To the Editor:
We thought the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, but apparently not in Princeton. We have followed the accounts of the Princeton Battlefield Society’s attempt to stop the Institute for Advanced Study’s Faculty Housing Plan for lo these many months. We are confounded by the ability of a small group of “historians” to thwart a plan that not only undermines the good of an internationally renowned institution; but also undermines the preservation and enhancement of the Princeton Battlefield itself.
The Institute consulted with noted historians James McPherson of Princeton University and David Hackett-Fisher of Brandeis, both leading preservationists. They proposed amendments to the Institute’s plan, which the Institute adopted. Moreover, both historians agree that the Institute’s faculty housing plan, as amended and presently before the Regional Planning Board, is a good compromise — one that respects the Battlefield.
It bears noting that Professors McPherson and Hackett-Fisher are among several historians who, over the last several decades, have restored balance and credibility to the written history of our country. Both men were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history. Mr. Hackett-Fisher’s prize was for a book he wrote, which included a detailed account of the battle of Princeton. Their opinions are entitled to great weight and deference.
The housing plan provides for a 200-foot buffer zone alongside the Battlefield Park, which will now be permanently preserved as open space. Further, the Institute believes that it is important to enhance the interpretive materials provided for visitors to the Battlefield Park, and is ready to be a partner in realizing this objective. The Institute has also agreed, yet again, to survey the archaeology of the site before and monitor it during construction.
We support the Institute and its Faculty Housing Plan and urge the Regional Planning board to approve it at its next meeting.
Robert O. Cohen
Mary Robinson Cohen
(former member,
Princeton Regional Planning Commission)
Clover Lane
There is a great deal of hypothetical or erroneous information about the Battle of Princeton. David Hackett Fischer places British Light 6-Pounder Battalion Guns on Mercer Heights, firing grapeshot at the Americans on the Battlefield. Even if the lines determined by the Milner Report are correct, this is still absurdly out of range for artillery of that type. A Nobel Prize does not absolve one of error, and neither does a Pulitzer.
The tactics of the PBPS are atrocious; I know this well, as I have been subject to personal attacks and accusations by them for stating my objections to the Milner Report conclusions; but their tactics do not mean their stance is invalid in this dispute.
The IAS is placing its own interests over the Battlefield- Einstein Drive is too valuable to build on, so why not the Battlefield? All future study of the Battle will be severely compromised by this development. How will building elsewhere compromise the IAS? Didn’t Einstein live off-campus? This dispute is the result of two factions being equally unreasonable in their own efforts. Princeton’s true history is the greatest casualty of this affair.