To the editor

THANKS FOR RESPONDING TO THE DAILY PRESS'S SURVEY that asked whether Fort Monroe should become a national park. Here, unedited, are copies of some of the letters the Daily Press received. (We've posted every letter that you sent to us. Please note that the Daily Press will likely abbreviate many of the letters that it actually prints.)

To the editor:

Yes, national park status is simply the best and most appropriate way to preserve and protect the historical, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of this national treasure. Senator Warner recognized that in 1993 when he said the Army should not abandon Fort Monroe, since it would have to become a national park, preventing any significant savings. The reasons the Federal government could not wash its hands of Fort Monroe in 1993 are no less compelling in 2006.

Early in 2007, the General Assembly should send to the Governor a bill authorizing him to waive Virginia's right to reversion of a portion of the property back to the Commonwealth if Fort Monroe becomes a national park. Congress should then pass legislation transferring Fort Monroe in its entirety to the National Park Service (NPS), effective upon the Army's departure. At the same time, Congress should direct its research service (CRS) to conduct a study, in collaboration with NPS, to recommend the best type of federal development trust needed to generate a portion of the park operating funds, by management of existing real property at Fort Monroe excess to park mission requirements.

Meanwhile, public announcement of Fort Monroe's future status as a national park could be made in May 2007, the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the Virginia Company colonists at Point Comfort, en route to Jamestown. At that point, there would be over four years remaining to manage the transition of Fort Monroe from the Army to the National Park Service.

H. O. Malone
Hampton
[[Note from Steve Corneliussen: Dr. Malone is the retired chief historian of
the Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, and is president of
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park.]]

I strongly support Fort Monroe National Park - the history and the connections with Jamestown, Williamsburg, Yorktown are all too strong for us to squander.

Sincerely,
Gwyn P. Williams
Yorktown, VA 23693

Yes, and I believe that even more firmly since reading on Sunday, July 23, the Daily Press article about Florida’s forgotten park, the Dry Tortugas National Park. Considering that the article was talking about a National Park, which I am hoping will become of Fort Monroe , the article caught my undivided attention.

Opponents who do not want Fort Monroe in its entirety turned over to the National Park Service should be ashamed of themselves, particularly when they stop to compare the history to the United States of this park in Florida which is being protected by the National Park Service to the history of Fort Monroe to the United States which opponents do not want protected by the National Park Service.

Dry Tortugas National Park is named after a turtle. Fort Monroe is named after an American President.

Dry Tortugas National Park is one of the least-visited of all national parks with just over 61,000 visitors a year. The Casemate Museum at Fort Monroe alone, without a National Park designation, has approximately 40,000 visitors a year.

The most famous prisoners at Fort Jefferson , the civil war prison located on the Dry Tortugas National Park , were four civilian co-conspirators in the assassination of President Lincoln. A far more famous prisoner, the Confederate President Jefferson Davis, was held at Fort Monroe .

In 1846, the U.S. Army began building Fort Jefferson and it was never completed; Fort Monroe ’s construction began in 1819 and when completed Fort Monroe was referred to as the “ Gibraltar of the Chesapeake .

Fort Jefferson is one of the Western Hemisphere ’s largest brick structures; but no fortification in North American can match Fort Monroe ’s stone fort for its magnificence or its integrity.

Fort Jefferson was made a national monument in 1935 and was designated the Dry Tortugas National Park in 1992; the entire post of Fort Monroe, including 181 historic buildings, both inside and outside the moat, was named a National Historic Landmark in 1960.

The Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida, has 70 miles of ocean between Florida and the park. Visitors arrive by ferry or plane at a cost up to $300 per person. It has a primitive campground with saltwater flush toilets and saltwater sinks but campers must bring all fresh water, fuel, ice and food, and all trash must be carried out;

Fort Monroe, with a still-operating 1802 lighthouse, is a rare place in our nation not only because its role in American history is unparalleled, particularly in the Civil War, but because it is an area where, unlike the Dry Tortugas National Park, is easily accessible to all Americans, our visitors and our tourists so they can fully appreciate the beauty of the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s history and maritime importance. The two-mile paved promenade along the bay, a marine, fishing pier, open spaces, green space and beaches at Fort Monroe provide a wealth of public recreational opportunities.

When comparing the history of the Dry Tortugas National Park as well as the history of seven other national parks which have even less yearly attendance than Dry Tortugas NP, there is no earthy reason why the entire nation should not be petitioning local, state and federal leaders for National Park protection of Fort Monroe in its entirety. The funding of such protection can be handled. See website http://www.cfmnp.org/FAQs.htm for additional background.

Regarding your editorial on July 25, 2006, asking if Fort Monroe should become a National Park.

I will try to be brief. I strongly believe a facility with the history of Fort Monroe is a national treasure. As such, it needs to be under a national custodianship. Whether that should take the form of a National Park or a National Monument may be a matter of protocol that might be better directed by a committee commissioned for that purpose. It probably should not be under state custodianship simply because it is not a state treasure, it is a national one. It was not built or paid for by the state of Virginia or by the city of Hampton. It was built by all Americans. Under national custodianship, all Americans would be responsible for the cost of upkeep and all Americans are assured of it's preservation. To put Fort Monroe under either Hampton or the state of Virginia is to rob all Americans of both the responsibility and the assurance of protecting Fort Monroe for future generations. As an American, I am convinced that my tax dollars should be providing for the upkeep and preservation of Fort Monroe. The best way to do that is as a National Park or National Monument.

Thomas Cooper

Ham Lake, Minnesota

   First one must realize that Fort Monore is only one part of what was once known as Old Point Comfort. Regardless of the final title given to this site--National Park or whatever, its uniquely historical significance, its on-going relationship to our nation's history, demands that its future be put into its historical perspective. The site is not "Hampton's newest neighborhood." Old Point Comfort is one of the nation's oldest communities.
   The history of Old Point Comfort includes a time when it was known as the Saratoga of the South, a combination of a thriving commercial area and resort hotels that drew hordes of summer visitors.
    The preservation, maintenance and development of this site demands an approach that appeals to national interests and financial resources.
    This approach demands that the leaders ultimately selected to direct and guide this venture be those who reflect these national interests and financial resources.
    The future of Old Point Comfort, including Ft. Monroe, demands a greater level of leadership than any local group appointed by a single city can provide.

Bo Parker

I am a NJ resident, but my family lives in Hampton Roads. I have several times visited the beautiful Fort Monroe waterfront and attended events at the chapel and at the Chamberlin Hotel, and I agree with and support wholeheartedly the popular sentiment that the fort should be preserved in perpetuity as an historic district. The idea of "redevelopment" of a Civil War era landmark situated on a spectacular and significant geographic site is simply appalling. Please add my vote to those supporting the proposition that the fort should be preserved in its entirety for the public good and for posterity.

Sincerely,
Mary Corneliussen
Princeton, New Jersey

In response to your Tuesday, July 25, editorial and "What do you think?": YES! Ft. Monroe should be a national park! The history of Ft. Algernon, Old Point Comfort, and Ft. Monroe is an integral part of the history of colonial James Towne, the U.S.'s major wars, and African-American life from the beginnings of slavery in the English colonies to sanctuary for Civil War contraband slaves. Ft. Monroe is a national treasure which needs long-term protection. Ft. Monroe should belong to the people. It provides historical, educational, and recreational opportunities. A national park could ensure all of these with a museum, interpreters, and re-enactments, as well as restaurants, a hotel, swimming pools, marina, tennis courts, biking and hiking trails, wetlands boardwalks and nature center, camping, beaches, water sports, picnic areas, etc. Ft. Monroe should be equal with James Towne/Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown as a tourist destination -- part of the Historic Triangle, another corner, making it the Historic Square (maybe not a great name, but a great idea!). As such, it would contribute to the economy, not only of Hampton but of the entire region.

Karen Detweiler
Hampton, VA

Ever since I heard that there was a strong possibility of Fort Monroe closing, I have felt that this is one site that should definitely become a national park. It is an area of historical significance and can provide lots of recreational opportunities.

Let's see: we have the old fort with its moat, the cell were Jefferson Davis was held, magnificient buildings, and, oh, yeah, even a historical hotel. The park could use part of the housing (recently renovated) for park employee housing and either use other housing for long-term rent or as short-term vacation homes. The hotel could also be used to benefit the park. We even have the billeting area that could house visitors.

And then there are all the ruins from the batteries that should be kept intact. I am afraid that, if the fort is turned over to someone else, these would be torn down. What a waste of good history. Where else in the close proximity can our students go to see what it takes to keep this country safe.

There is also camping, swimming (both indoor and outdoor), tennis courts, a YMCA, and fishing opportunities at the Fort. I believe that this is one national park site that could easily pay for itself and provide a wonderful historical area for people.

There are restaurants there, a post office, a theatre, a church. What else could we expect to find in a national park of historical significance.

Our club holds walks at Fort Monroe and the people who come enjoy the sites and sounds of being able to walk along the seawall and view Hampton Roads. So many other areas of Hampton are making it hard for people to enjoy the views. Chesapeake Avenue residents would love it if non-residents never came in their area. They pressured the city to take out all the parking places along Hampton Roads, making it hard for others to enjoy their beautiful scenery. I am afraid that this would happen at the Fort if it is turned over for development.

We would lose access to the sites and sounds of Hampton Roads, as well as the other fabulous sites that are there. It might sound good now if people are saying that this area would allow access to the general public, but I think we all know what happens when you do nice developments which cost a lot for people to move into. They forget that it was supposed to be available for others to enjoy, also, and ask the city to close it off to the general public. Of course, the city will side with these people because they pay high taxes and have a lot of political influence.

Let's keep Fort Monroe in the public's hand by turning it over to the National Park Service to run as a National Park for the use of all of the people in the United States, not just a few who can afford the waterfront property.

Annette Tollett

City of Hampton

I wholeheartedly agree that Fort Monroe should become a national park. I agree with the facts and proposals presented by the Citizens for the Creation of a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). I also agree with the assessment as stated by the Virginian-Pilot article of 7/5/06 on the current state of Fort Monroe. Fort Monroe is my birthplace. That being said, Fort Monroe belongs no more and no less to myself than any other citizen of this country. The designation of Fort Monroe as a National Historical Landmark in 1989 bespeaks of her tremendous national value and esteem. ‘Future development’ and a ‘future financial windfall’, which now seem to be a main focus of her value locally, were not a consideration for that prestigious declaration and classification. I have been following for some time now the hometown news. I am sorry to say that it is less than reassuring to think that the process whereby the fate of our beloved Fortress is to be concluded, has seemingly been assimilated, by default, into the hands of Hampton City. Fort Monroe, for all her greatness in times past—for all she is yet—for what she has given us--for what she should mean to every American--for her historical, cultural, and enduring local and national significance—her glory and greatness must be preserved and protected in return. A Fort Monroe National Park---it’s the right decision!

Bonnie Loughran Marshall

Sauk Rapids MN (Benton County)

Of course it should be a National Park! It is critical to protect the heritage of such a historic place. In the absence of national protection it will inevitably fall prey to developers and others with only short-sighted, near-term, self-centered interests.

George R. Neil
Williamsburg VA

With Hampton's leaders' past history in business expertise, allowing them to take possesion of Fort Monroe would be a very bad idea. If past history is any indication, only the affluent would benefit while

the average Hampton taxpayer will pick up the bill. Hampton's plans for this piece of prime real estate

was made obvious at the first meeting of Hampton's Federal Area Development Authority when

Hampton's City Manager, Jesse Wallace, opened the meeting with the greeting: "Welcome to Fort

Monroe, Hampton's newest neighborhood". The historic and entertainment benefits of this place

should not be sacrificed for entrepreneurial profit.

In addition to the above reasoning, it should be noted that this is a federally created, owned and

maintained facility, financed by all taxpayers. As such, it belong to every US citizen. To set the

precedent that ownership of federal property is ultimately determined by its location would be wrong

on many levels. Hampton's plans will benefit only a few, the creation of a National Park will benefit everyone.

Ashton Haywood

Hampton

[Note from CFMNP.org: Mr. Haywood runs the Web site HamptonTruth.com.]

Yes, please make that national historic, cultural, scenic and recreational treasure an innovative, lively, self-sustaining national park. This is our only chance in all of history. You can never get back public land once it's sold.

Sarah and Steve Corneliussen, Poquoson

Married 1977, Chapel of the Centurion

The Presidio is the model - YES to a National Park. Don't let LOCAL private interests direct the preservation of a NATIONAL public treasure.

Jack Morrissey

Los Angeles, California, but formerly of Fort Monroe (1981-84)

Yes, as a National Historical Landmark District, Fort Monroe should, without question, be transferred to the National Park Service when the Army leaves.

Meanwhile, Hampton and the Commonwealth should join with the public in asking Congress to authorize a study, coordinated by the American Council on Historic Preservation (an independent federal agency), to determine how to make this happen in a way that will bring the top talent in the nation to bear on the complex cultural and natural resource management issues involved in handling this national icon in conformance with federal law. Neither Hampton nor the Commonwealth are equipped to deal with this national responsibility

Monika Malone
Hampton.

Should Fort Monroe become a national park?

Absolutely!!! Let everybody benefit from this beautiful, historical, landmark.

Kim S. Shinault
Williamsburg, VA

Fort Monroe is a national treasure which should be preserved as a national park. Not only is the location pristine, but it has been host to a rich legacy of American history. It makes logical sense that a federal park would ensure the greatest access to the most people. Federal stewardship would also ensure that the character of Fort Monroe is preserved in an authentic, rather than a commercial, way.

I have lived in the Hampton Roads area since 1979, as a resident of Virginia Beach since 1989. Despite the drudgery of tunnel traffic, a favorite family event has always been the Thursday evening concert under the stars during the summer months. My senior prom was held at the Chamberlain Hotel, the only time in my life that I have truly felt like a “southern belle.” My wedding was conducted at the Chapel of the Centurion. I remember how impressed my mother-in-law was to sit in the same pew once occupied by the Eisenhowers. I could go on and on. . . Halloween ghost tour of the Casemate Museum , listening to bagpipes in the moat, long walks and talks by the seawall, etc. These experiences should be available to all.

The closing of Fort Monroe presents an opportunity. . . yet we need to act with a strong regard for the legacy we wish to leave future generations.

Miriam Manning

I would have to say, absolutely. I have lived in this area since 1988, and Hampton since 2001. Giving Ft. Monroe to Hampton would be sheer insanity. The city is currently developing many other areas in Hampton. >From what I have seen, these areas are all "high dollar" residential areas. Now Hampton wants more upscale housing on Ft. Monroe? Stop thinking about your tax base and start thinking about Joe Average! I can barely afford the house I am currently in, heaven help me if I ever had to move! Hampton city leaders have shown in the past how inept they are in the development/redevelopment area. Ft. Monroe is too important to our nation's history to let Hampton screw it up.

Please make sure it gets preserved by making it a national park.

Lori Zukerman
Hampton

Ft Monroe provided endless hours of pleasure to my family and our guests while we were residents of Ft Monroe. The children played freely inside the moat, climbed cannons, played soccer, raced bikes, and stopped to salute the flag every day at dusk whatever they were doing. Basically, we lived a life in which imagination could grow, where the environment was not a vague or distant term and where history was in the making, not just something stored in the museum. Yes, there were times when bands played and soldiers dressed in costume carrying muskets to entertain. There were sounds of horsedrawn carriages arriving for weddings. But, it was also where soldiers carried laptops and cellphones home at night, where the strategy of warfare in the 21rst century was being formed, defense planning and training tools were being created, and today is the core of competence in confronting enemies.

No bloodshed and battles disturb its calm and peaceful atmosphere today. Under canopies of hundred year old trees and empty spaces birds sing and at night the wind whistles quietly all the time. Ghost stories are so plentiful they are bound in books. History itself is also bound- in the casemates, the lighthouse, and in both quaint and grand houses alike. There are stories that remain to be told, not yet recorded as history, which formed the most recent decades of life at Ft Monroe: unprecedented meetings of military minds mixed with walks along the boardwalk and the aroma of magnolia blooms in summer sunshine. The casemate walls echo not only prisoners of old wars, but gracious entertaining, fast and lasting friendships, shared values, and a sense of purpose that cannot be re-enacted or preserved either in a world of preservationists or in condominium enclaves.

Ft Monroe has made a difference not only as a military headquarters, but as a way of life for generations of soldiers families who knew how to embrace the present and the future, as well as the past. We can honor that tradition, share it with the curious, and learn from its values. The National Parks organization is well suited to that aim. It can best implement and maintain a proper balance of respect for the environment, the architectural heritage, and the military history of Ft Monroe. These are so uniquely combined there it should be placed highly among protected cultural icons of America to inspire and remind us of the reverence the military deserves for defending freedom. Ft Monroe is also an important part of Virginia's history and culture. Its leaders should acknowledge their responsibility to preserve and responsibly re-use it, not just treat it like a shipwreck to be robbed of its treasure and abandoned.

Deanne Beckwith
Norfolk

It seems pretty clear to me that Fort Monroe belongs to the entire country! The mis-conception that the Fort already belongs to Hampton has lived long enough and its time to put that away with all the other urban legends. As a Yorktown resident, I would never presume that the Battlefield belongs to just my neighbors. In fact I always point out (with reverence) to my British and French friends that Yorktown is theirs too! Fort Monroe belongs to every citizen of the USA and that ownership should be cemented for all eternity by the simple expedient of transferring and transforming Fort Monroe from a US DOD property to a National Park.

That way future generations of Americans can enjoy the benefits of truly National ownership of such a unique property. It would be fine with me if there was no new development involved in the transition from Fort to Park. However, some very low impact historically appropriate development that again was for the benefit of all citizens may be able to be worked in without destroying the unique historical character of Fort Monroe but this development must be for everyone's benefit and not just for a gated few. Keep Fort Monroe unique and keep it public as a National Park. It seems to me to be the best way to protect and preserve a National Treasure!

Paul Brindza
Yorktown

Thank you for the opportunity to offer an opinion on the subject question above.

In general, I want to state my full support for the position of the "Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park" as expressed in their "Our Vision for a National Park at Fort Monroe" paper. The first point stated in the vision sums up for me the critical step needed in this important matter. It states " THE CONGRESS WILL ESTABLISH A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC, NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES OF THE ENTIRE ARMY POST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."

This step needs to be accomplished successfully so that the American people will gain the greatest benefit from the re-use of the fort after the military departs. A national treasure will be preserved, maintained, and operated at the national level where it should be to ensure its success for many years to come.

In one specific instance, creation of a Fort Monroe National Park will result in as greater probability of preserving, maintaining, and operating the Casemate Museum in an "as is" condition. That condition being that all exhibits and artifacts presently in the museum would be left in place versus the distribution of some or all of them to other Army museums. The exhibits/artifacts in the museum are critical to the success of the museum - possibly called the "Fort Monroe History Museum" - continuing its mission. That mission being to (1)tell the story of the origin and history of Old Point Comfort,(2)to interpret the history of Fort Monroe with its many facets - military operations (wars) and humanitarian activities (contrabands)- and (3)to maintain the legacy of the Coast Artillery Corps at the fort. In that the Army is less likely to leave the museum intact if it is taken over by a local/state-controlled museum, the national park status will increase the probability of continuing operation of the museum in the desired "as-is" condition.

The concept of a Fort Monroe National Park is, in general, the best way to present this national treasure to the nation and the world and specifically it offers the best chance to keep the museum intact.

Thank you very much.

Ray Holleran
Hampton

I was involved in the planning and observation process that took place last week (July 21-27). My impression is that most of the people who attended the "Hands-on Design Session" had views similar to mine. Fort Monroe is not just any military facility and should not be treated as such. Nowhere else in this country is there a stone fort with a moat. Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee all spent time in this unique place. The story of the contraband slaves is an integral part of its history. Many of us who are familiar with its history and natural beauty have expressed a desire that this place be preserved for the public and not pass into private hands. We dread what could happen there if the profit motive is paramount in this process. Some of its historical buildings could be sacrificed. Much of its open land could be developed and be forever lost. There needs to be an organization that is charged with serving the public, preserving places of historical significance to our nation while attracting visitors to them, and providing places for recreation and contact with nature. A local entity would be hard-pressed to meet all of these requirements while being above the shifting winds of local politics. No matter how well intentioned the present leaders of Hampton may be, their tenure is only temporary. There needs to be guarantees that this great treasure, which belongs to the American people, not become fragmented in order to provide a short-sighted source of income to a local government. The irony of all of this discussion is that Hampton will in fact be most benefited in the long run if all of Fort Monroe becomes a national park and a stream of tourists as well as Hampton Roads residents begins to enjoy its historical treasures and natural beauty. A Fort Monroe National Park is the best way to go if we are to pass this national treasure on to future generations of Americans.

Adrian H. Whitcomb Jr.

Newport News

Yes. Ft Monroe should become a national park. A national park could be operated and maintained better than the local/state government agencies.

Roger McCuistion

We are very much in favor of Ft. Monroe becoming an historical national park. It has played a very important role in the history of our country, and should become nothing less than an historical national park.

Reva McPherson

(HOME)