Civil War Battlefield or Wal-Mart?
I remember while growing up there was a big to-do over whether to build a Disney entertainment park near the Battle of Manassas. And, you know what they say about history repeating itself? Well, Wal-Mart has announced plans to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter near - but not at - the historical Civil War site of the “Battle of the Wilderness,” about 60 miles southwest of Washington, DC. 2700 acres of the Battlefield are protected in what is now Fredricksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park, Virginia. The Wal-Mart would be located about one mile away, in the downtown area of Locust Grove, VA.
First, a reminder about the Battle of the Wilderness. This battle is where Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant first fought in 1864, in Virginia. Grant’s Union troops were headed to Richmond on May 4, 1864, when they ran into Lee’s “Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.” The two groups battled, eventually pulling in more than 100,000 Union troops and 61,000 Confederates, and resulting in more than 4,000 dead and 20,000 wounded. It is thought that this Battle hastened the War’s end.
Because of the historic significance of the battle site, over 250 historians and scholars – including filmmaker Ken Burns and Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough – have now written a letter urging Wal-Mart’s CEO H.Lee Scott to build the new Wal-Mart farther from the historical landmark. They wrote, “Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be moved.”
However, a spokesperson for Wal-mart said, “We are not building on the battlefield.” This is true. In fact, the store would be behind a bank and strip-mall, a full mile from the Wilderness Battlefield. And the locals WANT Wal-Mart. They say, in fact, “Bring it on!” They want the $500,000 in tax revenue they estimate the big box store will generate for rural Orange County. This is a conflict which regularly flares up in rural Virginia, which can be caught between concerns of preservation and concerns of those who seek badly needed economic growth.
Which brings us up to the present. . .
There was supposed to be a public hearing on July 27, but that has been postponed. Keep your eyes and ears open for more information. It’s up to all of us to have a say. What do you think? If you have an opinion, share your thoughts in the Comments section.
Read on:
PreservationNation.org – Wal-Mart Superstore Threatens Wilderness Battlefield
Mahalo.com – Wilderness Battlefield Wal-Mart
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Aug 3 — Today’s Washington Post published an editorial in favor of the Wal-Mart:
“Wilderness Wal-Mart
“The retailer’s plan to build a store near a historic Virginia battlefield merits a study of possible alternatives.
“Monday, August 3, 2009
“SOON, RESIDENTS of Virginia’s Orange County may be able to “Save money, live better” — but at the cost of controversy.
“Wal-Mart plans to become the first large retailer in the predominantly rural county. With the state unemployment rate at 7.3 percent, the jobs and tax revenue promised by the coming of a major retailer are more than welcome to Orange County residents. But the location of the proposed store has sent Civil War buffs and elected officials into a tizzy. That’s because Wal-Mart is preparing to break ground across Route 3 from the National Park Service portion of the Wilderness Battlefield — a historic site where Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee first clashed, in an 1864 battle. Historians and preservationists, as well as Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), have rallied against the construction of the store in its proposed location.
“So far, Wal-Mart and the Orange County Board of Supervisors haven’t budged — and they may have good reason not to. In a largely undeveloped county, one plot of grass and woodland may seem identical to the next, but the piece of land in dispute is unique for more than its historical significance. Few properties in the area are zoned for commercial use and, of those that are, Wal-Mart claims that this is the only one that fits its minimum standards, which take into account size and configuration of a property, transportation access, and access to utilities.
“Preservationists are right to want to protect some of the battlefield. However, if we decided to preserve every piece of land on which American blood was shed in the Civil War, a huge portion of Virginia would be untouchable. Critics also argue that building a Wal-Mart so near the park would ruin the historic ambiance of the place, because the store would be visible from the field. But the proposed store would be on a hill behind a buffer of trees, and the building would be colored in subtle earth tones so that the portion of the building that rises above the tree line would not clash with the landscape that surrounds it.
“One appeal by the preservationists has merit. They have offered to fund a six-month land-planning study to search for a suitable alternative site for Wal-Mart. The county has repeatedly rejected the idea. But because the proposed study would not be funded by tax dollars, and because six months is not an enormous amount of time, it doesn’t make sense for the county not to allow it — regardless of how likely it is to produce a better plan than Wal-Mart’s.”