August, 2000

August 26, 2000

Coming to you direct from Fort Collins, Colo., where I have spent all day
on the bus, visiting the battle sites of Summit Spring (where Cody killed
Tall Bull) and Beecher Island (where Roman Nose was killed), during the 22d
annual Assembly of the Order of the Indian Wars:

Dear Civil War Allies,

Manassas. Vicksburg. Fort Sumter. Gettysburg.
Stones River. Antietam. Kennesaw Mountain. Chickamauga.

The honor of men and women who fought and died in these places and countless
others is a sacred part of our national heritage. These places are
commemorated in our National Park System...but they are far from fully
protected. You can help provide much needed funds to restore and protect
these Civil War sites and other national treasures if you act today.

Congress is considering a bipartisan bill to protect national park sites
with an additional $100 million per year, earmarked specifically to restore
and protect historic, cultural and natural resources. Please take a minute
to read the alert below and then send a message to the president through our
web site <http://www.npca.org/takeaction/caraalert.html> or by your own email.


NPCA has worked closely with a number of you on Civil War and National Park
issues and I hope to be able to work with the rest of you. Our national
parks, and our Civil War history, depend on individuals like you researching
histories, re-enacting events, teaching youth, and ensuring the places
remain protected for future generations.

Please alert your members, post this on your web site, and forward it to
colleagues.

Thank you very much,
Jim Pissot
NPCA


*** NPCA SPECIAL ALERT ***

Support the "National Park Protection Fund"

CARA Protects National Parks:
Provides $100 Million for Resource Protection

Politicians at both the Republican and Democratic national conventions
have been debating how to spend record budget surpluses predicted for
the next 10 years. Well, here is their chance to do something for
America's national parks! In the next six to eight weeks, President
Clinton is expected to negotiate a $3 billion package of conservation
and environmental programs (known as the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act, or "CARA") with Congress. The Senate version of this bill includes
$100 million annually for resource protection within the National Park
System, which is crucial for its preservation. Unfortunately, the House
bill does not include this money and some groups would like to use the
Senate's $100 million for other purposes. President Clinton must hear
that there is strong public support for the National Park Protection
Fund in CARA, and WE NEED YOUR HELP.

CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701), authorizes $100
million annually exclusively for resource protection within the National
Park System (Title VI, Sec. 601). The funds are to be used only to
"protect significant natural, cultural, or historical resources*that are
threatened or in need of stabilization or restoration." The bill
stipulates that these funds shall not be used for land acquisition, NPS
salaries, road construction, new visitor center construction, routine
maintenance, or projects funded by the demonstration fee program. These
limitations strengthen the bill's emphasis on resource protection, a
need too long ignored. Here are some examples of national parks
projects which would benefit from CARA.

**Gettysburg National Military Park - Restore the landscape and
vegetation to more accurately represent the period of this crucial
Civil War battle.

**Minute Man National Historic Park - Restore the historic site of
the opening battle of the American Revolution, including the
farmhouse and landscaping along Battle Road.


Although resource protection is the core mission of the National Park
System, it receives only 20 to 30 percent of the Park Service's budget.
Most of the funds that Congress appropriates for national parks every
year are directed toward providing visitor services and maintenance.
This means that the funds available for critical resource protection
have fallen further and further behind the actual requirements. The
parks have an estimated $500 million of unfunded natural resource needs.
It also means that the Park Service has very limited ability to respond
to crisis situations that threaten park resources. NPCA believes the
National Park System would benefit greatly from a revenue source
specifically dedicated to projects such as restoring wildlife habitat,
stabilizing historic structures, protecting archeological sites, eliminating
exotic species, preserving cultural artifacts, and
protecting other critical national park resources.

TAKE ACTION! Using the sample letter and contact information below, or
by going to <http://www.npca.org/takeaction/caraalert.html> to send an
electronic letter, please contact President Clinton today and ask him to
insist that this money for national parks be included in the final bill
that he signs into law. This is a great opportunity to help our
national parks and we must not let it slip away! Please let us know you
took action by sending a message to TakeAction@npca.org <mailto:TakeAction@npca.org>. To learn more
about how CARA will help preserve our National Park System, please
continue reading.

PSSSST!!! Please pass this alert on to at least 5 of your friends. As the
old saying goes, there is power in numbers!

 More about CARA

National Park Protection Fund Details: Title VI of CARA constitutes a
"National Park Protection Fund" that can be used for a variety of needs
in national parks - from restoring native vegetation to preserving
historic documents to saving endangered species. Proposed expenditures
from the National Park Protection Fund would be sent to Congress with
the President's annual budget. The National Park Service would be
required to give priority to projects that are part of a park's general
management plan, part of authorized environmental restoration projects,
necessary to prevent immediate damage to a park's natural, cultural or
historic resources, or to protect public health and safety. The $100
million for park resource protection would come from the $3-$4 billion
the government receives every year from outer continental shelf oil and
gas drilling leases. Congress would approve park protection funds as
part of the annual Interior Appropriations bill.

Resource Protection Needs in the National Parks: Analyses conducted by
NPCA have shown a serious shortfall in all national park budget
categories. Over the past few years, the enormous backlog of maintenance
needs facing the National Park System has received significant national
attention. For the most part, this backlog represents ordinary wear and
tear to facilities and infrastructure. Less attention has been paid to
the more pressing needs of cultural and natural resources that are at
risk of being lost forever. Congress has responded to the maintenance
backlog need by earmarking additional funding and directing significant
new fee revenues to park upkeep. Unfortunately, no similar focused
steps have been taken to fund resource protection in the parks. The
annual operating costs of the National Park System are predictable and
well suited to funding through the regular appropriations process.
Protecting threatened park resources, however, can require greater
flexibility and prompt action. The National Park Protection Fund would
give the Park Service the ability to address urgent needs, while
assuring that congressional oversight remains in place.

SAMPLE LETTER: You can use this as a sample letter if you don't have
web access. For those of you who do have web access, send an electronic
letter now by going to <http://www.npca.org/takeaction/caraalert.html>.

E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov <mailto:president@whitehouse.gov>

The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Clinton:

I understand that you are expected to negotiate a $3 billion package of
conservation and environmental programs, known as the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, with Congress over the next several weeks. This is a
landmark bill, which will secure nearly $3 billion a year through 2015,
for environmental conservation.

In the compromise bill, crafted by Sen. Frank Murkowski (AK) and Sen.
Jeff Bingaman (NM), $100 million is guaranteed annually for the
protection of natural, cultural and historic resources within the
National Park System. As the bill is written, the funds will be used to
support a variety of activities, such as restoring native vegetation and
preserving historic documents. The money, however, will not be used for
new facility construction or for ordinary maintenance. Further, H.R.
701 provides $900 million annually for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, which is used to protect environmentally significant state and
federal lands.

This is a tremendous step in the right direction for our national parks.
I urge you to insist that the $100 million guaranteed for the
preservation of our National Park System is included in the final bill
that you sign into law.

Thank you for your consideration, I look forward to your written
response.

Also, please write your US Senators (c/o US Senate, Washington DC 20510)
and urge them to support this bill for more money for historic resources in
the National Park Service.

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Association
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study Must Also Strive To Save!

August 18, 2000

Too funny not to share!
Gary Van Kauwenbergh
---------------------------------
Posted by Brannen Sanders, Coastal Rifles, 1st Georgia
<<mailto:brannens@hom.net>> on August 17, 19100 at 23:25:00:

Latest Historical research reveals Appomattox as Southern Victory !
CNN (Confederated News Network) August 17th, Gullagapwater, GA. Professor
Nathan Bedford "Billy Bob" Bureaguard, the Director of the Institute for
Southron Studies of the Late and Lamented Unpleasantness Between the States
at the University of Gullagapwater revealed today the startling conclusions
of his team of distinguished research and analytical historians.
Professor Bureaguard stated that a careful re-examiniation of the historical
events of April of 1865 in Virginia prove conclusively that Appomattox was
General Robert E. Lee's greatest victory.
Professor Bureaguard says that Lee realized the futility of trench fighting
around Petersburg and Richmond so he manuvered his army so as to get General
Grant to abandon his fortifications.
When Lee had Grant's army cornered at Appomattox Courthouse, Lee decided
that diplomacy was the best course to follow. Consequently Lee invited Grant
to a conference. The result of the conference was that General Grant signed
a treaty that allowed the SOUTH TO ANNEX THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES!
Professor Bureaguard denounced the historians that claim that General Lee
took advantage of a drunken Grant. Professor Bureaguard dismissed those
claims with the words: "General Lee was too much of a Gentleman to take
advantage like that.!"

August 7, 2000

Did you write about Manassas yet?

We're happy to report that the pot is still boiling and we invite you to
help us stir...
Here's a "dispatch" from "the front."

 Bill Kling
 POLITICAL ANIMAL
 The Daily Journal
 Prince William County, Virginia
 Monday, August 7, 2000

Third Manassas heats up again

 In 1979, U.S. Sen. John Warner studied a controversial National
Park Service proposal to expand Manassas National Battlefield Park, site
of two
 important Civil War battles, to include the old Brawner farm.
 The Virginia senator, then in his first year in Congress, visited
 the Manassas battlefield with members of his Capitol Hill staff and the park
 superintendent to explore the Brawner farm area, west along Lee Highway,
 that the Park Service wanted to save from residential and industrial
 development.
I was one of those staffers accompanying Warner on his tour 21
years ago. That visit came to mind again last week with the Prince William
County Board's 7-1 opposition to proposed federal expansion of the park's
historic district by placing 400 acres of nearby privately owned property
on the National Register of Historic Places.
This latest development followed by about a month the Park
Service's dynamite demolition of the unsightly "tourist trap" National
Tower adjacent to Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania. For 26 years, the
307-foot monstrosity had sullied views of the Confederacy's "high water
mark" at the battle that was the turning point in our nation's most
 regrettable war.
The clash over the Brawner farm, now part of the battlefield park,
predated by two decades the ill-fated Mickey Mouse-effort of buck-chasing
Disney execs to build a Hollywood-style "pop" history theme park where
Americans in blue and gray twice fought each other, bled and died in great
numbers.
The Brawner-farm dispute was only one element of what, even in the
1970s, was called the Third Battle of Manassas, triggered by Park Service
efforts to take over "historically significant" land around the battlefield park.
First Manassas was fought July 21, 1861, a one-day battle in which
Confederate Gen. Thomas Jonathan Jackson earned his immortal nickname,
"Stonewall," standing with his troops "like a stone wall" against Union charges.
Second Manassas was fought over three bloody days in late August 1862, yet
again depriving President Abraham Lincoln of the Union battlefield victory
he deemed essential to proclaiming slaves free in Confederate "states in rebellion."
Third Manassas continues even today, dogged political and legal
hostilities pitting real estate developers and owners of private property
against other landowners, activist historians and groups advocating
smart-, slow- and no-growth.
Since the supervisors' voted last week, Civil War Round Table
Associates' HERITAGEPAC has circulated information -- "ammunition," the
e-mail calls it -- about historically significant areas near the park.
Confederate and Union names are there, ghosts from the past.
There's Lee with Jackson, Longstreet, Early, Forno, Pelham and D'Aquin.
And McDowell with King, Kearny and Pope.
There's Sudley United Methodist Church, where during First Manassas
its original structure, intended for prayer and the saving of souls, served
as a Union field hospital, and then as a Confederate hospital.
And there's Stony Ridge/Sudley Mountain, where Jackson during Second
Manassas, after destroying the Union supply depot at Manassas Junction,
reassembled his three divisions to attack King.
And there's Pageland Farm, occupied the next day by Early's and
Forno's brigades to cover Jackson's right flank as they waited for
Longstreet to arrive. And Rock Hill Farm, a Confederate field hospital.
And there's a marker in Conway-Robinson State Forest, west of the
park, where Lee held a Second Manassas war council with subordinates.
All this gives you some idea that the two Manassas battles involved
more historically significant acres than the 5,000 now in the park.
And that's to be expected simply because we live in the Old Dominion.
"If we preserved all the historically significant land in Virginia," Warner observed after his 1979 tour, "we'd have to set aside most of the state."
That's true, given Virginia's history as a British colony and its
role during the War of Independence and the War Between the States. Warner
knew that. Before he'd been elected to the Senate, he'd chaired the U.S.
Bicentennial Commission, organized by President Gerald Ford to celebrate
America's 200th birthday anniversary on the Fourth of July, 1976.
But some historically significant land is more historically
significant than others. That's especially so for miles around the present
Manassas National Battlefield Park.
Many of us living here care deeply about such matters. Others
believe -- well! -- otherwise.
So Third Manassas rages on, enduring and politically parlous for
elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Bill Kling, former national political correspondent for the Chicago
Tribune and the Washington Times, lives in Coles Magisterial District and was
chairman of the Prince William County Republican Party from January 1992
Through March 1996. His "Political Animal" columns appear Mondays and
Thursdays. His e-mail address is kling@usa.net <mailto:kling@usa.net>.

Please to encourage him in his efforts to thwart the pro-development
supervisors.

And, if you haven't already, e-mail those supervisor-addresses we sent you
last week. Also, if you have ANY friends who live in Prince William
County, Virginia, encourage them to contact their board of supervisors.

Alice Anne & I just got back from Niagara Falls, where I did the last of my
research on my current book. (No, there was no Civil War action at Niagara
Falls, but I did find a few tidbits to include about Confederate agents who
occasionally met on the Canadian side of the Niagara River...)

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Associates
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study Must Also Strive To Save!

August 2, 2000

If you want some ammunition to use when you write the Prince William County
board of county supervisors about the proposed historical district around
Manassas Battlefield, here are some facts:
Despite the assertion of Supervisor Wilbourn (whose wife serves on the
County Historical Commission) that the area in question has no historical
significance, there are a number of important sites associated with the
battles at Manassas which remain outside the park.
The Tim Dunklin Monument:  Erected in the memory of a soldier in the 4th
Texas Infantry, killed August 30, 1862, this stone monument sits west of the
park and south of Route 29 (Warrenton Turnpike) in an area of known battlefield
graves and likely a Confederate field hospital site. 
Lee, Longstreet, Jackson Marker:  Located along Route 29 in Conway-Robinson
State Forest west of the park, this marker denotes the site of a council of war
between General Lee and his subordinates on the morning of August 29, 1862.
Pageland Farm:  Occupied by Early's and Forno's brigades on the morning of
August 29, 1862 to cover Jackson's right flank prior to the arrival of
Longstreet's wing.  The original house at Pageland is where the Henry and
Carter families moved to after their homes were destroyed.
Rock Hill Farm:  Situated north of the Brawner Farm, the home of John
Cross was the site of a Confederate field hospital at Second Manassas.
Stony Ridge (a.k.a. Sudley Mountain):  The area where Stonewall Jackson
reassembled his three divisions after destroying the Union supply depot at
Manassas Junction and from where his troops advanced to strike King's
Division on the evening of August 28, 1862.  A signal station on the cleared summit
of the ridge kept Jackson in communication with Lee and Longstreet on the south
side of the turnpike and this proved vital to the Confederates on August 30,
1862.  This area north of the unfinished railroad was occupied by Jackson's
reserves throughout the battle and is all privately owned.
Site of Sudley Mill:  Jackson temporarily established his headquarters and
an artillery park at Sudley Mill on the night of August 28, 1862.
Sudley United Methodist Church:  A new structure occupies the site but the
original building served as a Union field hospital at First Manassas and
later in 1861 as a Confederate hospital.  A number of Confederate veterans are
buried in the adjacent (post-war) cemetery to include Col. Daniel Ledbetter of
South Carolina, who had been mortally wounded along the Unfinished Railroad.
Sudley Ford:  The site where General McDowell's flanking column crossed
Bull Run on the morning of July 21, 1861, prior to crossing Sudley Springs Ford
which is located further south at the park boundary. 
Site of Sudley Mansion (Fairfax National Golf Course in Fairfax County):
The house served as a Confederate field hospital on the evening of August 28,
1862.
The following day Poe's brigade of Kearny's division threatened Jackson's
supply trains in this vicinity until repulsed by Pelham's and D'Aquin's batteries
supported by the 1st Virginia Cavalry.

Significance, of course, is all in the eye of the beholder in this county,
and Spvr. Wilbourn has already proved, over a period of years, that he has
absolutely no concept of historical significance.  He even used the
unfortunate traffic death of his daughter some distance from the Stone
House intersection to ram through the widening of the roads at that
intersection.  *His* interest is in faster traffic movement in the area of
his development projects.

Please write today.  Let's flood those folks with positive messages about
the pressing national need for supporting the proposed historical district
at Manassas.

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Associates
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study Must Also Strive To Save!

August 1, 2000

Manassas National Battlefield Park

I take very seriously the comments that have been expressed about rejecting
the historic district near Manassas National Battlefield Park.  I have
direct interest in the property in question and the population has direct
interest in the preservation if the historic nature of the land that is
being protected.
We sent you a message last night about a proposed historic district around
Manassas Battlefield.  Some local folks, mostly developers or
developer-related interests, are trying to block this.

You can help by sending your e-mail message to the addresses below, as one
of our local supporters has done:

Board of Supervisors

Please do not block the historic district.  Please question the motives of
those that are trying to block the historic district.

Thank you.

ewilbourn@pwcgov.org
mhill@pwcgov.org
bthompson@pwcgov.org
jjenkins@pwcgov.org
hbarg@pwcgov.org
mcaddigan@pwcgov.org
rgriffgs@pwcgov.org

Make your support of the historic district known to these people, and
emphasize that Manassas Battlefield is a *national* treasure, and MUST be
protected.

Let's get their attention...

August 1, 2000

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 31, 2000; Page B01


The Manassas National Battlefield Park, site of two battles in the Civil
War and endless political skirmishing ever since, is in the middle of
yet another conflict--this time between the federal park and its
neighbor, Prince William County.

The preserve, run by the National Park Service, wants to expand the
boundaries of the historic district that overlays it, including some 400
acres of land outside the borders of the park itself.

Park Superintendent Robert K. Sutton and other officials say the
designation is simply meant to highlight the historic treasures adjacent
to the park, sprinkling a few more plaques and markers through the
countryside. State and federal officials also stress that a listing on
the National Register of Historic Places has no direct impact on zoning
or development, which are up to the county to regulate.

But some local property owners and politicians aren't calmed by such
assurances, fearing that historic designation will hurt property
values--and suspicious that the move is a cloaked attempt to curb
development and expand the park.

Prince William supervisors are so alarmed that the board is considering
using its veto power to scuttle the proposed listing altogether. State
officials already have delayed a decision on the case that had been
scheduled for September. A public hearing will be held tomorrow to hear
complaints.

"Maybe a lot of this is misconception about what the process is and what
the impacts are," said Sean T. Connaughton (R-At Large), chairman of the
Prince William board. "But we're looking at a way to suspend this until
we have a better handle on what's happening."

Located in the rolling countryside north of Manassas, the 5,100-acre
preserve commemorates two pivotal Civil War battles that claimed 27,000
casualties. What Southerners call the 1861 Battle of Manassas and what
Northerners call the Battle of Bull Run was the first major land battle
in the Civil War, while the Second Battle of Manassas a year later
prepared the way for Gen. Robert E. Lee's drive across the Potomac
River.

Perceiving threats to this hallowed ground, preservationists have
repeatedly rallied in the last two decades to fend off highways, a
shopping mall and housing in and around the park. The biggest fight came
in the early 1990s, when the Walt Disney Co. proposed building a theme
park nearby--a plan that was abandoned after national and international
outcry.

The roots of the current quarrel stretch back to 1998, when park
officials launched a $25,000 historic study of the battlefield and
adjacent lands. The resulting survey led to the application for an
expanded historic district, including 158 parcels of land outside park
boundaries.

A historic designation is "completely honorific" and has no effect on
what can be built in the area, according to Kathleen S. Kilpatrick,
deputy director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, which
must sign off on the listing before it's considered by the federal
government.

In cases such as Old Town Alexandria, Kilpatrick said, building
restrictions are the result of local laws--not federal or state historic
listings. The designation also would have no impact on road projects,
she said, which are reviewed for significance regardless of whether the
land is on the historic register.

But many local officials, including Supervisor Edgar S. Wilbourn III
(R-Gainesville), remain skeptical of federal motives and promises
surrounding the battlefield. In 1988, preservationists persuaded
Congress to pay $118 million for 542 acres of land slated for the
William Center shopping mall and annex it to the park. The county is
still battling in court over compensation from the federal government.

In the case of the historic district, Wilbourn and other county
supervisors complain that the proposal earlier this month caught them by
surprise. And although Sutton briefed them on the plans as early as
March 1998, several said they feel that they have been left out of the
process.

Officials also worry that the designation could hamper various local
road proposals, including an extension of the Route 234 bypass and a new
location for Route 29, which currently bisects the park but could be
moved to the north or south.

Wilbourn also complained to supervisors this week that too many of the
properties include newer homes and buildings that aren't proper for a
historic district.

But Sutton said the land itself is what is usually historic on a
battlefield, which is why the designation would include properties with
newer homes. He said a handful of property owners who objected to being
included in the district were voluntarily dropped from the list.

In addition, he said, some of the property owners now complaining are
already included in the current historic district. Those owners could
not be reached for comment.

"If somebody didn't want to be in the nomination, they didn't have to
be," he said. "This is about expanding the historic register listing. We
have no intention of expanding the park."

© 2000 The Washington Post Company