This study of Civil War sites in the Virginia part of the
Shenandoah Valley was authorized by Public Law 101-628. It
accomplishes the following tasks:
The time and funds available dictated a need to focus the study
on major battlefields as the kind of historic sites under the
greatest preservation pressures. While the Civil War certainly
did not play out exclusively on battlefields, the latter are
among the most dramatic sites conveying a very high level of
meaning to Americans and are extremely vulnerable to development
and visual intrusion. Action to preserve and interpret key
battlefields can provide the conceptual structure around which to
evaluate and preserve other sites, buildings, and structures
significant to preserving a record of the Civil War in the
Valley.
The study examined battlefields in eight Virginia counties:
Augusta, Clarke, Frederick, Highland, Page, Rockingham,
Shenandoah, and Warren. Official war records document 326 armed
conflict incidents in the Shenandoah Valley and this does not
include many of the raids, ambushes, and partisan actions. As a
result of historical analysis, the 326 notable armed conflicts
were reduced to fifteen battle events of major significance. The
battlefields selected for study were associated with Stonewall
Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862, the Gettysburg Campaign of
1863, and the decisive Lynchburg-Early-Sheridan Campaigns of
1864. These three campaigns, encompassing the fifteen individual
sites, are the most significant events in the Valley's Civil War
history.
The sites associated with these campaigns were: (1862) Cross
Keys, Front Royal, First Kernstown, McDowell, Port Republic,
First Winchester; (1863) Second Winchester; (1864) Cedar Creek,
Cool Spring, Fisher's Hill, Second Kernstown, New Market,
Opequon, Piedmont, and Tom's Brook.
The analysis of military campaigns as
the historic context for the major battlefields in the Valley
indicates that the 1862 and 1864 campaigns are of higher
importance, although for different reasons, than the local events
associated with the 1863 Gettysburg campaign. From the field
survey and historical research, it further appears that both the
1862 Jackson campaign and the 1864 Lynchburg-Early-Sheridan
campaigns, as represented by their fourteen associated sites,
meet National Historic Landmark (NHL) criteria. Cedar Creek
already is designated a National Historic Landmark, and Opequon
may also individually meet NHL criteria. The other sites
probably would not meet NHL criteria on their own (a key factor
in considering potential additions to the National Park System),
although they appear to qualify for the National Register of
Historic Places. There is no clear line of historical argument
that assures a credible relative ranking of individual
battlefields based on significance other than for Cedar Creek and
Opequon; however, both of these latter sites represent the same
campaign with neither telling the whole story of its campaign.
As a result of field survey and research into the records of
battle events, each site was documented as a study area, the
entire area of activity involved in the battle event; and its
incorporated core area, the area of principal armed conflict and
other closely related activity such as command and control
locations.
Taken together, the fifteen battlefield study areas in the Valley
comprised 85,909 acres. The average size of the study areas was
5,727 acres and they ranged from 3,082 acres at Front Royal to
22,274 acres at Second Winchester. Battlefield core areas
totaled 33,844 acres, with an average size of 2,415 acres. Core
areas ranged from 944 acres at Front Royal to 6,252 acres at
Cedar Creek. A table is enclosed with this Executive Summary
listing all battlefields and their associated campaign context,
their size, condition, and preservation risk.
2. Condition And Threats To
Integrity
Integrity tells the current condition of the battlefield core
area, and threats tell what to anticipate in the foreseeable
future. Of the 85,909 acres of battlefield study areas 82% were
determined to have generally good integrity. The primary losses
of integrity have occurred in the lower (northern) Valley in the
vicinity of the cities of Winchester and Front Royal. The
battlefields of McDowell, Piedmont, Port Republic, Cross Keys,
Cool Spring, Cedar Creek, Fisher's Hill, First Kernstown and
Tom's Brook were all found to be in fair to good condition. The
battlefields of Second Kernstown and New Market were in poor to
fair condition, Opequon and Front Royal were in poor condition,
and First Winchester has been lost as a coherent battlefield
site.
Threats to preservation of the fifteen battlefields under study
come primarily from residential construction (threatening 12
sites), commercial development (threatening 7), highway
construction (threatening 6) and industrial development
(threatening 3 sites). Taken together, integrity and threats
identify categories of risk to preservation. The following list
of battlefield sites is the nearest approximation to a listing of
current relative risk priority that is possible based on both
historical and descriptive site analysis (1 is highest risk, 15
is lowest risk).
14. Piedmont (1864)
15. McDowell (1862)
This listing of sites based on the current risk to preservation
leaves unanswered the public policy question of whether it is
better to focus preservation efforts on sites nearly lost, or on
sites where pristine historic landscapes remain well-preserved
and the Civil War setting is evoked easily. There are arguments
to be made for either approach but the question itself cannot be
answered further through historical analysis. There are
basically three choices that can be made.
A. The lowest risk, good condition sites often lend themselves
to a high degree of protection and preservation with minimum
costs and least disruption of local people while resulting in
retention of exceptional quality historical sites. Sites in this
category are Cross Keys (1862), Port Republic (1862), Piedmont
(1864), and McDowell (1862).
B. The higher risk, poor condition sites generally would require
higher costs and often more difficult resolution of competing
interests. However, these sites represent historic events of
great importance too, and if action is not taken imminently,
there will not even be fragments remaining to commemorate the
former existence of these battle locations. Sites in this
category are Opequon (1864), First Winchester (1862), and Front Royal (1862).
C. There also are good reasons to choose sites under
intermediate levels of risk as the primary preservation focus.
For example, sites that are in good to fair condition but under
moderate levels of threat; or, sites that are in poor to fair
condition experiencing yet greater levels of threat. The
rationale here is that good condition, low threat sites might
survive longer without intervention, and that worthwhile
preservation results can no longer be obtained from lost or poor
condition sites under extreme threats given the extreme
confrontational and other costs, while sites in the intermediate
risk categories represent problems that still are manageable.
Sites in the relatively LESS risky intermediate group are Cool
Spring (1864), Fisher's Hill (1864), and Cedar Creek (1864).
Sites in the relatively MORE risky intermediate group are
First/Second Kernstown (1862/64), New Market (1864), Tom's Brook
(1864), and Second Winchester (1863).
Current information indicates that the Valley's population will
grow by 18%, or by 63,150 people, over the next 30 years. Much
of this growth will be in and around the cities of Winchester,
Front Royal, and Harrisonburg. Associated with this growth will
be the four principal sources of changing land use that will
damage or destroy key historic sites: residential, commercial,
highway, and industrial development.
One key to preserving Civil War sites is to assure that local
governments have available to them information on the location
and significance of such sites so that they are able to use their
planning, zoning, and other powers to channel economic
development in ways and places that do not bring harm to
important resources. This report and its supporting data begins
to serve that purpose.
Moreover, Civil War and other historic resources are a key part
of the Valley's resource base for a heritage
tourism
determined the general prospects for heritage tourism in the
Valley are broadly positive, although there should be targeted
market research as part of designing a specific battlefield
protection and interpretation program in the Valley that would be
structured to avoid undue intrusion on private property owners
and retention of the rural Valley way of life. Nevertheless,
protection of these fifteen major Civil War battlefield sites
can be seen as not only an important national objective, but also
as an important element of the local economy and, therefore, an
added incentive to local governments to play a substantial role
in protecting these sites.
Five approaches are available for protecting some or all of the
fifteen major Civil War battlefields in the Virginia part of the
Valley. Generally these actions would apply to core areas and
selected parts of study areas of each site. A summary of the
specific preservation potential at each site is given in Part
Four of the main report. The alternative preservation approaches
are the following:
1. No focused action but continue to let private and local
government actions occur as they are now.
2. Enhanced public funding and technical assistance to State
and local governments and to private owners for site preservation
and interpretation.
3. Create one or more affiliated areas of the National Park
System.
4. Acquire one or two sites for the National Park System as
interpretive, technical assistance, and management focal points
in conjunction with other battlefields under non-federal
management.
5. Acquire selected parts of all fifteen significant
battlefields for the National Park System.
Since the fifteen battlefields vary considerably in ownership,
land use, integrity and threats, no single alternative is best
suited to these sites. A balance must be achieved between
preservation, the Valley lifestyle, and economic development;
this suggests a regional approach and flexibility in how each
site is treated. While alternatives 1 and 5, above, do not seem
feasible or desirable, some combinations of 2, 3, and 4 would be
appropriate if developed through a regional mechanism
emphasizing: (a) stewardship through continued private ownership
when current land use practices are compatible with battlefield
preservation and interpretation; and (b) wide participation of
local governments and property owners together with State and
Federal agencies.
The Virginia Shenandoah Valley is the locale for tangible remains
of some of the nation's major historic resources. Effective
retention of most of these remains is an opportunity that still
is available but one that must be handled by governments and the
community working together in order to be successful, for this
opportunity will only remain for a relatively short time.
Creation Date: 3/13/95
DWL