Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1336Re: Reenactment?

Expand Messages
  • tjrhys62
    Apr 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Richard,

      Fact is I haven't heard any buzz about a reenactment this year
      whatsoever. You of course know about the troubles plaguing the
      Sharpsburg Heritage Festival. Brian has posted nothing on AotW, and
      I for one haven't heard diddly though everybody bends my ear sooner
      or later. Maybe someone else?

      Perhaps 140th observances in Virginia are logically stealing all the
      fire this year. Just a guess.

      Tim

      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, <richard@r...> wrote:
      > Guys -- I need to know if there is going to be an Antietam
      anniversary
      > reenactment this year. What's the buzz?
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Rawlings, Kevin" <kevin.rawlings@s...>
      > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:03 PM
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] Re: South Mountain
      >
      >
      > Tim,
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > Kevin Rawlings
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: tjrhys62 [mailto:tjreesecg@e...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:59 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: South Mountain
      >
      >
      > Richard,
      >
      > 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
      > chimney.
      >
      > Tim
      >
      > --- 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
      > Garland
      > > monumment
      > > > is on Central Maryland Heritage League land and the state now
      > owns the
      > > > Daniel Wise home site and the Appalachain Trail owns much of
      the
      > right of
      > > > way through there. Much of the land at Fox's Gap are is own by
      > one group
      > > or
      > > > the other or development rights have been bought up by the
      > state. At
      > > > Turner's Gap as Tim Reese described the Frostown Road are is
      > under
      > > > 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.
      > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/GmiolB/TM
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      --~->
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic