GDG- Changes in Gettyburg Battlefield thru the years

joadx1 at netscape.net joadx1 at netscape.net
Mon Jan 2 18:23:23 CST 2012


Once again, I ask that the subscribers to this list read what I actually say rather than what they want to hear.  I did not say that the former superintendent was removed because of his interpretation of the battle, I said that a lot of people were keen to get rid of him because he changed the traditional wholly military take on the battle field (which would explain why his confidential personnel files were leaked to the press).

I am grateful to Mr. Dennis Lawrence for corroborating what I said.

And I did a web search of the whole matter.  I found plenty of complaints about the former superintendent's interpretational adjustments to the park's presentations (all them in response to Congressional requirements), as well as to his choice of historians in making those adjustments.  The following series of posts makes it quite clear what the issue was:

http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2005811

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 2, 2012 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- Changes in Gettyburg Battlefield thru the years


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
The reason the last superintendent was removed was over  personnel issue, not 
interpretation of the field.
The reason some people was that some people really resented that he would not 
remake the park in their image and likeness.
Dr. Latcshar was the finest steward of the field since Bacheldor. Your statement  
is wrong and a repetition 
of groundless hearsay.
You are on your own on the rest.
Regards,
Jack

joadx1 at netscape.net wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
> I've never been to Gettysburg, but I am aware that the real reason so many 
people were so keen to get rid of the last park director was precisely because 
he would not cooperate with the pretense that somehow the Battle of Gettysburg 
was a battle co-fought by Americans who equally deserve honor for it.  But it 
was Lincoln who explained what the battle was about: a new birth of freedom.  
And the slave owning, African-kidnapping soldiers of the ANV who were looting 
American farms in a military invasion of Pennsylvania were not fighting for what 
Lincoln was talking about.
>
>Now, before anyone responds that the armies of the United States were 
"invading" the south, let it be remembered that the southern states never did 
successfully form an independent nation.  The confederacy was never recognized 
by anyone (except, perhaps, Maximillian, who is the exception who would prove 
the rule), thus it never was a nation in law.  I could declare myself an 
independent nation but that wouldn't make me one unless I got official 
recognition.  The military actions of the United States were carefully declared 
by the president as follows:
>
>"Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now 
are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South 
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by 
combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial 
proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
>
>Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of 
the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to 
call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the 
Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress 
said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed."
>
>This proclamation was worded with extreme legal care, and its significance was 
that as far as the government of the United States was concerned, there was no 
southern nation.  That judgment could have been overturned by military victory, 
but that is the whole point of the Battle of Gettysburg: the forces of the 
United States won the battle (and war) against the states in military rebellion, 
a rebellion whose "cornerstone" (cf. Alexander Stevens) was slavery.
>
>Hence, the inclusion of slavery in displays at the military park. 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Clarence Hollowell <antietam33 at hotmail.com>
>To: gettysburg <gettysburg at arthes.com>
>Sent: Mon, Jan 2, 2012 7:54 am
>Subject: Re: GDG- Changes in Gettyburg Battlefield thru the years
>
>
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>you are right Jack and how they put in slavery at every chance they get instead 

>of information about the battle and the men who fought it.  
> 
> 
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
-to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to 
unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

 


More information about the Gettysburg mailing list