Jonathan Tremblay: A Wal-Mart being built on a Civil War battleground?
[Jonathan Tremblay is a historian and is currently an intern for History News Network]
The Wilderness battlefield near Richmond, Virginia was once contested by both the Union and Confederacy but today, it has become the site of a legal tug-of-war between Wal-Mart and conservationists. Several American historical societies including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 6 outraged citizens and over 250 historians have joined a class-action suit against Wal-Mart, the retail giant that is set to open a store near Wilderness in the next year. After listening to both sides and acknowledging some very valid arguments a question should be asked: is this truly a battle for historical preservation or this just another exercise in anti-capitalist stubbornness?
For the lobby of preservationists and protestors, the main concern is the peaceful conservation of a historic site that is both greatly important to American History and immensely fragile as a natural site. Indeed, over 180,000 blue and grey soldiers fought on this land in May of 1864 and it was the site of the very first encounter between famed generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. Furthermore, it is the pivotal battleground where momentum finally began to mount in favour of a northern victory during the American Civil War. Finally, Wilderness is the resting place of 30,000 American soldiers; all of this resulting in an important historic site rife with significance for American heritage. As for the natural fragility of the battlefield, protestors claim that “The Wal-Mart project would irrevocably harm the battlefield and seriously undermine the visitor’s experience to the National Park.” One can appreciate the sensibility of the issue yet condemn the vagueness and perhaps even demagogic aspect of that statement.
In the corner of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the tone is much more dispassionate, claiming that the protestors and lawsuit have “no merit or basis in fact”. It should be said that not only has Wal-Mart respected national norms when it comes to establishing a commercial building near a historical site but claims to have “exceeded the guidelines that were put before us.” Also, Wal-Mart rejects the contest to its claim simply because, by a vote of 4 to 1, county supervisors have already granted the special permit to the retail giant allowing it to construct a superstore by Wilderness battlefield. This is where this becomes less of a true legal battle but rather a clashing of a legally installed commerce and a passionate lobby group.
Having seen both sides, the question still stands, what are the protestors passionate about? Are they against encroaching commercial urbanization on historic sites or against the “evil” Wal-Mart organization that has often been on the receiving end of anti-capitalist protest?
Unfortunately, if we consider three crucial facts, we will be forced to lean in favour of a strictly anti Wal-Mart motivation hidden under the aegis of “historical preservation”. Firstly, this Wal-Mart (one of over 8,000 in the US), will be built on land that is zoned commercially. That’s right; it will actually be built in an area that already has two strip malls. Secondly, the lobby of national historians and societies are actually hogging the spotlight as another group of actual local citizens has voiced their welcome of the hundreds of jobs that this Wal-Mart will bring to the rural area as well as the million dollars in tax revenue it will produce each year while acknowledging that the impact of Wilderness will be minimal to nonexistent. Finally, as the penultimate nail in this coffin of righteous hypocrisy, the new Wal-Mart will not actually be visible from ANY of the 2,700 protected acres of Wilderness Battlefield.
I am not disputing that the Wal-Mart may “irrevocably harm the battlefield and seriously undermine the visitor’s experience to the National Park”, because the vagueness of the claim just makes it mean nothing at all. The worst that will happen to tourists is that they may have more parking and access to Twinkies and Ding-Dongs than the last time they visited the historic battlefield. Historical preservation is a thankless and crucial cause that is often endangered by the spectre of greed and unbridled ambition but this is not one of those times. Wal-Mart cannot be “evil” because it is simply a commercial enterprise. And as long as it follows the laws and regulations that WE implement, we should not be protesting this particular company on moral and personal grounds by claiming a more righteous and universal cause.
Having weeded through the arguments and facts, we can now call this what it is: a simple exercise in anti Wal-Mart sentiment maintained by a small group that has rallied nation-wide attention by hypocritically claiming an endangered battlefield even though the Wal-Mart is present in full respect of the law and there is no real threat to said site. There.
Read entire article at The End is Coming (History Blog)
The Wilderness battlefield near Richmond, Virginia was once contested by both the Union and Confederacy but today, it has become the site of a legal tug-of-war between Wal-Mart and conservationists. Several American historical societies including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 6 outraged citizens and over 250 historians have joined a class-action suit against Wal-Mart, the retail giant that is set to open a store near Wilderness in the next year. After listening to both sides and acknowledging some very valid arguments a question should be asked: is this truly a battle for historical preservation or this just another exercise in anti-capitalist stubbornness?
For the lobby of preservationists and protestors, the main concern is the peaceful conservation of a historic site that is both greatly important to American History and immensely fragile as a natural site. Indeed, over 180,000 blue and grey soldiers fought on this land in May of 1864 and it was the site of the very first encounter between famed generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. Furthermore, it is the pivotal battleground where momentum finally began to mount in favour of a northern victory during the American Civil War. Finally, Wilderness is the resting place of 30,000 American soldiers; all of this resulting in an important historic site rife with significance for American heritage. As for the natural fragility of the battlefield, protestors claim that “The Wal-Mart project would irrevocably harm the battlefield and seriously undermine the visitor’s experience to the National Park.” One can appreciate the sensibility of the issue yet condemn the vagueness and perhaps even demagogic aspect of that statement.
In the corner of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the tone is much more dispassionate, claiming that the protestors and lawsuit have “no merit or basis in fact”. It should be said that not only has Wal-Mart respected national norms when it comes to establishing a commercial building near a historical site but claims to have “exceeded the guidelines that were put before us.” Also, Wal-Mart rejects the contest to its claim simply because, by a vote of 4 to 1, county supervisors have already granted the special permit to the retail giant allowing it to construct a superstore by Wilderness battlefield. This is where this becomes less of a true legal battle but rather a clashing of a legally installed commerce and a passionate lobby group.
Having seen both sides, the question still stands, what are the protestors passionate about? Are they against encroaching commercial urbanization on historic sites or against the “evil” Wal-Mart organization that has often been on the receiving end of anti-capitalist protest?
Unfortunately, if we consider three crucial facts, we will be forced to lean in favour of a strictly anti Wal-Mart motivation hidden under the aegis of “historical preservation”. Firstly, this Wal-Mart (one of over 8,000 in the US), will be built on land that is zoned commercially. That’s right; it will actually be built in an area that already has two strip malls. Secondly, the lobby of national historians and societies are actually hogging the spotlight as another group of actual local citizens has voiced their welcome of the hundreds of jobs that this Wal-Mart will bring to the rural area as well as the million dollars in tax revenue it will produce each year while acknowledging that the impact of Wilderness will be minimal to nonexistent. Finally, as the penultimate nail in this coffin of righteous hypocrisy, the new Wal-Mart will not actually be visible from ANY of the 2,700 protected acres of Wilderness Battlefield.
I am not disputing that the Wal-Mart may “irrevocably harm the battlefield and seriously undermine the visitor’s experience to the National Park”, because the vagueness of the claim just makes it mean nothing at all. The worst that will happen to tourists is that they may have more parking and access to Twinkies and Ding-Dongs than the last time they visited the historic battlefield. Historical preservation is a thankless and crucial cause that is often endangered by the spectre of greed and unbridled ambition but this is not one of those times. Wal-Mart cannot be “evil” because it is simply a commercial enterprise. And as long as it follows the laws and regulations that WE implement, we should not be protesting this particular company on moral and personal grounds by claiming a more righteous and universal cause.
Having weeded through the arguments and facts, we can now call this what it is: a simple exercise in anti Wal-Mart sentiment maintained by a small group that has rallied nation-wide attention by hypocritically claiming an endangered battlefield even though the Wal-Mart is present in full respect of the law and there is no real threat to said site. There.