How much preservation is too much?

I worked in fire stations that had "historical" significance because of their age and everyone of them were rundown, unhealthy structures that cost the city a great deal to keep up. Fortunately they were often sold to private individuals, other city organizations and even in one case to a church for reuse and new stations were often relocated and built. An example is Fire Station #10 which was built in 1910. It was sold
11b%20Avondale_Fire_Station_1926 (2).jpg
23120000-standard (2).jpg
to become a restaurant/micro brewery.
 
Last edited:
So, I feel the need to talk about something that I read on someone else's blog that made me laugh.

I have an interest in the Battle of the Monongahela (AKA Braddock's Defeat) that happened in the 1750's just outside of Pittsburgh, during the French and Indian War. The French and their Native American allies ambushed and defeated the British. George Washington was an aide-de-camp to the British commander, Edward Braddock. General Braddock died during the retreat. Washington had to oversee Braddock's burial and also lead the retreat since most of the high ranking British officers were killed during the battle.

Anyway, I found this blog for this history enthusiast who visits such battlefields. He visited the site of this battle (Braddock, Pennsylvania) and blogged about it. He posted beautiful maps and described the battle.

And THEN, the blogger complained heartily because "progress" altered the battlefield's original landscape.

I laughed because the "progress" to which this blogger referred was the U.S. STEEL MILL that Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick built on top of the battlefield in the 1880's.

Carnegie and Frick and their associates have been accused of A LOT of things (labor strife, causing the Johnstown Flood, etc). I personally don't think that they lost any sleep over building a steel mill on top of a 1750's battlefield.

By the way, this is Civil War-related because in 1861, Andrew Carnegie was appointed as Superintendent of the Military Railways and the Union Government's telegraph lines in the East. Vast amounts of trees have fallen to produce books about Carnegie's contributions to Union telegraph communications during the War.

Have you been to the site? It's on my list of places to visit
 
As far as I'm concerned, if the communities around these places don't oppose preservation then there isn't anything wrong with it.
Not sure what the community opposing preservation should have to do with it. Say there is a CW battlefield that has national or state significance, and the community would prefer a casino.......If a national or state organization stepped up to buy it, don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Most historical sites, if actually very historical, have a value that goes beyond just a local community.
 
Have you been to the site? It's on my list of places to visit

I’v taken a bus through Braddock (public transit, not a tour bus) and I’ve been directly across the river because there is a really nice bike and walking trail on the opposite side of the river from the site of the battlefield. The trail has plenty of free parking at various trailheads. We parked for free next to the McKeesport Police Department because they provided parking space for trail users. The trail crossed at least one old railroad bridge and followed the river, past old industrial sites. The trail goes behind Kennywood Park. We were able to take a break at a bench and look directly across the river at the still-operational mill for US Steel. Local lore suggests that there are still British soldiers buried under the steel mill.

I haven’t been to visit the battlefield visitor’s center in Braddock. However, I’ve been to see Braddock’s grave in Fayette County.
 
I am lucky to live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where we have a large amount high value historic sites preserved. I consider these historical sites a national treasure. Unfortunately, urban sprawl has already impinged on these historical sites. I.E., a newish school at the base of Cemetery Hill, are you kidding me! So we have lost a lot of historical areas already.

There is only one thing worse than the lack of preservation on historic sites. And that is a run down historic site. It is simply too cost prohibitive to protect every historic site. I would support an appropriate historic marker on these smaller venues simply giving a concise recap of the event that occurred there versus a large site preservation.

Well done sites are very interesting. I have visited Fort Necessity along route 40 here in Pa several times. There is a round wood stockade where G Washington fought. Not much to see at the stockade, but the NPS visitor center on the battle and Route 40 is very worthwhile seeing. This is a classic example of turning a not so well known historic site and constructing a first class visitor center memorializing history for future generations.

Likewise, I live close to Fort Ligonier and that is another well done preserved site. Nearby Bushy Run and Hannas Town are also interesting. These sites are nicely preserved and maintained.

So if you are going to have a historic site preserved, do it the correct way. Unfortunately costs simply make many sites not economically feasible. It is not always an easy decision on what sites to preserve. One hopes that people use common sense and the historic event itself to determine worthiness.

I love walking down to the Strip District in Pittsburgh. One building has a historical looking plaque on its wall. It says " In 1897, nothing happened here" (or something like that). That is my favorite marker!
 
It is a question of limited resources.
Decisions must be made, often just before the developer unloads the earth-moving equipment. I submit that it is better to focus on assuring that sites of true historical significance are preserved and properly maintained than to attempt to save interesting, but less significant properties.
 
OK this is very personal. A decade ago I was on the Board of Supervisors in Orange County, Virginia. Walmart wanted to build a store about a mile from the Wilderness Battlefield. Their store would not have been visible from the battlefield or any major road. They would have provided parking and overnight parking for campers visiting the battlefield. the front of the store would have been a mural of the battle. They offered 15 acres for a reenactment park across the road from the actual battlefield. I won't begin to list the advantages to the County. The "Preservationist" chose to take the money they could make "Saving the Wilderness". Long story short, Walmart moved from a site with no historic value, that would have enhanced the Battlefield and the County, to a truly historic site visible from the road with an ordinary (ugly) Walmart. No recognition of the value of the battlefield, no reenactment park, a lot of money for Washington "Preservation" whores. Yes, I'm still bitter.
 
It would be difficult for someone to convince me a playground, especially from the 1980s, is historically significant.

Historical site and building preservation is a tough field. Not only is funding usually a struggle, but you're beset by people on one side who see no value in preservation and people on the other side who fanatically want to preserve every old thing. And the latter group will often accuse any historian, archaeologist, or nonprofit of selling out to developers the moment they refuse to go down fighting on some trivial site or building.

I work at a historic site which includes some military single-family housing from the 1960s. The state historic preservation office reviewed the structures and deemed them "not historically significant." And since they're concrete block stucco homes from a standardized plan used nationwide it's hard to argue otherwise. Furthermore, there are 11 of them on the site so even if they were historically-significant from an architectural standpoint it would be hard to justify the cost of preserving all 11 of them.

Lighthouses have a similiar problem. Arguably, all of the surviving lighthouses in the country are historically significant. However, many of them are very difficult to access just for restoration much less for visitors. Many are seriously deteriorated and some are severely threatened by erosion. Is it worth millions of dollars to preserve something historic that very few people would ever get to see even if were preserved in immaculate condition?

Morris Island Lighthouse near Charleston was built in the 1870s to replace a colonial lighthouse blown up by the Confederates during the Civil War. This same island was the site of Battery Wagner (see "Glory"). Today the whole island should be a national park preserving the lighthouse, Civil War fortifications, and nature. Unfortunately, "improvements" to the Charleston Harbor entrance in the 1930s caused Morris Island to slowly wash away and the island is now just a big sandbar. The lighthouse now stands alone on barely a spec of dry land. Some folks are still trying to save it and eventually restore it.

Historic buildings have much more ongoing preservation costs than a battlefield. Many battlefields can be acquired for relatively low-cost passive recreation greenspace, with the added benefit of historical interpretation. A small skirmish site with a few hundred people on each side probably isn't worth saving solely on that merit alone, but combined with other merits of the site might be worth saving. It really seems like something that has to be taken on a case by case basis.
 
Last edited:
Morris Island Lighthouse near Charleston was built in the 1870s to replace a colonial lighthouse blown up by the Confederates during the Civil War. This same island was the site of Battery Wagner (see "Glory"). Today the whole island should be a national park preserving the lighthouse, Civil War fortifications, and nature. Unfortunately, "improvements" to the Charleston Harbor entrance in the 1930s caused Morris Island to slowly wash away and the island is now just a big sandbar. The lighthouse now stands alone on barely a spec of dry land. Some folks are still trying to save it and eventually restore it.

I went to see that on my honeymoon!

We had to park at one end of Folly Beach on Folly Island, and then hike past a bunch of sand dunes. Then, we could see the lighthouse from the far end of Folly Island.

I just Googled this to make sure that my memory and spelling were correct. I received a bunch of results about Hurricane Dorian. I'm now sad, thinking about how much damage this storm could do to this entire area.
 
Here in Orange County, Virginia there are the ruins of Gov. Barbour's mansion, designed by Jefferson, and burned in the 19th century. The Barboursville Vineyard bought the property hoping to restore the mansion. When that was not feasible they restored the ruins much like you see Greek or Roman ruins restored. Great solution. The public is free to visit and even picnic on the on the grounds. It is a great addition to the County and greatly enhances the Vineyard.
 
In Detroit the GAR building was built for its Civil War Veterans in 1899 and used until the 1940s when by then most of its members had died. The City of Detroit took over the building and used it until 1982 when they closed it down and it sat abandoned and in disrepair until 2011 when it was sold to a couple of investors.
The story below is what they have done to that historic building that was sitting idle and falling apart:

Restored GAR Building will bring Detroit's Civil War history to life

 
So, first off, I am a big supporter of preservation and preservation organizations. But it got me wondering the other day about how much is too much?

The way I look at it is that everything, whether it be land or a building, is historic.

I actually had this occur in my community recently when the town decided to demolish a playground that had been built in the 1980s and abandoned due to chemicals in the wooden structures a few years later. The playground sat abandoned in the woods until a few months ago when it was demolished. People got upset and said the community was erasing history. Well, yes technically it's historic, but what purpose does saving and preserving an old playground have? What does it teach us about our past?

That's what I think a preserved space should do. Now, we should definitely preserve places like Shiloh and Gettysburg, but what about smaller battlefields that are practically unheard of? Let's say that there was a battle in which 200 Union soldiers fought 200 Confederates for a few hours. Casualties were light and the action is rarely mentioned in the official records. Does the land where that battle took place be forever preserved from development? Land is always going to be in need and there is only so much of it. Should hundreds of thousands of dollars - even millions - be spent to preserve a few acres that no very few people know about and would possibly even visit? Or do a few markers and interpretive panels tell the story just as well? What does that small little battle tell us about the war?

Should preservation groups and organizations focus their money on high target acquisitions and properties that are important?

Again, I fully support preservation, but I am also a realist. I got asked to give money to a group that was trying to preserve an old factory building that had fallen into disrepair and had become a safety hazard and was slated to be demolished. A group wanted to buy the building and rehab it and needed three or four million dollars for the project. In my opinion that was money that could have gone to more desirable preservation sites.

What do you all think? Is there a point where preservation just gets to be too much?


I don't care if it was a skirmish, action, encounter, engagement, affair, etc., (call if whatever you will of whatever Dyers will refer to it as) regarding "insignificant actions" of the Civil War………Look a mother in the eye whose son was killed in a skirmish and tell her that the engagement was of little importance because it was “just a skirmish”.

Even with minor actions of "200 Confederates vs. 200 Federals" you can at least put up a sign to let future generations know that an engagement was fought at this site and men bled and died for what they believed in and try to preserve a little piece of the site....even if only an acre.
 
I am researching so called "minor" engagements of the Civil War currently and unfortunately feel I will be investigating alot of Walmart's, parking lots, commercial real estate, McMansion residential communities, golf courses, etc., There are literally millions and millions of acres available for "progress" and commercial development. I know that 14% of the total acreage in the US is set aside for conservation. If I remember correctly less than 2% of the total goes towards historic preservation sites. Once it is gone it is gone.
 
I don't care if it was a skirmish, action, encounter, engagement, affair, etc., (call if whatever you will of whatever Dyers will refer to it as) regarding "insignificant actions" of the Civil War………Look a mother in the eye whose son was killed in a skirmish and tell her that the engagement was of little importance because it was “just a skirmish”.

But at that point you've trying to preserve everything old simply because it is old. Every house was of some importance to someone who lived there, regardless of whether they did anything significant or if the home has notable architecture.

Or is the arguement that a drop of blood spilled should consecrate a site for eternity? At that point we're saying history is only important if it gets people killed. Heck, think about the implications for Europe!

Even with minor actions of "200 Confederates vs. 200 Federals" you can at least put up a sign to let future generations know that an engagement was fought at this site and men bled and died for what they believed in

On that I do agree. Historical markers and interpretive signage are a great way to mark a place where something historic happened, especially if little or no trace remains.

try to preserve a little piece of the site....even if only an acre.

There's a little park in northern Mississippi - I think it's Tupelo? - that is exactly what you describe. It's a lot in town where a small portion of the battle took place. What does a flat acre of grass with a monument tell us that a historical marker doesn't? It's too small to interpret much or to help visualize much of anything about what happened. The site and surrounding area have radically changed. (Might be different if there were earthworks or something else tangible.)

I'm not suggesting it should be bulldozed for a McDonalds. It's not a bad way to mark some history while preserving some urban greenspace. But it's such a little fragment that I don't think it would make much of a difference if it had not been set aside.
 
I’ve always believed that some sites are worth preserving because they form a part of the bigger picture, on their own, the sites may appear to hold little significance but when viewed in context their importance becomes apparent. I can really only give an example of such a site near my home, there’s a couple of acres of marshy bog land and to be honest it’s really not that impressive but when you look at the history of that rather insignificant looking bog you’d be surprised to find that it was a refuge for King Alfred, it was his base camp and the place where he planned his guerrilla battles against the Vikings, it was the place which altered history. There’s really not much to see in the way of archaeology and the place seldom sees any visitors but it’s an area of extreme importance.
I guess that there must be important civil war sites that people are unaware of. It would be a great loss to see such places built upon because they are not considered important or because they lack any significant archaeological evidence. We all get a sense of being in touch with the past when we stand in these places and it helps us to piece together the story, that’s why we need to protect them.
 
A recurring topic in our neck of the woods. So in the case of a battlefield how far of a radius around the actual battlefield do you preserve? 100 yards, 1 mile, 5 miles, etc? Or do you limit the preservation to the acreage that the actual battle took place? Then there is every dwelling/property that were used as hospitals, hq, wagon parks, etc?
I talked to a local farmer who was in his late 90s. He owned an old stone mill that was in bad shape but had good bones. A historic group wanted to buy it and restore it. He thought it was not worth it. The ideology that if something does not earn its keep it was not worth keeping is a common way of thinking around here. I see old brick homes, stone barns, whole farmsteads torn down and the land reused for another purpose even if its just to be used as crop land. When I relocated here it was quite a surprise to me. Where I came from older structures where not as plentiful and if they were torn down it raised alot of eyebrows.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top