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

1875Re: [TalkAntietam] Hagerstown Fence

Expand Messages
  • richard@rcroker.com
    Apr 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen --

      I like your attitude. You make me laugh.

      Richard
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Stephen Recker" <recker@...>
      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:47 PM
      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Hagerstown Fence


      >
      > I was out there today taking photos of that exact fence, trying got
      > recreate the historical photo. Personally, I think the new fence is a
      > good thing. I guess you could make a case that it should've been
      > six-rail, but then you'd have to macadamize the road and switch the
      > phone lines for telegraph lines.
      >
      > Stephen Recker
      > Hagerstown, MD
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 07:05 PM, david lutton wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > I recall some postings concerning the new fence installed along the
      > > Hagerstown pike. I was recently in Sharpsburg and was curious to see
      > > how this work progressed.
      > >
      > > I was really saddened to see the results. Not only is the fence
      > > inaccurate (if I can recall the Gardner photos, the fence in this
      > > area of the field was six rails high not five), but the new fence is
      > > not in its proper location. I understand that traffic in this area
      > > presents a special problem but if I recall there are fences on both
      > > sides of the road around the Mumma farm. So my basic question is if
      > > the fence could not be placed in it's historic location why put a
      > > fence there at all??
      > >
      > > With so many period fence lines and stone walls on the field that
      > > need attention why waste funds on a historically inaccurate project
      > > like this? Are Park Service funds so plentiful as to permit this
      > > cosmetic project? What was the rational for it? I think that those
      > > of us who are opposed to any new additions to the field such as new
      > > monuments should be equally opposed to any frivolous additions like
      > > this new fence.
      > >
      > > Battery B, 4th US played a significant role in this phase of the
      > > contest and this new "fence" placed litterly in front of one of the
      > > muzzles of the battery guns does them no service.
      > >
      > > Any comments?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic