might be construed as giving even so much as a fraction of a millimeter, because if we do, the sky will surely fall and life as we know it will end immediately. If General Hossenfeffer’s horse took a big dump there, then it HAS to be a historic spot and we MUST save that spot at all costs, and no matter what. And any and all development is evil, so we have to fight it at all costs, irrespective of whether the opposition is rational, and irrespective of whether the opposition makes us look like a bunch of unreasonable lunatics.

Then, there’s the NIMBY crowd. NIMBY is an acronym that means “not in my back yard”. These folks generally are in favor of progress so long as it doesn’t affect them. Then, they resist it with alll of their heart and soul out of sheer selfishness. We have lots and lots of problems with the NIMBY crowd here in Central Ohio. I can’t tell you how many good ideas were killed by the NIMBY’s. They’re so incredibly selfish that they can’t see beyond the boundaries of their properties and recognize that the greater community might benefit from something that the NIMBY’s might not like. The NIMBY’s seem to be pretty effective in Gettysburg.

Finally, there’s the pragmatic approach. I fall squarely into this camp. Don’t get me wrong–I will fight like a cornered animal to save actual battlefield land that’s endangered. I have done so in the past, and I will do so in the future. I think that my public record of working closely with the Civil War Preservation Trust demonstrates that I’ve put my money where my mouth is, and I’ve given my professional time, too. Earlier this week, I gave a wholehearted endorsement of the uphill preservation fight being waged by the Hunterstown Preservation Society to preserve and protect their beautiful little gem of a battlefield.

However, just because General Hossenfeffer’s horse might have taken a big dump on a parcel of ground while going from one place to another does not necessarily mean that the spot where the dump was taken is worthy of preservation. Yet, there are plenty of people who take the position that this is ground that must be preserved (see the NRA-types described above), no matter what.

The fact of the matter is that progress–and development–is inevitable, and I firmly believe that the preservation groups with the most credibility–and the best records of accomplishment–are the ones that recognize this fact and pick and choose their battles wisely. Some fights just aren’t worth fighting, and fighting those fights harms the credibility of those who really believe–as I do–that the key to saving ground is often working WITH the developers than to declare war and reduce everything to a zero-sum game. Earlier this week, I put up two different posts wherein I applauded developers for working WITH preservation groups to save important pieces of ground.

There’s also the issue of limited resources. The simple fact is that there is not enough money to save every conceivable piece of ground. Something HAS to go. Personally, given a choice between saving some old house where General Hossenfeffer had dinner or using those same scarce resources to purchase a parcel of honest-to-goodness battlefield land, that’s a no-brainer for me. I’d rather see the battlefield land saved even if it means sacrificing General Hossenfeffer’s bivouac. Ultimately, that piece of battlefield land is more important.

My opinion is that if we accept the proposition that development is inevitable, and if we also accept the proposition that you can never save EVERY possible piece of historic ground, then the sensible approach is to find a way to work with these developers to the extent possible before pulling out all the stops and going to war right away.

All of which brings me back to the water park proposed for Gettysburg. Let’s face it: Adams County, Pennsylvania is not an affluent community. Its economy is driven by tourism and the apple business. Bringing in tourist dollars generates revenue and creates jobs. So, while I’m definitely not crazy about this idea and definitely think that it’s not something that should be that close to the battlefield, I also recognize that if the water park does not butt up against the battlefield, and if it does not hurt the viewshed, then I say, what’s the objection? What’s the problem? Hence, I am really not sure how I really feel about this proposal. I definitely see both sides of the argument, but when push comes to shove, I can’t come up with a good reason to go ballistic fighting something that will not be built on or even particularly near the battlefield proper.

I recognize that not everyone will agree with me on this and that this is one of those topics that can bring about heated, passionate arguments. I don’t expect you all to agree with me. But let’s keep the discussion about this civil, okay?

Continue reading

Several weeks ago, the monument to the 6th New York Cavalry on McPherson’s Ridge at Gettysburg took a direct hit by a bolt of lighting, which nearly blew the monument apart. I took this photo on October 21. Here’s a press release from the National Park Service relating to the damage to the monument:

Gettysburg National Military Park News Release

A park neighbor reported hearing lightning in the area at the approximate time of the strike. The last known lightning strike on a Gettysburg monument was in the 1930s on the 58 th New York monument which is nearby.

I got to see the damage to the monument myself two weeks ago, and the power of nature really is very impressive. One of the turrets was blown clean off. If a monument had to be damaged, at least it was by Mother Nature and not by some drunken imbecile running his pick-up truck into it, as has happened all too frequently on the 11th Corps line.

Nevertheless, repairing this treasure is going to be a BIG job. Let’s hope that the National Park Service is up to it.

Continue reading

Here’s an article from the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star newspaper that provides another excellent example of how developers and preservationists can work together to achieve the right result. The Central Virginia Battlefield Trust has long been one of the most successful and most effective battlefield preservation groups working out there, and this article provides another lesson in how to do it right:

Civil War site saved in Orange
Silver Cos. donates more land at Wilderness battlefield site
Date published: 10/6/2007
By RUSTY DENNEN

Rusty Dennen: 540/374-5431
Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com

Given the contentious fight to try to preserve a portion of the Mullins Farm at Chancellorsville, it’s really nice to see a developer and a very successful preservation group work together to accomplish a terrific result. Kudos to both the Silver Cos. and the Central Virginia Battlefield Trust for another lesson in how to do it right.

Continue reading