WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- In between Republic and Battlefield, two cities in Missouri's fastest growing county, sits Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. More than 1,700 acres are designated as a tribute to the first major struggle between Union and Confederate troops in the western theater of the American Civil War.
Statues and inscribed markers serve as concrete reminders of the sacrifices those on each side of the war made at this unassuming spot in southern Missouri that was turned into a bloody hell during three hours of fighting on Aug. 10, 1861. The layout of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield remains nearly identical to what it was 143 years ago.
But not even 20 feet outside of the national battlefield, cars and trucks zoom by at 55 mph on Missouri County Highway ZZ. Thousands of acres of lush Missouri land have attracted the attention of Missouri Partners Inc., which has put forth a plan to build a 2,500-home housing development just outside the National Park Service boundaries.
Wilson's Creek is made up of 1,750 acres; however, only 75 percent of the land that was fought over has been preserved by the National Park Service. That hadn't been an issue until Missouri Partners Inc. laid out plans last February for its development project which could draw thousands of new residents to the area.
On the site where Missouri Partners intends to build, staging points and campgrounds for both armies sit unprotected. That land is owned by private landowners, some of who now argue that they should be allowed to sell the land to either developers or the park -- whichever puts forth the best offer. They argue it is their land and their prerogative to do with it as they choose.
This leads to a major question popping up at Civil War battlefields across the nation: What can be done to preserve the integrity of the fields without curtailing development and progress?
According to Jim Campi, policy director for the Civil War Preservation Trust, the largest organization in the country which has 63,000 members dedicated to preserving Civil War Battlefields, issues arising at places like Wilson's Creek can be solved if people are willing to listen to each other.
"Historic preservation and development need not be mutually exclusive. It is in everyone's interest to create open space," said Campi. "For us, open space allows for protection of historic land; for developers, clustering homes to allow for open space provides an amenity for future homeowners. The problem is that some developers still don't get it."
The battle for the future of Wilson's Creek was mulled over for six months this year in Congress before it adjourned in late November. As part of the $388 billion spending bill passed by Congress, $4.5 million was earmarked to expand Wilson's Creek National Park by 615 acres.
That money does not, however, guarantee that the 25 percent of the battlefield within those 615 acres that is unprotected will be preserved. It will simply give Hilmer more leverage to attract private landowners into selling their land to the park as "conservation easements." These easements would serve as a buffer between the new developments Missouri Partners hopes to begin in the near future.
The opinions of people in Battlefield and Republic sit in between those who want the land to be developed and those who want it preserved and brought into the National Park Service boundaries.
Dale Sander, president of the Wilson's Creek Landowers Association, said he does not think it is the governments' place to tell him and others what they should do with their land -- no matter how much money is thrown their way.
"If the property owners want to sell their land as some kind of donation to the park, well that's up to the property owners," said Sander, who has lived in Battlefield for the past 40 years. "The government shouldn't come in and condemn it just because some troops marched through here."
In the past, Sander said landowners have been asked by the park to light their houses at night and paint their sheds a certain color so as to blend in better with the battlefield's landscape. They have acquiesced reluctantly.
While he realizes that the issue of preservation is an emotional one for many people because it sparks memories of death and struggle, Sander said he thinks the landowners deserve the final say.
"I'm speaking for myself, but I think people should be able to do what's going to make them the most money and the majority of our members feel that way," said Sander. "I'm not going to stand here and fight somebody and tell them what they should and should not do with the land.
"A lot of people have lived here their whole lives and are just worried that the government is going to come in here and tell them what they should do with it."
Hilmer said development around his park is inevitable. The School District of Republic purchased 148 acres of land along a road near the battlefield for future school construction after learning of Missouri Inc.'s plan to develop new homes. But Hilmer said he hopes the money afforded him by Congress will be enough to persuade landowners to invest in the conservation easements to separate public land from land significant to telling the history of the battle.
"They want to develop a near 3,000 unit project here on 2,200 acres of land and the cities of Battlefield and Republic want that to happen," said Hilmer. "I'm not trying to curtail development. It's going to happen -- but I am here to preserve the integrity of this park by protecting what is significant to the battle."
Roland Douglass, vice president of Missouri Partners, said last February in an interview with the Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader that he was shocked when learning that the Civil War Preservation Trust had named Wilson's Creek to its 10 most endangered battlefields because of his development plan.
Douglass chose not to comment on his group's plan for this article, but last year said he was dismayed that such harsh action was being taken against Missouri Partners by preservationists to block the development plan.
A developer who faced a similarly heated situation at Chancellorsville Battlefield in Northern Virginia and came out of it successfully, however, said that in order to make a positive resolution, all sides must be willing to make sacrifices.
Mike Jones, the principal owner of Tricor Developers in Chancellorsville, entered the fray of the Civil War Preservation Trust's biggest fight, according to Campi, last spring. On one side of the aisle sat the developers who were looking to build a 2,000-unit housing development. On the other side sat preservationists who argued that the land developers wanted to build on was essential to the history of the battle. Somewhere in the middle sat a large group of citizens not thrilled about either plan.
"What we were able to do was present a plan to both give the preservationists what they wanted, which was a certain amount of land between the development we proposed and the battlefield," said Jones. "It has to be a win/win situation and it takes some real creativity."
After almost two years of negotiations, Tricor and the Civil War Presrvation Trust squared away a deal that put a significant buffer between the land the preservationists wanted saved and the land the developers wanted to build on. "Everybody came out thrilled," said Jones.
Campi said the success at Chancellorsville can serve as proof that preservationists and developers can work together when both sides are willing to listen.
And as more and more battlefields become threatened by urban sprawl, the ability for each side to come to the bargaining table is going to be essential.
"The threat to America's remaining Civil War battlefields is severe -- except for a handful of battlefields located in rural areas, most sites are confronted by growth and sprawl issues," said Campi.
For Hilmer, who said he is in frequent talks with officials at Missouri Partners, preserving Wilson's Creek will do more for the economy of the area than any development project.
"We want to keep this place nice and rural or else it takes away from the ambiance and charm of rural Missouri," said Hilmer. "If they build gas stations and housing developments, why would anyone want to come here? It would just look like everywhere else."
The struggle can be divisive and ugly, but it will not be solved by muskets and cannon fire like it was in 1861 when the Confederate Army outlasted the Union Army on the open pastures of this small piece of Missouri countryside.
"There is a stigma against developers who want to build near Civil War battlefields," said Jones. "It can be an ugly fight. What developers must do is say, 'we would like to work towards a positive solution for everyone.' You have to be willing to listen and work towards a solution outside of all preconceived notions and desires."
