To the Editor:

I write concerning the tempest that has arisen over the modest and thoughtful plans of the Institute for Advanced Study to provide additional housing for its faculty on its own grounds.

Princeton’s worldwide fame and distinction, and the justifiable pride of its residents in the pleasures and advantages of its cultural and intellectual life, rest in no small measure on the presence and well-being of its greatest institutions: the University and the Institute for Advanced Study. All who care for the future of our town will wish to encourage their vitality and applaud their mission to advance knowledge and learning. The Institute’s plan to enhance opportunities for its scholars to work and live together will benefit the entire community, even while carefully preserving the traditional setting of our beloved battlefield.

Respect for our hallowed landmarks is a requirement of good citizenship. But to constantly expand their perimeter by declaring each blade of nearby grass to be an historic shrine undermines serious and balanced efforts to honor our heritage, and thus weakens the cause of preservation itself. I hope that the Institute’s housing plan will be approved.

Dr. Allen H. Kassof
Mercer Road

To the Editor:

Last week marked the 235th Anniversary of the Battle of Princeton, a seminal event in world history. With the Continental Congress running out of money, commissions of many soldiers also were running out on December 31, 1776. To try to keep his army together, General Washington gave an extra $10 pay to those who would stay a few more weeks beyond the end of their commissions. On January 2, 1777 General Cornwallis and his large professional army arrived in Trenton. That night, leaving bonfires and a small group to make noise, Washington managed to move his army out of Trenton, marching all night in freezing temperatures, reaching Princeton via a circuitous route. He marched his army of about 5,500 soldiers up the unguarded Saw Mill Road as dawn was breaking, hoping to initiate a surprise attack against the Princeton Garrison of about 1,500. In the first phase of the Battle, General Mercer and his brigade were defeated and General Mercer was repeatedly bayoneted and then carried to the Thomas Clarke House, where he died over a week later.

While much work remains to map the exact location of the now lost Saw Mill Road, all scholars who have carefully studied the Battle of Princeton have nonetheless concluded that Washington’s winning counterattack took place on the property just to the east of what is now Princeton Battlefield State Park. This has been established by mapping the original accounts of soldiers who fought in the battle, and has been confirmed overwhelmingly by archaeological evidence.

Today, without walking the sloping topography of the battlefield and understanding the dynamics of the counterattack, you cannot appreciate what happened on January 3, 1777. When, if the Continental Army had not prevailed, the American Revolution almost certainly would have been lost, and George Washington would have been hunted down and hanged. Just as the Battle of Normandy cannot be understood without seeing the topography of Normandy Beach, this pivotal moment in history can’t be memorialized by a sign or a monument, but must be experienced by walking the battlefield. Saving the property where the counterattack occurred is not a matter of whether an organization might be a good neighbor. It is a question of meeting the requirements of Princeton’s Master Plan to preserve the town’s vital historic resources for the best and highest use. If the Institute for Advance Study were to be a willing seller, funds almost certainly could be obtained to purchase the property and put it into the public domain.

What is the alternative for the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), whose faculty, we are told, just cannot afford to live in the neighborhood immediately around the IAS. There are several, but one that I find compelling is the establishment of a mortgage subsidy program, similar to that of Princeton University’s, which would allow faculty to choose the neighborhood and home of their choice, and enjoy the benefits of gaining equity in their homes. I invite faculty with or without a subsidy to check out my own wonderful neighborhood, only about six minutes from the IAS campus.

Dan Thompson
Member, Princeton Battlefield Society, 
Dempsey Avenue

To the Editor:

We have both lived in or been associated with the town of Princeton since the late 1950’s and have benefitted from the town’s many significant intellectual attractions, principally, of course, Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS). Our friends and acquaintances and those of our children have all been a part of this fabric, or been positively influenced by proximity to these two world class institutions. Our lives have been enriched.

We write to weigh in on the discussion surrounding the proposed IAS housing and the use of a portion of their land that was, coincidentally, a part of the Revolutionary War Battle of Princeton. We all know that this battle ranged from the famous Christmas crossing of the Delaware river, the engagement in Trenton, and the continuing march across the fields and streams to fight with a British force on the Thomas Clark farm in Princeton. Cannon balls were found lodged in the walls of Nassau Hall, a short distance from the battlefield.

We also remember and honor the IAS for giving up the development rights to the woodlands now known as the Institute Woods and to agree to sell that enormous parcel to a conservation group assembled in the 1970s under the leadership of Frank Taplin together with other town residents. Negotiations at that time specifically set aside land for the further use and expansion of the Institute. Any attempt to renegotiate that understanding seems to us inappropriate. The IAS has already done more than its share to preserve open space, including helping to preserve an important part of the battlefield. The town Planning Board should grant whatever permissions are required as soon as possible to allow the IAS to move forward with its planned limited development project.

Michael and Cecilia Mathews
Bedens Brook Road

To the Editor:

I attended two previous Planning Board meetings at which the Institute’s real estate development on the site of a critical point in the Battle of Princeton was challenged. As a Princeton Battlefield Society trustee I cannot question the good neighbor position held by residents near the Institute. Nor can I question the tree line defense, its required design for housing, or the road’s width on the site. What I must question is: What does this defense have to do with the historical significance and proposed desecration of the property in question?

I have other questions, such as what happened to the due diligence of the Historic Commission in researching and studying the issues raised by the society? Did the commission read and consider the APBB study? With all property owned by the Institute, why must this real estate development take place on this historic site? What consideration was given by the IAS board and administration to the implications of this real estate development on land critically important to American history and heritage? This was one of the reasons for the APBB study, which confirmed the Society’s position and was subsequently confirmed by noted historian, Dr. James McPherson.

I am not against the Institute. I am against its real estate development of this property. When a faculty member has to acquire land rights from the IAS and to build a required house design at his or her own expense, it can only be considered real estate development. A vote must come down to real estate development versus heritage. Not surprisingly, I would vote for heritage.

Bill Marsch
Old Georgetown Road