While I wholeheartedly agree that there is a need for battlefield preservation I am easily frustrated by the absolutist mentality that seems to dominate these discussions. It seems to me that is what is currently passing for discourse regarding the intersection of Routes 3 and 20. At the same time I tend to take a much more skeptical stance towards preservation, not so much in terms of whether it should be done at all, but in terms of the what and how much. In other words, I wonder whether we too easily reduce Civil War preservation to battlefield preservation and overlook sites that are just as valuable to understanding the Civil War. I took part in John Hennessy’s fabulous (IMHO the most impressive tour that the NPS has organized in recent years) program on the life of John Washington. We toured the bank in the downtown Fredericksburg where Washington lived and while it is preserved it seems to me that such a site should fall under the NPS’s jurisdiction.

As for battlefield preservation I think there needs to be a discussion of how much ought to be preserved and where, and I also believe that preservationists need to see themselves as part of a broader historical narrative. Joan Zenzen’s study of Manassas as well as Jim Weeks’s book on Gettysburg and memory suggest that preservation is just one of many attitudes that can be taken when it comes to battlefield land. I am even open to the suggestion that we have enough battlefield land already preserved.

I’m finding the exchange on the proposed Wilderness Walmart to be very interesting. I’d like to add some thoughts.

First, I think you sell the residents of Orange County and Spotsylvania County short. I’ve found local residents to be both proud and knowledgeable about their Civil War heritage. They know very well who Grant and Lee are.

As far as the proposed Walmart is concerned, the issue is not just Walmart, but whether it is appropriate to put a major commercial development that includes much more than a Walmart next to a national park. Aesthetic values aside, this degrades the tourism value of those resources and increases pressure on the roadways through the park.

I find odd the argument that there is a already a Sheetz and McDonald’s at the corner of Routes 20 & 3, so anything else is appropriate. By that logic, the Walmart will be used to justify every other commercial development. And, by the way, there were public objections to both the Sheetz and McDonald’s.

Yes, the Walmart site is zoned commercial. It was a decision made twenty years ago, before the example of the big box development in Central Park in Fredericksburg (which I believe you’re familiar with), and before Orange Countians started to express their concern about the loss of the rural character of the county. The County’s recent anti-Big Box ordinance codifies that concern.

(I understand that the commercial square footage proposed for the Route 20 & 3 intersection actually exceeds that of Central Park.)

No, it’s not about Walmart. It’s about completely changing the character of a rural landscape on the doorstep of a national park. An issue that big deserves some public discussion.

I also find it interesting that no one has yet brought up that the current Route 20/3 intersection is itself not historic. The historic intersection is actually south east of the current intersection and the western side of it is protected by the NPS.
So the historic intersection is not going to be affected by this development only the current intersection which has been compromised for quite some time by McDonalds, Sheetz and other businesses.

It is a shame that people get all dramatic before sitting down and calmly trying to figure out the true possibilities for a solution. The land in question had no combat on it only hospitals and probably wagons, so there is much room for negotiation to commemorate the site without having to make it seem like a developer is destroying everyone’s heritage.
Deep breath everyone

And, of course, that would hurt the commercial value of the property. So honor our heritage: no left turn!

Anyone who’s been to Spotsylvania lately will recognize how much that’s changed in so little time.

What will they do next? Tear down Yankee Stadium?

Just curious, but have you read James L. Huston’s “Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights and the Coming of the Civil War?” Huston points out that in 1860 the value in slaves just among the largest southern planters was 3 BILLION contemporary dollars, which he finds was more than railroads and manufacturing COMBINED. I know Huston’s book is not one of the more popular recent studies because its focus on economics and charts and graphs can be, well, dry, but he does make clear that if we make the logical assumption that wealth equals power, than the power in 1860 lay with the slaveholders, who were just as concerned with money and capital as any “Greedy Yankee.” Perhaps Mr. Wittenberg should read Huston’s book.

- Jarret