Surely any battlefield preservation organization with its priorities straight would do the same.

It appears that the only positive thing stemming from this unfortunate incident is to show how a preservation organization should NOT act.

Mike Stevens
Central Virginia Battlefields Trust

While anyone may choose to view the permit process as an issue between the landowner and the agency, the law in play here–Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act–views it VERY differently. The law REQUIRES the permitting agency (in this case the Corps) to seek the input of the public in its review of projects. The law is written to encourage precisely the sort of public input that BSF has apparently eschewed.

Preservation groups have very few legal tools at hand to accomplish preservation; section 106 is by far the most useful. The idea that a preservation organization would publicly proclaim its intent NOT to use the major legal tool at its disposal might well be unprecedented.

Thanks for keeping us informed about this situation.

I regret that in the press of daily responsibilities, and in my gut faith in Bud Hall’s combination of battlefield knowledge and firm moral suasion, I let my membership in the BSF lapse.

While I don’t think there is negotiation value in embarrassing an individual for a decision that compromises the values and influence of the organization he represents, I do think this situation calls for a clear statement of principals by the BSF. What we got was a surrender of suasion; a politically correct statement that the organization will only press to preserve battlefield segments for public benefit that don’t conflict with narrow private interests.

The issue reflects the national debate about the Constitution: is it designed to promote the interests of the people as a whole or protect the interests of individual people? We thought the BSF was representing “we the people,” who’s states fought there and who’s concept of this nation as one or two was partially decided on those fields, an organization that advocated for the ground as a national treasure. However, this decision suggests it has pulled back from that role simply to protect its former gains and to take an obsequious rather than an influential position with its neighbors.

I was about to renew my membership and to convey the results of my study of the Fleetwood Hill portion of the battle, but now I’m not sure the organization is seriously interested in either the mission or the message.

Tallyho!
Andrew German

The board of BSF are spineless individuals for allowing this to be posted after decades of clear statements and actions for preserving the battlefield.

For all the fancy gobbldy-gook they spewed this change in policy simply lets everyone know it’s OK with them if folks that own historic properties destroy it as they see fit.

It doesn’t really matter that certain properties are protected with easements or within historic districts with regulations and responsibilities in place governing any changes….to BSF they basically say “go ahead and just do as you feel.” Pollute your neighbor’s property downstream, no problem. Don’t let any silly law stop you.

The stupidity of these people is unbelievable.
I don’t see how anyone can support that organization any further.