The American Battlefield Trust

8 05 2018

american-battlefield-trust-umbrella-logos[7738]

This just in from the good folks at the Civil War Trust:

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION GROUP FORMS AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD TRUST

New umbrella organization will build upon success of Civil War Trust in preserving our nation’s hallowed battlegrounds

(Washington, D.C.) – The Civil War Trust, a national nonprofit preservation group recognized for its success in saving battlefield land, has formed the American Battlefield Trust — a new umbrella entity dedicated to preserving America’s hallowed battlegrounds and educating the public about what happened there and why it matters today.

The new umbrella organization reflects how the Civil War Trust’s battlefield preservation achievements have grown and its mission expanded to include other conflicts from America’s formative first century. In 2014, at the request of the National Park Service, the Trust extended its mandate to include protection of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields. Its decision to do so coincided with the passage of federal legislation aimed at preserving battlefields of those two conflicts. Since then, the Trust has saved nearly 700 acres of battlefield land associated with the American Revolution and War of 1812 while continuing to save Civil War battle sites at a record pace.

Earlier this month, the Department of Interior announced that the Trust had been selected to serve as the federal government’s nonprofit partner for the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. The organization’s commitment to protecting Civil War battlefields was recently underscored by the announcement that it would be saving 18 acres of core battlefield land on historic Seminary Ridge at Gettysburg.

“We see preserved battlefields as outdoor classrooms that both illuminate and inspire,” said American Battlefield Trust President James Lighthizer. “They allow young and old alike to walk in the footsteps of America’s first citizen soldiers. No Hollywood movie, documentary, or museum exhibit can compare to standing amid the now-quiet trenches of Yorktown or gazing across the field of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg.”

The Civil War Trust will continue as the principal division under the American Battlefield Trust umbrella, focusing on battlefields and educational outreach related to that conflict. A second division known as the Revolutionary War Trust will serve a similar function, concentrating on battlefields associated with America’s War for Independence. According to Lighthizer, “this new organizational structure gives us the strength and flexibility needed to protect critically important battlefield land in an increasingly competitive real estate market.”

The formation of the American Battlefield Trust is the latest step in the evolution of the modern battlefield preservation movement, which began in the mid-1980s in response to the loss of important historic sites to spreading commercial and residential development. The new entity is a direct descendant, through a series of mergers and name changes, of the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, founded by a group of professional historians and preservation advocates in 1987.

The organization is best known for its high-profile battlefield preservation efforts, including protection of the historic epicenter of the Antietam battlefield, the site of George Washington’s famous charge at Princeton, the Slaughter Pen Farm at Fredericksburg, and Robert E. Lee’s battlefield headquarters at Gettysburg. In addition, as the Civil War Trust, it engaged in grassroots campaigns to prevent development at Chancellorsville and the Wilderness in Virginia; Franklin, Tennessee; and Morris Island, South Carolina (site of the famous charge portrayed in the movie Glory).

“Over those years and under a variety of names, we have saved nearly 50,000 acres of battlefield land throughout the United States, while earning accolades for being one of the most efficient and effective nonprofits in the nation,” said Lighthizer. “Now, as the American Battlefield Trust, we will continue that tradition of preservation leadership.”

Although primarily known for its land preservation successes, the organization is also firmly committed to promoting the rich and diverse history of America’s first century conflicts. Using battlefield land as a unique and powerful teaching tool, the Trust’s educational efforts include popular videos, you-are-there Facebook Live broadcasts, GPS-enabled smartphone apps, online battle panoramas, animated maps, classroom field-trip sponsorships, a national Teacher Institute, hundreds of website articles and images, and “Generations” events that encourage family members of all ages to experience history in the places where it occurred.

The American Battlefield Trust is dedicated to preserving America’s hallowed battlegrounds and educating the public about what happened there and why it matters today. To date, the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization has protected nearly 50,000 acres of battlefield land associated with the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil War. Learn more at http://www.battlefields.org.





Civil War Trust Battle App – Stone Bridge

8 04 2014




Civil War Trust Battle App – Chinn Ridge

27 03 2014




Civil War Trust Battle App – Henry Hill (2)

8 03 2014




Civil War Trust Battle App – Henry Hill

1 02 2014




@#&*ing ‘Droid!

20 12 2011

The new Civil War Trust Bull Run Battle App for ‘Droid is here. Half a yippee, or maybe a yip. I can’t find it on my phone in the ‘Droid app marketplace. I also can’t get my phone to download the new version of WordPress for ‘Droid. And yes, my phone runs on ‘Droid, wiseacre.





Cool Bull Run Stuff on the Web

17 06 2011

A few links I ran across thanks to Facebook friends and others:

Go here for an overview of the battle and a cool animated map courtesy of The Civil War Trust.

Also from The Civil War Trust, John Hennessy talks about Jackson at Bull Run here. For more, see John’s article on the topic here.

And read this interesting bit on Matthew Brady at Bull Run from The Atlantic here.





Civil War Trust “Hallowed Ground” Spring 2011

14 03 2011

The Spring 2011 issue of Hallowed Ground, the Civil War Trust’s members publication, is out. Happily it focuses on First Bull Run.

There’s plenty of good stuff inside on the battle and the battlefield – see here for the table of contents. NPS historians Greg Wolf and John Reid have pieces on some battlefield detective work and the Centennial reenactment; museum specialist Jim Burgess writes on civilian spectators at the battle, and superintendent Ray Brown has an interesting article on the owner of the Van Pelt house. The folks who work and have worked at the park are the real experts on the battles that were fought here. These articles should not be missed – and yes, they’re all available online for free. While I don’t see it listed, there is supposed to be an interview with yours truly in this issue as well. Perhaps I wound up on the cutting room floor? I’ll let you know once I see the magazine itself.

One article in particular caught my attention: An End to Innocence, The First Battle of Manassas by Bradley Gottfried. Here’s the passage that stuck out:

While Lincoln and his Cabinet members listened, McDowell laid out a plan to attack the 24,000-man Confederate Army under Gen. Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, deployed near the winding Bull Run creek about 25 miles southwest of Washington. The general intended to use about 30,000 troops in the effort, marching in three columns, while another 10,000 men were held in reserve. With such numerical superiority, it appeared McDowell would overwhelm his Southern counterpart.

OK, I’ve talked about this in the past and you’re probably sick of hearing it by now. I have met Mr. Gottfried – he’s a good guy. I worked closely with him in proofing his book, The Maps of First Bull Run. But what he has written here conflicts with my understanding of McDowell’s plan. Here’s the text of the portion of McDowell’s plan regarding the force he expected to meet at Manassas (emphasis and brackets mine; you can read the whole thing here):

The secession forces at Manassas Junction and its dependencies are supposed to amount at this time [June 24-25, 1861] to–

Infantry          23,000

Cavalry          1,500

Artillery           500

Total               25,000

We cannot count on keeping secret our intention to overthrow this force. Even if the many parties intrusted with the knowledge of the plan should not disclose or discover it, the necessary preliminary measures for such an expedition would betray it; and they are alive and well informed as to every movement, however slight, we make. They have, moreover, been expecting us to attack their position, and have been preparing for it. When it becomes known positively we are about to march, and they learn in what strength, they will be obliged to call in their disposable forces from all quarters, for they will not be able, if closely pressed, to get away by railroad before we can reach them. If General J. E. Johnston’s force is kept engaged by Major-General Patterson, and Major-General Butler occupies the force now in his vicinity, I think they will not be able to bring up more than ten thousand men. So we must calculate on having to do with about thirty-five thousand men.

And here’s where he described the size of the army with which he proposed to take the field:

Leaving small garrisons in the defensive works, I propose to move against Manassas with a force of thirty thousand of all arms, organized into three columns, with a reserve of ten thousand.

I’ve not yet found any evidence that McDowell expected he would have numerical superiority in his strike against Beauregard. I’ll have more to say on this in an upcoming article in America’s Civil War.

UPDATE 3/15/2011: Let me make this clear for everyone, if for some reason you got a different impression from this post: my problem is with the notion that McDowell’s plan assumed a numerical superiority for his army over that which he expected to face around Manassas. To quote Wilfred Brimley in Absence of Malice: “That’s a lot of horse-puckey. The First Amendment (in this case McDowell’s plan) doesn’t say that.”

McDowell’s plans regarding this are clear, as stated above.