GDG- NPs & Slavery

Tom Ryan pennmardel at mchsi.com
Tue Jan 3 12:13:56 CST 2012


Charles,

We just have a difference of opinion, and that is not a problem.  There is
room for more than one view on this subject.  I prefer to keep Gettysburg
about the battle for the most part, and not to engage too strongly in the
"ultimate" cause of the war (slavery) as you and others view it.

I have seen the movie at the VC three or four times, and each time I have
come away with an uneasy feeling.  But, that is the way it is, and there is
little that can be done about the intro at this point.

Others are welcome to accept it as it is.

Tom


-----------------------------


Tom,
Forgive me but it seems that you are straining logic quite a bit here to
avoid the issue of slavery as THE cause of secession, which frankly, is
indisputable: the South didn't secede because of taxes, or tariffs, or
any other issue -- read their Constitution.
 Again, without secession, there is no war (especially after the South
commenced hostilities by firing on federal troops manning federal
property -- treason, anyone? terrorism, anyone?)  Without the war, there
is no Gettysburg.
And this leaves out entirely the "larger" meaning of Gettysburg,
post-battle. So why shouldn't the NPS mention this in is introduction to
visitors, many of whom will never again visit a Civil war site, or
shrine?
What's so hard about this?
I believe we better serve our ancestors, those that fought and bled and
died for our nation, by being truthful about our history, warts and all.

Charles Joyce
-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Tom Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:24 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Dennis,

The issue as I understand it in this discussion is what should be
presented
to the public in the introductory material at Gettysburg.  My sense is
that
what is there now is skewed too heavily toward slavery.  My preference
is to
present the battle more in the context of holding the Union together.

Beyond that, the discussion of slavery becomes more than a little
esoteric.

Regards, Tom

--------------------------------

Hello,

I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another
method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to
war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact
that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result.

It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or
the cause secession without the inclusion of slavery.

The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which
was the cause of the war.

The other what-ifs do not apply to that.


Take Care

Dennis



----------------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