Preserve more American Civil War sites?

[whitehall]

The History Channel sponsored, "American Pickers" claim that "Civil War sites are being lost to construction at the rate of an acre per hour". The figure seems exaggerated. They want Americans to donate a couple of bucks "to preserve Civil War sites"'. The US seems to be bi-polar these days when it comes to the Civil War heritage. One faction says that Southern Americans should be arrested for flying the Confederate flag while they make money from the tourism that the Civil War generates. How much Civil War acerage should we preserve? We have every major battlefield fenced in and patrolled by Federal Police. Believe me if you pick up a mini ball in a federal park you will spend the night in the slammer if the Cops catch you. If they preserved every acre in Europe that was fought over they would have the whole place fenced in. Enough is enough. Visit Gettysburg or Antitam and quit whining about preserving every place that Civil War troops ever visited.

 

[Warrior102]

I agree a visit to Gettysburg is cool - however - there's a lot of Civil War stuff in Virginia that I love to visit (family cemeteries, churches, homes, etc.). Would be a shame to replace them with a WalMart

 

[Anachronism]

The American Civil War is probably the most important event in American History (since the official creation of the country). It most definitely changed and shaped the last 150 years of this country more than anything else. To that end, I believe that ALL of the major battlefields should be maintained, along with as many of the lesser sites as is possible. If you have never walked the field at Gettysburg, I urge you to make the trip someday. I don't think anyone can stand upon that ground and leave without it impacting them in some way.

 

[whitehall]

The American Civil War is probably the most important event in American History (since the official creation of the country). It most definitely changed and shaped the last 150 years of this country more than anything else. To that end, I believe that ALL of the major battlefields should be maintained, along with as many of the lesser sites as is possible. If you have never walked the field at Gettysburg, I urge you to make the trip someday. I don't think anyone can stand upon that ground and leave without it impacting them in some way.

It would take you a week to "walk the field" at Gettysburg. I spent two days and hardly scratched the surface. My point is that every major battlefield has been preserved. I don't know what the "pickers" are refering to when they say "an acre an hour is being lost". What happens when you donate the $2.40 or whatever the reality stars are promoting? Some phantom entity buys an acre of alleged "Civil War" turf and sits on it until they can sell it for a bundle or try to promote tourism to an obscure place nobody visits? Is it a scam or an honest project that is doomed to failure or is it a greenie project to lock up acreage?

 

[whitehall]

I agree a visit to Gettysburg is cool - however - there's a lot of Civil War stuff in Virginia that I love to visit (family cemeteries, churches, homes, etc.). Would be a shame to replace them with a WalMart

I doubt if it's legal for Walmart to plow up a cemetary to build a parking lot. My guess is that the "pickers" are refering to minor battlefields and perhaps old homes that are slated for demolition. You can't keep them all. Lexington, Va. home of VMI which sent college kids to fight for the Confederacy at New Market, turned down the tourist attraction of the Confederate Museum. Everything in Lexington is named "Stonewall Jackson" something or other but the city was afraid to accept the Confederate museum because of the alleged racist connection. So, you have everything including the hospital named after a Confederate general but the city fathers didn't want to take the chance in accepting a guaranteed tourist attraction called "Museum of the Confederacy" because of the alleged offensive nature of the Confederacy. That's the bi-polarism I'm talking about. I find it difficult to understand the push to "preserve Civil War sites".

 

[Anachronism]

It would take you a week to "walk the field" at Gettysburg. I spent two days and hardly scratched the surface. My point is that every major battlefield has been preserved. I don't know what the "pickers" are refering to when they say "an acre an hour is being lost". What happens when you donate the $2.40 or whatever the reality stars are promoting? Some phantom entity buys an acre of alleged "Civil War" turf and sits on it until they can sell it for a bundle or try to promote tourism to an obscure place nobody visits? Is it a scam or an honest project that is doomed to failure or is it a greenie project to lock up acreage?

Yes it would take a week to walk the entire battlefield. However, simply taking the standard tour, which gives you a reasonable overview of the major locations on the field is all it takes to get a feel for the history and importance of the place. I'd love to spend a month at that battlefield, but somehow I doubt my boss would approve.

Gettysburg is a good example. There WAS a plan to build a WalMart on part of the battlefield, or on a parcel directly adjacent to it that was shot down in the last couple of years. I do believe the plan called for some of the park land to be included in the construction site. Those are the type of projects that the monies should be going to prevent. This is not a new program, it's been around for at least 5 years that I'm aware of and probably much longer.

 

[whitehall]

It would take you a week to "walk the field" at Gettysburg. I spent two days and hardly scratched the surface. My point is that every major battlefield has been preserved. I don't know what the "pickers" are refering to when they say "an acre an hour is being lost". What happens when you donate the $2.40 or whatever the reality stars are promoting? Some phantom entity buys an acre of alleged "Civil War" turf and sits on it until they can sell it for a bundle or try to promote tourism to an obscure place nobody visits? Is it a scam or an honest project that is doomed to failure or is it a greenie project to lock up acreage?

Yes it would take a week to walk the entire battlefield. However, simply taking the standard tour, which gives you a reasonable overview of the major locations on the field is all it takes to get a feel for the history and importance of the place. I'd love to spend a month at that battlefield, but somehow I doubt my boss would approve.

Gettysburg is a good example. There WAS a plan to build a WalMart on part of the battlefield, or on a parcel directly adjacent to it that was shot down in the last couple of years. I do believe the plan called for some of the park land to be included in the construction site. Those are the type of projects that the monies should be going to prevent. This is not a new program, it's been around for at least 5 years that I'm aware of and probably much longer.

To quote Stephen King "what's fun is fun and what's done is done". Every major Civil War battlefield is fenced in and fully financed and policed. While the left is pretending the Confederacy never existed (but making a once modest tourist dollar) they seem to want to preserve more Civil War sites that can't possibly be maintained or ever make a tourist profit. I am a loss to understand why.

 

[Immanuel]

The American Civil War is probably the most important event in American History (since the official creation of the country). It most definitely changed and shaped the last 150 years of this country more than anything else. To that end, I believe that ALL of the major battlefields should be maintained, along with as many of the lesser sites as is possible. If you have never walked the field at Gettysburg, I urge you to make the trip someday. I don't think anyone can stand upon that ground and leave without it impacting them in some way.

It would take you a week to "walk the field" at Gettysburg. I spent two days and hardly scratched the surface. My point is that every major battlefield has been preserved. I don't know what the "pickers" are refering to when they say "an acre an hour is being lost". What happens when you donate the $2.40 or whatever the reality stars are promoting? Some phantom entity buys an acre of alleged "Civil War" turf and sits on it until they can sell it for a bundle or try to promote tourism to an obscure place nobody visits? Is it a scam or an honest project that is doomed to failure or is it a greenie project to lock up acreage?

Are you sure they were talking about Civil War Battlefields? Heck, those sound like the exact words I used to hear on the Animal Planet (I think that was the channel) when they were talking about the destruction of the Rainforests in Brazil. I mean right down to the "acre an hour".

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

To quote Stephen King "what's fun is fun and what's done is done". Every major Civil War battlefield is fenced in and fully financed and policed. While the left is pretending the Confederacy never existed (but making a once modest tourist dollar) they seem to want to preserve more Civil War sites that can't possibly be maintained or ever make a tourist profit. I am a loss to understand why.

This comes down to one of the main questions with any level of historical site.... What's more important: the History or turning a Profit?

Personally, I think that the History is more important most of the time. I know that a lot of people will disagree with me. I also know that there are a bunch of sites of very minor historical importance that look for support and protection even though they really don't deserve it.

In terms of the Civil War the problem is two-fold.....

First you have one area of the country (the South) that would preserve everything related to the conflict versus another area that wouldn't bother preserving any of it (the North). You're asking people from the North to help support the protection of sites that most of them will never visit and which have little to no interest to most of them.

Secondly you have the connection between the Civil War and the wholely politically incorrect concept of slavery. A lot of people associate the war solely with that topic, therefore they would like to scrub all mention and rememberances of it out of existance to protect their fragile little egos.

 

[whitehall]

The American Civil War is probably the most important event in American History (since the official creation of the country). It most definitely changed and shaped the last 150 years of this country more than anything else. To that end, I believe that ALL of the major battlefields should be maintained, along with as many of the lesser sites as is possible. If you have never walked the field at Gettysburg, I urge you to make the trip someday. I don't think anyone can stand upon that ground and leave without it impacting them in some way.

It would take you a week to "walk the field" at Gettysburg. I spent two days and hardly scratched the surface. My point is that every major battlefield has been preserved. I don't know what the "pickers" are refering to when they say "an acre an hour is being lost". What happens when you donate the $2.40 or whatever the reality stars are promoting? Some phantom entity buys an acre of alleged "Civil War" turf and sits on it until they can sell it for a bundle or try to promote tourism to an obscure place nobody visits? Is it a scam or an honest project that is doomed to failure or is it a greenie project to lock up acreage?

Are you sure they were talking about Civil War Battlefields? Heck, those sound like the exact words I used to hear on the Animal Planet (I think that was the channel) when they were talking about the destruction of the Rainforests in Brazil. I mean right down to the "acre an hour".

Immie

Yeah, "an acre an hour" seems to work for a lot of psudo science including global warming. I like the American Pickers and it's a shame they were coerced to shill for a fake crisis. It's been about 150 years since the Civil War so the ad-agencies came up with a plan to donate $1.50 "to save the Civil War sites. Get it? 150 Years and $1.50? Except there aren't any Civil War sites that still need "saving".

 

[whitehall]

To quote Stephen King "what's fun is fun and what's done is done". Every major Civil War battlefield is fenced in and fully financed and policed. While the left is pretending the Confederacy never existed (but making a once modest tourist dollar) they seem to want to preserve more Civil War sites that can't possibly be maintained or ever make a tourist profit. I am a loss to understand why.

This comes down to one of the main questions with any level of historical site.... What's more important: the History or turning a Profit?

Personally, I think that the History is more important most of the time. I know that a lot of people will disagree with me. I also know that there are a bunch of sites of very minor historical importance that look for support and protection even though they really don't deserve it.

In terms of the Civil War the problem is two-fold.....

First you have one area of the country (the South) that would preserve everything related to the conflict versus another area that wouldn't bother preserving any of it (the North). You're asking people from the North to help support the protection of sites that most of them will never visit and which have little to no interest to most of them.

Secondly you have the connection between the Civil War and the wholely politically incorrect concept of slavery. A lot of people associate the war solely with that topic, therefore they would like to scrub all mention and rememberances of it out of existance to protect their fragile little egos.

All the Civil War sites are in the geographical South. Why would a couple of clods from Iowa who make a living traveling around buying stuff to re-sell at a profit promote donations to preserve obscure Civil War sites that would be off limits to their picking? I ain't got a clue except that they work for the History Channel and it might be part of the contract to shill for this kind of stuff. I can't stress enough that the same liberal faction that encourages the preservation of alleged Civil War sites is also at war with anything related to the Confederacy. Here's an idea, buy all the Atlanta real estate for sale and burn it to the ground to illustrate what a great job general Sherman did.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

To quote Stephen King "what's fun is fun and what's done is done". Every major Civil War battlefield is fenced in and fully financed and policed. While the left is pretending the Confederacy never existed (but making a once modest tourist dollar) they seem to want to preserve more Civil War sites that can't possibly be maintained or ever make a tourist profit. I am a loss to understand why.

This comes down to one of the main questions with any level of historical site.... What's more important: the History or turning a Profit?

Personally, I think that the History is more important most of the time. I know that a lot of people will disagree with me. I also know that there are a bunch of sites of very minor historical importance that look for support and protection even though they really don't deserve it.

In terms of the Civil War the problem is two-fold.....

First you have one area of the country (the South) that would preserve everything related to the conflict versus another area that wouldn't bother preserving any of it (the North). You're asking people from the North to help support the protection of sites that most of them will never visit and which have little to no interest to most of them.

Secondly you have the connection between the Civil War and the wholely politically incorrect concept of slavery. A lot of people associate the war solely with that topic, therefore they would like to scrub all mention and rememberances of it out of existance to protect their fragile little egos.

All the Civil War sites are in the geographical South. Why would a couple of clods from Iowa who make a living traveling around buying stuff to re-sell at a profit promote donations to preserve obscure Civil War sites that would be off limits to their picking? I ain't got a clue except that they work for the History Channel and it might be part of the contract to shill for this kind of stuff. I can't stress enough that the same liberal faction that encourages the preservation of alleged Civil War sites is also at war with anything related to the Confederacy. Here's an idea, buy all the Atlanta real estate for sale and burn it to the ground to illustrate what a great job general Sherman did.

First you complain that we don't need to preserve these sites, and that Gettysburg (and a few other major battlefields) are enough. You then say all the sites are in the south.

Do you really need a map as to the location of Gettysburg?

 

[whitehall]

This comes down to one of the main questions with any level of historical site.... What's more important: the History or turning a Profit?

Personally, I think that the History is more important most of the time. I know that a lot of people will disagree with me. I also know that there are a bunch of sites of very minor historical importance that look for support and protection even though they really don't deserve it.

In terms of the Civil War the problem is two-fold.....

First you have one area of the country (the South) that would preserve everything related to the conflict versus another area that wouldn't bother preserving any of it (the North). You're asking people from the North to help support the protection of sites that most of them will never visit and which have little to no interest to most of them.

Secondly you have the connection between the Civil War and the wholely politically incorrect concept of slavery. A lot of people associate the war solely with that topic, therefore they would like to scrub all mention and rememberances of it out of existance to protect their fragile little egos.

All the Civil War sites are in the geographical South. Why would a couple of clods from Iowa who make a living traveling around buying stuff to re-sell at a profit promote donations to preserve obscure Civil War sites that would be off limits to their picking? I ain't got a clue except that they work for the History Channel and it might be part of the contract to shill for this kind of stuff. I can't stress enough that the same liberal faction that encourages the preservation of alleged Civil War sites is also at war with anything related to the Confederacy. Here's an idea, buy all the Atlanta real estate for sale and burn it to the ground to illustrate what a great job general Sherman did.

First you complain that we don't need to preserve these sites, and that Gettysburg (and a few other major battlefields) are enough. You then say all the sites are in the south.

Do you really need a map as to the location of Gettysburg?

What do you think james? Are there any CW sites in the Sunshine State you want to contribute to preserving? Americans are afraid of not being able to pay their mortgage and some strange faction thinks we should preserve more C.W. sites that we can't hope to maintain? Something ain't right about the concept. I'm glad you reminded me that Gettysburg is in Pa.

 

[whitehall]

I'm up for a difference of opinion but so far all I get is (yuk yuk) james in Fla reminding me that Gettysburg is in Pa and other posters suggesting liberal cliches about history vs profit. Profit is bad and history is good, nuff said about the concept for you 6th graders but what exactly does the "1.50 preserve CW sites" want to do? Where are the CW sites being "lost at an acre per hour"?

 

[Indy Terry]

To quote Stephen King "what's fun is fun and what's done is done". Every major Civil War battlefield is fenced in and fully financed and policed. While the left is pretending the Confederacy never existed (but making a once modest tourist dollar) they seem to want to preserve more Civil War sites that can't possibly be maintained or ever make a tourist profit. I am a loss to understand why.

This comes down to one of the main questions with any level of historical site.... What's more important: the History or turning a Profit?

Personally, I think that the History is more important most of the time. I know that a lot of people will disagree with me. I also know that there are a bunch of sites of very minor historical importance that look for support and protection even though they really don't deserve it.

In terms of the Civil War the problem is two-fold.....

First you have one area of the country (the South) that would preserve everything related to the conflict versus another area that wouldn't bother preserving any of it (the North). You're asking people from the North to help support the protection of sites that most of them will never visit and which have little to no interest to most of them.

Secondly you have the connection between the Civil War and the wholely politically incorrect concept of slavery. A lot of people associate the war solely with that topic, therefore they would like to scrub all mention and rememberances of it out of existance to protect their fragile little egos.

Exactly how many Civil War sites are in the North compared to the South?

Maybe educating people on the other reasons for the Civil War would help them appreciate it more?

 

[Douger]

When does Part 2 begin ?

 

[peach174]

I don't believe the number either. 1 acre an hour? Come on.
I do think that they should be preserved but only the really important areas.

 

[whitehall]

I don't believe the number either. 1 acre an hour? Come on.
I do think that they should be preserved but only the really important areas.

People tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "preserve". They automatically want things to be preserved because, well just because. They don't care about what it takes to "preserve" an old shack or an overgrown field that Stonewall Jackson might have rode across. All the major CW sites have been preserved. As a matter of fact they have been preserved behind chain link fences and armed guards. Imagine if they decided to "preserve" every plot of land in Europe that had some military conflict. Everything would be fenced in.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't believe the number either. 1 acre an hour? Come on.
I do think that they should be preserved but only the really important areas.

People tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "preserve". They automatically want things to be preserved because, well just because. They don't care about what it takes to "preserve" an old shack or an overgrown field that Stonewall Jackson might have rode across. All the major CW sites have been preserved. As a matter of fact they have been preserved behind chain link fences and armed guards. Imagine if they decided to "preserve" every plot of land in Europe that had some military conflict. Everything would be fenced in.

I toured six Civil War battlefields last month and they are not behind chain link fences and armed guards. Too many people tour Gettysburg and assume that all Civil War battlefields are that way.

When I toured the battlefield of Second Manassas the battle sites are interspersed with private homes and businesses. You pull off the road where there is a sign and you realize Union forces moved through this guys backyard and that gas station

Fredericksburg is a wonderful site as you stand where Lee had his artillery and walk along the refurbished sunken road. However, the field that union troops fought an died over has long since been consumed by buildings and homes. I don't see why anyone would want to live on ground that was full of thousands of dead and dying brave Union Soldiers

Chancellorsville is fully developed by local homes and you move about trying to figure out what it possibly could have looked like in 1863. The site where Stonewall Jackson was shot is now a major highway. His monument is hidden behind the visitor center

The house where Stonewall Jackson died is well preserved. But the area around the house is a deserted rail yard and industrial zone

While taking the guided tour at First Manassas, my son, who had seen the Ken Burns documentary asked where Wilmer McClains house was. The ranger told him it was about a mile away and was now a CVS parking lot

Not all of the Civil War sites are major battlefields. But to hundreds of towns and villiages, they represent their heritage. Small skirmishes that killed a few dozen men, but contributed to the larger war effort

 

[tonystewart1]

I don't believe the number either. 1 acre an hour? Come on.
I do think that they should be preserved but only the really important areas.

People tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "preserve". They automatically want things to be preserved because, well just because. They don't care about what it takes to "preserve" an old shack or an overgrown field that Stonewall Jackson might have rode across. All the major CW sites have been preserved. As a matter of fact they have been preserved behind chain link fences and armed guards. Imagine if they decided to "preserve" every plot of land in Europe that had some military conflict. Everything would be fenced in.

I toured six Civil War battlefields last month and they are not behind chain link fences and armed guards. Too many people tour Gettysburg and assume that all Civil War battlefields are that way.

When I toured the battlefield of Second Manassas the battle sights are interspersed with private homes and businesses. You pull off the road where there is a sign and you realize Union forces moved through this guys backyard and that gas station

Fredericksburg is a wonderful site as you stand where Lee had his artillery and walk along the refurbished sunken road. However, the field that union troops fought an died over has long since been consumed by buildings and homes. I don't see why anyone would want to live on ground that was full of thousands of dead and dying brave Union Soldiers

Chancellorsville is fully developed by local homes and you move about trying to figure out what it possibly could have looked like in 1863. The site where Stonewall Jackson was shot is now a major highway. His monument is hidden behind the visitor center

The house where Stonewall Jackson died is well preserved. But the area around the house is a deserted rail yard and industrial zone

While taking the guided tour at First Manassas, my son, who had seen the Ken Burns documentary asked where Wilmer McClains house was. The ranger told him it was about a mile away and was now a CVS parking lot

Not all of the Civil War sites are major battlefields. But to hundreds of towns and villiages, they represent their heritage. Small skirmishes that killed a few dozen men, but contributed to the larger war effort

I used to live in fredericksburg and spotsylvania and mannasas. The history there is pretty amazing. Did you get to see the church in Fredericksburg with the cannon ball still embedded in the brick. That really brings it home.

You are right, the people of those area would probably fight another civil war to keep their battle fields. I remember when they wanted to build a Walmart on a site where George Washington spent time living as a young man near Fredericksburg. That did not go over very well and the Walmart go moved a few miles down the road.