Letters to the Editor: Feb. 16, 2012

The IAS planning application explained

Many well-informed letters have already been published on the topic of the Institute for Advanced Study’s pending application before the Joint Planning Board. I am not a Revolutionary War historian, nor can I claim to shed any first-person recollection of the prior discussions and commitments between the Institute and the State. However, I still feel compelled to write, as I can recognize a debate that has become distorted by polemic and has the potential to damage our community if not returned to a rational and factual basis.

The most prominent points of agreement among all contributors are that:

The battle of Princeton was a very important part of the Revolutionary War.

We want to be sure future generations remember and commemorate the brave soldiers that found the courage to charge the British lines and ultimately win our country’s freedom.

The Institute is a highly valued part of the Princeton community, bringing leading scholars from all over the world to our small town, enriching our lives while raising the town’s profile in history and around the world.

The Institute has been a major contributor to the creation of the existing battlefield park and memorial.

The central points of the disagreement appear to focus on what should be considered the best use of the as yet undeveloped strip of Institute property that borders the current battlefield park.

Some historians and members of our community believe that this land would add to the commemorative value of the existing battlefield park by better preserving the precise spot where they believe Washington’s critical counter-attack occurred.

The Institute and other members of our community believe that this land is critical to restoring the residential nature of the Institute’s program that has long been a part of its formula for successful recruitment and collaboration but has been steadily eroding for the past 20 years.

Sadly, this is the point at which the rhetoric has become inflamed. Those who favor the second of these uses have been branded unpatriotic heathens, complicit in the desecration of sacred ground. Not really a helpful basis for resolving the legitimate tradeoffs between the two positions.

I do believe that every spot where a soldier gave his life to preserve my freedom is sacred — by one definition “entitled to veneration or religious respect.” When I run through the Institute woods I find myself thinking about what a teenage soldier must have felt treading the same ground, wondering whether the next rise would reveal a phalanx of the most powerful army in the world (at the time). However, I do not believe that every spot is sacred by another definition: “devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.” Were we to consecrate every spot in Princeton where a soldier fell, we would not have a town — we would have a museum.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

This leaves those who contend that the specific strip of land in question is so critical and historically valuable that it should have been purchased and preserved in lieu of any other part of the neighborhood. Were that the case, one would have thought that it would have been fairly easy for the cause to have raised the approximate $10-15 million that it might take to purchase an equivalent number of housing units on Battle Road and Haslet Avenue, that might be in close enough proximity to existing housing to provide the residential community that the Institute requires, in exchange for its property — perhaps even from a federal Park Service grant.

The fact that no such consensus or alternative has emerged from among the preservation community leads me to conclude that the interpretation of the historical record remains equivocal — even the most informed experts disagree on how to interpret the famous spy map and other historical references.

I could also understand giving the benefit of the doubt to the chance that one day we might discover some unequivocal proof of what happened in the extended area of the battlefield — if the cost were only to steer a commercial developer to another site somewhere across town. However, to deny a valuable member of our community the right to continue its mutually-beneficial mission of maintaining a community of scholars, after all it has done to support the creation of an appropriate commemorative park and to revise extensively its plans to minimize any collateral impact on any other part of our community, based on an extreme view that any chance of historical significance overrules all other land-use considerations would be a travesty.

Recognizing the tradeoffs between the two proposed uses of the land does not make one unpatriotic or a heretic. Denying one of our most valued and collaborative neighbors the opportunity to maintain its community would also not be heretical, but it would certainly be mean-spirited and contrary to the community values that I thought were a fundamental part of the town of Princeton’s character.

Brad Corrodi

Preserve Princeton Battlefield

For the past eight years I’ve been proud to serve as a trustee for the Princeton Battlefield Society, which aims to preserve an important piece of American history.The Battle of Princeton is widely recognized by historians and writers, such as James McPherson, David Hackett Fischer, Tom Fleming and David McCullough, as one of the most important engagements in the American Revolution. The victory at Princeton inspired Americans everywhere to challenge the British and ultimately led to the liberation of New Jersey a few months later. There is evidence to support that the site of the proposed IAS development is Maxwell’s Field, which is the exact location where Washington led the successful counterattack which won the battle. John Milner Associates completed a thorough mapping project which was accepted by the National Park Service in 2011 as having satisfied the high standards of scholarship, technique and analysis. The conclusion that this is the site of heavy fighting is supported by an archeological study showing the military artifacts, mostly musket balls and cannon shot found on the Institute’s development site in addition to JMA’s analysis of the eyewitness descriptions of the action recorded by both British and American participants and witnesses. The study directly contradicts the Institute’s stated position that nothing important happened on the land earmarked for development. A victory at the planning board may force the IAS to reconsider its ill-advised development and open the door to renewed negotiations — which our experts have offered for many years — to relocate the development to an alternate site.

Bill Spadea

Putting the Battlefield into its historic context

It might be useful to take a step back in understanding that the site of the Battle of Princeton Counterattack was envisioned from the beginning to be a vital part of Princeton Battlefield State Park. In 1944 C.S. Sincerbeaux, a local well-respected civil engineer, prepared a map showing Washington’s counterattack on what is now the proposed faculty housing site. This map then became the basis for Governor Walter Edge’s park boundary lines. His representative, George Brakeley, who also happened to be Vice President and Treasurer of Princeton University, then approached the Institute for Advanced Study and asked the Institute to contribute 36 acres to the project. Governor Edge also sent a copy of the Sincerbeaux map to the Institute. The Institute at that time indicated that it was favorably disposed to working with the governor to put the park together. Then in 1945 the Institute purchased 129.99 acres from Robert Maxwell, including the site of the Counterattack — a site that Governor Edge passionately wanted to be in the park. In 1946 Mr. Maxell gave his remaining property to the state, a small parcel where General Mercer had fallen, which he sold to the state for $1. Mrs. Agnes Pyne Hudson gifted property to the park in 1947. Other parcels were purchased, some acquired under the threat of eminent domain. Negotiations with the Institute dragged on for 25 long years. Finally, in 1973 the Institute for Advanced Study agreed to deed two parcels to the park. Records indicate that for at least one of these, and probably both, the IAS was compensated. Subsequently, the state has continued to express an interest in buying more. In 2002 Alvin Payne, acting director of parks and forestry, stated in a letter, “ I would like to request that the planning board and the institute reevaluate this proposal to develop this land. I would like to recommend the institute work with the state’s Green Acres program and allow the state to purchase these parcels.

Kip Cherry