President Trump signs bill that makes 2 SC historic sites national parks

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,165
#1
1553082648500.png

President Trump signs bill that makes 2 SC historic sites national parks
By Emily Williams ewilliams@postandcourier.com
Mar 12, 2019 Updated Mar 12, 2019

Two South Carolina historic sites became national parks on Tuesday after President Trump signed a Congressional lands bill into law.

The new law establishes Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park in the Charleston area and the Reconstruction Era National Historical Park in Beaufort. Both had been designated as national monuments and were already managed by the National Park Service.

The U.S. Senate overwhelming passed the bill — which includes other National Park Service designations, protects more than a million acres of wilderness and reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund — on Feb. 12. The bill then passed the U.S. House of Representatives handily late last month before it went to the president.

Full article can be found here - https://www.postandcourier.com/busi...cle_4206fe50-44d9-11e9-a0fc-e71c18649efb.html

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
660
Location
Manassas VA
#4
Neat stuff. A good friend of mine (now deceased due to cancer) used to work in part with the Army Corps of Engineers in Charleston. They evaluated most of the dredging, soil erosion studies and all the other environmental impact studies. He said when the Corps used to dredge the main channels through Charleston Harbor the suction tubes would get clogged up with cannon balls all the time. This was like back in the early 80's. I asked him could he get me a brick from Battery Wagner. Nope, he said, that area's been totally under water for 50 years. He did manage to give a me a few bricks from two other forts.
 

JeffBrooks

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
2,136
Location
Manor, TX
#7
While they were at it, I rather wish they would tack onto the legislation a section that did away with the various confusing designations for historical military sites - National Battlefields, National Battlefield Sites, National Battlefield Parks, and National Military Parks - and just designated them all as National Battlefields.

For simplicity's sake, if nothing else.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
6,485
Location
State of Jefferson
#8
While they were at it, I rather wish they would tack onto the legislation a section that did away with the various confusing designations for historical military sites - National Battlefields, National Battlefield Sites, National Battlefield Parks, and National Military Parks - and just designated them all as National Battlefields.

For simplicity's sake, if nothing else.
You seem to not understand the bureaucratic collective mind. When I was a young trooper in a vast federal agency I remember being amazed at how much time was spent trying to distinguish between a "road" and a "way." This was critical to determining if a piece of real estate qualified for consideration as a wilderness area. It took years. Other similar distinctions came into play also as it has to do with the way various legislation is written. It's why we have lawyers and, frankly, simplicity isn't really a goal. In fact, complexity is better because it means more staff and budget are necessary which is the motivation for most federal managers to come to work every day. It's like in academia where you always want to conclude that more research is necessary.
 

rbasin

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
2,452
Location
Tampa, Fl
#9
While they were at it, I rather wish they would tack onto the legislation a section that did away with the various confusing designations for historical military sites - National Battlefields, National Battlefield Sites, National Battlefield Parks, and National Military Parks - and just designated them all as National Battlefields.

For simplicity's sake, if nothing else.
Parks would be better
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,076
Location
Jupiter, FL
#12
The NPS property on Sullivans Island includes not only Fort Moultrie (worth a visit) but also the island's lighthouse and life saving station. I hope some day they'll open those to the public. The LSS is currently used as park offices.
 

JeffBrooks

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
2,136
Location
Manor, TX
#14
In fact, complexity is better because it means more staff and budget are necessary which is the motivation for most federal managers to come to work every day. It's like in academia where you always want to conclude that more research is necessary.
I don't call stuff like complexity. I call it "insimplicity". Complexity is complicated design that it necessary, whereas insimplicity is complicated design that is unnecessary.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
6,485
Location
State of Jefferson
#15
I don't call stuff like complexity. I call it "insimplicity". Complexity is complicated design that it necessary, whereas insimplicity is complicated design that is unnecessary.
Depends on to whom it's necessary. Bureaucracy is hard to eliminate and sometimes there's also political strings attached that actually make more complicated structures advantageous to certain groups. I remember when Jimmy Carter tried to combine several land management agencies so as to reduce overhead; he was quickly enlightened as to the politics and never mentioned it again.
 
Last edited:

rbasin

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
2,452
Location
Tampa, Fl
#16
we still need something like British Heritage to actually protect and preserve these historical sites. It won't happen, but it would be nice.
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
11,135
Location
East Texas
#18
National Park, National Monument, National Historic Site. Must be something to do with the funding.
There is a definite and long-standing hierarchy concerning all these places and in the long term it indeed impacts their funding. The very first protected and developed Civil War battlefields were Chickamauga-Chattanooga, Gettysburg, Shiloh, and Vicksburg, all of which were administered by the Department of the Army since they had a "military" connection. It wasn't until the Depression of the 1930's that they were transferred to the growing National Park Service as National Military Parks (their proper designation). Why others like Antietam and Manassas became National Battlefields whereas other arguably less important sites like Fort Donelson and Pea Ridge also became National Military Parks, I have no idea. Non-battlefield historical sites seem to belong to the categories National Monuments (Forts Sumter and Moultrie here previous to this action) or National Historic Sites or National Historical Parks.
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
11,135
Location
East Texas
#19
I have been following the Reconstruction Park closely since Obama first made it a priority. Glad to see it will have the additional resources of a park
Pat, exactly what does it consist of; do you have any threads or posts describing it? I remember visiting the area briefly while working on Glory back in 1989 and went to Beaufort, its National Cemetery, and neighboring St Helena Island where Charlotte Forten had worked at the Penn School, but apart from a brick church and a very few historical markers there was very little to see.
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top