RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Compromise sought over IAS historical build site
Published: Monday, January 16th, 2012
The battle over the Institute for Advanced Study’s plans to build housing on land immediately adjacent to the Princeton Battlefield is reaching fever pitch.
Armed with a housing plan fully compliant with zoning requirements and environmental standards, the Institute ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
This article shows a lot of homework, but it misses a few points. The parcel in question is the scene of the culminating fight of the Battle of Princeton, without that ground preserved it will be difficult for future generations to appreciate how and where the Battle was fought. It’s probably the most significant piece of ground upon which one of the most important events of that Battle was fought. The ground itself is important to preserve.
If this were Gettysburg, that ground would have been the Copse of Trees (object of Pickett’s Charge).
If it were the Custer Battlefield, that would be Last Stand Hill.
If that were Normandy, it would be Pointe du Hoc.
Were it Waterloo, it would be Hougamont.
Most of the previously known documentation points to that as being the ground upon which the 17th Foot and several companies of dismounted dragoons made their last organized stand, but the more recently found British court martial records confirm it. It can be measured from known and accepted landmarks mentioned in those court martial transcripts. It is finally confirmed by the several archeological studies done of that area in recent years which turned up numerous artifacts thoroughly consistent with the activity that was documented to have occurred there in 1777.
We recognize the Institute’s need for faculty housing, their proper claim to the land, and their many examples of previous generosity to the Battlefield Park. It is unfortunate for both parties that the confirming evidence of the actual site of that critical action has only been professionally confirmed in the last decade, but it HAS now been confirmed.
Professor Peterson had never visited the battlefield prior to his day of testimony. He stated his critique was of the Saw Mill Road and not of where the counter-attack took place.
Professor McPherson also stated at the hearing that the construction would be the destruction of the battlefield and that he did not want it.
Agreements made twenty years ago with out full information are subject to review, let's review!
J. Carney
Did someone forget to tell these "preservationists" about the concept of property right? Princeton has title to the land. End of story. They can do whatever they want with the land as long as it conforms to the relevant building codes and land use ordnances. Now, if the preservationists are interested in purchasing a parcel of the land for their preservation purposes, let them make an offer. Otherwise, please, get out of the way. Princeton has done so much to support this community with so little in return it is simply exasperating that a a few knuckleheads are allowed to hijack the legitimate needs and rights of the university to develop its land. End of story.