How much preservation is too much?

[zburkett]

I am very in favor of true preservation. In the case in Orange County the "Preservation" group decided it was a good opportunity to raise money. The land in question was one of the few locations in the County with no historic provenance other than the forest was cut down for fire wood by Colonials. It was so egregious that the "Preservationist" had to bus in reenactors from out of state because the local reenactors were demonstrating in favor of the Walmart. The site the Walmart was finally built on was where the Colored Regiments camped just before the battle but the "Preservationist" claimed they had a victory. One of the options they offered was to build a new four lane highway through the Wilderness Park. Thankfully the Park Service saved us. In my opinion some of the Washington, D.C. based Preservation non profits are only interested in their expense accounts and salaries. That makes them worse Pirates than the Carpetbaggers who came to Virginia in 1865.

 

[Curtis Thomasco]

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!



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.



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.

Honestly I am not concerned about Europe. I am an American. Part of the reason our forefathers came to America in the first place was to escape all that Old World **** of tribal fighting that has gone on for Centuries over there. Let Europeans sort out what they wish to preserve of their past or not. Regarding your example of Tupelo. I am not wading into the debate on historic or non historic structures merely engagement sites. You are correct that setting aside an acre along with an interpretive plaque or monument will not in any way "preserve" the engagement site.....at this point it is gone. What a park will do is allow for a minute amount of space to sit and contemplate what happened on the hallowed ground that has since been built upon instead of trying to read an interpretive plaque or monument while whipping along a freeway. People can reflect on the extent to which our overly capitalist society values profit and "progress" over its history especially when it comes to building and bulldozing hallowed ground. Might change enough hearts and minds and give pause to the next community before they decide to build and bulldoze a hallowed ground site that can still be preserved

 

[Curtis Thomasco]

Honestly I am not concerned about Europe. I am an American. Part of the reason our forefathers came to America in the first place was to escape all that Old World **** of tribal fighting that has gone on for Centuries over there. Let Europeans sort out what they wish to preserve of their past or not. Regarding your example of Tupelo. I am not wading into the debate on historic or non historic structures merely engagement sites. You are correct that setting aside an acre along with an interpretive plaque or monument will not in any way "preserve" the engagement site.....at this point it is gone. What a park will do is allow for a minute amount of space to sit and contemplate what happened on the hallowed ground that has since been built upon instead of trying to read an interpretive plaque or monument while whipping along a freeway. People can reflect on the extent to which our overly capitalist society values profit and "progress" over its history especially when it comes to building and bulldozing hallowed ground. Might change enough hearts and minds and give pause to the next community before they decide to build and bulldoze a hallowed ground site that can still be preserved

Forgot to add who can argue with more land set aside in green space as you note

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

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?

Without exploring the plethora of other statements, (probably some interesting arguments for and against), and looking straight at the original post, I can see some of what your saying.

Not everything can be saved, and personally I've scratching my head at this playground thing, given age and personal memory, I'd say its more memorable than historic. but getting back to CW places, I'm gonna have to disagree with a force. Mainly because of the battlefield issue. Smaller battles and skirmishes should see some form of preservation, people died, people suffered, and others lost loved ones, (referring to the people who were there back then losing loved ones). They should absolutely be preserved on that basis alone!

That strikes a particular deep cord with me, because I'm a student of history that has a preference for study of battle outside of Virginia Pennsylvania, or Tennessee. Some of the most important and dire consequences, longer lasting and more consequential than the big battles themselves were determined by the smaller engagements. To pretend otherwise and only focus on big battles without looking at the lead up or aftermath is pure ignorance, may sound harsh, and I'm not attacking or name calling, its just the hard truth. Now training grounds, reunion grounds, campsites, yeah not all can be saved, actually very few, and efforts to save them may indeed be put to better uses elsewhere. But not battle sites! Just because very few people know or care doesn't mean a thing, it's just an example of how education is an institution in this country that is laughable compared to what it should be, at home and school.

Take for instance one small battlefield, its not in any dire danger, and no one is trying to destroy it, (yet), and is one of the best preserved in Arkansas. Prairie Grove, a comparatively small battle, forgotten by most students of the CW, or just a footnote. Its near Fayetteville, which is growing at fever pace, and one day it may place the mostly pristine battlefield under great threat.

By using the logic proposed we should say "Oh well", or "Its not like it mattered", or "It isn't Gettysburg" and let it happen if an effort to build a subdivision happens. Yet if you ask the men who were there, some would go east of the Mississippi to fight later the big battles, that particular battle was the most horrifying they experienced during the war period! A surprise Confederate attack on a column of reinforcements for beleaguered Union troops, the beleaguered making an amazing march to the rescue of their reinforcements, the fate of the entire States of Missouri and Arkansas hanging in the balance, the horror of wild hogs descending upon the wounded during the night with some soldiers having make barricades of their comrades and enemies alike to stay alive, and yet by the logic presented here, none of that mattered because it wasn't something like Gettysburg or Chancellorsville. Smaller battles matter a lot.

Now @General Casey again I've not gone through the entire thread, I don't know what all has been said since your original post, and I'm not attacking you, especially since I sympathize with some of what your saying, nor calling out your devotion to preservation. I just saw a part of your post that really, really irked me.

But I reckon there is no such thing as too much preservation when you look at it one way: If people want to throw their hard earned money at preserving some old factory or warehouse, its their prerogative.

 

[Curtis Thomasco]

Without exploring the plethora of other statements, (probably some interesting arguments for and against), and looking straight at the original post, I can see some of what your saying.

Not everything can be saved, and personally I've scratching my head at this playground thing, given age and personal memory, I'd say its more memorable than historic. but getting back to CW places, I'm gonna have to disagree with a force. Mainly because of the battlefield issue. Smaller battles and skirmishes should see some form of preservation, people died, people suffered, and others lost loved ones, (referring to the people who were there back then losing loved ones). They should absolutely be preserved on that basis alone!

That strikes a particular deep cord with me, because I'm a student of history that has a preference for study of battle outside of Virginia Pennsylvania, or Tennessee. Some of the most important and dire consequences, longer lasting and more consequential than the big battles themselves were determined by the smaller engagements. To pretend otherwise and only focus on big battles without looking at the lead up or aftermath is pure ignorance, may sound harsh, and I'm not attacking or name calling, its just the hard truth. Now training grounds, reunion grounds, campsites, yeah not all can be saved, actually very few, and efforts to save them may indeed be put to better uses elsewhere. But not battle sites! Just because very few people know or care doesn't mean a thing, it's just an example of how education is an institution in this country that is laughable compared to what it should be, at home and school.

Take for instance one small battlefield, its not in any dire danger, and no one is trying to destroy it, (yet), and is one of the best preserved in Arkansas. Prairie Grove, a comparatively small battle, forgotten by most students of the CW, or just a footnote. Its near Fayetteville, which is growing at fever pace, and one day it may place the mostly pristine battlefield under great threat.

By using the logic proposed we should say "Oh well", or "Its not like it mattered", or "It isn't Gettysburg" and let it happen if an effort to build a subdivision happens. Yet if you ask the men who were there, some would go east of the Mississippi to fight later the big battles, that particular battle was the most horrifying they experienced during the war period! A surprise Confederate attack on a column of reinforcements for beleaguered Union troops, the beleaguered making an amazing march to the rescue of their reinforcements, the fate of the entire States of Missouri and Arkansas hanging in the balance, the horror of wild hogs descending upon the wounded during the night with some soldiers having make barricades of their comrades and enemies alike to stay alive, and yet by the logic presented here, none of that mattered because it wasn't something like Gettysburg or Chancellorsville. Smaller battles matter a lot.

Now @General Casey again I've not gone through the entire thread, I don't know what all has been said since your original post, and I'm not attacking you, especially since I sympathize with some of what your saying, nor calling out your devotion to preservation. I just saw a part of your post that really, really irked me.

But I reckon there is no such thing as too much preservation when you look at it one way: If people want to throw their hard earned money at preserving some old factory or warehouse, its their prerogative.

Agree whole heartedly. I am from SE PA. I grew up 2 hours from Gettysburg.....I visited G-burg 25-30 times. Re-enacted in the 125th Anniversary. Did many living histories at G-burg with the 53rd PA vol Re-enactors in Pitzer's Woods or Spanglers Woods (Cant remember now). I had 5 ancestors all from PA regiments who fought at G-burg.........Then I moved to Illinois. My perspective has changed. I got interested in the war in the west. (Realized the Civil War was really one out here.).....Then I moved further on to the Trans-Mississippi and realized the REAL Civil War was the low level Guerilla war that plagued Missouri, Arkansas, and many other occupied places of the South. Countless, countless murders, burnings, pillaging, complete break down in the whole social structure has lead me to my most recent area of Civil War interest the Civil War within a Civil War by both sides. These people in Missouri, Arkansas, Occupied Tennessee, North Alabama, parts of Mississippi, Western Louisiana, NW Georgia, the whole Applachian chain, the list goes on and on were privy to unimaginable horrors. Nothing against @GeneralCasey either but something rubbed me the wrong way too. One other foot note Sherman's March and Sheridan's Burning of the Valley, Sherman's Meridian Campaign, the burning of Columbia were almost as bad but not quite (in my humble opinion) at least these large scale destructive operations were restrained SOMEWHAT by Military conventions of the time but the Guerilla War (the real Civil War) was horrifically vicious and violent. I have heard some historians suggest that so much of this violence was under reported or not reported at all that when you account for all of the civilian/guerilla deaths (it is a shady distinction) the real death toll from the Civil War rises from the offical 625,000 to closer to 1,000,000