I feel like I am missing an important part of an argument, and, as such, I hope it will be provided by my commenters. Doughoregan Manor has clear and unquestionable historic significance. However, it is privately owned. There are some that have argued that the idea of this being private property is a "sham issue" and that the state or federal government should act to prevent the "piecemeal destruction" of this historical landmark.
My issue is that it is clearly and unquestionably private property, no matter the historical significance. By any reading of the Constitution, it will take an act of Congress to change the property from private to public. What am I missing? I am not being sarcastic. I honestly am concerned that I am missing the heart of this issue, and that this property, while in private hands, is not open for private dealing and should be restricted by our government.