You’ve anticipated some of what I intend to address in tomorrow’s post, which is part 4 of this thread.

The Reader’s Digest version is that I agree with you.

More tomorrow.

Eric

It’s so very true that preservationists be able to work with developers. I do take a hard line on battlefield land that saw fighting and even the staging of troops (it should be saved) but many folks seem to think we should save every inch of ground that a soldier ever walked on. It’s just not possible. As say, such an impression leads to the idea that battlefield preservationists are rabid looney cases. Many are, unfortunately, but we are lately seeing examples of compromise. I think one of the points you tried to make is that saving something is better than getting nothing.

Many don’t see it that way, but sometimes that’s what we get, and sometimes it has to be acceptable. Sure, I’d like to see the area where Camp Letterman was located to be a nice open field now, but I’ll take the retail nightmare that is on the spot in order to put money and resources into land at Gettysburg that saw actual fighting and troop deployment.

Interesting comments in the previous blog about Pohanka and the CWPT. I had thought he made a sizable donation, but apparently not. If not, it does speak volumes. I’m sure that Brian treasured those organizations that put every dollar into preservation, rather than one that puts, say, half of every buck into expenses and overhead. I don’t think, at the outset, that Brian ever envisioned so many people making such huge salaries in a preservation organization, and perhaps he’s posthumously making a statement about that now.

J.D. Petruzzi