Table Of Content

, CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMED Information for Parks, Federal Agencies Tavelr.a M ial elsyw m) oe.( astm mole 1m Oley7 -)aalaalcial: and the Private Sector 5) VOLUME 20 NTou: 19° Altogether Fitting and Proper Saving America’s Battlefields ere gles U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ce, Fy National Park Service Giviiavia-lmatsivelllasat ; PUBLISHED BY THE CRM CELEBRATING 20 YEARS OF PUBLICATION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Contents (88S cssarae To promote and maintain high standards for preserving and managing cultural resources Altogether Fitting and Proper Saving America’s Battlefields ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSH'P iin een on nee nb bnbnehs chee 066000000005 0404ERae 3 Edwin C. Bearss CED nccvarccrescereseerereeerrerereeeeseneeeceveuns 4 Tanya M. Gossett PRODUCTION MANAGER Karlota M. Koester Catalyst for Battlefield Preservation The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Study ......... 0.000000 e ues 7 GUEST EDITOR Jan Townsend Tanya M. Gossett Planning Partnerships Work ADVISORS The Chattanooga Area Civil War Sites Assessment ..............0055 11 David Andrews Patrick Reed, James Ogden III, and Chris Abbett Takings Law Fact and Fiction... 6... cee eee eee eee eee ee eees 15 Catharine M. Gilliam An Uphill Battle for Recognition ........ 0.0.0.0. ccc cece eee eee eee eee 19 Tersh Boasberg Treatments for Historic Battlefield Landscapes ........00.00. s.ee. ee.ee s 21 Charles A. Birnbaum Preserving Civil War Sites Maryland's Voluntary Easement Strategy .......00..00. c.ece. e.en s 23 H. Grant Dehart Lee vs. Grant Battlefields and Tourism in Virginia ...0.0..... ccc. cece. ee.e ee ns 28 David Ruth and Mike Andrus Better Planning Through GIS Battlefield Management Efforts at CAST ......0.... c.c e.ce .eee. ee ns 32 R. Brian Culpepper Mapping Battlefields ©... 0.0... ccc cece eee eee eee eee erence eens 34 David W. Lowe Preserving Kentucky’s Civil War Legacy .....0.. c.ece. c.ece. ee.e en es 35 Joseph E. Brent A Small Battlefield with Many Friends .......0..0.0. .cc .ee. ee. ee. eu ee 39 Phyllis Baxter Revolutionary Preservation .......... 0... ccc cece eee eee eee eee wees 42 Nancy V. Webster National Historic Landn. +k Battlefields .....0.... .ccc. cec.e e.ee .eee ee4 6 Susan Escherich Cover photo, sees tory page 35. Statements of fact and views are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflec: an opinion or endorsement on the part of the editors, the CRM advisors and consultants, or the National Park Service. Send articles, news items, and correspondence to the Editor, CRM (2250), U.S. Deparotf mthee Inntetrio r, National Park Service, Cultural ResourcPeO.s ,Bo x 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; (202-343-3295F,a x 202-3inte4rnet3: r-on_5gree2nbe6rg@0nps.,gov ). 2 CRM N° 5—1997 Tanya M. Gossett Working Together here has been a remarkable cusses in her article, the ABPP was born of the national effort in the 1990s to pro- controversial and costly battlefield preservation tect, preserve, and interpret United solution achieved at Manassas in the late 1980s. States battlefields, particularly Civil The ABPP’s mission is to help avert last-minute, War battlefields. The federal government, numer- reactive preservation and to promote community- Ous state and county governments, and countless based solutions. private citizens have helped identify and save Planning and stewardship are two key objec- some of this nation’s most important historic tives. The ABPP encourages public and private landscapes. This special issue of CRM is dedi- partners to identify and evaluate battlefields as cated to the historians, planners, archeologists, early as possible so that information about them elected and appointed officials, private property can be incorporated into land use, site manage- owners, and concerned citizens who have worked ment, economic development, and tourism plans. tirelessly to transform the status of an entire type This effort helps avert crises that can divide com- of cultural resource from the obscure and threat- munities and lead to the destruction of important ened to the prominent and protected. historic sites. The National Park Service's American Ever-shrinking budgets for federal land man- Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) is the prin- agement agencies necessitate increasing commit- cipal federal partner in this national initiative. The ment to battlefield preservation at the state and ABPP provides guidance, support, and seed local levels. The ABPP fosters non-federal steward- money for battlefield preservation, planning, inter- ship of historic battlefields by working with private pretation, and education. As Jan Townsend dis- landowners, developers, battlefield friends groups, CRM No 5—1997 state and local officials, and others to create opportunities for preservation. The program encourages its partners to champion battlefields and associated historic sites as valuable community assets, such as recreational open space, out- door classrooms, and tourist destinations. As large cultural landscapes, surviving battlefields associated with the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Indian Wars often face urban and suburban encroach- ment or, in remote locations, rural neglect. As the following articles describe, numerous strategies exist for protecting and enhancing these vanishing landscapes and their component resources. Federal regulations and case law, heritage tourism corridors, local planning techniques, new archeological and computer technologies, fund raising and grantsmanship, interpretive exhibits and educational programs, site development design guide- lines, fee simple acquisition of land, scenic and conservation easements, designation of significance by federal, state, and local governments, and public consensus-building are all means to preservation. As the authors describe, the real challenge lies in the ability of organizations to combine, reinvent, and apply these techniques to the individual circumstances at our nation’s historic battlefields. Battlefields, like most expansive landscapes, are often fully or partially in private ownership. Battlefield preservationists have learned, some- times the hard way, that building consensus among landowners, battlefield neighbors, developers, and local officials is essential for a successful project and continued good relations. Several of the following articles touch upon sensitive sub- jects—such as property rights and takings—which are, for good or for bad, part of the recent story of battlefield preservation. Tanya M. Gossett is a historic preservation planner with the American Battlefield Protection Program. The author sincerely thanks H. Bryan Mitchell, Acting Chief, ABPP, and Virginia Carter, Christopher M. Shaheen, and J. Hampton Tucker, Preservation Planners, ABPP, for their support and assistance in preparing this special issue of CRM. Additional appreciation goes to readers David W. Lowe, Antoinette J. Lee, and John Renaud of Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service. Special thanks also to Kathy Wandersee of the Delaware County Planning Department in Media, Pennsylvania, for providing important historical material on short notice. Photographs, ifn ot other- wise noted, are by Eric Long Photography, Gaithersburg, Maryland. CRM Ne 5—1997 ISTEA Enhancement Funds for Civil War Projects ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI 1993 Archeological Park at Tannehill State 1994 Acquire Land at Corinth ($2,300,000) Park ($14,400) NEW MEXICO Pave Bike Trail Tannehill State Park ($40,776) 1993 Road Study at Glorieta Pass ($350,000) Reconstruct Charging Bridge Tannehill State Park ($58,165) Archeological Research at Tannehill State 1995 Land Protectati Hoonne y Springs (Information Park ($14,400) Not Available) 1993 Brierfield Rolling Mill at Tannehill State Park ($21,600) 1993 Ashby Post Office at Tannehill State 1995 Restore Rippavilla ($600,000) Park ($33,600) 1996 Battle of Nashville Monument Restoration 1994 Preserve Joe Wheeler Home ($150,000) ($187,500) 1995 Restore First White House ($181,929) 1995 Acquire 32 acres at Fort Morgan ($300,000) Lee's Retreat Scenic Highway Project ARKANSAS ($225,190) 1994 Acquire 3.96 acres Prairie Grove ($75,000) Lee's Retreat Highway Pull-offs ($390,100) 1995 Acquire 61.96 acres at Prairie Grove Site Interpretation at Fredericksburg and Petersburg ($510,000) ($505,000) Scenic Easement at Sayler’s Creek ($200,500) WASHINGTON,D C Battlefield Tour, Fredericksburg ($2,762,788) 1996 Landscape African-American Civil War Interpretation at McDowell ($40,000) Monument ($2,293,937) Interpretation at White Oak ($21,475) Pedestrian Wayside Exhibits in Hopewell KANSAS ($72,000) 1996 Construction at Mine Creek Historic Site Acquire Grim Farm at Kernstown ($1,308,000) ($323,000) Stabilize Foundation of Mt. Zion Church KENTUCKY ($230,400) Acquire Land at Perryville ($3,125,000) City of Salem-Hanging Rock Battlefield Access Improat vForet Dumffieeld n($7t2,00 0) Trail ($848,783) Acquire Land and Easements at Mill Springs Battlefield Tou, Winchester ($1,775,288) ($370,000) Improvements at Staunton River Bridge Acquire 4.57 acres at Perryville ($80,000) ($1,750,000) Acquire up to 596 acres at Perryville Virginia Civil War Trails ($580,000) ($1,500,000) Danville Train Station, Phase 3 ($1,300,000) Develop Kentucky Civil War Trail ($36,000) VirgCiviil nWari Traail s, Pha3 ($s550e,00 0) Acquire Land at Wildcat Mountain ($174,000) Acquire Land and Develop Interpretatioan t 1993 Acquire 332 acresa t Rich Mountain ($259,000) 1995 Landscape Hampshire County Battle Trenches ($394,000) Land Protection at Monocacy ($1,500,000) Total Projects: 50 ive S acres at Grove Farm at Antietam Total: $43,797,831 ($75,000) Acquire Land at Monocacy ($3,400,000) Statistics compiled by The Civil War Trust, March 1997. CRM N° 5—1997 Jan Townsend Catalyst for Battlefield Preservation The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Study battlefield lands for the American public, most esponding to events concerning the Manassas National Battlefield preservationists, Civil War historians, and mem- Park in the late 1980s, then bers of Congress quickly acknowledged that, as a Secretary of the Interior Manuel preservation strategy, last-minute federal acquisi- Lujan, Jr., with the support of the U.S. Congress, tion is often too costly and divisive. As a result, established the American Battlefield Protection they began looking for alternative strategies to Program (ABPP) as part of the National Park protect America’s hallowed ground. The ABPP is one of these strategies. Service in 1990. In 1988, Hazel/Peterson Companies had Secretary of the Interior Lujan charged the pro- submitted plans to Prince William County, gram with promoting battlefield preservation Virginia, seeking approval to build a regional mall through partnerships, early planning, education, on 542 acres of land called the Williams Center and interpretation. Dr. Marilyn Nickels, the Tract, which was next to the national park. ABPP’s first chief, focused on preserving 25 “At Although the company’s approved rezoning appli- Risk” Civil War battlefields designated by the cation showed residential development with a very Secretary. Legislation limited retail component, Prince William County endorsed the regional mall plan. Many citizens, As the ABPP came into being, Senator Dale including members of the Save the Battlefield L. Bumpers of Arkansas and Congressman James Coalition, were outraged because development of R. Olin of Virginia proposed an act establishing a the Williams Center Tract would destroy lands commission to conduct a comprehensive study of associated with the 1862 Civil War battle known the nation’s Civil War sites. Other senators and as Second Manassas or Second Bull Run. representatives joined them, and Secretary Lujan Secretary of the Opponents of the planned mall took their case to endorsed the study. Public Law 101-628, dated Interior Manuel the American public and the U.S. Congress. November 28, 1990, directed the Secretary to Lujan, Jr. speaking Congress held hearings as Hazel/Peterson establish a Civil War Sites Advisory Commission about battlefield preservation in Companies set about developing the property. On (CWSAC) to conduct the study.! The law also Kansas City, November 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan authorized the Secretary of the Interior to conduct Missouri, in signed into law the act taking the land. a separate study of Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley October 1991. Civil War sites, which was completed in 1992.2 The United States government took immedi- Photo cou ate ownership of the land, and development of the Through the Secretary of the interior, the ABPP CWSAC. mall ceased. Congress, assumed responsibility for the Commission and as required by the Fifth Shenandoah Valley studies. The Commission Amendment of the The Commission held its first meeting in Constitution, monetar- Washington, DC, on July 17, 1991.5 As the ily compensated the developer and its part- Commission drafted its charter and work plan, the ners for already- National Park Service, in December 1991, decided incurred or anticipated to separate the Commission study from the ABPP future revenue losses. so that the study could move on a fast-track. The To date, U.S. taxpayers Commission intended to complete the study within have spent nearly $130 the two years stipulated in the law. Jan Townsend became the Project Manager for the <:udy.* Dr. million to purchase the Williams Center Tract, Marilyn Nickels and a small staff> continued the which is now part of ABPP’s primary mission of working with its part- the Manassas National ners to preserve the 25 Civil War battlefields tar- Battlefield Park. geted by the Secretary. Study Methods Although the federal government was able to The Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990 specif- protect these important ically directed the Commission to: ¢ identify this nation’s significant Civil War The Commission developed a ratings system sites; to rank the military importance of the Civil War ¢ establish the relative significance of these events (e.g., raid, skirmish, battle, etc.) associated sites, with the 384 sites. The military importance rating e determine their condition; (A, B, C, or D) was based on the importance of e assess the threats to that condition; and each event to the outcome of the war and the cam- e identify preservation alternatives that federal, paign. Using data provided by the field investiga- state, and local governments and public and tors, the Commission then assigned each site a private organizations could use. value based on its condition (Good, Fair, Poor, or Uncounted numbers of sites are associated Lost) and the level of anticipated threats to that with the military, political, technological, and integrity (High, Moderate, or Low). In addition, social aspects of the Civil War. Historians have the Commission assessed each site for its interpre- documented approximately 10,500 Civil War mili- tive potential vis-a-vis a list of interpretive themes. tary events alone. Given the time and funding con- Finally, the Commission ranked the battle- straints of the study and the circumstances that fields in terms of the need for preservation action. led to it, the Commission decided to focus its After some debate, the Commission concluded that attention on principal military events and the bat- three factors—military importance, condition, and tlefield lands associated with those events. The threats—should be taken into consideration. authoritative War of the Rebellion: A Compilation Battlefields having a military importance rating of of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate A or B, Good or Fair integrity, and High or Armies served as the primary reference source. Moderate threats became Priority I battlefields. By Civil War historians and State Historic definition, these battlefields were in critical need Preservation Officers also helped identify principal of coordinated preservation action by the Year military events. The Commission's final inventory 2000. (See page 9.) consisted of 384 events in 26 states and included To address the issue of preservation alterna- landscapes tied to these events. tives, the Commission contracted with Elizabeth B. Field investigators researched and mapped Waters, an expert in the fields of land use and the 384 battle sites. They also recorded descriptive community planning, economic development, and data about each site, assessed its overall integrity, environmental protection. Waters focused on com- and identified factors that would likely be threats piling open-space and land preservation tech- to its long-term preservation. The field studies niques that could be used by federal, state, and were cooperative efforts. Personnel in the National local governments and federal and private entities. Park Service's Southeast, Southwest, Midwest, and She directed four preservation workshops on National Capital regional offices and the behalf of the Commission that drew upon the Washington office coordinated the field studies. expertise of more than 40 nationally recognized These personnel and more than 50 historians and experts in the fields of land use policy, land use archeologists based at national parks and in state law, tax laws, open space preservation, local land historic preservation offices conducted most of the use planning, historic preservation, negotiation field investigations. At least 15 volunteers, many and conflict resolution, heritage education, and of whom were especially knowledgeable about farmland preservation. Waters’ final report, “Civil local Civil War sites, also helped with the field War Heritage Preservation: A Study of investigations. To ensure consistency and stream- Alternatives,” is still in demand and applicable to lined site documentation, field investigators used the preservation of large historic, archeological, documentation procedures and forms developed and open-space landscapes.°® by Commission staff. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report The Commission held 16 public meetings The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission between July 1991 and July 1993 to solicit public delivered its report to Congress and the Secretary comment on the subject of battlefield preservation. of the Interior on July 12, 1993.” That day, during Meetings were held in different locations across a ceremony held in front of the Lincoln Memorial, the country, from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to the Commission presented its study results and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. More than 150 citizens recommendations to the American public. The cer- including governors, State Historic Preservation emony received national press and television Officers, park superintendents, academics, Civil media coverage. In September 1993, Commission War enthusiasts, property rights activists, battle- chair Holly Robinson and other members testified field landowners, and many others addressed the before the U.S. Senate Public Lands, National Commission. In conjunction with the public meet- Parks, and Forests Subcommittee on the study’s ings, Commission members were able to visit more findings and recommendations. than 50 battle sites in person. 8 CRM N2 5—1997 The Commission’s brief report eloquently years) contractual agreements with private explains why we should save Civil War sites; pre- property owners to restore or maintain his- sents a snapshot of the nation’s principal Civil toric settings, provide interpretive access, and War battlefields in terms of historical military other preservation amenities (the Commission importance, location, size, ownership, conditions, recommended funding the stewardship pro- and threats; and discusses how battlefields are gram at $2.5 million per year); protected currently, including laws and public pro- authorizing federal institutions to transfer grams, park status, historic designation, interpre- important battlefield lands under their control tation, and public and private partnerships. The to appropriate federal, state, or local govern- report also outlines how directed government lead- ment agencies or non-profit organizations; ership can better protect battlefields by focusing appropriating up to $500,000 for a study of on preservation priorities, encouraging private sec- Civil War history themes that the National tor preservation, helping local and state govern- Park Service does not currently, but should, ments to preserve and to promote battlefields, interpret; giving private landowners preservation incentives establishing an expedited Congressional and tools, and developing educational and her- review process for considering the expansion itage tourism programs. In addition, the of currently authorized national park unit Commission recommended steps that Congress boundaries when immediate action is required and the Secretary of the Interior could take imme- and when the lands in question are being —_ These steps included: donated, are historically important, and are ¢ adopting a national policy to protect principal adjacent to the park boundaries; battlefields and related sites through coopera- enacting specific revisions to the United tive efforts of federal, state, and local govern- States tax code to provide incentives and ments and private groups and individuals; remove disincentives for private landowners ¢ establishing an Emergency Civil War to preserve significant battlefields; and Battlefield Land Acquisition Program that authorizing the biennial reconstitution of the would be a matching grant program funded Commission for a brief period to review the for seven years at $10 million per year; progress made in battlefield preservation and ¢ creating a Civil War Battlefield Stewardship report its findings to the Congress and the Pilot Program that would permit the federal Secretary of the Interior. government to enter into long-term (seven CRM N2 5—1997 On July 12, 1993, the ABPP adopted the preservation action at Revolutionary War and War Commission's Priority I battlefields as its own, of 1812 battlefields as its predecessor did for Civil expanding its priority list from 25 to 50 battle- War battlefields. fields. The ABPP also adopted the Commission's findings and partnership recommendations. Notes Pursuant to the legislatica that created it, the Civil 1 PL. 101-628 authorized 13 Commission members. The number was raised to 15 in a later law, P.L. War Sites Advisory Commission disbanded on 101-166. October 10, 1993, three months after the transmit- 2 David W. Lowe, Study of Civil War Sites in the tal of its report. The Commission’s former staff Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Prepared pursuant to returned to their home in the ABPP. Public Law 101-628 (Washington, DC: U.S. With its many partners, the ABPP has helped Department of the Interior, NPS 1992). enhance battlefield preservation at more than 90% 3 In 1991, Commission members included historian of the Priority I battlefields. Through cooperative Mary Frances Berry, documentary film maker Ken Burns, historian William J. Cooper, Jr., state legisla- agreements and grants, the ABPP has worked with tor Frances “Peg” Lamont, businessman J. Roderick more than 80 partners on 167 preservation pro- Heller III, U.S. Congressman Robert J. Mrazek, his- jects at nearly 70 battlefields. The ABPP’s promo- torian James M. McPherson, farm lobbyist Hyde H. tion of preservation at the initial 25 battlefields Murray, and educator Holly A. Robinson. Historian and the Commission’s public meetings and site vis- Edwin C. Bearss represented the Director of the its led directly to the formation of many battlefield National Park Service. The members elected John preservation organizations with whom the ABPP Rodgers, Chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to serve as chair. Shortly after that, now works. The ABPP is currently considering how Rodgers accepted another political appointment and to re-evaluate the current preservation status of the left the Advisory Council. The members then elected original 384 Civil War sites in order to “graduate” Holly Robinson to be the Commission’s chair. Robert many of the now-protected battlefields and raise D. Bush joined the Commission representing the others to Priority I status. Many pristine sites con- Advisory Council. Howard Coffin, a free lance writer, sidered “safe” in 1993 are now threatened. For and U.S. Congressman Charles H. Taylor joined the example, the Big Black River Bridge battlefield in Commission in early 1992. Lawrence E. Aten of the National Park Service served as the Commission's Mississippi is now threatened by proposals to Executive Director. By February 1992, the build gambling casinos in the area. Commission’s 14 members were in place, with the Although Congress appropriated funds for the House of Representatives choosing not to appoint ABPP beginning in 1990, it did not authorize the the fifteenth member. program. This past fall, Congress reconfirmed its 4 Other Commission staff included former ABPP staff commitment to battlefield preservation by authoriz- members Dale Floyd and David W. Lowe, and ing the ABPP. The law states that: National Conference of State Historic Preservation The ABPP shall encourage, support, assist, Officers (NCSHPO) contractors Kathleen Madigan, Denice Dressel, and Booker T. Wilson III. recognize, and work in partnership with citi- 5 Maureen Foster and two NCSHPO contractors. zens, Federal, State, local, and tribal govern- 6 Elizabeth B. Waters, “Civil War Heritage ments, other public entities, educational Preservation: A Study of Alternatives.” Prepared for institutions, and private nonprofit organiza- the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission tions in identifying, researching, evaluating, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of thie Interior, interpreting, and protecting historic battle- National Park Service, 1992). 7 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Civil War fields and associated sites on a National, Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's State, and local level.? Civil War Battlefields. Prepared for the Committee on In 1996, the ABPP expanded the scope of its Energy and Natural Resources, United States programs. In addition to Civil War sites, the pro- Senate, the Committee on Natural Resources, United gram has begun working with partners at battle- States House of Representatives, and the Secretary fields associated with the French and Indian War, of the Interior (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the the Interior, National Park Service, 1993). 8 As of March 1997, preservation action has occurred Mexican War, and the Indian Wars. In early 1997, at all but two of the 50 sites. the Director of the National Park Service, on 9 PL. 104-333, § 604(b). behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, tapped the 10 PL. 104-333, § 603. ABPP to coordinate and administer the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic Jan Townsend served as the CWSAC’s Project Preservation Study. This study, authorized by Manager from 1992-93 and then Chief of the Congress and the President in November 1996, !° American Battlefield Protection Program from 1995 likely will be conducted as was the Civil War Sites to 1997. She is currently Cultural Resources Program Advisory Commission study. It is hoped that the Lead for the Eastern States Office of the Bureau of new study will generate as much cooperative Land Management. 10 CRM N° 5—1997