A Small Victory in Preserving the State’s History

» 4 Comments | Post a Comment

The clock is ticking on thousands of acres of important Civil War battlefields in Virginia, battlefields that would help future generations better understand the bloody conflict that divided America between 1861 and 1865.

Many of those acres — particularly those in Northern Virginia — remain vulnerable to development and the roads and highways that come with it.

There was welcome news, however, last week that nearly 210 acres near Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley will be preserved under a $3.35 million public-private purchase agreement.

As The Associated Press reported, the deal will create a 575-acre preserve that remains much as it was nearly 150 years ago when the Third Battle of Winchester was fought by tens of thousands of Union and Confederate soldiers.

The property was purchased through a partnership that includes the Shenandoah Battlefields Foundation, the Civil War Preservation Trust, the state of Virginia and private partners. The parties involved must raise an additional $690,000 in private money to reach the purchase price.

Historian David W. Lowe has described the Third Winchester as “the largest and most desperately contested battle of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley.”

He wrote in a study for the National Park Service that the property east of Winchester ranked among the bloodiest fields of the Civil War with more than 3,000 casualties.

More than 54,000 troops on both sides fought in the battle that began on Sept. 19, 1864.

It was the opening volley of Union Gen. Philip Sheridan’s Shenandoah campaign — a campaign that left a trail of destruction for nearly 100 miles to the south.

James Lighthizer, president of the Civil War Preservation Trust, called attention to the importance of preserving the battlefield when he said, “This is a stage where a great event occurred. It’s a place where people will come and imagine what happened here. They’re actually walking where these people walked.”

That gets to the core of the importance of preserving the battlefields. The historical record is replete with details of these important battles, details that include who fought there, how the battle was waged and how it turned out. Being able to walk across that battlefield, however, brings realism to the strife of the past that would not be otherwise possible.

Once the purchase of the property is completed, the preservation groups will create interpretative trails.

Despite the purchase announced last week, only a fraction of the area at Third Winchester has been protected. In the Shenandoah Valley, more than 17,000 acres of core battlefield land remain vulnerable to development, according to preservationists.

Development threatens some 50,000 acres of unprotected battlefields throughout the state.

“We have to be very conscious that the hour is getting short and we have little time to preserve,” said Kathleen S. Kilpatrick, director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

She’s right. Time is running out on many of the historic battlefield sites from the Civil War.

Only a renewed sense of history, combined with the stewardship offered by nonprofit groups like the ones that have bought the Winchester site, can reverse that trend for the future.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Punto di vista di paradigma on November 20, 2008 at 3:37 pm

On one hand, there is the understanding of the history and documentation of the Civil War. On the other hand, there is the sometimes obsessive fascination with battleground, artifact, uniform, accoutrement preservation that is sometimes falsely claimed to be necessary for the understanding of the issues. They are different. There is a difference between remembering/understanding and lingering on.
At http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/pr/archive/2008/08/03/media-lead-sheet-august-11-issue.aspx is this info about the Aug 11, 208 Issue of Newsweek: “COVER: The End of the South (p. 22). Paris Bureau Chief Christopher Dickey visits the U.S. South, where his family is from, to get the pulse of the region during this historic presidential election. What Dickey finds, he writes, is that the election is unsettling Dixie.“
There are numerous articles in that particular issue that address issues about the South. While it isn’t about Civil War Battlefields, per se, it is about the issues that I’ve often heard brought up when people talk about why the battlegrounds are preserved, re-enactments, etc.
In “Southern Discomfort” at http://www.newsweek.com/id/150576 Christopher Dickey’s travels during the recent election put him in direct touch with the citizens and illuminates underlying feelings that make the dynamics of life/culture in the South the way they are. The article (and the whole Aug 11 issue) makes for some good reading in tandem with the discussion of why “letting go” of Civil War battlegrounds, paraphenalia, Confederacy flags, etc., is problematic for some, necessary for others, and confusing for many. (The last paragraph on page five of the cited article is hopeful and insightful.) Civil War issues and the article itself are not one and the same, but the article does indeed set some interesting background for consideration when discussing issues such as historical preservation and the like.

Flag Comment Posted by HistoryMan on November 20, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Wow… Mr. (ahem) Wafflefoot, above, makes the perfect case, albeit unknowingly, of exactly why historic preservation is so vitally important—so that Americans do not forget those great events of our past that led directly to the nation we have today. 

I would like to point out to him that, as far as I can tell, no one is saying that these places should be preserved exclusively as shrines to the Confederacy.  He might want to pick up a volume of Civil War history; most of the ones I’ve read indicate that Union soldiers fought and died there, too, and after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, they fought under the banner of freeing African Americans.  Should their sacrifices be paved over and forgotten?  Should all remnants of a cataclysmic war of liberation for those in bondage be dishonored and disfigured by modern sprawl? 

By his tortured logic, we ought to bulldoze Jamestown, as surely it is an “embarrassment” to what “we” did as a nation to American Indians… we ought to torpedo—again—the USS Arizona Memorial, as it must be offensive to those Japanese-Americans among us that we keep bringing up a war that reminds them of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No, quite obviously, it is still vitally important to retain the places that are important to our nation’s past, so that we might continue to learn from them, to “take increased devotion” from them as Lincoln said, and yes, to continue to debate the lessons learned from those times.

Finally, these places offer great value to their respective communities if for no other reason than, at some point in the not-too-distant future, they will be the only areas of green space, open space and park lands in an ocean of development, traffic and housing developments.  If you don’t think there is value in historic open space, ask the people of New York City just how much Central Park is worth to them?

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement