If you have not, then you should purchase the April 2005 National>Geographic­ article for the Disappearing Battlefields article. The>emphasis is placed on Virginia's woes with suburban development ruining>these historic sites. Several organizations are trying to save the>remaining, of which I belong to several historical preservation groups.>Intresting read and nice photographs.>

It is a sad, sad shame that Virginia, with the rich history that state> has had, is so uninterested in officially preserving what remains of> its battlefields and historic areas. All too often officials pay lip> service to preservation, while the next day grant developers access to> historic properties for a promise to save some tiny scrap of it.

In the article, it does list a Tennessee example where African>Americans did not want a battlefield to be saved because of the tragedy>that happened many years ago. Here is my stance: Get over it. It was>many, many years ago, and it should be preserved for historical sakes,>or else we are just erasing history for houses and so forth.

Typical. North Carolina has lost a much higher percentage of Civil

battlefields than Virginia, but Lansford is silent about that.

Lost: N.C., 25%, Virginia 12%, nationwide total 18.5%.>

http://www.cr.nps.g­ov/hps/abpp/cwsac/cw­stab2.html

Preservation of battlefields is important, but the inherent problem

that the Civil War battles took place over tens of thousands of

If Europe preserved battlefield land on the scale that the U.S. does,> for WWI and WWII alone, over half of the European land area and many

the cities would have been turned into permanent open air museums.

The U.S. does a heck of a lot better than most other countries.

--> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites> Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com

Was that the battle where it is alleged that Forrest ordered his> cavalrymen to kill surrendering Union troops just because they were> black?

TN has preserved many battlefields, including Lookout Mountain, Fort> Donelson and Stones River, but places such as Franklin and Beech

John Lansford, PE

Scott M. Kozel wrote:>

Typical. North Carolina has lost a much higher percentage of Civil

battlefields than Virginia, but Lansford is silent about that.

Lost: N.C., 25%, Virginia 12%, nationwide total 18.5%.

John Lansford wrote:>> "Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:>

The article mentioned nothing of this for the battle at Franklin,>however, with the resistance the African Americans put up against any>battlefield recognization for this site, I would surmise that would be>the case.

It was the Battle of Franklin. Local people resisted attempts to>protect the historic site because many viewed it as an "embarassment.">The­y thought it was a huge "Confederate debacle" and a "sore spot" for>blacks.

Of course, the African Americans wanted NO part in the preservation of>this Civil War monument.>

Residents of the suburb of Nashville have raised millions to purchase>land to buy part of the battlefield.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:>> John Lansford <jlnsford@bellsouth­.net> wrote:>> >

Typical. Civil War Preservation Trust and American Battlefield>Protect­ion Program states that Virginia has a significantly higher>percentage of "high" and "moderate" threats, along with a very high>number of "lost" causes. In comparison, North Carolina has very few>battlefield sites compared to Virginia, and the ones in North Carolina>are mostly in the "lost", "high", or "moderate" category.

Compared to the amount of battlefield sites and the number that are in>big danger, Virginia leads the list by far. Scott cited percentage>numbers above, but that is because Virginia has _more_ battlefields and>that drags that number down.

Typical coverup of Scott.

Some want to make easy money off of their land. It benifits noone when>people have to destroy historical properties for the sake of a few who>want "country living" and so forth.>

Yes, but more could be done.>

"Preservation of battlefields is important, but the inherent problem is>

that the Civil War battles took place over tens of thousands of square>miles of land, and most of that land is in private ownership, and some>people want to live on their land. ">

well.. no - what they want is to make big money off of land that has>been in their family for decades. It's true there is a LOT of historic land>but it is also true that there is 10 times as much non-historic land that is>also available for development. This argument is used over and over to>justify developing historic land and it is - bogus. It's nothing more than an>excuse to justify building on historic land even when there are thousands of>acres of non-historic land also available for development.

Living in the middle of one of the "endangered" areas - actually having>lived>here for more than 40 years and having watched the relentless>destruct­ion>of historic land leads me to observe.>

Some folks who own land of significance whether it be historic or>natural WANT>to preserve it but they simply cannot afford to give the land away ->they need>the government/taxpayer­s to agree to compensate them fairly.

And this is the "good" guys - the landowners who want to be good>stewards of>the land. Others don't care at all, and in fact, consider anything on>their land>that is historic to be an impediment to using the land and, in fact, a>threat>to their own development plans for the future.

I'm generally opposed to "taking" land from people obstensibly for the>"public>good" whether it be for historic purposes or roads. I subscribe to the>"willing>seller­, willing buyer" philososphy which essentially means that you>cannot>buy someone's land on the "cheap". Some land, however, you will never>get without some "arm-twisting". Some people are just plain greedy.>These>same people opposed government ownership of Shenandoah Park and>Yellowstone or the Smokies as a general philosophy.

Little known beyond locally, one of the key things that resulted>in saving part of the Chancellorsville battlefield never made it to the>national>media and that was that pro-growth-at-any-c­ost elected officials were>replaced>by folks who did care and the developer who was ready to turn dirt was>told>that the county would NOT extend water/sewer lines to serve his>high-density>de­velopment - at which point he threatened to move ahead with>low-density>de­velopment. At that point another developer - a LOCAL developer>made a proposal to develop part of the land in exchange for preserving>the>most­ important remainder of it - and that's how it went down.

By the way, this is the SAME plot of land that VDOT had designated as>the>ONLY reasonable way to build a 4-lane highway and absolutely refused to>consider moving the road to less historic land and landowners touted>this>fact that if the land was TRULY historic that VDOT would NEVER wanted>to build on it so VDOT engendered a culture of not preserving historic>land and others followed their lead.

VDOT and the pro-growth elected officials worked hand-in-hand to build>this road and neither of them gave a crap about saving it even though>the>Park Service had designated it as a Priority 1 battlefield and the EPA>and Army Corps were also opposed to the road.

When you have both local officials AND the State of Virginia (VDOT)>seeking to destroy the site you empower developers and land speculators>to proceed and indeed the developer was touting that road as an easy>way to access it from I-95. VDOT did not do themselves proud in any>sense of the word and to this day, VDOT insists that they were>"wronged" by the groups who opposed them. They did NOTHING>to really look at alternatives other than to document them in the EIS.

Since that time, the county has approved PDRs (Purchase of Development>Rights)­ and is now receiving from developers of other non-historic land>financial proffers that go into a fund that in-turn will be used to>approach>willing­ landowners to compensate them for the development rights of>their>land. This is a win-win because it allows them to stay on their land>and>fairly compensates them while preserving the history.>

It's not perfect and it won't save every piece of land, but it is a>start and>I hope that some day VDOT actually learns the meaning of 4f when>they do their planning.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:>> John Lansford <jlnsford@bellsouth­.net> wrote:>> >

Typical. Civil War Preservation Trust and American Battlefield>Protect­ion Program states that Virginia has a significantly higher>percentage of "high" and "moderate" threats, along with a very high>number of "lost" causes. In comparison, North Carolina has very few>battlefield sites compared to Virginia, and the ones in North Carolina>are mostly in the "lost", "high", or "moderate" category.

Compared to the amount of battlefield sites and the number that are in>big danger, Virginia leads the list by far. Scott cited percentage>numbers above, but that is because Virginia has _more_ battlefields and>that drags that number down.>

Typical coverup of Scott.

So out of the three most important categories (Class A immediate risk,> Class A high risk, and Class B), we've got 21 sites in Virginia at> risk of loss, and a total of ONE site in North Carolina.

Kozel just took the raw numbers and tried to mislead readers into> thinking 'wow, Virginia has done more work to save battlefields than> NC', when actually the numbers mean nothing of the sort.

"Kozel does have somewhat of a point, Larry. The problem is, Northern>Virginia is rapidly developing, and is where the bulk of the large,>major Civil War engagements took place. Which is why, IMO, the state>needed to step in and take measures to preserve historic sites before>they became irretrievably gone, like Fredericksburg and>Chancellorsvill­e. ">

The problem as I see it is that the State>plays almost no role in this. Their DHR>(Dept of Historic Resources) is essentially>VDOT's lap dog. I know of few, if any,>instances where they stood their ground.>

They're generally known for giving private>developers fits and steering a wide path>around VDOT.

The other thing that is done is that>essentially the state including VDOT>have a philosophy of treating any/all>historic land as the same whether>it is minimally significant or irreplaceable.

This allows them to then use the argument>that there are "so many" historic places>that they cannot avoid them rather than>recognizing the most important sites>and taking steps to preserve them.

So, their concept of "fatal flaws" is>laughable - the only ones that are>"fatal" are the ones that become>political.>

That's the exact argument that VDOT used>with the OC. They claimed that every single>alternative had historic land that could>not be avoided so therefore that issue>was a "wash" and did not really figure>into decisions.

It's an argument that the general public>does not really appreciate and so they>tend to agree that if "there is no choice">then something must be done and the>project must move forward.>

VDOT exploits this mindset to its max.>

On the 'plus' site, grudingly for VDOT,>not all of their EISes are written this>way as I've read about 5 others that>they've done and some of the others>were reasonable in their approach.

The only difference I could discern is>that different contractors were chosen>to write them.

On the minus side, I fault VDOT for>not using a standard and uniform>process for their EISes. They seem>to "tailor" the EIS to specific projects.>

With respect to Chancellorsville, publically,>they've­ had little to say other than to blame>"obstructioni­sts" for complicating their life.

No, the battle I'm talking about took place in West TN, involving> Forrest's troopers and some black garrison troops. The troopers were> surprised and very few of them survived the fight. Afterwards there> was some comments that Forrest ordered the survivors shot, but I've> also heard that those captured attempted to overpower their guards and> escape, provoking their shooting.

I'd hardly call Franklin (about 30-40 miles south of Nashville) a> suburb.

John Lansford wrote:>

I think you're talking about Fort Pillow.>

It is now.

That sounds right.>

I've been there, and the land between the two cities is still rural> for a short distance. IOW the two are still separate urban areas,> which to me precludes calling Franklin a suburb of Nashville. A more> valid suburb would be Murfreesboro, where there's little if any rural> land between the two urban areas.