Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Civil War returns to Virginia: Controversy as Wal-Mart seeks to build a store on the edge of battlefield site

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 January 2009
IT WAS one of the most important battles of the American Civil War, a bloodbath in which the legendary Union leader, Lieutenant-General Ulysses S Grant, faced his Confederate counterpart, General Robert E Lee, for the first time.
When the guns fell silent on 7 May, 1864, the Battle of the Wilderness had claimed 29,000 casualties. For nearly 145 years, the site of the two-day battle in Virginia has been considered sacred ground, with a congressional committee designating the
area as being of the highest historical importance.

But now a battle of a different nature is under way, as historians and other campaigners fight to hold back a new enemy: Wal-Mart.

The retail giant wants permission to build a 141,000sq ft superstore at the edge of the Wilderness battlefield.

Campaigners claim that victory for the store would pave the way for the desecration of a national shrine, "a monument to American valour, determination and courage and one of the places where the Civil War – and the nation – changed forever".

Jim Lighthizer, the president of the Civil War Preservation Trust, which is leading the charge against the development, said: "A Wilderness Wal-Mart would wreck the unique character of the existing battlefield park and countryside.

"It would shatter the reverent atmosphere that suffuses one of America's bloodiest battlefields, which already endures existing sprawl gnawing away at its edges."

The Battle of the Wilderness, which involved 160,000 men, represented the start of Lt-Gen Grant's so-called Overland Campaign, a series of battles that gave the Union armies the strategic gains necessary to advance on – and ultimately capture – the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia.

Today, 2,773 acres of the Wilderness Battlefield are protected as part of the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Park. Wal-Mart says that the site it has earmarked falls outside that boundary and that county authorities have long tagged the land as ripe for commercial development.

Keith Morris, a Wal-Mart spokesman, insisted: "We recognise the significance of the Wilderness Battlefield, but we are not building on the battlefield."

But campaigners say that the proposed construction site is still inside the "historic limits" of the battlefield as identified by a congressional committee in 1990. They also point out that Wal-Mart already has four other stores in a 20-mile radius.

The campaign has drawn in eminent historians and Civil War experts including film-maker Ken Burns, who directed a 1990 US TV series The Civil War, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author David McCullough.

A letter sent to Wal-Mart's president, Lee Scott, signed by 253 historians, said: "The Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be moved,"

WalMartWatch.com, a Washington-based website that campaigns against Wal-Mart over issues such as foreign outsourcing, exploitation of workers, anti-union policies and predatory pricing, has produced a protest video in which generals Grant and Lee are depicted as criticising the plans.

The issue will come before planning hearings next month, though some campaigners fear that the retail behemoth could get a sympathetic hearing from local authorities eager to encourage new trade that could stimulate the local economy – if the plans get the go-ahead, it would bring the county an estimated $500,000 in taxes a year.


BACKGROUND

PROTESTERS against Wal-Mart's plans say they take courage from previous victories, such as the defeat of plans by the Walt Disney Company to build a theme park near Virginia's Manassas Battlefield in 1994, and of plans two years ago to build a casino at Gettysburg, both important US Civil War sites.

However, Wal-Mart has triumphed elsewhere, winning permission to build stores on ancient American Indian burial grounds and close to a fragile archaeological site in Mexico.

Civil War historian James Robertson said: "Wal-Mart stores exist to make a profit in the present so as to invest heavier in the future … yet at some point on a regular basis, every one of us needs to remember an inescapable fact of history: any nation that forgets its past has little future."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 January 2009 9:56 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

05/01/2009 01:38:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Lanna,

05/01/2009 05:17:55
Well, Guga, if yer not poking fun...That was just mentioned at work yesterday. If the War between the States was won by the South, then the Feds wouldn't be as powerful. (more or less the gist).

..."Wal-Mart stores exist to make a profit..." at the expense even of taking care of their employees, I've heard.
3

Jim A,

05/01/2009 05:18:38
#1 Guga, "It's a great pity that the Confederates lost the war."

Aye sure, that is if you don't mind having the KKK running things. Bit of daft comment Guga, expected better from you mate
4

POSTMARK,-55,

China, 05/01/2009 07:01:55
Well, considering all of the Americas are drenched in blood which was spilled by the American natives, or First Nations People, it's amazing that any business was allowed to start up, but nobody seems to look at it that way, only when it is the loss of blood from the so called 'white man' does it become an issue.
5

,

05/01/2009 07:03:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

GeorgiaFlagger,

Mt Zion, Ga, USA 05/01/2009 11:01:58
Jim A,
You have fallen victim of lies and propaganda.

Please know the KKK and the CSA have absolutley NOTHING in common, and while they may use the Confederate battleflag since 1960, they have used the United States flag since 1866, as well as the Bible.

Had the Southern Confederacy won, the USA would now be 2 seperate countries. The victory however belongs to the North, and America as well as the world now suffers at the hands of an empirical and oppresive Federal Govt that started with President Abraham Lincoln.

Immediately after the war, the US declared martial law and forbade the former Confederates basic civil liberties. The victors came in and began oppression, looting, stealing, land grabbing and intimidation. The Northern folks formed "Loyal Leagues" to force these ends.

Without police and legal protections, southerners were without any help except thier wits. Groups rose up to counter the yankee bullies and thugs. One of those were the KKK among others.

The KKK drove the Loyal League terrorists out of Tennessee and the Red Shirts removed the thugs from South Carolina. Finally the Southern people regained thier rights and Constitutional protections. Had the South won, there would have been no KKK or Red Shirts.

Had England helped the South, the world would be a better place.

As for Wal-Mart... They care little for history of public opinion. They would build on Buckingham Palace given half a chance. They built on sacred burial grounds in Hawaii and put the corpses uncovered there in trailers. Why would they even blink at this sacred battleground? 80% of non-food items Wal Mart sells come from communist countries and slave labor sweat shop nations.
7

Selgovae,

05/01/2009 11:34:02
#6 "Had England helped the South, the world would be a better place."

And would slavery have been abolished, or would it have spread westwards? Perhaps 80% of Walmart's non-food items would now come from freedom-loving slave sweat shops.

8

Lanna,

05/01/2009 18:54:38
#7
Slavery most likely would have been abolished as it was in other parts of the 19th century western world. Unlike, of course, present day Africa where slavery still exists.
9

Lynne,

05/01/2009 22:32:12
Wow!! Now you can knock the US on hypotheticals!! It never ends.
10

GeorgiaFlagger,

Mt Zion, Ga, USA 05/01/2009 23:45:21
I am almost positive that a few on this thread believe
that the War Between the States was fought over the slavery issue.
Perhaps if we sought the answer from the United States Congress, we can learn the truth once and for all...

On July 25th, 1861, the Congress of the United SDtates passed the following Resolution:

"Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States, now in revolt against the Constitutional government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of these States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease,"

OK, plainly and clearly the Union said the war was NOT about slavery.
11

First Virginian,

USA 06/01/2009 03:11:09
Quote of #4 Postmark:

"...only when it is the loss of blood from the so called 'white man' does it become an issue."

Answer:

The following quotes might interest you:

"In Indian Territory, [US federal] troops occupied the entire area, where the Five Civilized Tribes [Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Seminoles and Cherokees] were being punished for their allegiance to the Confederacy by wild Republican threats in Congress to colonize former slaves from the entire South on lands to be taken from the Indians."

-(Michael Andrew Grissom, "Southern by the Grace of God" Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, 1990, p. 182)

Grissom continues:

"To make matters worse, the Radicals proposed to give the former slaves of the Indians all of the rights held by Indians, plus an equal share in tribal annuities, lands and other benefits--some of which came to pass in the resulting harsh Reconstruction treaties forced upon the tribes. Eventually, the government would take away one-half of Indian Territory and give it to the wild plains Indians who attacked the Five Civilized Tribes with frequency--the price exacted for southern loyalty." (Ibid.)

Grissom concludes:

"The federal armies of occupation were there to protect the negro, not the Indians, so the Five Civilized Tribes resorted to vigilante committees to restore order and check the thievery of the freedmen [former slaves]. The Choctaws and Chickasaws were the first to form their mounted patrols... They maintained secret communication channels and made night rides to intimidate freedmen, who usually congregated together in their shanty towns. If, after having been warned, a negro was found outside his community, he would be whipped by these Indian patrols. If, when caught, he was in possession of a hog, cow, or horse, the freedman was executed on the spot. The success of the Choctaw and Chickasaw vigilante committees led to the formation of similar groups among the Creeks, Seminoles and Cherokees, and some semb
12

First Virginian,

USA 06/01/2009 03:21:17
#11-Continued

"The success of the Choctaw and Chickasaw vigilante committees led to the formation of similar groups among the Creeks, Seminoles and Cherokees, and some semblance of order returned." (Ibid. pp.182-183)

Postmark, in your opinion, do you believe that it is all right for the Indians to have formed vigilante committees to protect themselves during Reconstruction but not Southern white people?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.