To the Editor:
Let us think about the Princeton that might have been had the partisans of expansion of the Battlefield Park prevailed almost two hundred years ago.
In 1825 the Marquis de Lafayette returned to America on the fiftieth anniversary of the Revolution. There were giant celebrations everywhere the old warrior went, and a tremendous upwelling of pride in the battles which gave us our freedom. Most of Lafayette’s comrades in arms were gone or in fragile condition, but they, with he, were honored for their achievement.
Imagine if the good people of Princeton, swept up by these emotions, had raised a subscription to purchase the considerable open lands over which the battle had ranged, and had created a grand memorial park to honor those who had helped to make it possible for them, and us, to live in liberty. What we would now have would not be Princeton as we know it, but a Gettysburg, looking backwards to a great moment a quarter of a millennium ago, and thriving on tourist dollars.
What we would not have would be much of the Seminary and the residential neighborhoods of the westerly part of town, the Graduate College, McCarter, much of Princeton University’s undergraduate campus and parts of the Central Business District.
We would have no Institute expansion problem, because we’d have no Institute. And we wouldn’t have a dinky/Arts District problem, because we’d have no campus there and no dinky. (No railroad tracks over sacred ground!)
The emotional demand for greater and greater honoring of the dead and their legacy can of course divert resources from the living and the future of a community. Princeton could be Gettysburg now had things played out differently. Is that what we would wish?
We do the patriots of 1777 an injustice to believe that that is what they fought for. They fought for a better future for their families and their people. Let us honor them by continuing to build a community which is a light to the world, with great and thriving institutions such as the University, the Seminary and the Institute.
Peter Bienstock
Stockton Street
You say: “ The emotional demand for greater and greater honoring of the dead and their legacy can of course divert resources from the living and the future of a community. Princeton could be Gettysburg now had things played out differently. Is that what we would wish?” Gettysburg gets an annual influx of over 2 million people, is a worldwide symbol of human sacrifice, educates the public and also generates millions of dollars. Being like Gettysburg is ok by me. Honoring the dead is not the only reason for preserving the Battlefield, preserving a physical symbol of sacrifice is another primary goal. Maintaining the land where people sacrificed life for freedom is important for future generations. Pictures and words can inspire but physically coming into contact does more, at least in my opinion. Finally, I do not see where honoring the dead, their legacy or a sacred place diverts money from the living, please source this claim ?
Secondly: You say “We do the patriots of 1777 an injustice to believe that that is what they fought for. They fought for a better future for their families and their people. Let us honor them by continuing to build a community which is a light to the world, with great and thriving institutions such as the University, the Seminary and the Institute.” Do not speak for the founders, speculating what their feelings are or what their beliefs are is not an argument worth making,
regards.
This view ignores several facts: the IAS between 1959 and 1963 obliterated the site of William Clarke’s farm, where Mercer fought the 17th British Regt. The original Battlefield Park of 1946 was intended to be three times larger but local residents feared their homes would be condemned and the plan was scaled back. This is documented in the earliest issues of Town Topics, which the Princeton Theological Seminary has uploaded to archive dot org.
The entire stretch from Stony Brook to Nassau Hall was often referred to as the Princeton Battlefield; Halsted Observatory was described as “overlooking the battle ground.” No-one ever considered preserving the entire field of action- only a tiny parcel where Washington stood against the 17th. Since the 90’s, it has no longer been possible to replicate the mutual sighting that led to the battle, due to development.
The only thing the rejection of this plan will do is deprive a few faculty members of a two-car garage and a nice view. There are alternatives- the IAS just isn’t willing to accomodate these alternatives because aesthetics is taking precedence over historical preservation.
William Myers
PS: My 4th great grandfather was Maj. Gen. Garret Vliet, who led the military reception for Lafayette in Trenton the same day as his Princeton visit, Sept. 25, 1824.
I have taken my family all over the country. We have visited the National Parks and other points of National or historic interest. Preservation is an issue which comes up everywhere with sides being taken. Gettysburg is often mentioned as it is one of the best in preservation. The worst, maybe Bunker Hill, Battle of Brooklyn, White Plains, Trenton because they are all gone! They are covered in asphalt and concrete, with signs saying what happened there. Everywhere, there are gentlemen like Mr. Bienstock who say build, build, build till everything is gone. I say no, no, no because some one has to stop Mr. Bienstock. I have no idea what the founding fathers would say, I only know what I say. The price of my heritage is too dear. The IAS application should be denied.
Mr. Kovacs is entirely accurate to point out that Mr. Bienstock ought not attempt to speak for the feelings of the “founders.” A point which ought to be emphasized in this affair is the fact that Moses Taylor Pyne is the man most responsible for establishing the Battlefield Park; he saved it from destruction on two occasions, the Trolley in 1899 (intended to pass directly along Mercer Road) was diverted due to his intervention; and he stopped the battlefield from becoming a housing development in 1913- his granddaughter donated the land he preserved in 1946- our Battlefield Park. Pyne is the man who turned the College of NJ into Princeton University: he was “The Founder.” He also believed the battlefield was worth preserving- the historical record is indisputable. Unfortunately, men like Pyne are extinct.