Since the start of July, several articles and editorials have appeared in area newspapers in regard to the Culpeper Civil War Battlefield Park proposal. All voices are positive in regard to the initiative. The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star ran an editorial on July 15 which concluded:
At a time when the nation is reassessing how to view and understand the Civil War and its symbols, the stories of sacrifice of American lives cannot be forgotten. Opening historic sites to the public at Brandy Station and Cedar Mountain is the right thing to do.
Just this weekend, the Culpeper Star-Exponent quoted Civil War Trust Policy and Communications Director, Jim Campi:
“If you have a state battlefield park here in the center of Virginia, it would be like Sailor’s Creek on steroids,” Campi said, referring to the battlefield state park in Prince Edward County. “Culpeper really is the epicenter of the Civil War; so much happened here. Even when they weren’t fighting here, they were marching across Culpeper County… all the encampments and the battles. You really can’t tell the story of the Civil War without the story of what happened in Culpeper.”
These are strong statements indicative of the support the idea has received even with the public discussion at an early stage. For those of us who have carried, for many years, this idea for a Brandy Station and Ceder Mountain park these articles are music to our ears. Earlier when blogging about having public discussions about a park, I had low expectations. But the response has exceeded those by yards if not miles. Furthermore, though I’ve been quiet about this on the blogging side, I find myself every day engaged on the “Culpeper Front” in ways large and small.
When this park comes to be (and I don’t think it is an “if” at this point, but a “when”), we will once again see how public interpretation – specifically markers – have helped build interest, awareness, and support. Much as the comparison made to Resaca back in May. (And I would point out the release of the Brandy Station Battle App is a further advancement along that same avenue of approach but in a digital instead of physical format).
Indeed, the Culpeper Battlefields Park, when it comes to fruition, will inherit a wealth of interpretive exhibits, most of which were written by experts on the battle and produced by the professional Virginia Civil War Trails and Civil War Trust teams. The current interpretive system (including the soon to be in place interpretation on Fleetwood Hill) will cover nearly every need the park might want. Well, save perhaps a few subjects – such as the USCT crossing at Kelly’s Ford at the start of the Overland Campaign and the passage of Sherman’s troops at the end of the war. It is a fine system that any park manager would boast of on the first day of operation.
One physical element currently missing, of course, is a formal visitor center. There are some who have mentioned the use of the Graffiti House as a new park visitor center. That would be a mistake, in my opinion. The house is not in condition to support the foot traffic that will come into the park. It would need extensive, expensive structural work. Nor is it the place that visitors need to begin their visit (being on the wrong side of the tracks, literally). Furthermore, the real treasure of the Graffiti House is the surviving markings from the war which deserve preservation. Needed improvements to make a visitor center would detract from that preservation. Unless something akin to what was done for Blenheim in Fairfax – a visitor center separate from the historic structure – is completed, the graffiti would be at risk.
And such a separate visitor center would essentially mean the Graffiti House would be an exhibit and not the visitor center proper. At that point, why place a visitor center in a place where visitors will need to traverse a busy highway in order to see what most are looking for? There are many places which could better serve as a temporary visitor center, assuming the state would prefer, as done at other battlefield parks, to build a purpose build visitor center with museum at some point in the future. Besides, we are getting way ahead of ourselves in planning where to park the buses.
One last point I’d make, which has been voiced in the articles to date is with the operations and maintenance of the proposed park. As the Culpeper Star-Exponent article this week mentioned, “To expedite the proposal, the [Civil War Trust] is willing to continue to manage the properties for several years after the land transfer, enabling the state to focus its energies and resources on launching the park…”
Some have alluded to the cost of running a new park as a negative in the park effort. Indeed the Virginia State Park system, as with many across the country, is at best “just” funded in terms of operations budget. The gracious offer by the Trust will allow some time for the state to work out the particulars to ensure the park is properly staffed and supported.
Although there are a lot of details in the air and a lot of issues to be worked out, the notion of a Culpeper Battlefields Park has gained acceptance and picking up momentum. The reality of such a park is not far away!