Sponsored by: Ben Mynatt Nissan | Archive Search
Area

Yadkin River bridge listed among endangered Civil War battlefields

E-mail to a friend



By Steve Huffman

Salisbury Post

SPENCER — The site of the Yadkin River bridge has been named one of the nation's 25 most endangered Civil War battlefields by a publication that specializes in such designations.

The designation appears in the most recent copy of "History Under Siege," subtitled: "A Guide to America's Most Endangered Civil War Battlefields." The publication is part of an annual report by Civil War Preservation Trust (www.civilwar. org), based in Washington, D.C.

Ten of those endangered battlefields include pictures and a fairly complex history plus a detailed description of the modern-day threat they're facing.

The Yadkin River bridge is included among the remaining 15, giving only the date (April 12, 1865) of the struggle, plus a paragraph detailing the threat.

"In August, developers seeking to build a racetrack near the site of the last Confederate victory in the Carolinas began excavations and grading activities without county permits, repeatedly ignoring stop-work orders from government officials," it reads. "Although a court eventually issued a restraining order against the developers, they still predict a summer 2008 opening."

Mary Koik, a spokeswoman for Civil War Preservation Trust, said the fact that the Yadkin River bridge's description was relatively short doesn't mean efforts to preserve the site are unimportant.

"There's not a lot of difference between the top 10 and the remaining 15 sites," Koik said. "Lots of times, it's the immediacy of the risk."

She said she'd never seen the Yadkin River site and said officials with Civil War Preservation Trust often depend on the public to keep them aware of lesser-known battlefield sites that need to be preserved.

"Not every site is as well known as Gettysburg or Antietam," Koik said. "Sometimes we need someone in the community to let us know of a site close to them."

She said the public is typically responsive in doing so and said, "We could literally list hundreds of battlefields."

Koik said the publication that details the endangered Civil War battlefield sites goes to the trust's 65,000 members.

"It's always interesting to read about these places," Koik said. "Some are famous, some are not."

She said the organization is "not anti-development. We just want people to have all the facts."

Ann Brownlee, founder of the Trading Ford Historic Preservation Association (www.trading-ford.org) and long-time opponent of the planned High Rock Raceway, described the battle thus:

"On April 12, 1865, Confederate forces numbering between 1,000 and 1,200 faced a numerically equal number of Union troops over the Yadkin River in central North Carolina. Stoneman's federals were determined to destroy the new railroad bridge and disrupt supply lines. After a five-and-a-half hour artillery battle, Stoneman's forces retreated, leaving the bridge intact. The plucky Confederates, a hodge-podge of regulars and galvanized Yankees, won their last victory of the Civil War in North Carolina."

Brownlee said she had been pushing the Civil War Preservation Trust for years to recognize the Yadkin River bridge site as an endangered battlefield.

She said she filled out an application requesting such a designation.

"They said it was one of the best they'd ever received," Brownlee said.

She said she hopes the designation will help rally individuals against construction at the site.

"Our objection to the racetrack is that the complex would destroy 200 acres of the heart of the battlefield, virtually the entire Rowan County/Union side," Brownlee said.

She said that while she's pleased the Civil War Preservation Trust has deemed the Yadkin River bridge site worthy of inclusion in its national publication, there's a designation she'd prefer seeing.

"I'd actually rather be on the least-at-risk list," Brownlee said.

- - -

Contact Steve Huffman at 704-797-4222 or shuffman@salisburypost.com.





What do you think? Post your comment below.

Comments

SalisburyPost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse.

SalisburyPost.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not SalisburyPost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please send us an email to webmaster@salisburypost.com with the article title and offensive post's contents and we will review it for possible removal.

Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.



historical : Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:48 AM

That has been the best place to cross the river for a thousand years. Lets hope we can still cross it for a thousand more. Build the bridge!!!
Report Abuse

Trading Ford Property Owner
Misguided 11th Hour Recommendation Has an Agenda : Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:06 AM

The bridge plans have been complete for 7 years. Finally in 2005 the plans were run through all federal and State reviews, and gained approval. If we follow the admonition of this anonymous commenter, it would take a year to redraw the plans and negotiate with property owners, and four more years to go through the re-reviews for approval of a relocated bridge. The same groups who fought the current project would get another bite at the apple, too. Their "plan" was to widen the bridge in place, which would not abate the dangerous curve that contributes to the designation "functionally obsolete" for the current bridge. We're ready to get on with the construction, to make the crossing of the Yadkin more safe. We're also ready to sell for industrial development, to get a return on our investment, and raise the tax base for the county. 'Nuf said?
Report Abuse

Yadkin River Bridge : Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:21 AM

I think that we need a new bridge, but don't put it on top of a histoic site. That same site was the scene of a revolutionary War battlefield as well. That is two reasons to avoid moving the bridge.
Report Abuse

Ann Brownlee
Stop misrepresenting the facts : Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:16 AM

I can appreciate that Dave Risdon and his cronies don't want to be seen as destroyers of history, but the repeated misrepresentation of the National Register determinations is dishonest. Their memo of October 29, 2004 was addressed to the Federal Highway Administration. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, it's the federal agency's responsibility to take into account the effect of their actions on historic properties. It's their responsibility, the burden of proof is on them, the memo was addressed to them. That was a six-page memo to the Federal Highway Administration saying that there was not enough information to make a determination on their request, and asking them for significant additional information. That indicatates that the National Register did not find NCDOT's study adequate. There was no finding that anything was not eligible. On January 6, 2006, the National Register found that four individual sites had not been demonstrated (note the word "demonstrated") to be eligible under three criteria, that NCDOT had provided no further information and that they therefore could make no determination under a fourth criterion, but made no determination that anything was not eligible. Their previous recommendation had been that the Trading Ford be evaluated as a district, and that was never done. So, in essence, the eligibility of most sites was never determined one way or the other, and NONE have been rejected. The door is still open for further evaluation. This wasn't done by the National Register, but NCDOT and the State Historic Preservation Office determined that some elements in the Trading Ford area are eligible for the National Register as the Yadkin River Crossings Historic District. When all parties agree, no further action is necessary for a district to be determined eligible. That was referenced in the Jaeger professional report the Spencer ZBA rejected for no particularly good reason whatsoever. It seems to escape the Spencer ZBA that they're supposed to reach findings of facts based on competent and expert evidence provided during the hearing, not on stuff they just make up.
Report Abuse

Compromise Solution : Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:53 PM

I think the varying interests should compromise. Let the track proceed, and bar construction of any new bridge over top of the site of the former bridge listed by the CWPT. It could be like the number "3" in NASCAR: preserved for posterity. And the condos nearest to the old bridge pilings would be painted Forest "Greene" in honor of the bridge skirmish and the racetrack's commitment to the environment.
Report Abuse

Thanks for getting it right : Monday, June 09, 2008 9:38 PM

Actually, the Salisbury Post did a better job of reporting this story than did the Asheville Citizen Times or the Charlotte Observer. You'd have thought the most important revolutionary war battle was fought on the Yadkin River Bridge, by reading those papers. Fact is, one soldier was shot in the head on the banks of the Yadkin, and the rest of the battle was confined to the railroad bridge. Those out of town papers focused on the "proposed" racetrack, which actually cleared its biggest hurdle last August, with the grant of the conditional use permit. And the minor road bumps with permitting and fines has not affected the Conditional Use Permit. That track is a "go," from my understanding.
Report Abuse

TJ
National Registry REJECTS Trading Ford sites : Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:25 PM

The Spencer ZBA's credentials as a quasi-judicial body are not the real issue. Their ruling stands as unappealed. The credentials of Daniel J. Vivian (Keeper of the National Registry of Historic Places), however, are fairly sound. On October 29, 2004, he found only one site, Fort York (in Davidson County) eligible for listing. Then on January 6, 2006, he rejected all the other sites on the Spencer/Rowan side of the Yadkin River for eligibility. Copies of those letters were posted today on the Lexington Dispatch website. It remains a mystery why those rejection letters are never mentioned in the press releases condemning the raceway, or those promoting a historic battlefield that Spencer's leaders unanimously rejected. If there is an undercurrent of sentiment FOR a battlefield, where are all the Spencer residents who share that agenda??
Report Abuse

Ann Brownlee
Yadkin River Bridges : Friday, May 16, 2008 11:36 PM

What the Civil War Preservation Trust named as endangered was the Yadkin River Bridge Civil War Battlefield, which referred to the 5 1/2 hour artillery battle fought on April 12, 1865, not the bridge itself. In this particular case, the Yadkin River bridge in question was the c. 1855 rail bridge, not the 1818 Beard bridge. The National Register never rejected any Trading Ford area sites. There was insufficient information to make a determination of eligibility on some individual sites, but the National Register strongly recommended that all the sites be considered as a district. Some elements in the Trading Ford area, including all the bridge sites except I-85 (which was not 50 years old), a 0.8 mile section of the Trading Path, and Fort York were determined eligible for the National Register as the Yadkin River Crossings Historic District. I don't see what problem you have with my exercising my freedom of speech to advocate preservation of these historic sites, which most small towns would give their eye teeth to have. You don't speak for all Spencer residents. Some of them call and support our historic preservation efforts. And BTW, I don't think Spencer's ZBA has nearly the credentials that the nation's premiere Civil War preservation organization has. S'okay?
Report Abuse

The Beave
Yadkin River Bridge gone since 1922!!!!! : Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:41 PM

The Yadkin River Bridge that was present during the Civil War was completed in 1818 and dismantled in 1922. Three of its six piers are still visible and in relatively good condition today, just upstream from US 29 bridge. There was talk back in 2005 of rebuilding the old covered toll bridge, but the estimated costs in 2005 was $8 million. At 660 feet, it would have been the longest covered bridge in the continental United States. Yes, there was a small skirmish fought on the bridge during the Civil War. But with that bridge having been gone since 1922—a small detail left out of the article in today’s Post—the “endangered” listing came about 86 years late! The remaining "Wil-Cox" bridge, which replaced it in 1922, is slated to be preserved as part of the I-85 rewidening and relocation project, which preservationists delayed until funds ran dry in 2003. The only glitch here is that neither Rowan County, Davidson County, nor the Town of Spencer are willing to accept it as a "gift" along with $2 million to maintain it until it has to be either reinforced or torn down in about 50 years. That is another minute detail that can be found with a little research into the Post's archives.
Report Abuse

TJ
Battlefield Dejá Vú? : Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:19 PM

Has the question of historic battlefield eligibility for sites in Rowan County not been rejected twice by the National Registry---once in 2004 and again in 2006? Also, the Spencer Zoning Board concurred with the National Registry Director Daniel J. Vivian when they, too, concluded that there were no sites eligible for preservation due to the modern encroachments which have already torn through the area? I also read in the Post that the Spencer Board of Aldermen passed a resolution on 12-11-2007 declaring the specific conclusion that they did NOT want a historic battlefield, but commercial and industrial development in Trading Ford. When is Ann Brownlee going to move on to the next cause, and give Spencer's property owners a rest?
Report Abuse



 

Other Headlines
Love of history: Teacher's ability to reach students leads to honor
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 11:50 PM

Cornerstone Baptist adds concession stand at its ballfield
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 5:51 PM

Faith briefs: Vacation Bible School starts Monday at Gethsemane Baptist
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 6:13 PM

Gebhard column: Letter to John Calvin
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 5:51 PM

Beloved black bear dies at Dan Nicholas Park
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 8:05 PM

Thunder, Mouth of the South face off in Apple Ugly contest
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 8:05 PM

Kennerly chosen to serve on Board of Social Services
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 8:05 PM

Salisbury woman hopes youth, community will gather for prayer
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 8:05 PM

Symphony, fireworks bring crowd out in Kannapolis
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 7:59 AM

Prospects uncertain for law on annexation; finance panel clears bill before sending it to full House
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 7:56 AM

 




Today's Newspaper Ads

Announcements
Automotive & Vehicles
Community
Home Improvement & Gardening
Real Estate & Rentals
Services
Apparel & Jewelry
Business & Finance
Dining & Entertainment
Medical
Recreation
Shopping

Website Forms

Birth Announcement
Birthdays
Business News
Celebrations Forms
Employee News
Feedback
Graduations
Hold your paper delivery
Letter to the Editor
Mailing List
Sponsorship
Subscribe
Worship directory submission

Special Sections

A Day In The Life
Autos Only Baby of the Year
Biotech 101
Bridal Page
Celebrations
Explorer
Faith 4th
Living Here
NC Statewide Classified Line Ad Network
Pops at the Post
Prime Time
Shop Local
Spring Home Improvement
Summer Fun
Taste of Home
Worship Directory

View All