An Open Letter to the Princeton Regional Planning Board

An Open Letter to the Princeton Planning Board:

There are a number of facts concerning the Princeton Battlefield which have been ignored in the debate over the Institute for Advanced Study's planned housing adjacent to the Princeton Battlefield State Park. One of the most egregious examples in contradiction of the historical record is the IAS attempt to present this as an education vs. preservation issue. The history of the Princeton Battlefield flatly contradicts this assertion. 

Supporters of the Institute's housing have made numerous arguments to support their plans: among these assertions, we have read the theory that had the battlefield been preserved in its entirety institutions such as the IAS would have never existed; that Princeton would be a mere tourist haven; battles are better served by monuments than battlefields; Princeton ought not succumb to a cult of the dead or to those with Romantic notions of the past; the latest argument is the allegation that property rights of the IAS will be abused by blocking the plan; the arguments are manifold in scope and some more persuasive than others, but all these assertions easily collapse under scrutiny. 

It is not simply a few individuals raising objections to the housing; nor are these objections confined to the Princeton Battlefield Preservation Society (PBPS). Joe Carney of the PBPS has pointed out that many of the IAS Trustees do not reside in the United States; a certain degree of self-interested apathy may be inferred- only by withdrawing its plan might the IAS be absolved of this inference; by moving forward, they are confirming it. The interests of the IAS have clearly taken precedence over all others- many supporters of whom are members of the IAS and its Board of Trustees. The PBPS was formed by concerned citizens in 1971 to counter IAS efforts to engulf the Battlefield with faculty housing.  

The Milner Report on the Princeton Battlefield 

In response to the IAS housing plans, the PBPS commissioned a study in conjunction with the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). This study (The Milner Report) radically alters the traditional understanding of the Battle of Princeton and shifts much of the action east of the current Battlefield Park- directly on the Institute campus. I am among many historians of Princeton who have concerns over the veracity of this conclusion. In any case a true test of the study's accuracy may require years of research and scholarly debate by disinterested historians in various fields of expertise. It is an unfortunate and probably unforeseen circumstance that the Planning Board appears to be basing its decision on the accuracy of this study, which places Washington's stand on the disputed property. It should be emphasized that the IAS reviews of the study concluded with endorsements of the IAS housing- any pretensions to objectivity may be readily dismissed. One objection to the study is that its conclusions have been presented by the PBPS as established fact- that is a process which requires more extensive analysis and discussion. 

Supporters of the Battlefield are placed in a dilemma: either support the study or be complicit in the destruction of this very important tract of land. The study's accuracy should not be a factor in the decision to allow or deny the housing: according to the traditional layout of the battle, this field was in the rear of the British line. Hand's riflemen approached the British flank from this direction and it was through this field that Washington pursued the retreating 17th. In either case its significance is clear; in addition to this, the detrimental effect of the housing on the future study of the battle is undeniable as well as the profound effect this will have in diminishing the dignity and sanctity of the current battlefield park. 

The Genesis of the Princeton Battlefield Park 

The allegation that if the preservationists (past or present) somehow had their wishes fulfilled that the very character ofPrinceton would be different is demonstrably absurd. The supporters of the IAS have attempted to present this a conflict between academic pursuits and historical preservation- if one believed their argument, the IAS would not exist if the preservationists had their way- this is hogwash, plain and simple. One supporter of the IAS went so far as to suggest had such an attitude towards the Battlefield been held in the 19th century, Princeton would not be a college town but a tourist haven like Gettysburg. This allegation is made in ignorance of the following fact: 

We owe the existence of the Princeton Battlefield to the same individual who did more for Princeton than any other person in its history, perhaps rivaling Dr. Witherspoon himself; a man who literally made Princeton University the Institution that it is: Moses Taylor Pyne. Pyne took a foundering college of New Jersey and revitalized it, naming itPrinceton University. Pyne's leadership, his generous donations and his wisdom assured that Princeton would become one of the world's most significant universities. Pyne's contributions to Princeton, both the college and the town, are literally incalculable. 

It should be emphasized that Moses Taylor Pyne held an equally abiding interest in preserving the Princeton Battlefield; in 1899 he halted a right-of-way for a Trolley Line that was intended to cross the Battlefield along Mercer Road- work crews were on the Updike Farm the day Pyne made the purchase . . .  one day from reaping a destructive path directly through the site of William Clarke's farm. In 1913 the Battlefield was largely sold off to developers who partitioned the land for a housing complex. Pyne stepped in, purchased the land, and assured its preservation. In 1946 his wishes were fulfilled; his granddaughter Agnes Pyne Hudson dedicated the property as the Princeton Battlefield State Park.  

Princeton and Washington 

The Battle of Princeton and the College of New Jersey (the future Princeton University) were synonymous for generations. This is reflected in the preservation efforts of Mr. Pyne. It is unfortunate that more recent generations of Princetonians have dissociated themselves and the University from the Battle of Princeton. The President of the College of New Jersey, John Witherspoon, was such an active supporter of the American Revolution that the British who entered Princeton after the battle bragged to the townspeople "We killed your Damn'd Rebel Parson and College President." They had in fact killed a Presbyterian Minister named John Rosbrugh, a man who had surrendered a prisoner before being tortured, tormented and bayoneted to death; Rosbrugh had such a remarkable resemblance to Dr. Witherspoon that he later stated, "they thought they were killing me." Witherspoon's associations with the battle were such that the original plans for the Princeton Battle Monument called for the inclusion of his statue. 

Princeton's Associations with Washington ought not to be ignored: General Mercer died in the arms of Washington's nephew George Lewis; members of the Lewis family had Princeton connections and several are buried in Princetoncemetery. Witherspoon was among Washington's most devoted supporters throughout the Revolution and the creation of the Republic; Washington's papers were to be consigned to the flames but Witherspoon persuaded Washington to preserve them. The students adorned Peale's portrait of Washington with laurel on his birthday. Visits to the Princeton Battlefield were frequent and mandatory among student life well into the 20th century; in short, Washington's connections to Princeton are much stronger than most people realize. 

The first person to call Washington "The Father of His Country" was Morven's Annis Boudinot Stockton. She first used the epithet in a poem published in 1778 in conjunction with a Witherspoon letter to the New Jersey Gazette; during Washington's stop in Princeton en route to Yorktown in 1781, Stockton again called Washington the Father of His Country and accurately predicted his victory and his ascension as the first leader of a new Republic. She promoted the term and it was adopted by grateful countrymen. Stockton’s prophesy was the topic of a facetious exchange of letters with the newly elected President Washington in 1789. 

The Current Dispute 

The history of the IAS housing efforts deserves greater scrutiny. There are numerous alternatives which have been ignored by the IAS. In 1970 the IAS announced plans to build faculty housing on the Weller Tract adjacent to the Quaker Meeting House; the PBPS was formed as a result and successfully stopped the plan. A few years later, the IAS had the Institute Woods preserved as a permanent trust. Only later did they state that a portion of these woods was their first choice for faculty housing; but the plot was conveniently off-limits. In 2003 the IAS decided the plot currently in dispute was the best location for its desperately needed housing. The IAS continued to thrive without destroying the Weller Tract and there is no necessity to destroy this one. The IAS has more than a sufficient reserve of funding and resources to secure an alternative. 

There is only one certainty in this affair- once the damage is done, it is irreversible. We should feel fortunate that so many generations of Princetonians had a higher regard for the Battlefield than to allow its destruction. Please join them and deny the IAS application. The IAS will continue to thrive without the necessity of destroying this land. 

William Myers

Highland Park