Battlefield preservation

Some of you know that I have been involved with the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation for a number of years. I sit on the TSBF’s advisory board, and was the author of the text that appears on the Virginia Civil War Trails markers that grace the battlefield. It’s been a pleasure to be involved with what began as a successful grass roots movement by some dedicated local citizens who have done brilliant work with the assistance of the CWPT.

Unfortunately, these groups tend to be plagued by political problems and political issues. One of the founding members of the organization, who had been a board member, has had a major falling-out with the organization and is now a major problem and no longer an asset. This person apparently had ulterior motives–he wanted to see a state battlefield park developed out of the land, so he could get a job. When that didn’t happen, he launched his own campaign. That campaign, in turn, has created significant problems for the TSBF. I haven’t heard anything further about this situation since this article was brought to my attention. I hope that this meeting ended the problems and have permitted folks to get back to the important business–saving a battlefield.

The problem, of course, is that everyone has their own agenda, and often those agendas are in conflict with the goals of the organization. What happened here is a classic example of just that, and it saddens me a great deal to see this organization, with whom I have sweated, toiled, and labored, having problems because someone else had different political agenda. The TSBF has enough financial problems that it doesn’t need its circumstances further complicated by a disgruntled person whose personal agenda was thwarted.

Unfortunately, this is all too common of a problem in not-for-profit organizations and especially in battlefield preservation groups where there is no real heirarchy. “I don’t get paid, so therefore I can do what I want, even if what I want is inconsistent with the needs of the group,” seems to be the common theme when this happens. In a perfect world, everyone sets aside his or her own personal agenda and works toward the common good. I can only hope that that happens more often than not in these organizations. Otherwise, a lot of hard work and the money of decent people will go to waste. And that would be a real tragedy.

Continue reading

One aspect of battlefield preservation that was not addressed yesterday is the issue of picking and choosing.

Some preservationists draw a line in the sand each and every time that someone even remotely threatens something that they consider to be important. Their posture is much like that of the NRA–never, ever give an inch because it will lead to giving yards. The problems with that approach are numerous:

1. It causes people to look at preservationists as unreasonable and irrational.
2. It means that relationships with developers and zoning authorities are contentious instead of cooperative.
3. It means that everything is costly and emotional when it need not be so.
4. It means that, at times, the baby ends up being thrown out with the bathwater.

In short, this sort of approach may win the occasional battle, but it usually loses wars. People get the perception that preservationists are irrational nut cases who cannot and will not listen to reason.

There are, of course, times when this sort of approach is necessary. The battlefield at Brandy Station probably would not have been saved if it had not been for this sort of full court press, and everyone–including me–celebrating the success there.

I tend to take a much more pragmatic approach to these things. Perhaps it’s my professional life coming through. When I was a young lawyer oh so many years ago, an old gray beard asked me if I knew what a good settlement was. When I said no, he told me that a good settlement is one that both sides walk away from equally unhappy. That made a lot of sense to me, and as events have played out in my career, this statement has proved to be very true.

Consequently, I recognize that not every parcel can or should be saved. I know that what I’m about to say is sacriligious, but I didn’t cry any tears about Camp Letterman at Gettysburg. It was a hospital. There was no fighting there. I would rather lose that ground than ground where actual fighting took place, and you can’t stop all progress. Given that choice, I will always choose the hospital over the actual battlefield. So, I believe in picking and choosing battles and selecting only those fights that are worth alienating people over. Ultimately, some developers will actually work with preservationists and accomplish a satisfactory result.

If you need an example of what I’m referring to here, take a look at the partnership that was forged between the CWPT and a developer at Bristoe Station in Virginia. The deal means that Centex Homes, the developer, agreed to preserve the critical portion of the battlefield in return for the CWPT’s dropping its objections to the rest of the development. The developer is donating 127 of the 340 acres that it owns to the CWPT in order for that ground to be turned into a battlefield park. That, in my mind, is a win-win scenario that meets precisely my definition of a good settlement. Both sides gave up something to get something, and both sides ended up walking away with a compromise. In my mind, this is a real formula for successful future preservation efforts, and I hope that local preservation groups learn something from it.

Continue reading

Those who know me know how important the cause of battlefield preservation is to me. Perhaps that’s part of the legacy that I inherited from Brian Pohanka and my friend Bud Hall, who were two of the three founders of the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites (“APCWS”). The APCWS was, of course, merged with a rival group, the Civil War Trust, forming the current organization, which is called the Civil War Preservation Trust (“CWPT”).

The folks at the CWPT are dedicated professionals who are determined to do the right thing and the best that they can do to preserve battlefield land. Of that, I have no doubt. I’ve worked with them on several occasions, and they honored me greatly on two different occasions by offering my books to donors as a premium. It certainly helped me with book sales, and I was flattered and honored to have been asked.

However, I do have some issues with CWPT.

First, not every dime that is donated to a specific cause ends up going to that specific cause. That strikes me as being somewhat misleading of the public, and it also means that funds being raised for specific causes end up going to other uses.

Second, the organization has professional staff who, quite understandably, expect to be paid for their time. That’s perfectly reasonable–I don’t work for free either, and I have bills to pay just as these folks do. In addition, the CWPT has to pay for expensive office space in Washington, D. C. In short, the organization has a lot of overhead, meaning that a significant portion of the moneys collected by the CWPT end up going to overhead and not to battlefield preservation.

At the same time, I find it quite telling that Brian Pohanka, who helped found the CWPT, left some very large and very generous gifts to other organizations. The following paragraph comes from an article by Deborah Fitts in the current issue of Civil War News pertaining to some of the bequests Brian made:

“In September a representative of Pohanka’s estate notified the Central Virginia Battlefields Trust (CVBT), Save Historic Antietam Foundation (SHAF) and Richmond Battlefield Association (RBA) that they would receive a total of more than $1 million. Pohanka, 50, died in June after a long struggle with cancer.”

Conspicuously absent from this list is the CWPT. I’m not sure whether Brian left nothing to them, or if it is a private gift, or just hasn’t been announced yet. If he left nothing to the CWPT, that’s a real slap in the face to an organization he helped to found. At the same time, when Brian died, his widow Cricket asked that, in lieu of flowers, etc., that folks make a donation to the CWPT.

What’s significant about CVBT, SHAF, and RBA is that they are entirely volunteer organizations with no paid professional staff, and very little in the way of overhead. Nearly every dollar that gets donated to them goes to the purchase of battlefield land. The CVBT, in particular, has done an absolutely magnificent job of buying and preserving land in the Fredericksburg area, where rapid development threatens a lot of really important Civil War sites. The CVBT purchased a significant portion of the first day’s battlefield at Chancellorsville and then donated it to the National Park Service, saving a critical piece of ground from development along Route 3.

I still believe in what the CWPT’s doing, and I still strongly support their efforts. However, I would really like to see some of my concerns addressed, and I would love to see a larger percentage of each dollar donated end up being used for the purchase of land and less toward overhead.

Continue reading