Battling for Manassas: The Fifty-Year Preservation Struggle at Manassas National Battlefield Park

Table of Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Bibliography

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

Appendix V (omitted from on-line edition)

Appendix VI

Appendix VII

Appendix VIII

Manassas Chapter 8

Expanding the Boundaries

Maneuvering the Roadblocks

With the integrity of the battlefield park assured, Harris reentered the fight for expanded boundaries. His persistence went hand-in-hand with an acknowledgement that he could not achieve his objectives without the cooperation of others. As he stated later, anybody could propose good things; the "job is to figure out how to get it done." For Harris, the job involved listening to the range of interests in the county and in the Park Service and working to find mutually beneficial compromises. Once agreement was reached, Harris believed "you can move and adjust and thereby accomplish very, very fundamental things." [22]

As Harris proceeded to meet these objectives, the management of Manassas battlefield park changed: in 1977 R. Brien Varnado replaced Hoffman as superintendent. Hoffman admitted later that he had been "pretty burned out" over the boundary expansion legislative process and it was time to bring in people with "other talents and ideas and brand new energy" to steer the park. Varnado's appointment represented a return to the previous tradition, the park superintendent being a historian. Varnado, who held undergraduate and master's degrees in history, decided that he could reach more people at a single park than in any classroom and joined the Park Service. Fittingly, Varnado came to Manassas, the location of the first major land battle of the Civil War, after serving as chief of interpretation and resource management at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, where the opening volleys of the Civil War were fired. Manassas was his first superintendency. [23]

While Varnado settled into his new position, Harris conducted meetings with Park Service officials, the board of county supervisors, and community groups in anticipation of redrafting his legislation. In these meetings, he heard arguments on both sides of the preservation issue. Some people believed that enough land had been removed from the county's tax base, while others argued that another $8 million should be spent on land acquisition for the park. Harris came to understand both sides and sought to balance them in his new boundary expansion bill, H.R. 2437, submitted in 1977, calling it a "realistic approach" for assuring preservation of the Manassas battlefields. [24]

This bill delineated the same boundaries as the 1975 bill with two changes. First, H.R. 2437 added an 800-foot-wide scenic easement along the eastern side of Bull Run, in Fairfax County. This buffer zone along the north and east sides of the existing park was in a flood plain that local zoning regulations prohibited from being developed. Harris and the National Park Service, however, believed that the existing land use controls were inadequate for controlling such activities as tree cutting, which would open the park to visual encroachment from development on the other side of the flood plain. Complicating matters was the fact that park land on the western side of Bull Run stood higher than that on the northeast side of the stream, making the 800-foot buffer a minimum for protecting the battlefield park's vistas. The Fairfax Board of County Supervisors unanimously endorsed Harris's proposed buffer zone, thus paving the way for its acceptance during the debate over H.R. 2437. This 800-foot buffer represented Harris's and the Park Service's belief that some lands warranted protection more for their ability to preserve the heart of the historic battlefield than for purely historical reasons. [25]

Second, Harris excluded from the bill the Northern Virginia Community College campus, located south of the park's boundary and north of the Interstate 66—Route 234 interchange. The state of Virginia had first identified this land for the community college in the early 1970s. Then superintendent Hoffman had tried to convince Virginia to consider an alternative location. The Park Service had wanted to acquire the land to protect the southern entrance to the battlefield, the most historic area of the park. The NPS saw the 1977 legislative proposal as one more chance to control development and noise at the community college campus. Recognizing the educational and aesthetic benefits of having a national park site next to the college, state officials proceeded with their plans and built their campus, which included facilities to test aircraft engines. The community college had opened by the time Harris drafted H.R. 2437 in 1977.

After the community college and the Manassas battlefield park became neighbors, the Park Service continued to express concern over the college's impact on the park. To control the expected rise in noise pollution from the engine testing and to restrict the construction of tall buildings, the Park Service asked Congress to incorporate the community college campus into the battlefield park. State officials, who wished to retain control over future developments at the college, protested the Park Service's stance. Harris sought to address this opposition and gain the needed support of the college for his bill. For this reason, he agreed to remove from his revised bill any language that would allow the federal government to direct the affairs of the community college. [26]

Harris's legislation also sought to balance Park Service, county, and community college concerns over the proposed Route 234 bypass, which Prince William County officials planned to build through a corner of the Brawner Farm, a key tract included in H.R. 2437. Since 1964, the county had recognized the need to reroute Route 234 to the west to alleviate traffic congestion between the town of Manassas and the battlefield park. By 1977, county studies reported that more than 6,800 vehicles per day traveled the two-lane Route 234 through the national park and more than 8,000 swelled the four-lane road to the south, heading from I-66 to the town of Manassas. To ensure the future health of residential and commercial development in Prince William County and the town of Manassas, county officials knew they had to alleviate the congestion and improve accessibility. The Route 234 bypass addressed these needs. [27]

Uncertainty over the exact route of the 234 bypass led Harris to leave the subject open in his bill to a mutually derived decision by all relevant parties. The secretary of the interior had jurisdiction to "negotiate and consummate arrangements with appropriate authorities" to reroute or remove roads within the park in an effort to reduce adverse impacts. This language made it possible for both the Park Service and county officials to support this aspect of the bill. To protect the battlefield park's integrity, the Park Service had express authority to participate in local road decisions. And because the bill avoided designating particular tracts of land that would or would not be part of the rerouting, the county continued to have a full range of options available for consideration. The county asked only that the bill's language be clarified so there would be no question of directing the bypass through a corner of the Brawner Farm, if that land became part of the park and if the county determined this route to be the most advantageous for the bypass. Again, Harris showed his willingness to find politically advantageous compromises in an effort to garner support for his bill. [28]

Despite these efforts, Harris still encountered some position. Community college officials expressed their disagreement with the bill's language, fearing that the National Park Service would chose Route 234 at the I-66 interchange once the bypass was completed. The Interior Department gave credence to this interpretation when it indicated in a 27 June 1977 letter to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that the federal government wanted to close the existing Route 234 from the I-66 interchange to a point where it joined the bypass to the north. By closing Route 234, the Park Service hoped to reduce intrusive traffic and retain the park's historic integrity. Community college officials reminded Harris that Route 234 was the only mode of access to the college and were "appalled to think that anyone would even think of isolating the Campus from the community it serves." Although Harris emphasized in the hearing that it had "never been the intention" of his bill to close the main artery to the college, this concern fed opposition to the bill. [29]

Department of the Interior authorities aroused further anxieties among residents of the so-called Battlefield Community, a residential area located near Groveton Road south of Lee Highway and next to the Marriott tract. Interior wanted to add a section to Harris's bill that placed scenic easements on this seventy-five-acre subdivision to protect the remaining woods and prevent more intensive use of the land. General Longstreet had staged his historic flanking attack on this land during Second Manassas. Memory Porter, speaking on behalf of the Prince William League for the Preservation of Natural Resources, argued in the congressional hearing that the Battlefield Community touched the land lightly. The expensive single-family homes, set along quiet private streets, nestled into the existing woods. In Porter's opinion, only massive development next door on the Marriott tract would drive these residents to sell their homes and make the scenic easement worthwhile. Since Interior did not request scenic easements over the Marriott land, Porter reasoned that it was unnecessary to use easements on the residential area. Interior's recommendation left the residents in fear that the federal government would eventually convert the easements into fee simple, or land designated for purchase by NPS. E. Clay Hollingsworth, who lived in the Battlefield Community, expressed this concern, worrying that he would be forced to leave the home he had built. Community members had not forgotten the Park Service's previous record of land acquisition, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, when homeowners were forced to leave their lands. [30]

Placement of scenic easements on Sudley Church, located at the northern edge of the battlefield park's boundary, precipitated more protest against Harris's bill. Like the Stone House, an earlier Sudley Church had been converted into a field hospital during the battles, and Harris wanted to preserve the location. Harris agreed with the Park Service, in this case, that the historic significance of the land required some protection, despite objections by parishioners. Church members pointed out that the original building had been replaced twice since the Civil War and no longer represented the structure that had served as a field hospital. In addition, they opposed the easement, fearing that the park might eventually condemn the land. [31]

The concerns raised by the Northern Virginia Community College, the Battlefield Community residents, and Sudley Church could have been addressed by Congress without significantly altering H.R. 2437. Harris's interest in obtaining a politically viable bill made him amenable to clarifying its language and removing the scenic easement on Sudley Church. But a lingering fear that Congress, acting in partnership with the Park Service, would add the Marriott tract to the final bill fueled overwhelming opposition to Harris's proposed legislation.

Prince William County supervisors knew that the Park Service favored acquiring the old Marriott tract. One board member had been informed in Congressman Harris's presence that the Interior Department "intended to have the bill amended to take the entire Marriott tract." Some members of the full congressional committee were sympathetic to the idea of acquiring the Marriott tract, and this made the county supervisors more sensitive to any suggestion of federal acquisition of this land. In addition, in his December 1976 historical evaluation of the Marriott tract, park historian Michael Tennent had written that it contained several areas of major significance to Second Manassas. Tennent believed that the Marriott property provided "potential key sites for proper interpretation" of the battle. The combination of these opinions gave the supervisors reason to continue their opposition to the entire bill, which they formally announced in a 10 May 1977 statement. [32]

Senator Scott listened to this rising furor against H.R. 2437, and he effectively blocked its passage. Rep. Phillip Burton (D-Calif.), coming to Harris's aid, tried to hide the bill in his proposed legislation on parks in New Orleans. Senate staffers spied the reference to Manassas in the New Orleans bill and demanded its exclusion. H.R. 2437 was effectively defeated, and Harris returned to drafting legislation for the next congressional session. The defeat of this bill would have significant financial consequences in later years. [33]

There was one benefit from the delay in passing the park boundary expansion. By the time the Senate had a chance to review H.R. 5048, the 1979 incarnation of the Manassas National Battlefield Park boundary legislation, Scott had retired from the Senate; John William Warner won his seat in the 1978 elections. Senator Warner proved crucial for overcoming the opposition to park expansion. In statesmanlike fashion, Warner sat down with Harris soon after the elections and listened to his argument on the value of acquiring more land for the Manassas National Battlefield Park. Unlike his predecessor, Warner agreed to look at the proposal. Five years of congressional debate had left the local community unable to plan its economic future, and it kept the Park Service uncertain about the park's future development. To resolve this stasis, Warner went to Prince William County residents to learn their concerns. He also sought the advice of Civil War historians to ensure that all historically significant hand be protected in his bill, S. 1857. [34]

Warner's version of the park expansion legislation resolved the long standing resistance of Prince William officials. The Senate bill, which reduced the total acreage for inclusion in the park to 661 acres, versus the 1,681 acres included in H.R. 5048, was attractive to the county supervisors. The supervisors also appreciated the fact that S. 1857 excluded a section of the Brawner Farm, providing a clear right-of-way for the still proposed Route 234 bypass. Warner's bill removed the scenic easement that Harris's bill had placed on the area around the I-66 and Route 234 intersection, allowing the county to develop this land for commercial purposes. Finally, Warner promised that this park expansion would be the last one at Manassas. By this admission, Warner allowed the old Marriott tract, which had caused so much contention in the past, to remain in private hands and available for development. In recognition of these concessions, and particularly because of the exclusion of the Marriott land, the board of county supervisors voted unanimously in 1979 and 1980 to support S. 1857. Prince William County supervisors recognized the importance of adding some historically significant lands to the battlefield park. But they also wanted assurances that these acquisitions would be balanced with the county's need to find diverse avenues for generating tax revenues. Warner's bill fit these requirements. [35]

With this critical support in hand, the Senate passed S. 1857. A conference of both houses produced a final bill that President Jimmy Carter signed on 13 October 1980. Public Law 96-442 looked most like Harris's original proposal, allowing the addition of almost 1,500 acres to the park and increasing the park's size by one-third. Its component parts reflected the input and wishes of many different interests. Key areas designated for purchase in the 1980 legislation included the Wheeler tract in the park's southeastern corner, land to the east of the Stone Bridge, and an area to the west of Route 234 bordering the interstate highway. These had been lands the Park Service wanted either for their historical significance or for their ability to buffer the park. All of the Brawner Farm, a key historic area, came into the park, because the Virginia Department of Highways determined that the proposed bypass would go around the tract. Not wanting to lose county support, the legislation retained a clause giving a right-of-way to the county if at a later date it decided to route the bypass through the Brawner tract. To address the fear of condemnation raised by many park neighbors, P.L. 96-442 specifically forbade the Park Service from acquiring land without the consent of the owner, so long as the land continued to be used in a fashion similar to its use in September 1980. The law included an 800-foot scenic easement along the eastern side of Bull Run and an easement around Sudley Springs Ford, giving the Park Service the added buffering protection it wanted for these sections of the park. Sudley Church, the Battlefield Community, and the commercial district near the I-66 and Route 234 intersection remained outside the authorized boundaries, satisfying the requests of church parishioners, local residents, and the county. The Marriott tract also continued to sit outside the park, a specific bow to Prince William County. [36]

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/adhi8c.htm