HD83 - A Feasibility Study on Establishing a Military History Museum in Virginia


Executive Summary:
BACKGROUND

The 1999 General Assembly requested that the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a Military History Museum in Virginia. In the past six months, the Department has gathered information about prerequisites for establishing a world class museum focusing on the military history of this nation and to determining how the institution can best honor those who have sacrificed to preserve democracy and maintain freedom around the world. During the study process, DCR met with a group of individuals of different backgrounds and viewpoints but with a common interest in the museum study and its outcome. These sources assisted DCR staff greatly by providing information and by sharing their expertise and experience in helping define the parameters for the military history museum concept. Staff also visited museums and demonstrations to better understand the needs of the proposed institution and the programs that may be offered to the visiting public.

RELATED STUDIES

In the conduct of the study, numerous pieces of legislation were identified at the Federal and State level of government that had a direct relationship to the establishment of the museum. In addition to House Joint Resolution 526 passed by the Virginia General Assembly, there are two bills in Congress that focus on the Military History Museum. These are Senate Bill 884, which would establish a National Military Museum Foundation, and Senate Bill 929, which would establish both a Foundation and the Museum. Also in the U. S. Congress, Senate Bill 1064 and House Bill 1912 call for the establishment of a National Museum for the Anny. The Code of Virginia contains two other legislative references which have a bearing on the Museum program. One is the legislation establishing the Virginia War Museum, and the other defines the purpose of the Virginia War Memorial Foundation. In order to determine the feasibility of establishing a museum, the Department solicited input from a broad spectrum of legislators, government officials, and interested individuals. In July 1999, DCR held a meeting to define the museum program and intent. This meeting was attended by over 40 individuals, including historians, museum directors, military agency representatives, and government officials. Additionally, Department staff visited museums and attended demonstrations and exhibits featuring military equipment and related artifacts.

VIRGINIA'S MILITARY HERITAGE

If there is any state in the Union that can claim to possess our nation's most comprehensive military heritage, it is the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia's history is filled with examples of leadership, valor, and sacrifice which epitomizes America's dedication to freedom and democracy. The Commonwealth's landscape has witnessed some of our nation's most dramatic and meaningful battles, while Virginia's ports, factories, and farms have an unparalleled record of support for the United States' effort to defend freedom throughout the world. Great commanders like George Washington, Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, Robert E. Lee, and George C. Marshall, Virginians all, established a tremendous record of leadership that is a model for future leaders to follow. In turn, the Old Dominion's sons and daughters have participated in every major American conflict, thereby defining the true concept of the citizen soldier.

Virginia's military heritage began in 1607 when colonists built the first fortification and established the first organized militia in English North America. The first armed rebellion against arbitrary rule occurred when Nathaniel Bacon organized a rebellion against Virginia's royal governor, Sir William Berkeley. The citizen soldier tradition continued throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as Virginians fought against foreign encroachment from the Anglo-Dutch War of 1667 to the French and Indian War. Virginia became a major battlefield during the American Revolution and the Civil War. These conflicts left Virginia's landscape dotted with battlefields, which still echo the sounds of freedom being forged and defined. During every conflict of the twentieth century, Virginia served the nation well. Shipbuilding centers built warships, ports sent troops overseas, military installations trained soldiers and sailors for combat, while those at home joined together to support each and every conflict in an admirable fashion.

Virginia's military legacy can be found throughout the Commonwealth. Whether solemn monuments like the Stonewall Jackson statue at Virginia Military Institute or the hallowed ground of battlefields like Yorktown, Virginia's martial traditions provide powerful lessons about America's past, present, and future. Students of all ages travel to the Commonwealth to learn about the great battles fought across the landscape or the brilliant commanders and citizen soldiers who established such a heroic heritage. Omaha Beach, Meuse-Argonne, Malvern Hill, and Yorktown are just a few of the names that ring a resounding tone of Virginia's dedication to preserving liberty throughout every decade of American history. This is a heritage that must be documented and preserved.

THE MUSEUM CONCEPT

The purpose of the Military History Museum would be to balance and unify the interpretation of United States military history. It could also serve as a location for a national veterans' center, which would be a gathering point for reunion and a site for learning about military history resources and events. The veterans' center would recognize the valuable contribution of service personnel and provide an additional avenue for marketing the museum. Every historical period would be interpreted, but the focus would be on the military history of the twentieth century.

It was in the twentieth century that the United States played the pivotal role of intervention to aid others and extend freedom -- resulting in the establishment and survival of democratic nations around the world.

The museum should be a major repository for military artifacts. Stored documents, equipment, and other pertinent materials should be gathered together for management, preservation, study, and program interpretation. All services should be included; the role each played in the protection of freedom would be illustrated.

This Military History Museum should be a catalyst for the development of partnerships. It can and should be the vehicle for developing synergy between the services, for collaboration between public and private history interests, and for celebration of the connection between the citizens who fought the wars for freedom and those who enjoyed freedom as a result of their sacrifice. The museum should make a positive statement about the use of military power to preserve freedom. It will also be a major contributor to the economy of Virginia and the nation.

The most advanced technology available can be used to strikingly inform and educate the public on military actions, equipment, doctrine, and the soldier. Spaces for exhibits, archives, preservation activities, and memorials would be provided. The site should be large enough to permit demonstrations, reenactments, and displays. The Museum would be a destination for visitors, but in order to provide a comprehensive presentation of the military history of this country, it should include the resources of the many private and public facilities that exist across the country and the world. Proposed regional museum centers would be a focus for specific programs. These would include areas for static and active demonstrations and exhibits. A remote site concept would expand partnership opportunities by including active, reserve, National Guard, and private military interests; it could lead to a series of military history trails across the country.

Four concepts for the museum are offered in this report. Concept one is a traditional self-contained museum. It would contain exhibit, archival, and research areas as well as spaces for demonstrations and static displays. Concept two would add regional museum centers as well as gateway centers for each of the services to direct visitors to remote sites and activity areas. Concept three is identical to the second concept with the exception of the Army Gateway. In this concept, the Army Gateway would be the proposed National Army Museum. Concept four outlines an option that does not rest entirely on the partnership between the federal government and the Commonwealth to assess and organize its military history resources. It establishes a Virginia partnership that would be directed to the preservation and management of the State's military history resources.

The report includes siting criteria. Recommended criteria include: acreage, terrain considerations, proximity to active military institutions and tourist attractions, community support, access to major transportation resources, and others. The state was divided into the Virginia Museum Association Regions. In four of the five Museum Association Regions, potential Military History Museum locations have been identified. Also, each region has the potential for a regional museum center. The majority of the suggested sites for the primary Military History Museum were in the Northern Virginia portion of the state.

There are many costs associated with the establishment of a Military History Museum. The site costs will vary with the geographical region of the state. They will also depend on whether the site is in public or private ownership. Raw land costs could vary from $3,000 to $10,000 per acre. These estimated expenditures would probably be too low for lands in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area. It is estimated that it would cost at least $500 per foot to construct the facility. This figure includes exhibit design and fabrication. Costs for a building or buildings could be expected to be in the $50 million to $150 million range.

The institution programs will provide an opportunity to educate the public on the significance of military history and to define the role of the individual soldier. Programming could also include reenactments, demonstrations, and displays. Virtual Reality technology, television, and other modern educational devices should be employed in presenting the museum message. Specific program costs cannot be defined at this stage in the development of the museum.

Site and program management will require the employment of full-time staff and the utilization of volunteers. Site and artifact maintenance, security, liability, and artifact acquisition costs must all be considered.

Artifacts and military history materials are available from a variety of sources. They are contained in public and private collections, in archival storage areas, and within the inventory of the armed services. It will require an organized and managed approach to determine what items should be included in the collection, and how to obtain them and present them for public education and appreciation.

Currently, there is a Memorandum of Understanding in effect between the Commonwealth and the Smithsonian Institution relating to the Air and Space Museum - Dulles Center. This should be used as a model for a new partnership between the state and the federal government for siting and developing a Military History Museum as well as the U. S. Army National Museum.

The report concluded that there were a number of issues that will need to be resolved. These include: determining the concept of a military history museum, establishing the U. S. Army National Museum, accommodating individual service interests, establishing the museum's focus, and determining the program.

It is feasible to establish the Military History Museum as well as the U. S. Army National Museum in Virginia. Further studies should be undertaken to identify specific sites and the advantages these site possess to provide education and economic value to the Commonwealth and the nation.

The museum should emphasize the history and the technology development of the World War II era. It was during this period that tremendous strides were made in armament, equipment, tactics, and military support. These advances were built on improvements of the past and resulted in the superior state of today's military institutions. Programming should be developed so that museum attendees can view actual operations of military equipment. With this in mind, several options could be considered. A large site with space and terrain for demonstrations or a smaller museum site with a nearby designated area for active demonstrations are two alternatives. Regional museum centers and separate remote sites would also accommodate demonstrations and special programs.

There will be significant costs associated with the museum. Appropriations from the federal, state, and local governments should be considered as potential funding sources. The establishment of a National Military Museum Foundation may be one mechanism for generating funding for the institution and its programs. These costs will be mitigated by the positive impact to local, state, and national economies from the establishment of the museum and its programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The report states that it is feasible, desirable, and logical to locate the Military History Museum in Virginia. There are potential sites in four of the five regions utilized by the Virginia Association of Museums for planning and organizing resources. Feasibility is predicated on further studies to identify and evaluate potential sites, to determine economic impact values and potential visitation, and to project needs for information and infrastructure improvements. The Commonwealth of Virginia should support the siting of the Virginia Military History Museum and continue to support the siting of the National Museum of the Army in a Virginia location.

• The report recommends that a partnership be formed between the state and federal government by the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Commission - to be appointed by the Governor and the General Assembly and Congress. This commission would include state and federal representation to make suggestions on siting, programming, and the mission of the institution.

• A Memorandum of Understanding should be developed to continue the partnership. Funds should be appropriated by the federal government to complete the necessary studies, which would address facility siting and issues related to economic development. Virginia agencies would provide assistance and support to the work of the Commission.

• If a federal/state partnership is not feasible, the Commonwealth should establish partnerships with Virginia military interests. This concept would provide for the establishment of regional museum centers, remote sites, and a core museum facility. It allows Virginia the opportunity to move forward to protect and present its military history assets and recognize those who have served and continue to serve this nation.

• The Commonwealth should assist in the selection of the primary museum site and the designation of regional museum centers and remote sites.

• Finally, consideration should be given to co-locating the proposed Military History Museum and the U. S. Anny Museum on the same site. The report also outlines the Virginia Military History Alternative that does not rely on the federal government for the organization and management of Virginia's military history resources.