First, the GBPA doesn’t fight every development. They’re not helping at all on the one in my back yard. 🙂 And I think I have pretty good evidence some of those cavalier type guys let their steeds go potty there. OK – I know they were in the area and I know horses go potty now and then – so I’m making a leap of faith.

More importantly, there’s strong feelings in these here parts that they all must be fought to stop the slippery slope of Adams County becoming Frederick. The proximity of 15 and 30 make the entire corridor ripe for development, and, thankfully, most, but not all, of the Twonships have finally gotten some zoning that restricts the ugly stuff (IMHO) to those areas. I’m learning it’s not perfect, but it is better than nothing.

In any event, I wonder if part of the effort is to win a few, lose a few rather than putting all the eggs in one basket and losing that one when you really, really need to win.

I’m certain I’m not certain.

Phil

Though I personally feel that Camp Letterman should have been preserved and interpreted, the fight was lost years ago, so one more development means very little in the overall aspect. It is a fight that was lost long ago, and with very little effort to save it, I’m told.

Regards,
Duane

Thanks for the post and – despite my special interest in Civil War medicine – this reply is certainly not “hate mail.” As “devil’s advocate” the only point I’d like to add is that while it’s certainly true there was no fighting (your interest) at Camp Letterman, that’s not to say there wasn’t any dying (all of our interests), there and in that regard I think it still stands as “hallowed ground.” However – while it would be nice to preserve the land, it doesn’t really help that there aren’t any existing structures or a comprehensive plan for interpretation. In this regard, I think the Nat’l Museum for Civil War Medicine did an excellnt job w/ the Pry House but I don’t see the same utility for what *was* Camp Letterman, and in that sense I agree with your conclusion.

All My Best,

Jim Schmidt

Keep up the

I agree wholeheartedly with you. The fact is that the money for preservation efforts doesn’t come from a never-ending cornucopia. Priorities have to be set. Groups like the Civil War Preservation Trust, Richmond Battlefields Association, et al are engaged in big projects right now, and more are just around the corner. All of us as preservationists, donors, activists – whatever – have to make a sober assessment of where and how to allocate our resources of time and money.
Also, it’s important to remember Brian’s follow-on comment above. A number of successful preservation efforts wouldn’t have happened without the cooperation of development companies that were willing to work out solutions with preservation groups – sometimes leaving money on the table to do so. To paint developers as a monolithic evil force, and paint ourselves (those interested in preservation) as an unyielding group with non-negotiable demands is counterproductive to say the least.

Just my two cents worth…York Pike was “lost” to development years and years ago. I don’t want the battlefield to be “fenced in” by development all around it though. It might get to a point where it looks just like a park in the middle of a town, just surrounded by stores, sub-divisions and stop lights. Not good. But you are right, we need to think about smart preservation that is within our means to attain. We don’t have the clout and/or money to compete with development. It’s a bitter truth to face but we do need to be a lot more realistic. Brian

It’s hard to argue with your position. Sadly, it seems to me that nowadays partisans on both sides of any issue dealing with anything of a political nature operate under the belief that if you give the other side an inch, they’ll take a mile. Further, compromise is construed as a sign of weakness. It wasn’t always this way.

Paul

You know me well enough by now to know that I’m not the shy and retiring sort….

Eric

Eric, tell the truth and shame the devil (in a pragmatic sense).

Mannie