News: Another Battle of Gettysburg Farm Hospital Purchased In the Hope of Preservation and Interpretation

At the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the land was known as the Plank Farm after its owner, J. Edward Plank. Soldiers from each side tread these 143 acres on all three days of battle, and one of the largest Confederate field hospitals in Gettysburg was based here.These 143 acres witnessed every stage of the three-day Battle of Gettysburg – including its aftermath.


On July 1, 1863, elements of the Union First Corps under General John Reynolds double-quicked across this property as they moved to the sound of the battle’s opening shots. Biddle's brigade crossed this farm on the way to The Seminary.  Reynolds himself fell victim to a Confederate bullet that day – about a mile north of this property – but his timely arrival allowed the Union army to hold the favorable ground that proved so crucial to their success in this epic battle. 


On July 2, Confederate General James Longstreet’s divisions, under General John Bell Hood and General Lafayette McLaws, marched across this property as they sought to discover the Union left flank. Their advance culminated with the legendary attacks on Little Round Top, the Wheatfield, and the Peach Orchard. Longstreet called this “the best three hours’ fighting ever done by any troops on any battlefield,” but these two divisions suffered terrible casualties, many of whom were taken to the field hospital at the Plank Farm.

On July 3, Confederate General George Pickett led his division over this land, up the slope to Seminary Ridge, and onto the battlefield where the charge that came to bear his name would be bloodily repulsed.

On all three days of the battle, and for many weeks after Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia made its retreat, this farm served as one of the biggest hospitals in all of Gettysburg. More than 1,500 soldiers were treated on this property, including General Hood. There were more than 60 documented burials on the property. The soldiers who were buried there were later reinterred in proper cemeteries.

Both The Seminary Ridge Hospital and The George Spangler Farm Hospital have their histories written. Possibly Ronald Kirkland, the author of the Spangler Farm History which was published this summer, may have an interest in writing the Edward Plank Farm Hospital's history (I am hoping). The Adams County Historical Society has a Confederate surgeon's kit that was left at the farm during the retreat.

Offered above, the maps of the location are at the American Battlefield Trust online. Also, some text above was taken from the American Battlefield Trust.

News: Philadelphia's Underground Railroad Station Saved From Destruction

Historic Philly Underground Railroad stop that freed 9,000 slaves is saved from brink of collapse,

Michaela Winberg, Philadelphia Tribune and WHYY Radio Station, September 20, 2019. 

 

In a win for historic preservation, a neighborhood group has saved a former Underground Railroad stop from destruction by neglect.
Vital repairs are underway on the old Robert Purvis house at 16th and Mount Vernon streets, where the famous abolitionist helped thousands of people escape slavery to freedom through Philadelphia.

The fresh fixes follow a years long legal battle to wrest control away from the historic property’s current owner. Under his absent watch, the monument to African-American history suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage — and was nearly on the brink of collapse.Credit the Spring Garden Community Development Corporation for taking responsibility and forcing a fix.A Philadelphia judge recently granted the group’s plea to become the “official conservator” of the Purvis house. That means the property can remain under its current ownership, but the CDC has legal right to fund and enforce much-needed repairs.Conservatorship is still a highly unusual solution. In the decade since it became a thing in Pennsylvania, only a few Philly civic associations have embarked on the effort.Why? It’s expensive — and there’s a good chance conservators won’t make back the money they spend on restoration.In the case of the Purvis house, the historic property was in such bad shape that neighborhood leaders say it was well worth the $100,000 they’ve already spent.“It would be a shame to only have a plaque out front without preserving what was left inside,” said Barbara Wolf, official conservator and Spring Garden CDC board member. “I think that’s really important.”

Years of fighting + $200K in fines
The corner rowhome on Mount Vernon near 16th Street was built in 1859. It became a key stop on the Underground Railroad. Purvis is estimated to have hosted 9,000 slaves in his Philadelphia home before the end of the Civil War.

By this time last year, the structure at 1601 Mt. Vernon St. had decayed so badly that it was at risk of permanent collapse.
On long-time owner Miguel Santiago’s watch, the outside of the property was defaced with graffiti. The rear wall was damaged so badly that the Department of Licenses and Inspections declared it “imminently dangerous,” and required it be taken down. The interior of the house suffered major water damage when the windows were left open during 2018’s Hurricane Florence.

Worst part? All this happened while the property in the Spring Garden Historic District was already listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places.
Status on the register means the property owner has a duty to keep the building in “good repair” to preserve its legacy — but in this case somehow found ways to “delay or avoid responsibility” to fix problems, said Department of Planning and Development spokesperson Paul Chrystie.
Santiago’s neglect apparently set a city record. Officials spent more time enforcing the “good repair” requirement on this property than on any other in the city, Chrystie said. There have been dozens of court appearances, multiple attempts to seize the property, and more than $200,000 in judgements and daily fees.Santiago declined to comment for this story.

The slow destruction of the Purvis house was hard to watch for Faye Anderson, founder of the Philadelphia public history project All That Philly Jazz.
“I believe [the city] wants to protect this historic landmark,” Anderson said. “But they are not black, and they don’t feel the passion that I feel when I walk by it. It’s a different kind of approach to historic preservation when you’re talking about your ancestors.”

Santiago still owns the corner rowhome, but as conservator, the Spring Garden CDC is authorized to make repairs as long as they’re pre-approved by a Court of Common Pleas judge.
The cost manifests as a lien on the property — so next time it sells, the CDC should be able to recoup its losses.

Wolf, the Spring Garden CDC board member, first applied for conservatorship in January 2018. It was awarded in spring of 2019. First on the list was fixing up the internal framing so the building wouldn’t fall over. Now, contractors have moved on to laying new exterior walls.
“It had so much damage that the strong veneer of the bricks was worn away,” Wolf said. “That can kind of disintegrate much faster.”

Spring Garden CDC President Justino Navarro said the ongoing repairs have cost the organization $109,000 so far, funded through an existing bank line of credit.
The situation is unusual, per Philadelphia Association of CDCs policy director Beth McConnell, because civic associations rarely have thousands of dollars to spend on a property they don’t actually own.

PACDC doesn’t track the number of conservatorships undertaken by member organizations. Mount Airy USA has done it a few times, and just a couple weeks ago, the Tacony CDC applied for its first conservatorship.“It’s quite rare,” McConnell said. “I do think conservatorship is a useful and valuable tool, but it doesn’t work in every situation or for every property.”It’s also time consuming, and then there’s the financial risk. Conservatorship generally works best with one blighted property on a block that’s otherwise well kept, with high property values, McConnell said. That way, cash-strapped community groups are more likely to make their money back.

McConnell recalled how Mount Airy USA ended up in a tight spot. After rehabbing a property from the bottom up, the house was auctioned at sheriff’s sale and sold at a highly reduced rate — leaving Mount Airy USA without full reimbursement.

“For many CDCs working in some of the most disinvested neighborhoods with significant vacancy, there’s not enough money to make it work,” McConnell said.
What’s next for the Purvis House on Spring Garden? Years of repairs are ahead. Navarro said last year that his goal was to rehab the property back to its prime and convert it into multi-family housing.
But to do that, Navarro will need court approval. And for the CDC to make its money back, it depends on cooperation from property owner Santiago.

“That’s one of the reasons that people don’t necessarily do conservatorship, particularly for properties in a historic district where standards have to be met,” Wolf said. “But we want those historic standards to be met. It was part of our goal. I think it’s worth it.”

Full Text Link: Philadelphia Tribune

New and Noteworthy: The Brown Water Navy on the Mississippi Gets A Salute

The Civil War on the Mississippi: Union Sailors, Gunboat Captains, and the Campaign to Control the River, Barbara Brooks Tomblin, University of Kentucky Press, 388 pp., 18 photographs, 1 map, index, bibliography, $60.00

While the American Civil War's naval operations have an ample historiography, they have never garnered as much academic or popular attention as those of the Union and Confederate armies. Episodes from the war's naval history are remembered mostly for their novelty, such as the clash between the ironclad USS Monitor and CSS Merrimack (Virginia) at Hampton Roads (8–9 Mar. 1862) or the tragic launch of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley, rather than their historical significance. Nevertheless, historians have persuasively shown that the Union Navy played a pivotal role in the Western Theater. With The Civil War on the Mississippi, prolific naval historian Barbara Tomblin has made a compelling addition to this literature.

While important leaders like Andrew Foote, David Farragut, and David Porter are discussed and evaluated,   Tomblin's focus on junior officers, midshipmen, and ordinary sailors is the distinguishing feature of her work. She builds her narrative around the letters and diaries of lower-ranking Union seamen. The result is a study that chronicles both operational history and the lived experiences of Union sailors.

The authors of these diaries, memoirs, and letters range in rank from fleet captain to first-class boy…. Their letters and journal entries often echo the official reports, but they also write about going ashore on foraging parties, shoveling snow from an ironclad's deck, assisting the surgeon in amputating a fellow crewman's arm, and liberating supplies of whisky from a captured enemy vessel. They also offer candid assessments of their commanding officers, observations about the people living along the river, relationships with African Americans and personal views of a war that lasted far longer than many expected or hoped and became increasingly cruel. (12)

 

To their credit, Tomblin argues, Union leaders recognized the Mississippi's significance from the beginning of the war. Control of the "Father of Waters," however, proved to be a daunting task. Throughout the war, the Mississippi River squadrons suffered from manpower shortages and the need to rely on inexperienced and poorly trained recruits. Their often hastily constructed vessels were sometimes technologically incapable of completing their missions. For example, the deep-draft ships of Farragut's fleet struggled against the unpredictable depths of southern waterways. Furthermore, "snags or sawyers, collisions, and falling trees, and the swift current" made the river itself the navy's "enemy" (288). Aside from death or injury in battle, individual sailors were plagued by heat, mosquitoes, disease, shoreline snipers, and mechanical malfunctions like exploding boilers. Torpedoes (i.e., mines) were the bane of Federal ships and sailors.

Despite the myriad challenges it faced on the Mississippi, the Union Navy's superiority to its Confederate counterparts was always probable. During the war's first two years, Federal fleets made consistent progress toward controlling the river and, thus, bisecting the Confederacy. While the Rebel Navy at times offered stout resistance, its technical and material limitations in the face of the skill and resources of the Federal fleet made a southern victory on the Mississippi unlikely. Moreover, Union captains and sailors proved to be an ingenious and driven lot. Like their army counterparts, many Union Navy officers had cut their teeth during the Mexican-American War and found opportunities to distinguish themselves and gain promotions early in the Civil War.

Here, as in her Bluejackets and Contrabands, the author shows that escaped slaves proved to be valuable assets to the Union Navy. Much like the army, the navy was a de facto agent of liberation along the Mississippi right from the war's outset. African Americans came to the navy in droves searching for freedom and sanctuary. While not always greeted with open arms, some refugees became laborers or crewmembers. Others provided valuable intelligence about Confederate movements and activities or served as nurses on hospital boats. Given the confined spaces aboard Civil War-era naval vessels, true segregation was impossible—despite the insistence of some Union officers.

Tomblin makes it clear that the Union's brown-water navy—and its cooperation with the army—were essential to subduing the Confederacy. In her conclusion, she aptly quotes Adm. David Dixon Porter's judgment that "The services of the Navy in the West had as much effect in reducing the south to submission as the greater battles fought in the East" (290).

Barbara Tomblin's discerning account of the Mississippi River campaigns from the conception of Winfield Scott's "Anaconda Plan" to the fall of Vicksburg features ample contextualization, a smooth narrative style, and a thorough command of primary sources and relevant Civil War naval scholarship. These virtues will make The Civil War on the Mississippi instructive and absorbing reading for specialists and general readers alike.

Full Text Source: Michigan War Studies Reviews

News: Amriecan Civil War In The Parks: The Future Is Not As Dire As Some Would Have It

Are Tourists Falling Out of Love with Civil War Battlefields? Public Historians Respond, Nick Sacco, Muster Online Newsletter of the Society of Civil War Historians, August 20, 2019

Last year I published a post on this website about visitation trends to Civil War historic sites within the National Park Service (NPS) during the Civil War Sesquicentennial from 2011 to 2015. After looking at the numbers I concluded that visitation to these sites remained relatively strong, but not everyone feels the same way. Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and Politico argue historic sites throughout the United States are losing both visitors and their general relevance as tourist attractions. The Wall Street Journal article focused specifically on Civil War battlefields and painted a bleak picture of the future; no more battle reenactments or living history performances, gift shops going out of business, and a generation of young people who lack “respect” for history.[1]

While it is fair to discuss the future of Civil War battlefields and historic sites more broadly, these articles fall short in one crucial way: they leave out the perspectives of the public historians who make their living interpreting history at these sites. Curious to learn more myself, I put a call out on social media asking for comments in response to three of my own questions about visitation to Civil War sites. A few public historians who work at these sites responded and their comments are summarized below.[2]

1. What do think about visitation trends to Civil War battlefields today?

Almost everyone who responded warned that visitation numbers needed to be placed into context. Eric Leonard pointed out that NPS historic sites experienced a forty-year decline in visitation from roughly 1976 until the mid-2000s. “The Civil War Sesquicentennial and ‘Find Your Park’ campaigns have helped buck that trend,” argues Leonard. Jake Wynn pointed out that non-military historical sites have something new to offer visitors. He cited the National Museum of Civil War Medicine as an example of a site that has experienced tremendous growth over the past ten years.

Stephanie Arduini gave a thoughtful answer, stating that “All history sites are trying to understand the larger decline in numbers, but [I] suspect it’s a combination of competition for limited time/funds, disconnect with older narratives not relevant to contemporary audiences or are too nostalgic at the expense of accuracy, and even aspects of design/platform for how visitors want to engage.” And Chris Barr reminded me that people visit historic sites for a range of reasons not necessarily connected to history education. “A lot of our parks that are near relatively large urban areas have growing visitation. Runners, hikers, joggers, etc…. Those people are every bit as much visitors as anybody.”  It seems that the bigger question, as Leonard suggested in his comments, is how to make all historic sites more relevant in the future.

2. Do children have a lack of respect for history? 

A common talking point I’ve seen online suggests that young people are glued to their cell phones and not interested in visiting historic sites. At the same time, I have also seen articles contending that nature sites such as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone are “being loved to death” because of record visitation and young people who will stop at nothing to get the perfect image for Instagram.[3]

In both cases alleged visitation trends are unfairly blamed on young people. In reality, the primary drivers of historic site visitation are currently older Americans (Generation X and Baby Boomers, for example) who have more time and disposable income to travel. Ultimately young people are shaped by the environment around them, and they are more likely to be interested in history if they are exposed to it early in life. The comments I received from others echoed my own sentiments.
 
Barr suggested that young people respect history as much as previous generations and that “one day [in the future] today’s young people will grumble about kids not respecting or caring.” He also pointed out that the history curriculum in K-12 education has evolved and the Civil War simply isn’t given much emphasis as it used to. “If you’re 70 years old right now the Civil War Centennial hit when you were in middle or high school,” said Barr. “The conflict loomed large and took up a huge part of the curriculum you studied. Your grandparents may have been alive in the 1800s and there’s a chance you may have even met an elderly Civil War vet when you were a little kid. You definitely knew children of Civil War soldiers and the conflict was still in living memory.”

But today “somebody in an 11th grade US History course right now was born in 2003, the same year the US invaded Iraq. Your curriculum has to run all the way up through probably 9/11.” It isn’t so much that students don’t respect history, Barr argued, but that they might “feel a stronger connection to eras other than the Civil War.”

Several commenters spoke to the need of finding new ways to hook students into Civil War history using more primary source documents and interactive activities. Arduini spoke to the larger challenge of building an environment—both at historic sites and elsewhere—in which “learning is built based on their curiosity and inquiry instead of rote memorization, and also where the adults in their lives feel both comfortable and confident supporting their learning.” That challenge partly means finding ways to deal with decreased field trips for students amid increased time for standardized tests in the classroom. Leonard asserted that blaming young people for visitation declines is “lazy and stupid” and cited the National Park Service’s Junior Ranger program as an effective example of providing students the chance to learn and “speak to their experiences.”

Finally, Andrew Druart offered an optimistic take on the future. Druart, who leads the “Civil War Kids” initiative for the American Battlefield Trust, cited Pamplin Park in Petersburg, Virginia, as an example of a site that emphasizes youth education by “finding personal connections and reading diaries from those who lived it help kids better understand the human perspective.”

3. What new, dynamic ideas can sites implement to achieve relevance? 

All commenters stressed the importance of finding new strategies for meeting young people where they are. Several emphasized the importance of audience-centered education and facilitated dialogue techniques in educational programming. Barr explained the challenge to me in a straightforward way: “Many of us who choose to work in these sites are ‘buffs’ to varying degrees. Where we fail is when we try to come up with something to force our interests on somebody else.”

Understanding what visitors bring to the table (and why other people choose not to visit at all) is a crucial aspect moving forward. “We all have this idea that building relevance or connection is still going to be a ranger-centered or historian-centered endeavor. [But] relevance and audience building won’t come from a cool new topic to talk about, or a new subject to emphasize on a tour. It’s going to come from us being facilitators for the public to make their own connections and experiences,” said Barr.

Arudini and Wynn both highlighted the importance of using historical artifacts and documents in education programming. Arudini suggested that part of the challenge is using “contemporary design that helps people feel like the stories are contemporary and relevant.” She cited the new American Civil War Museum’s efforts to use colorized photos in their permanent exhibits and a larger effort to build partnerships with organizations not previously associated with Civil War history sites as two different ways to create a culture of honesty, accuracy, and inclusion in the museum’s historical interpretations. And Leonard differed slightly from Barr’s arguments by stressing the importance of more explicitly interpreting the Reconstruction era as a relevant and crucial historical moment in U.S. history.

“All [Civil War sites] have Reconstruction stories,” he asserted. Leonard would also like to see a reevaluation of living history programs, both in content and methods. “Are we doing living history because visitors have come to expect it, or because it’s the most effective means for communicating a subject?”

Should Civil War battlefields and related sites be worried about future visitation trends? I believe that the Wall Street Journal article painted too gloomy a picture that almost implies a crisis is at hand. I also reject the notion that young people are to blame. Nevertheless I fully agree with the various commenters that new ideas for innovative outreach, programming, and interpretation are crucial moving forward. There are no easy answers, but we need to keep placing the perspective of public historians working at Civil War historic sites front and center as this conversation continues.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this essay reflect the personal views of those who were willing to be interviewed. They do not reflect the views of their previous or current employers.

Full Text Source: The Muster

Bibliographic Citations

[1] Cameron McWhirter, “Civil War Battlefields Lose Ground as Tourist Draws,” Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2019, accessed May 30, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/civil-war-battlefields-lose-ground-as-tourist-draws-11558776600; M. Scott Mahaskey and Peter Canellos, “Are Americans Falling Out of Love with their Landmarks?,” Politico, July 4, 2019, accessed July 7, 2019, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/04/are-americans-falling-out-of-love-with-their-landmarks-227258.

[2] Most of these conversations took place on Twitter through Direct Messaging on July 7 and July 8, 2019, between Jake Wynn (@JayQuinn1993), Chris Barr (@cwbarr), Stephanie Arduini (@ACWMuseum), Andrew Druart (@AndrewDruart), and myself (@NickSacco55). The conversation between Eric Leonard and myself took place on July 7, 2019, through Facebook Messenger.

[3] John Coski, “Whither Public History?,” The Civil War Monitor, June 25, 2018, accessed June 26, 2019, https://www.civilwarmonitor.com/blog/whither-public-history; I responded to Coski on my personal website. See Nick Sacco, “The Times Are A Changin’,” Exploring the Past, July 9, 2019, accessed July 9, 2019, https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/the-times-are-a-changin/; See also National Public Radio, “Instagramming Crowds Pack National Parks,” National Public Radio, May 28, 2019, accessed May 28, 2019, https://www.npr.org/2019/05/28/726658317/instagramming-crowds-pack-national-parks.