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

1482Re: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument

Expand Messages
  • Brian Morris
    Jul 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Which monuments are you referring to as not allowed? Confederate monuments
      were not banned from the Gettysburg battlefield at all. The Confederates
      simply chose not to build them on Battlefields in the North for a variety of
      reasons but in the South. You go south and you will see a great many
      Confederate monuments. The Richmond area has quite a number of monuments and
      statues.

      The only two Confederate monuments off the top of my head that were not
      allowed were the Pickett's Charge monument at the Angle and Oates' monument
      on LRT. This was because of the of the rules set about by the monument
      commission of markers in forward or transient posisions. Those were the same
      rules applied to Union monuments. I know of many more Union monuments that
      were disallowed than I do Confederate.

      This is a very slippery slope. You allow New Hampshire to build a new
      monument then what happens when Vermont wants one? How about Ohio? Then what
      happens if Pa wants another monument to a regiment that doesn't have one?
      Where does it stop? How many more monuments are you prepared to have built
      on Antietam Battlefield?

      Brian

      > how about confederate monuments that were not allowed on the field. Also
      only a small percentage of monuments were placed at the expense of the vet
      themselves. Like Pa gave $1500 to each rgt to build a monument. Other states
      not so kind. Maybe those forgotten soldiers would love to have a monument to
      remember their deeds
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Brian Morris
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:27 PM
      > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument
      >
      >
      > Yes but those monuments you are referring to were placed by the veterans
      of
      > the battle, not by us 140 years later. I know the stories of the
      regimental
      > monuments very well and I am not against the monuments on the field put
      > there by the men who fought there. They are historic and very much
      belong on
      > the fields. I'm against monuments being placed on the field 140 years
      later.
      > They are graffiti in my opinion because they are being placed on the
      field
      > by people whose main motivations are they want to leave their permanent
      mark
      > on the field.
      >
      > If this New Hampshire monument goes through look for a whole bunch of
      new
      > state monuments on the Antietam Battlefield. Do you honestly think some
      > Senator or Congressman in a tight re-election campaign from a state
      without
      > a monument is going to say no when some local Civil War re-enactors
      group
      > comes along and asks for a marker for Alabama, Georgia, Maine or some
      other
      > state that doesn't have one on the field yet? Of course not because if
      he
      > says no his opponent can say he voted against a monument to honor fallen
      > soldiers. So he/she is going to say "Sure, let's have a monument
      honoring
      > the good men from *insert state here*" and here will come another one
      and
      > another. Do we want a preserved battlefiled or a field covered with
      > monuments to modern day political campaigns?
      >
      > Brian
      >
      > > Not sure I agree that monuments are graffiti. Since there are many
      more
      > causal people visiting the battlefields than the buffs, some type of
      > interpretation is needed for them to understand. A lot of the monuments
      at
      > Gettysburg tell a story (through their dedication) of the role of the
      rgt in
      > the battle that we might not have otherwise. Also they tell of obscure
      > incidents which are might never had been told (like Sally of the 11th
      Pa)
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Brian Morris
      > > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:53 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument
      > >
      > >
      > > Not at all. The 90th Pa monument was simply the replacing of a
      monument
      > put
      > > there by the men who fought there. If the 69 Pa or Irish Brigade
      > monuments
      > > were damaged and needed replacing at Gettysburg I would wish for
      them to
      > be
      > > replaced as they were originally placed there by the veterans.
      > >
      > > However we didn't fight there so I don't believe we have a right to
      come
      > > along and start placing new monuments at this late date. The problem
      is
      > > people have very strong interests in the Civil War. It's like a
      ghost
      > > however because while it's all around us yet it's still far enough
      back
      > in
      > > history that it's very hard to get a firm grasp on it. So we try and
      > connect
      > > with it through walking the battlefields, re-enactments and so on.
      > Trying to
      > > get a better vision of what it was like. Some people however take it
      to
      > far
      > > and these new monuments are the result of it. They think that by
      getting
      > a
      > > permanent monument placed on a battlefield that they are now
      permanently
      > > connected to that battle. That's not the case however. All they've
      done
      > is
      > > graffitied the battlefield except instead of using spray paint
      they've
      > used
      > > granite and bronze.
      > >
      > > Brian
      > >
      > > > Well, with all this talk of being against new monuments, I hope
      folks
      > > don't put the 90th Pa monument in that category. The monument which
      > will be
      > > dedicated at 12:30 on Sept 18th is a replacement for the original
      > monument
      > > placed on the battlefield by the veterans themselves.
      > > > I know some folks are against any monuments, but in my opinion, if
      the
      > > veterans put them there - the monuments are as much a part of the
      > > battlefield as anything else. It is part of the history and the
      reason
      > for
      > > saving these battlefields. The monuments are a concrete expression
      of
      > how
      > > the veterans felt and remembered the land that they risk their all.
      > > > Paula
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >


      > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > ----
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
      > >
      > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
      >
      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic