spectr17
11-18-2001, 11:10 PM
Civil War legacy: Battle over battleground.
By MIKE HARDEN, Scripps Howard News Service.
November 16, 2001
- HARPERS FERRY, W.Va. - Bill Hebb frets when he surveys farm fields next to the Civil War battle site where he works.
"When you put a residential development on a pristine historical landscape, you are pretty much ruining it forever," said the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park's chief of resource management.
Hebb's concern has been aroused by the plans of a developer to build 188 tract homes hard against the edge of the site where abolitionist John Brown made his star-crossed raid of an Army arsenal in 1859.
Three years after Brown was hanged for his attempt to launch a revolution among slaves, the Confederate commander Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson would descend upon Harpers Ferry to capture 12,500 Union troops, the largest single capitulation of federals during the war.
Rich with the history of the conflict between North and South, Harpers Ferry is but one of many Civil War sites battling to stave off the frontal assault of development.
Earlier this year, the Civil War Preservation Trust listed Harpers Ferry among the most endangered Civil War battlefields.
The list also included the Gettysburg, Pa. battlefield park as well as the Wilderness battle site west of Fredericksburg, Va.
The Trust is a non-profit battlefield preservation organization with 35,000 members, pledged to the goal of trying to save 2,000 acres of Civil War battlefields annually.
The problem at Harpers Ferry - not unlike that at Gettysburg and the Wilderness - stems from the fact that when the federal government began establishing National Park Service sites at historic battlefields, often only a small portion of the area where the conflicts transpired was preserved.
At the site of the the Battle of the Wilderness - where generals Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee clashed in 1864 - only 2200 acres of the 13,000 encompassed by the fighting are protected.
At Gettysburg, more than 1,200 acres of the 7,000 where the conflict was waged are unguarded. A Ford dealership stands on the site where the Union Army's 11th Corps was battered by Confederates under Gen. Richard Ewell on the first day of fighting. A motel sits where Ohio troops mauled the flank of Pickett's charge as the fight drew near its epic climax.
Battlefield preservationists at Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry and the Wilderness are hampered in their efforts to protect or reclaim historic grounds by existing federal regulations. By law, the National Park Service is permitted to purchase land only if it is within established boundaries of the conflict.
The NPS also is prohibited from paying more than the appraised value of any land it acquires. This becomes a problem when developers - vying for privately-owned land adjoining battle sites - begin flashing a cash roll that neither the park service nor its friends in the non-profit sector can expect to match.
In the case of Harpers Ferry, the federal government has set aside $2 million to purchase 99 acres where a developer wants to establish a residential subdivision. However, the owners of the land - according to the Civil War Preservation Trust - are asking twice that figure for the ground.
"Money always talks," said Jim Lighthizer, president of the trust.
The struggle to protect the fields where the Civil War was fought is often a complicated and protracted feud battled out in skirmishes over zoning variances and environmental impact concerns.
At Harpers Ferry, concern from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about a sewage treatment facility near the planned housing development has aided the National Park Service in holding off the bulldozers.
At Gettysburg, the park service has been attempting to restore the battlefield to a semblance of its original 1863 appearance by gradually purchasing privately held property and clearing the structures from it.
Within the past decade, Gettysburg has spent more than $16 million acquiring property or development easements on land surrounding the park.
Compromise often figures into the picture. In August, the park service purchased - for $1.2 million - the Ford dealership that has occupied 6.4 acres of battle ground since 1990. Conditions of the contract, however, will allow the dealership four years to relocate.
Ironically, it is the park service's own development plans at Gettysburg that have created concern among preservation groups.
At the Pennsylvania battle site, the park service has proposed creating a new visitors center and museum on a 45-acre tract where no major fighting occurred. (The existing visitors center is on battlefield ground).
The Civil War Preservation Trust worries that, while vacating the old visitors center will allow the park to reclaim and restore crucial battleground, the new visitors center might become a magnet for fast-food establishments and souvenir shops.
"At Gettysburg, they've got to worry about a high-rise McDonald's going in down the street," Lighthizer said. "We'll take that risk if you can make the core part of the battlefield more pristine."
Lighthizer was championing battlefield preservation long before he became president of the trust. As Maryland's secretary of transportation from 1991 to 1995, he made vigorous use of Federal Highway Administration matching funds to acquire property and easements surrounding Antietam National Battlefield.
Antietam, which witnessed 23,000 casualties in what has been called the bloodiest day of the Civil War, is today considered a model of battlefield preservation.
The approaches to Antietam, near the Maryland town of Sharpsburg, largely have been spared from the commercial and residential sprawl that plagues other battle sites.
An apron of green space holds development at bay, its acquisition credited to Lighthizer's efforts during his tenure as a Maryland cabinet member.
Antietam's park service superintendent John Howard said, "The state now owns more land outside the battlefield boundaries than the federal government owns within them."
The deal struck with private land owners in the Sharpsburg area is a fairly simple one. The state acquires (usually for 50-to-80 percent of appraised property value) the development rights to the land in perpetuity. The owners may keep the property, but must maintain it unchanged. Farmland may remain under till as long as its use is generally compatible with the manner in which it was farmed in 1862.
This protects what preservationists call the "view shed," the vista surrounding battlefields, as well as land central to the conflict which the National Park Service neglected to acquire when it first established park boundaries.
Not every state that is home to Civil War battle sites has been as ambitious as Maryland in using federal transportation dollars to protect historic ground.
An attempt to employ that money - also known as TEA-21 matching federal monies - to rescue Ohio's Civil War battle site at Buffington Island failed to win approval in the Ohio General Assembly.
"We've been trying to spread the TEA-21 gospel," said Lighthizer of his organization's efforts to awaken interest in saving battle sites.
"We've helped local groups write TEA-21 grant applications."
Yet, where commercial and residential development has had a headstart on preservationists, little can be done to stem the tide.
Lighthizer's organization, in five years, has rescued - thanks to the indispensable help of private benefactors and smaller preservation groups - nearly 11,000 acres of Civil War battle grounds in 16 states.
Despite that commendable record, the nation loses almost five times what is saved each year.
In the big picture, there are too few Antietams and too many Harpers Ferrys.
(Mike Harden is a columnist at the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. E-mail mharden(at)dispatch.com.)
By MIKE HARDEN, Scripps Howard News Service.
November 16, 2001
- HARPERS FERRY, W.Va. - Bill Hebb frets when he surveys farm fields next to the Civil War battle site where he works.
"When you put a residential development on a pristine historical landscape, you are pretty much ruining it forever," said the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park's chief of resource management.
Hebb's concern has been aroused by the plans of a developer to build 188 tract homes hard against the edge of the site where abolitionist John Brown made his star-crossed raid of an Army arsenal in 1859.
Three years after Brown was hanged for his attempt to launch a revolution among slaves, the Confederate commander Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson would descend upon Harpers Ferry to capture 12,500 Union troops, the largest single capitulation of federals during the war.
Rich with the history of the conflict between North and South, Harpers Ferry is but one of many Civil War sites battling to stave off the frontal assault of development.
Earlier this year, the Civil War Preservation Trust listed Harpers Ferry among the most endangered Civil War battlefields.
The list also included the Gettysburg, Pa. battlefield park as well as the Wilderness battle site west of Fredericksburg, Va.
The Trust is a non-profit battlefield preservation organization with 35,000 members, pledged to the goal of trying to save 2,000 acres of Civil War battlefields annually.
The problem at Harpers Ferry - not unlike that at Gettysburg and the Wilderness - stems from the fact that when the federal government began establishing National Park Service sites at historic battlefields, often only a small portion of the area where the conflicts transpired was preserved.
At the site of the the Battle of the Wilderness - where generals Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee clashed in 1864 - only 2200 acres of the 13,000 encompassed by the fighting are protected.
At Gettysburg, more than 1,200 acres of the 7,000 where the conflict was waged are unguarded. A Ford dealership stands on the site where the Union Army's 11th Corps was battered by Confederates under Gen. Richard Ewell on the first day of fighting. A motel sits where Ohio troops mauled the flank of Pickett's charge as the fight drew near its epic climax.
Battlefield preservationists at Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry and the Wilderness are hampered in their efforts to protect or reclaim historic grounds by existing federal regulations. By law, the National Park Service is permitted to purchase land only if it is within established boundaries of the conflict.
The NPS also is prohibited from paying more than the appraised value of any land it acquires. This becomes a problem when developers - vying for privately-owned land adjoining battle sites - begin flashing a cash roll that neither the park service nor its friends in the non-profit sector can expect to match.
In the case of Harpers Ferry, the federal government has set aside $2 million to purchase 99 acres where a developer wants to establish a residential subdivision. However, the owners of the land - according to the Civil War Preservation Trust - are asking twice that figure for the ground.
"Money always talks," said Jim Lighthizer, president of the trust.
The struggle to protect the fields where the Civil War was fought is often a complicated and protracted feud battled out in skirmishes over zoning variances and environmental impact concerns.
At Harpers Ferry, concern from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about a sewage treatment facility near the planned housing development has aided the National Park Service in holding off the bulldozers.
At Gettysburg, the park service has been attempting to restore the battlefield to a semblance of its original 1863 appearance by gradually purchasing privately held property and clearing the structures from it.
Within the past decade, Gettysburg has spent more than $16 million acquiring property or development easements on land surrounding the park.
Compromise often figures into the picture. In August, the park service purchased - for $1.2 million - the Ford dealership that has occupied 6.4 acres of battle ground since 1990. Conditions of the contract, however, will allow the dealership four years to relocate.
Ironically, it is the park service's own development plans at Gettysburg that have created concern among preservation groups.
At the Pennsylvania battle site, the park service has proposed creating a new visitors center and museum on a 45-acre tract where no major fighting occurred. (The existing visitors center is on battlefield ground).
The Civil War Preservation Trust worries that, while vacating the old visitors center will allow the park to reclaim and restore crucial battleground, the new visitors center might become a magnet for fast-food establishments and souvenir shops.
"At Gettysburg, they've got to worry about a high-rise McDonald's going in down the street," Lighthizer said. "We'll take that risk if you can make the core part of the battlefield more pristine."
Lighthizer was championing battlefield preservation long before he became president of the trust. As Maryland's secretary of transportation from 1991 to 1995, he made vigorous use of Federal Highway Administration matching funds to acquire property and easements surrounding Antietam National Battlefield.
Antietam, which witnessed 23,000 casualties in what has been called the bloodiest day of the Civil War, is today considered a model of battlefield preservation.
The approaches to Antietam, near the Maryland town of Sharpsburg, largely have been spared from the commercial and residential sprawl that plagues other battle sites.
An apron of green space holds development at bay, its acquisition credited to Lighthizer's efforts during his tenure as a Maryland cabinet member.
Antietam's park service superintendent John Howard said, "The state now owns more land outside the battlefield boundaries than the federal government owns within them."
The deal struck with private land owners in the Sharpsburg area is a fairly simple one. The state acquires (usually for 50-to-80 percent of appraised property value) the development rights to the land in perpetuity. The owners may keep the property, but must maintain it unchanged. Farmland may remain under till as long as its use is generally compatible with the manner in which it was farmed in 1862.
This protects what preservationists call the "view shed," the vista surrounding battlefields, as well as land central to the conflict which the National Park Service neglected to acquire when it first established park boundaries.
Not every state that is home to Civil War battle sites has been as ambitious as Maryland in using federal transportation dollars to protect historic ground.
An attempt to employ that money - also known as TEA-21 matching federal monies - to rescue Ohio's Civil War battle site at Buffington Island failed to win approval in the Ohio General Assembly.
"We've been trying to spread the TEA-21 gospel," said Lighthizer of his organization's efforts to awaken interest in saving battle sites.
"We've helped local groups write TEA-21 grant applications."
Yet, where commercial and residential development has had a headstart on preservationists, little can be done to stem the tide.
Lighthizer's organization, in five years, has rescued - thanks to the indispensable help of private benefactors and smaller preservation groups - nearly 11,000 acres of Civil War battle grounds in 16 states.
Despite that commendable record, the nation loses almost five times what is saved each year.
In the big picture, there are too few Antietams and too many Harpers Ferrys.
(Mike Harden is a columnist at the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. E-mail mharden(at)dispatch.com.)