Tweet
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-51387sy0aug02,0,7838932.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials
Another Voice: Respecting Civil War history
By Tom McMahon
August 2 2004
With interest I read the "New developments" editorial on the Colonial Williamsburg/Riverside Health System land sale on July 23. Trying to ridicule the desire to preserve the Williamsburg Civil War battlefield with allusion that "in history-rich Southeast Virginia, almost everywhere you dig or build, there's a chance of treading on historic artifacts and connections" exposes the typical belief that Civil War "enthusiasts" or "buffs," as we are often labeled, are a band of inflexible nutters, who want 1,000 acres preserved around every skirmish and historic clam bake that ever occurred.
As a pragmatic historian and preservationist, I recognize that development has become a certainty around Williamsburg. I also recognize that Williamsburg's Civil War history has not been well publicized, long playing second fiddle to the distinct Colonial focus in the region. However, neither of these factors warrants casual dismissal of bona fide history relating to this epoch.
The remnants of the Williamsburg Civil War battlefield are worthy of preservation on several accounts. Foremost is the sad fact that the majority of the battlefield has already been destroyed by unsympathetic or uniformed development. It is very difficult to believe that Williamsburg truly is a place where "the present lives harmoniously with the past" when only three lonely acres of land have been purposely saved as a remembrance to the battle in the 142 years since it was fought.
If development "must proceed sensitively," why hasn't it done so with regard to the battlefield? Zoning requirements do not require the historical research desperately needed to compliment archeological surveys. Findings must be weighed against the need for development and prosperity, but equity should prevail. Otherwise permanent destruction of the core of the Williamsburg battlefield will continue.
Second in the long list of why the battlefield should be afforded more prominent consideration and preservation is, contrary to Daily Press opinion, the fact it is certainly not everywhere in Southeast Virginia that you actually find a localized battlefield that witnessed more than 4,300 casualties.
The Williamsburg battlefield is additionally unique in that it contains (contained) a line of fortifications with a storied history. Originally constructed by Confederate soldiers and slaves in 1861, the fortifications played a prominent role in the May 5, 1862, battle. During the remainder of the war, they were used by the occupying Union garrison. At war's end, several were then used by the black community for protection from the Ku Klux Klan, and one housed a freedman's school run by Pennsylvania Quakers.
The battlefield is still the presumed resting place for many of the Confederate soldiers killed in action who were unceremoniously buried on the field and never reinterred. Their unmarked graves likely reside in an area stretching from the CW/Riverside parcel, under James and York Terraces, to the Colonial Parkway near Jones Pond. If these facts do not qualify as historic or sanctified ground, it is hard to imagine what does, but they readily explain why I and others have been working to found the Williamsburg Battlefield Trust.
I am not against the CW sale of the land to Riverside. I lament that Colonial Williamsburg did not take the opportunity to preserve land that has distinct Civil War history associated with it, during the last 40-50 years of ownership. However, this is the past and cannot be undone. I sincerely hope that the community at large can, moving forward, learn from it. If so, a new era of appreciation for Williamsburg's substantive 19th-century history might emerge, and develop as a perfect compliment for tourism drawn to the Historic Triangle.
Perhaps Riverside will take the opportunity to sympathetically develop the land and preserve and interpret some of the site that relates to the Civil War. Such development might be the catalyst for change and the root of preserving for future generations the Civil War history that has long waited to emerge from the shadows in Williamsburg.
McMahon, a Battle of Williamsburg historian, resides in Round Hill in Northern Virginia.
Copyright © 2004, Daily Press
Another Voice: Respecting Civil War history
By Tom McMahon
August 2 2004
With interest I read the "New developments" editorial on the Colonial Williamsburg/Riverside Health System land sale on July 23. Trying to ridicule the desire to preserve the Williamsburg Civil War battlefield with allusion that "in history-rich Southeast Virginia, almost everywhere you dig or build, there's a chance of treading on historic artifacts and connections" exposes the typical belief that Civil War "enthusiasts" or "buffs," as we are often labeled, are a band of inflexible nutters, who want 1,000 acres preserved around every skirmish and historic clam bake that ever occurred.
As a pragmatic historian and preservationist, I recognize that development has become a certainty around Williamsburg. I also recognize that Williamsburg's Civil War history has not been well publicized, long playing second fiddle to the distinct Colonial focus in the region. However, neither of these factors warrants casual dismissal of bona fide history relating to this epoch.
The remnants of the Williamsburg Civil War battlefield are worthy of preservation on several accounts. Foremost is the sad fact that the majority of the battlefield has already been destroyed by unsympathetic or uniformed development. It is very difficult to believe that Williamsburg truly is a place where "the present lives harmoniously with the past" when only three lonely acres of land have been purposely saved as a remembrance to the battle in the 142 years since it was fought.
If development "must proceed sensitively," why hasn't it done so with regard to the battlefield? Zoning requirements do not require the historical research desperately needed to compliment archeological surveys. Findings must be weighed against the need for development and prosperity, but equity should prevail. Otherwise permanent destruction of the core of the Williamsburg battlefield will continue.
Second in the long list of why the battlefield should be afforded more prominent consideration and preservation is, contrary to Daily Press opinion, the fact it is certainly not everywhere in Southeast Virginia that you actually find a localized battlefield that witnessed more than 4,300 casualties.
The Williamsburg battlefield is additionally unique in that it contains (contained) a line of fortifications with a storied history. Originally constructed by Confederate soldiers and slaves in 1861, the fortifications played a prominent role in the May 5, 1862, battle. During the remainder of the war, they were used by the occupying Union garrison. At war's end, several were then used by the black community for protection from the Ku Klux Klan, and one housed a freedman's school run by Pennsylvania Quakers.
The battlefield is still the presumed resting place for many of the Confederate soldiers killed in action who were unceremoniously buried on the field and never reinterred. Their unmarked graves likely reside in an area stretching from the CW/Riverside parcel, under James and York Terraces, to the Colonial Parkway near Jones Pond. If these facts do not qualify as historic or sanctified ground, it is hard to imagine what does, but they readily explain why I and others have been working to found the Williamsburg Battlefield Trust.
I am not against the CW sale of the land to Riverside. I lament that Colonial Williamsburg did not take the opportunity to preserve land that has distinct Civil War history associated with it, during the last 40-50 years of ownership. However, this is the past and cannot be undone. I sincerely hope that the community at large can, moving forward, learn from it. If so, a new era of appreciation for Williamsburg's substantive 19th-century history might emerge, and develop as a perfect compliment for tourism drawn to the Historic Triangle.
Perhaps Riverside will take the opportunity to sympathetically develop the land and preserve and interpret some of the site that relates to the Civil War. Such development might be the catalyst for change and the root of preserving for future generations the Civil War history that has long waited to emerge from the shadows in Williamsburg.
McMahon, a Battle of Williamsburg historian, resides in Round Hill in Northern Virginia.
Copyright © 2004, Daily Press
Comment