To Speak or Not to Speak: What’s the Best Way to Protect Battlefields?
I do a lot of work for a lot of battlefield preservation groups, and battlefield preservation is something near and dear to us here at Emerging Civil War. The opinions I’m about to express here belong to me and do not represent the official views of any preservation organization or of ECW.
————
Should battlefield preservation organizations actively protest cuts being made to the National Park Service? After all, the NPS is the official government agency charged with protecting our national battlefields. Cuts to the NPS mean cuts to the agency’s ability to care for those unique national resources. If we want to protect battlefields, shouldn’t we be protecting the agency that helps protect those battlefields?
Most preservation groups focus on preserving land outside those national battlefields, often in an effort to bring adjacent land into the parks. In fact, the earliest organizations in the modern preservation movement sprang up because the NPS couldn’t protect the unprotected land. Preservation groups stepped into that gap between what the Park Service was legally allowed to pay (the assessed value) and the usually much-higher market value.
In the years since, the ways preservation groups operate has evolved. In the good-old days, they would raise funds and then cut a check. Today, they often leverage state and federal grant money to multiply the impact of donor money. Such matching grants can turn my $1 into $6, $10, or even (on one occasion) $12.
On the federal level, grant money most often comes from the American Battlefield Protection Program, administered by the Department of the Interior. Preservation groups apply for this money, and the grants are instrumental in making many preservation deals possible. Rather than going for operations, the grant money allows a preservation group to effectively compete in the real estate marketplace, enabling them to compensate landowners for their properties.
If a preservation group were to protest recent government cuts to the NPS, might it not face retaliation by having its grant funding cut? After all, such cuts have already happened to other types of grant funding. Should a preservation group take that kid of risk? (And, as a trickle-down impact, cuts in those grant programs also hurts private property owners who want to sell their land for preservation, so there’s a tangible local-level impact.)
Speaking up might also jeopardize funding from donors. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike donate to battlefield preservation. If a preservation group picks a side in any politicized debate, it risks instantly angering half of its donor base. (That also raises a potential moral dilemma for employees and board members, too, who might suddenly find themselves working on behalf of a political position they don’t agree with.)
To me, silence seems the most prudent course of action.
A critic might disagree. “Bah! They don’t care about the battlefields. They just care about the money,” they might conclude. “They’re selling out.” If preservation groups really value battlefields, that reasoning goes, then they should defend the NPS as a way to protect the battlefields under the NPS’s care. Otherwise, preservationists are abdicating their responsibility in deference to the Almighty Dollar. That’s the line, anyway.
But I think any preservation organization publicly holding its tongue is being entirely—and understandably—pragmatic. After all, how can a preservation organization successfully preserve land—and, thus, carry out its primary mission—if it has lost the financial ability to do so?
This is an existential question. Each preservation group can only answer it for themselves.
I, for one, would prefer that they live to fight—and preserve—another day. After all, development pressure outside national parks isn’t easing up just because the Park Service is under attack. Historically significant ground remains under threat. Preservation groups still need to be able to raise money and preserve threatened battlefields.
That long game requires patience, compromise, and often holding one’s tongue in public.
In fact, taking that long-game approach and avoiding partisan fights has allowed several preservations groups to develop relationships with lawmakers of both parties. That, in turn, creates opportunities to express concerns in private meetings with key decisionmakers. Such advocacy, quiet and subtle, can move levers that public efforts cannot.
I care deeply about what’s happening to the battlefields in our national park system. Battlefields are sacred spaces and hallowed ground, and the NPS must be allowed to fully live up to the public trust that’s been placed in them for the care of those fields. I also have a lot of friends and people whom I respect who work for the NPS, and I hate to see their jobs at risk. This is a matter of deep concern to me.
Fortunately, many other groups and individuals are out on the front lines, protesting cuts and rallying for the Park Service. If we, as citizens (and voters!) believe battlefield parks are under siege and need protection, then we need to get on the phones to our legislators, we need to organize, we need to educate our friends and neighbors, we need to join battlefield Friends groups, and we need to ask officials at our own favorite battlefields how we might be able to best help them. It’s wrong to assume some battlefield preservation group is going to swoop in and save things for us—we have to save things ourselves.
There’s a 37 trillion dollar deficit that needs to be reduced. I donate to Battlefields.org to save our heritage. Let people donate to save what they support. If taxes pay for everything, why should we donate?
“a preservation group were to protest recent government cuts to the NPS, might it not face retaliation by having its grant funding cut? After all, such cuts have already happened to other types of grant funding“
Chris, do you know of examples of this occurring?
I don’t know of examples of this happening with battlefield protection funds, but there are ample instances of NIH and NEH grants that have been cut. And of course, a number of universities have gone to court because the government has reneged on grant funding. So, whether it’s happened to the ABPP or not, the specter remains that it COULD.
Thanks for engaging with this tough issue. I understand that it’s never an easy decision to speak out, especially as a nonprofit that relies on grant funding and private donations. I’ve heard that the American Battlefield Protection Program may be under threat with the president’s proposed 2026 budget, as well as the fact that there are continued rumblings that the Department of the Interior and the NPS will be cutting central administrative offices and their staffs (which administer the ABPP). What then?
One of the things I have always loved about the battlefield preservation “movement” is that it has remained issue-focused and above partisan politics. By staying out of those party fights and focusing tightly on preserving battlefield land and promoting education, it avoids making enemies–other than local developers chasing money and local government officials chasing, um, money. But as the movement has demonstrated, it knows how to fight those kinds of adversaries and probably wins more than it loses. Those are fights everyone can support, whether they lean left or right. In its earliest forms, the movement seemed uniquely positioned to step in when government (federal, state, or local) couldn’t or wouldn’t.
The federal grants program was a big win, but it honestly worried me a little bit when it was first approved. Once you get into bed with the federal government and start talking about taxpayer dollars, you face every other special interest asking for federal dollars and making the case that its special project is more deserving than yours. So, every program engenders political opponents who would rather spend the money on something else. Every issue becomes a “national” issue. Preservation stayed out of most of that because it was bipartisan. As soon as it stops being bipartisan, or is perceived to be associated with one party or political leader more than the other, it’ll earn political opponents faster than it can count.
The cuts to the park service bug the heck out of me too. They usually prove short-sighted and counterproductive. It’s natural to want to want institutions we support to take a position against them to the degree they make preservation more difficult. But, most preservation groups are non-profit 501(c)(3)s. They’re legally prohibited from anything that looks like lobbying and have to walk a fine line between issue education and advocacy, lest their non-profit status be threatened or become vulnerable to review. Much better to work against the cuts as individuals
In any event, the cuts are going to make me redouble contributions to existing preservation groups. We’ll need them more than ever.
Well stated, Eric. Thank you. And thank you for supporting battlefield preservation!
I would be strongly opposed if a battlefield preservation group got involved in an issue not directly related to its core mission such as gay or transgender rights, policing in D.C., Kenndy’s vaccine policy, and so forth. Stating a clear position in support of funding battlefield preservation funds is what I would be expecting an organization to do. Not a fall on your sword issue but be clear where one stands. If anyone refuses to contribute to contribute to a battlefield preservation group because of the political leanings of the administration I think is misguided and self defeating.
Marketing is a key element, and it is weak or altogether absent. (This angle always catches my eye because I am an international marketing consultant; I’ve spent years marketing products, services and causes on four continents with print ads, TV and radio commercials, and events.) People cannot care about something unless they are informed of it, and shown how it matters to them. It’s difficult, and in these days of people having little time and little money, it’s become even harder to reach them with a message. No offense intended to the parties mentioned, but marketing for battlefield preservation cannot be of the sort that PBS and NPR present – it will fail. It must be creative, engaging, and able to reach a large percentage of Americans with its message, which must be sharply defined and clearly communicated. With America’s 250th birthday less than a year away, work on this should have begun two years ago. The coming year presents a great opportunity, and it should not be wasted.
I know some preservation groups are capitalizing on the America 250 commemoration, which is, as you say, an excellent opportunity to build awareness.