GDG- Changes in Gettyburg Battlefield thru the years

Jack Lawrence jlawrence at
Mon Jan 2 19:49:08 CST 2012

Ahh. But I think that you imbedded the message you wanted heard, while 
circumlocating the responsibility.



If there be here lesson of moral, it lies beyond the competence of him that 
inscribes this record.

Jack Vance-Emphryo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <joadx1 at>
To: <gettysburg at>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Changes in Gettyburg Battlefield thru the years

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 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:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at>
> To: GDG <gettysburg at>
> 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 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 
> 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 
> 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>
>>To: gettysburg <gettysburg at>
>>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 
>>of information about the battle and the men who fought it.
> -to unsubscribe
>> for Archives
> ---------------- 
>  -to
> unsubscribe
> for Archives
> ---------------- 
>  -to unsubscribe
> for Archives

More information about the Gettysburg mailing list