Is this a policy that you would expect from a legitimate preservation organization?

Can anyone imagine LEGITIMATE historic preservation groups like The Civil War Trust, the Friends of the Wilderness, Central Virginia Battlefield Trust, the Richmond Battlefield Association, etc., (I can go on…) siding with the “rights” of landowners to do whatever they wish on their property regardless of local, state, and federal regulations?? No way.

I’m not surprised by this cowardly policy paper that in essence tells the world that the BSF will not stand in the way of threats to battlefield property, whether those threats are from big corporations wishing to build more homes or a Wal-Mart or threats from local citizens–like Mr. Troilo–who feel they are above the law and only “apologize” when caught red-handed by state and federal authorities.

I’m concerned for the future. BSF–this pathetic excuse for a preservation group–will be rolling over for whatever any one person, corporation, home construction company, or VDOT entity that wants to do build their version of a history theme park, 200 more homes on Fleetwood Hill, or slice off a section of Hansborough Ridge to widen Route 3.

Thankfully, the BSF is a non-player now…and people who TRULY are “dedicated to preseving the natural and historic resources of the Brandy Station area…” (Taken directly from the BSF’s mission statement) are the ones left to carry the flag and do YOUR job.

“Frequently landowners are required to obtain permits before making improvements or undertaking certain agricultural activities. We view the permit process primarily as an issue between the landowner and the governmental agency exercising legal or regulatory authority over the matter.”

Wow. Their policy almost sounds reasonable (and to most “lay” people, it probably does.) However, I extracted one portion above.
If they really believe that, the LEAST they could have done is to do what Bud Hall did…pass along what was happening on Troilo’s land to the Army Corp of Engineers to make sure that proper permits were obtained and in order. At the very least, McKinney was negligent to allow this to happen under his watch. Troilo, meanwhile, seemed to be playing some Alfred E. Neuman innocence card, “What, me worry?”

One wonders if things would have been different had the President not been friends with the landowner. The BSF couldn’t have done less than they did in this case, but would they have done more (anything?)

In my eyes, a TRUE preservation organization would do everything, within the law and common sense, to preserve vital, hallowed ground…especially core battlefield land.

Why the statement was written: Joe Mckinney, BSF President, is friends with Tony Troilo, despoiler of Fleetwood Hill. He wants everyone to know BSF won’t pick on poor Tony as he destroys the core portion of the Brandy Station Battlefield.

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.

Hello Eric,

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

Surely no one who understands what this ground means to us and to our country would allow its destruction and desecration without standing up and saying, “No!”

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