A question for cemetery folk

[John Winn]

As one involved in cemetery preservation and restoration I sometimes see articles and comments from people who advocate against any sort of restoration of markers or other cemetery architecture (e.g. stone or brick walls), claiming that such is actually destroying historic artifacts and, at most, we should only try to perhaps maintain whatever remains so as to prevent further degradation.

I'm of the persuasion that cemetery restoration efforts in many cases are fine and preferable to just letting markers and structures crumble into rubble. I do strongly feel that restoration efforts should use period materials (e.g. not modern mortar) and attempt to at least try to replicate what was originally in place as close as possible based on a careful analysis of the site.

So, if you were to visit an historic cemetery and see restored artifacts (e.g. stones, walls, tombs) what would you think: that's cool or I'm outraged ?

Voters will not be identified. Comments are welcome.

Note: assume the restoration is done legally and by qualified people using currently accepted best methods.

 

[Gary Morgan]

My perspective on cemeteries comes from dealing with Andersonville cemetery and the Raiders. My book on them finds that at least three and possibly four of the Raiders' stones have the wrong names on them (there were never any sailors in the US Navy named W. Rickson or A. Munn, so both of those have to be wrong, and I think I can prove that Charles Curtis of the 5th RI Heavy Artillery was in the hospital in North Carolina with malaria when he was supposedly hanged and was never actually AT Andersonville, but someone was using his identity as an alias. And John Sarsfield's first name is given as James in most of his military records.)

But I am okay with leaving those graves as they are. They don't deserve to have their right names on their stones as long as some of their victims (and I can identify at least two men murdered by them) remain "unknown."

It bugs me when there is an error on a grave marker, and it is known to be wrong, but the powers that be won't fix it, because it's a "historical relic." This is the policy at Andersonville. To my way of thinking, we owe it to the man who died to at least get his right name on his grave marker. Even if they were to just add it to the back of the existing marker, we owe it to him for people to be able to read and say his name, and acknowledge what he suffered and lost. The man who lies there should always be more important than the hunk of marble or granite that marks his grave.

(And while I occasionally threaten to leave a sticky note on the back of "Charles Curtis's" grave, explaining why he isn't really there, and saying who I believe is, I haven't actually done it. Yet.)

 

[Lubliner]

If there was a way to halt the erosion by the elements and preserve them now as they are, I feel would be less intrusive. Plus, it is easier to add an identifier nearby without replacing an historical marker.
Lubliner.

 

[Tennis]

When Camp Sherman (Dayton, OH) entered the scene with Old Green Castle Cemetery, nearly all headstones were on the ground.

It took time and effort to restore this Civil War Cemetery.

 

[Tennis]

Also Camp Sherman purchased GAR grave site markers

 

[John Winn]

I'm with @Lubliner regarding the Andersonville stones (and there's also the Antiquities Act to deal with). Interesting dilemma though.

I was thinking more about situations like these:

Should such structures just be left to continue deteriorate or should they be repaired and made to look as close as we can determine they did before they were damaged or started to fall apart from age and things like soil movement ? Another example would be iron work like fences and gates; de-rust and paint, straighten them out if bent, re-attach to the upright supports if separated or just leave them be ?

 

[Tennis]

See a previous thread:

GAR Grave Site Markers | Researching Civil War Records & Ancestry

I noticed several headstone photos of Civil War relatives with Grand Army of the Republic markers next to their graves. Were placing these markers near headstones something that the GAR did just for members of the organization or for Union Civil War veterans in general?

civilwartalk.com

 

[Tennis]

=AZV_cxnGkPhUziJZg1nIXYEEt9QJr5qy1q-QzIulwfZEWd0MVNGI7YmON2hQcn9Ti1W3q0xIPCPM8HAcIbiHQQ9OXi0wEa1WJskgSWt081Jz53w-2StQNf0mXOcp6E_CDTj8Xvw-cb0dedACAk7Cd-C2xeSEJyswkvwhU0RB7fYFYA&__tn__=H-R']

 

[Tennis]

https://www.facebook.com/events/335674651082174/?__tn__=<

Sat, Oct 17 at 9 AM
October OGC Cleanup
Old Greencastle Cemetery

by SUV Sherman Camp 93

 

[Tennis]

 

[Lubliner]

I'm with @Lubliner regarding the Andersonville stones (and there's also the Antiquities Act to deal with). Interesting dilemma though.

I was thinking more about situations like these:

View attachment 375947View attachment 375948

Possibly spreading new topsoil, and using the stones indigenous to the gravesite for stabilization is my recommendation.
Lubliner.

 

[Tennis]

And Camp Sherman is prepared to dedicate our new Lincoln statue: