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

90th Pa monument

Expand Messages
  • 128thpa@comcast.net
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 16 8:32 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Brian Morris
      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
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 16 10:53 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • robert blama
        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
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 18 8:06 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
        • Brian Morris
          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
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 18 9:27 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • James2044
            ... 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
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 18 10:45 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "robert blama" <civilwar1@c...>
              wrote:
              > 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)

              *******************************************************************

              This is the aurgement the PC crwod at NPS is using to make the
              NBPs "more inclusive". It isn't good history, it destroyes the NBP
              as left by the men who fought there and it isn't proven to increase
              attendence. IMO, "obscure incidents" is PC speak for adding an EEOC
              where none existed.

              James2044
            • robert blama
              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.
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 18 7:06 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                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]
              • robert blama
                definitely agains revisionist history, not for allowing hundreds of monuments to be added but should view as a case by case decision. I have to respectfully
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 18 7:10 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  definitely agains revisionist history, not for allowing hundreds of monuments to be added but should view as a case by case decision. I have to respectfully disagree about attendance. Where there are plaques and monuments there are tourists. Monocacy have few visitors with respect to other battlefields and the battle fields around Richmond is hard to discern a lot of it is bare.
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: James2044
                  To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:45 PM
                  Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: 90th Pa monument


                  --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "robert blama" <civilwar1@c...>
                  wrote:
                  > 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)

                  *******************************************************************

                  This is the aurgement the PC crwod at NPS is using to make the
                  NBPs "more inclusive". It isn't good history, it destroyes the NBP
                  as left by the men who fought there and it isn't proven to increase
                  attendence. IMO, "obscure incidents" is PC speak for adding an EEOC
                  where none existed.

                  James2044







                  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]
                • Brian Morris
                  Which monuments are you referring to as not allowed? Confederate monuments were not banned from the Gettysburg battlefield at all. The Confederates simply
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 18 8:07 PM
                  • 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
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Rawlings, Kevin
                    Guys, As a member of SHAF we are officially against the New Hampshire monument just as we were against Chaney s statue. John Howard is unfortunately up against
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 19 3:54 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Guys,

                      As a member of SHAF we are officially against the New Hampshire monument
                      just as we were against Chaney's statue. John Howard is unfortunately up
                      against political forces in congress that are bending or removing the
                      prohibition of monuments because there will be a with-holding of Park
                      Service funds or budget if this is not done. Another words, John is between
                      a rock and a hard place.

                      Kevin Rawlings
                    • robert blama
                      The confeds at gettys were allowed state monuments. They were poor and might not have been able to put them up but stated earlier Oates tried and could not
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 20 5:35 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The confeds at gettys were allowed state monuments. They were poor and might not have been able to put them up but stated earlier Oates tried and could not get one and he was paying for it himself.
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Brian Morris
                        To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:07 PM
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument


                        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
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >







                        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]
                      • James2044
                        ... poor and might not have been able to put them up but stated earlier Oates tried and could not get one and he was paying for it himself. Oats could not get
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jul 22 1:54 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "robert blama" <civilwar1@c...>
                          wrote:
                          > The confeds at gettys were allowed state monuments. They were
                          poor and might not have been able to put them up but stated earlier
                          Oates tried and could not get one and he was paying for it himself.

                          Oats could not get the monument where he wanted it, on Little Round
                          Top, his most advanced position. He was unwilling to place the
                          monument where the rules allowed it.

                          James2044
                        • 128thpa@comcast.net
                          Everyone should stop by and see the rededicated 90th Pa monument on Cornfield Ave on their next visit. Despite the bad weather we had a very nice, albeit
                          Message 12 of 14 , Sep 19, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Everyone should stop by and see the rededicated 90th Pa monument on Cornfield Ave on their next visit. Despite the bad weather we had a very nice, albeit lowkey ceremony since some folks couldn't make it down because of Ivan.
                            Paula

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • 128thpa@comcast.net
                            I agree Tom! I would not have been involved with the 90th Pa monument foundation otherwise. Putting that
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 17, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              <<This not apply to the
                              90th PA monument...>>
                              I agree Tom! I would not have been involved with the 90th Pa monument foundation otherwise. Putting that monument up was a dream of a a good friend, Jim Durkin. When he showed me the photo of the original monument placed by the veterans, I really felt that it needed to be replaced on the field. Unfortunately, Jim never got to see the results of what he started, but I knew he was looking down on us at the dedication. Jim was one of those folks who always put his money where his mouth was.
                              Two other folks who deserve the credit for getting the monument back to its rightful place are Eric Schmincke and Gary Casteel. It would not be there yet if it weren't for their dedication.
                              Paula

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Eric Schmincke
                              Paula, You too helped along with many who contributed with their hard earned dollars, time and talent. John Howard and the staff deserve much thanks as well as
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 17, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Paula,
                                You too helped along with many who
                                contributed with their hard earned
                                dollars, time and talent. John Howard
                                and the staff deserve much thanks as well
                                as we along with the park workers
                                endured severe weather while installing
                                the monument. Welding in the rain was not
                                fun......

                                Eric
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: 128thpa@...
                                To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument
                                Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:56:34 +0000



                                <html><body>


                                <tt>
                                <<This not apply to the<BR>
                                90th PA monument...>><BR>
                                I agree Tom! I would not have been involved with the 90th Pa monument foundation otherwise. Putting that monument up was a dream of a a good friend, Jim Durkin. When he showed me the photo of the original monument placed by the veterans, I really felt that it needed to be replaced on the field. Unfortunately, Jim never got to see the results of what he started, but I knew he was looking down on us at the dedication. Jim was one of those folks who always put his money where his mouth was.<BR>
                                Two other folks who deserve the credit for getting the monument back to its rightful place are Eric Schmincke and Gary Casteel. It would not be there yet if it weren't for their dedication.<BR>
                                Paula<BR>
                                <BR>
                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR>
                                <BR>
                                </tt>

                                <br><br>
                                <tt>
                                <BR>
                                </tt>
                                <br><br>

                                <br>

                                <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                                <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                                <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                                <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                                </tr>
                                <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                                <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1296e0n4k/M=298184.6191685.7192823.3001176/D=groups/S=1705126278:HM/EXP=1111196918/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075" alt=""><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td>
                                </tr>
                                <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6191685.7192823.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2593423/rand=524868135"></td></tr>
                                </table>

                                <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



                                <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                                <br>
                                <tt><hr width="500">
                                <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
                                <ul>
                                <li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/</a><br>
                                <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>
                                <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
                                </ul>
                                </tt>
                                </br>

                                <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


                                </body></html>





                                --
                                _______________________________________________
                                Get your free Verizonmail at www.verizonmail.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.