1333RE: [TalkAntietam] Re: South Mountain
- Apr 28, 2004Tim,
No one is being dishonest if you are referring to me. There is some truth to
what you say and I agree with you about the state, political and private
concerns of the South Mountain battlefields. His question about the Reno and
Garland monuments being moved, as far as I know, there are no plans afoot to
move either unless you know something I do not. Also, at this point in time
I am not associated with any group except Save Historic Antietam Foundation.
I left CMHL awhile back because of a plethora of back stabbing politics and
lip service in the name of battlefield preservation in the board of
directors' current make up. Further, I have not been terribly happy with
what the state has been up to(or not up to as the case may be)in the last
several years. I am not anyone's agent just as you are not. Just a concerned
civil war historian as you are.
From: tjrhys62 [mailto:tjreesecg@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:59 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: South Mountain
Your South Mountain question seems to have resurrected naïve
assumptions about cooperative, incongruent battlefield ownership,
its purported preservation, and the likelihood of achieving any
symbiosis toward accessible park status. Complex questions require
far more than simple answers, given the disparate groups involved
possessed of wholly divergent if not incompatible objectives. Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain.
Instead may I direct your attention to http://cwbn.blogspot.com/ for
insightful investigation into the matter, postings for 3/5, 3/10,
3/12, 3/16. This is an intermittent thread which you will easily
pick up, a welcome breath of candor.
Also, if you seek honest definition of "South Mountain"
battlefields, and the political chicanery at work behind the scenes,
have a look at http://home.earthlink.net/~tjreesecg/id6.html. All is
not as it appears.
Having waded through all this, then see http://mlis.state.md.us/PDF-
Documents/2000rs/bills/hb/hb1183t.pdf for the official language of
what South Mountain "Fake" Battlefield is and is not. It's icing
without a cake which children naturally prefer.
While the kiddies play, the house burns. Santa can't get down this
--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, <richard@r...> wrote:
> Thanks Kevin -- I feel a littel better.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rawlings, Kevin" <kevin.rawlings@s...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] Re: South Mountain
> > Richard,
> > The Reno and Garland monuments art not going anywhere. The
> > is on Central Maryland Heritage League land and the state now
> > Daniel Wise home site and the Appalachain Trail owns much of the
> > way through there. Much of the land at Fox's Gap are is own by
> > the other or development rights have been bought up by the
> > Turner's Gap as Tim Reese described the Frostown Road are is
> > developement attack but the Alt 40 up the gap is protected.
> > Kevin Rawlings
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy
Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer
at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>