Gettysburg Monuments

[Patrick H]

I mean no disrespect with this thread, but it seems to me that the Gettysburg battle sites are so crowded (one might say "littered") with monuments that it is impossible to find a wide angle view that doesn't include several of them.

I began to notice this as we neared and then passed the anniversary of the battle. I began to wonder several things about the monuments. Today I found an online listing of monuments on the field and scrolled through trying to learn about them. The oldest monument I saw was to Brig. Gen. Strong Vincent, erected in 1878. I saw others that were erected well into the 1990s. The peak era for erecting the monuments seems to have been from the mid 1880s to the early 1910s. I can understand that timing. Veterans of the battle would probably have been in their peak earning years, able to raise funds among survivors of their old units, and healthy enough to travel and visit some of their old war sites.

I can also understand the pride many veterans would have felt because they participated in this mighty clash. I know it included the "Confederate High Water Mark". I know about the enormous losses. I know about the masses of troops engaged. I know it was the largest battle of the Civil War. But it seems to me that erecting monuments became almost a competitive pass time among groups of Gettysburg survivors. Sure, we see monuments on some other battlefields and we see interpretive signs on many. But if there is any other Civil War battlefield as crowded with monuments as Gettysburg, I have yet to see pictures of it.

To clarify, I am not questioning whether the battle deserves to be memorialized. Of course it does. But I'm very curious about the proliferation of the monuments themselves. They were being placed well before the National Military Park was established. They were still being placed in contemporary times. What did the locals think of all this? Did the Park Service encourage it? participate in it? or just tolerate it? What happens when they want to restore an area to its 1863 appearance? Are Confederate monuments protected in this park, or are there periodic campaigns to have them removed?

I am probably an odd ball, but frankly I find all of the monuments to be a distraction in photos of the battlefield. I am not sure how I'd feel if I ever visited, but my interest is much more in the western and trans Mississippi areas, so I'll probably not visit unless other business brings me to the area.

I'm just curious whether others have pondered all of this and what your thoughts might be.

 

[James N.]

I've discussed this before, but Chickamauga-Chattanooga was the very first of the really large attempts at preservation and the resulting commemoration you describe. The cause was led largely by Col. John Wilder who had relocated after the war in Chattanooga and joined with ex-Confederates to commemorate their respective roles in the Battle of Chickamauga. As a result, both those battlefields received heavy treatment by veterans' groups erecting monuments. Vicksburg was another early battlefield to be preserved, restored, and commemorated; likewise Shiloh to a somewhat lesser degree, likely due to its relatively more remote location. Gettysburg received the most attention, however, likely due to its location in the North; number of troops involved; and postwar assessment of its relative importance. These four were the original "Big Four" so to speak and so all will evidence the proliferation of monuments to a greater (Gettysburg) or lesser (Shiloh) degree.

Grant's Last Line at Shiloh is a short stretch of terrain with the highest concentration of monuments, markers, and cannon on the battlefield. As expected, most are Union state monuments but recently both Tennessee and last year Mississippi have erected very attractive state monuments elsewhere at Shiloh.

Vicksburg boasts large concentrations of monuments and markers with state monuments like that of Illinois below to match any at Gettysburg! Unlike many battlefields, because of Vicksburg's Mississippi location and importance most ex-Confederate states also placed monuments there, unlike Gettysburg.

 

[Chattahooch33]

Victorianism at its best.

I don't like the monuments, it detracts from what I personally go to battlefields for and that is to visualize and understand the battle. I do like the regimental placement markers however like the ones at Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and Missionary Ridge.

 

[Jimklag]

I mean no disrespect with this thread, but it seems to me that the Gettysburg battle sites are so crowded (one might say "littered") with monuments that it is impossible to find a wide angle view that doesn't include several of them.

I began to notice this as we neared and then passed the anniversary of the battle. I began to wonder several things about the monuments. Today I found an online listing of monuments on the field and scrolled through trying to learn about them. The oldest monument I saw was to Brig. Gen. Strong Vincent, erected in 1878. I saw others that were erected well into the 1990s. The peak era for erecting the monuments seems to have been from the mid 1880s to the early 1910s. I can understand that timing. Veterans of the battle would probably have been in their peak earning years, able to raise funds among survivors of their old units, and healthy enough to travel and visit some of their old war sites.

I can also understand the pride many veterans would have felt because they participated in this mighty clash. I know it included the "Confederate High Water Mark". I know about the enormous losses. I know about the masses of troops engaged. I know it was the largest battle of the Civil War. But it seems to me that erecting monuments became almost a competitive pass time among groups of Gettysburg survivors. Sure, we see monuments on some other battlefields and we see interpretive signs on many. But if there is any other Civil War battlefield as crowded with monuments as Gettysburg, I have yet to see pictures of it.

To clarify, I am not questioning whether the battle deserves to be memorialized. Of course it does. But I'm very curious about the proliferation of the monuments themselves. They were being place well before the National Military Park was established. They were still being placed in contemporary times. What did the locals think of all this? Did the Park Service encourage it? participate in it? or just tolerate it? What happens when they want to restore an area to its 1863 appearance? Are Confederate monuments protected in this park, or are there periodic campaigns to have them removed?

I am probably an odd ball, but frankly I find all of the monuments to be a distraction in photos of the battlefield. I am not sure how I'd feel if I ever visited, but my interest is much more in the western and trans Mississippi areas, so I'll probably not visit unless other business brings me to the area.

I'm just curious whether others have pondered all of this and what your thoughts might be.

I find the monuments make the battlefield. Whether it's Antietam or Gettysburg or Chickamauga or wherever, the monuments and markers help illuminate the battle. With the monuments and markers, you have a visual reminder of where the Iron Brigade fought in the woods at Gettysburg or where the Irish Brigade fought at the sunken road at Antietam, or Hood's Brigade at the Cornfield or Mahone's men at the Crater. Without the monuments and markers, Gettysburg is just pretty pastureland and woodlots; Vicksburg is a bunch of indistinguishable trenches; and Chickamauga would be impossible to find your way around at all.

 

[James N.]

Victorianism at its best.

I don't like the monuments, it detracts from what I personally go to battlefields for and that is to visualize and understand the battle. I do like the regimental placement markers however like the ones at Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and Missionary Ridge.

Thanks for the perfect lead-in for my next comments! What makes Chickamauga-Chattanooga SEEM different and not as crowded is the nature of the battlefields: the one densely wooded with little opportunity for grand vistas revealing just how very many monuments and markers there are; the other sprawling in and around a fairly large city. I've also commented on the unusual aspect of these twin battles, one the largest Confederate victory of the war; the other a Rebel rout! For that reason I suppose, the Southern states have placed all their state monuments at Chickamauga, while the Union state monuments are at Chattanooga. Many of those are crowded onto Orchard Knob above, a high point captured on the first of the battle's three days that later served as the location of Grant's headquarters. Unfortunately, since this area is now engulfed by a black neighborhood it is probably the least-visited part of the twin battlefields, along with the so-called Sherman Reservation below where the density of markers is evident.

The New York Peace Monument below is grand enough to impress any visitor, but its location at the summit of Lookout Mountain somewhat diminishes its actual size; it was dedicated by no less a personage that our favorite, Dan Sickles!

However, the largest monument (this thing is HUGE, dwarfing anything at Gettysburg!) at Chickamauga is the monument Col. Wilder erected to himself and the men of his Lightning Brigade of Union mounted infantry. This rook-like tower rises above all the trees and has a circular staircase inside that leads to an observation deck on top:

 

[Jimklag]

I mean no disrespect with this thread, but it seems to me that the Gettysburg battle sites are so crowded (one might say "littered") with monuments that it is impossible to find a wide angle view that doesn't include several of them.

I began to notice this as we neared and then passed the anniversary of the battle. I began to wonder several things about the monuments. Today I found an online listing of monuments on the field and scrolled through trying to learn about them. The oldest monument I saw was to Brig. Gen. Strong Vincent, erected in 1878. I saw others that were erected well into the 1990s. The peak era for erecting the monuments seems to have been from the mid 1880s to the early 1910s. I can understand that timing. Veterans of the battle would probably have been in their peak earning years, able to raise funds among survivors of their old units, and healthy enough to travel and visit some of their old war sites.

I can also understand the pride many veterans would have felt because they participated in this mighty clash. I know it included the "Confederate High Water Mark". I know about the enormous losses. I know about the masses of troops engaged. I know it was the largest battle of the Civil War. But it seems to me that erecting monuments became almost a competitive pass time among groups of Gettysburg survivors. Sure, we see monuments on some other battlefields and we see interpretive signs on many. But if there is any other Civil War battlefield as crowded with monuments as Gettysburg, I have yet to see pictures of it.

To clarify, I am not questioning whether the battle deserves to be memorialized. Of course it does. But I'm very curious about the proliferation of the monuments themselves. They were being placed well before the National Military Park was established. They were still being placed in contemporary times. What did the locals think of all this? Did the Park Service encourage it? participate in it? or just tolerate it? What happens when they want to restore an area to its 1863 appearance? Are Confederate monuments protected in this park, or are there periodic campaigns to have them removed?

I am probably an odd ball, but frankly I find all of the monuments to be a distraction in photos of the battlefield. I am not sure how I'd feel if I ever visited, but my interest is much more in the western and trans Mississippi areas, so I'll probably not visit unless other business brings me to the area.

I'm just curious whether others have pondered all of this and what your thoughts might be.

Check out these threads.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/gettysburg-national-military-park-nps-tour-stops.101299/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/gettysburg-monuments.134793/

 

[James N.]

Another thing to keep in mind when considering these four battlefields: They were early-on transferred to the U.S. War Department for administration and were considered "laboratories" for the study of war and military maneuvers and soon became the scene of U.S. Army staff rides. That, plus the desire of the veterans to immortalize themselves and their actions, caused the proliferation of battlefield markers like this one for Wood's Confederate Brigade at Chickamauga. It is one of four or five on the field that document the moves and actions of this single brigade, only one of at least thirty! Add to that all the Federal brigades - not to forget all the artillery batteries of each side! - then similarly multiply the number by 3, 4, or 5 to get an idea of how many of these things there are! As @Chattahooch33 has indicated above, these things form an outdoor textbook of the battle to anyone who bothers to try to decipher them now.

 

[captaindrew]

I find the monuments make the battlefield. Whether it's Antietam or Gettysburg or Chickamauga or wherever, the monuments and markers help illuminate the battle. With the monuments and markers, you have a visual reminder of where the Iron Brigade fought in the woods at Gettysburg or where the Irish Brigade fought at the sunken road at Antietam, or Hood's Brigade at the Cornfield or Mahone's men at the Crater. Without the monuments and markers, Gettysburg is just pretty pastureland and woodlots; Vicksburg is a bunch of indistinguishable trenches; and Chickamauga would be impossible to find your way around at all.

I feel the same way, 0nce they become familiar they help me visualize where the different units were located and exactly where all the hot spots where.

 

[Jimklag]

I feel the same way, 0nce they become familiar they help me visualize where the different units were located and exactly where all the hot spots where.

Exactly. They didn't put the 20th Maine monument out in the middle of Hancock Avenue where everyone sees it. They placed it in the woods on Little Round Top where the Maine boys actually fought. It's the thing I like best about the well-marked battlefields.

 

[James N.]

I feel the same way, 0nce they become familiar they help me visualize where the different units were located and exactly where all the hot spots where.

Shiloh is my favorite example of that, what with no less than six different styles of maker: a rectangular one of each color blue, yellow, and red respectively for the armies of Grant, Buell, and Johnston; plus oval ones color-coded in the same way to show the actions of the battle's second day!

 

[Patrick H]

View attachment 151549

Another thing to keep in mind when considering these four battlefields: They were early-on transferred to the U.S. War Department for administration and were considered "laboratories" for the study of war and military maneuvers and soon became the scene of U.S. Army staff rides. That, plus the desire of the veterans to immortalize themselves and their actions, caused the proliferation of battlefield markers like this one for Wood's Confederate Brigade at Chickamauga. It is one of four or five on the field that document the moves and actions of this single brigade, only one of at least thirty! Add to that all the Federal brigades - not to forget all the artillery batteries of each side! - then similarly multiply the number by 3, 4, or 5 to get an idea of how many of these things there are! As @Chattahooch33 has indicated above, these things form an outdoor textbook of the battle to anyone who bothers to try to decipher them now.

These kinds of explanatory signs are things that I actually like. Similar signage is scattered all around my hometown, explaining what happened where. I'm much less enthusiastic about the bigger monuments in clusters around some of the big battlefields. I didn't know about the early "laboratory" status of some of these battlefields. That is very interesting.

 

[Rob9641]

There are over 1000 monuments (not including the black and white War Department tablets) at Gettysburg. The earlier ones were placed by Union survivors/and or their descendants. The ones placed in the late 1900s were largely Confederate; Southern states had little interest and right after the CW no money to put monuments up, so they made up for lost time.

They do make it easier to see where a particular Union regiment fought or stepped off from, since that was what dictated where its monument (and its left and right flank markers) went. Yes, you do have to go hunting for a lot of them because of that. Many are beautiful works of art, so for me it's kind of like going to an art gallery. Bottom line, I don't mind them.

I do get annoyed when I hear about certain visitors wondering where the bullet marks are on the monuments, or why didn't the soldiers hide behind the monuments, or how do you have a war with all these monuments, or can I tie my boat up at the High Water Mark. I often wish people would get at least a little educated before they come. (My personal favorite doesn't involve monuments, but I heard a guy up on Little Round Top, with his girlfriend, and he actually said, "So did they have a battle here or what?" OMG.....)

 

[Patrick H]

but I heard a guy up on Little Round Top, with his girlfriend, and he actually said, "So did they have a battle here or what?" OMG.....)

Lots and lots of people these days are just that clueless about any history. Lots of people are clueless about recent history. Jay Leno often proved how clueless some people are when he did his "Jaywalk" segments. I am not at all surprised that you heard this exchange on Little Round Top.

So...one of my questions remains unanswered: Has there been any movement to remove Confederate monuments from anywhere on the battlefield?

 

[Bruce Vail]

I mean no disrespect with this thread, but it seems to me that the Gettysburg battle sites are so crowded (one might say "littered") with monuments that it is impossible to find a wide angle view that doesn't include several of them.

I began to notice this as we neared and then passed the anniversary of the battle. I began to wonder several things about the monuments. Today I found an online listing of monuments on the field and scrolled through trying to learn about them. The oldest monument I saw was to Brig. Gen. Strong Vincent, erected in 1878. I saw others that were erected well into the 1990s. The peak era for erecting the monuments seems to have been from the mid 1880s to the early 1910s. I can understand that timing. Veterans of the battle would probably have been in their peak earning years, able to raise funds among survivors of their old units, and healthy enough to travel and visit some of their old war sites.

I can also understand the pride many veterans would have felt because they participated in this mighty clash. I know it included the "Confederate High Water Mark". I know about the enormous losses. I know about the masses of troops engaged. I know it was the largest battle of the Civil War. But it seems to me that erecting monuments became almost a competitive pass time among groups of Gettysburg survivors. Sure, we see monuments on some other battlefields and we see interpretive signs on many. But if there is any other Civil War battlefield as crowded with monuments as Gettysburg, I have yet to see pictures of it.

To clarify, I am not questioning whether the battle deserves to be memorialized. Of course it does. But I'm very curious about the proliferation of the monuments themselves. They were being placed well before the National Military Park was established. They were still being placed in contemporary times. What did the locals think of all this? Did the Park Service encourage it? participate in it? or just tolerate it? What happens when they want to restore an area to its 1863 appearance? Are Confederate monuments protected in this park, or are there periodic campaigns to have them removed?

I am probably an odd ball, but frankly I find all of the monuments to be a distraction in photos of the battlefield. I am not sure how I'd feel if I ever visited, but my interest is much more in the western and trans Mississippi areas, so I'll probably not visit unless other business brings me to the area.

I'm just curious whether others have pondered all of this and what your thoughts might be.

I absolutely agree that the place seems littered with monuments.

I would be very supportive of a long-term study to recommend the relocation of monuments with the goal of making the park a more visitor-friendly experience, and to enhance the physical beauty of the place.

 

[Patrick H]

I absolutely agree that the place seems littered with monuments.

I would be very supportive of a long-term study to recommend the relocation of monuments with the goal of making the park a more visitor-friendly experience, and to enhance the physical beauty of the place.

I can't disagree with you, Bruce, but I don't think such a thing could be done without another Civil War--a Monument Civil War.

 

[Rob9641]

Lots and lots of people these days are just that clueless about any history. Lots of people are clueless about recent history. Jay Leno often proved how clueless some people are when he did his "Jaywalk" segments. I am not at all surprised that you heard this exchange on Little Round Top.

So...one of my questions remains unanswered: Has there been any movement to remove Confederate monuments from anywhere on the battlefield?

No, and never will be. It's a battlefield, not a park in downtown Charlottesville or the like. Makes a big difference - virtually no support for moving any monuments on battlefields.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I mean no disrespect with this thread, but it seems to me that the Gettysburg battle sites are so crowded (one might say "littered") with monuments that it is impossible to find a wide angle view that doesn't include several of them.

I began to notice this as we neared and then passed the anniversary of the battle. I began to wonder several things about the monuments. Today I found an online listing of monuments on the field and scrolled through trying to learn about them. The oldest monument I saw was to Brig. Gen. Strong Vincent, erected in 1878. I saw others that were erected well into the 1990s. The peak era for erecting the monuments seems to have been from the mid 1880s to the early 1910s. I can understand that timing. Veterans of the battle would probably have been in their peak earning years, able to raise funds among survivors of their old units, and healthy enough to travel and visit some of their old war sites.

I can also understand the pride many veterans would have felt because they participated in this mighty clash. I know it included the "Confederate High Water Mark". I know about the enormous losses. I know about the masses of troops engaged. I know it was the largest battle of the Civil War. But it seems to me that erecting monuments became almost a competitive pass time among groups of Gettysburg survivors. Sure, we see monuments on some other battlefields and we see interpretive signs on many. But if there is any other Civil War battlefield as crowded with monuments as Gettysburg, I have yet to see pictures of it.

To clarify, I am not questioning whether the battle deserves to be memorialized. Of course it does. But I'm very curious about the proliferation of the monuments themselves. They were being placed well before the National Military Park was established. They were still being placed in contemporary times. What did the locals think of all this? Did the Park Service encourage it? participate in it? or just tolerate it? What happens when they want to restore an area to its 1863 appearance? Are Confederate monuments protected in this park, or are there periodic campaigns to have them removed?

I am probably an odd ball, but frankly I find all of the monuments to be a distraction in photos of the battlefield. I am not sure how I'd feel if I ever visited, but my interest is much more in the western and trans Mississippi areas, so I'll probably not visit unless other business brings me to the area.

I'm just curious whether others have pondered all of this and what your thoughts might be.

"I know it was the largest battle of the Civil War."

I believe most historians consider the Battle of the Seven Days to have been the largest battle, at least as measured by the total number of men engaged.

According to Wiki:

Seven Days - Union 114,00 vs Confederate 92,000
Gettysburg - Union 104,000 vs Confederate 75,000

 

[pamc153PA]

When I first began going to Gettysburg, I didn't really "get" the significance of the monuments, even my gggg-uncle's regiment, the 153rd PA on Barlow's Knoll, and behind ECH. But over the years, as I've gotten very familiar with the layout of the battlefield, the monuments have become just a part of it. I visit several of them each time, and I would like to think that somewhere in heaven the boys of the 54th NY are amused when I get all scratched by brambles when I visit their marker along Rock Creek that almost no one visits, or that the boys from lesser known and hard to access monumental markers both CSA and USA appreciate when I finally find their marker in the weeds after searching for hours, or that Lo Armistead knows when I pat his marker at the Angle before I head home. The monuments also help those who are just learning the battle visualize lines of men marching across fields or taking shelter behind rock walls.

One interesting thing to note is that there is always a tactile thing with monuments. Time and again, I see visitors young and old pile out of their SUVs at the auto tour stops, and lay their hand on the monuments, or kids who climb on the pedestals of the monuments, or pet Sallie on the 11th PA monument, or place their hands in the handprints in the cement of a monument on BRT. Like an anchor to that place, however brief. Like touching the past.

 

[mofederal]

I like the monuments, but I can easily see the points of view. Sometimes they distract you in certain areas, but I like places like Pea Ridge and Wilson's Creek. There are a minimum of monuments at both places. At least they got rid of the tower. I enjoy the monuments a lot. I make myself look past them to see what I want to see in my mind. I try to visualize what it looked like then, but that is still mostly in my mind. I think moving any of them at this date is impossible. Maybe in the future there will be a device to make them blend to the background area. In the future for sure.

 

[LoyaltyOfDogs]

I would like to think that somewhere in heaven the boys of the 54th NY are amused when I get all scratched by brambles when I visit their marker along Rock Creek that almost no one visits, or that the boys from lesser known and hard to access monumental markers both CSA and USA appreciate when I finally find their marker in the weeds after searching for hours, or that Lo Armistead knows when I pat his marker at the Angle before I head home.

This, as @pamc153PA has eloquently stated, is the deeper significance of the monument to us today, four and five generations after the Civil War. They were most meaningful to the veterans who placed them there, who left them as memorials to more than just a place, although they certainly sought to mark a significant place and say "we, too, were here." When viewing the monuments, I often find myself thinking as much about the old soldiers and the emotions that led them to place the monuments as I do about their younger selves fighting on the Battlefield. (Sallie's statue is a case in point. Part of its appeal to visitors is its mystique: her name appears nowhere on the monument, prompting visitors to ask who? and why? She's such a striking individual representation of a dog that she must certainly have been real, and not symbolic like the elegant wolfhound of the Irish Brigade. But if we consider the meaning of the monuments, it makes perfect sense that Sallie's statue has no name. The soldiers placed her there only for themselves. They knew her, would never forget her. For them, she needed no name.) As I try to imagine the thoughts that would inspire old men to build these monuments, I find myself connecting to their experience as veterans, and back in time as soldiers, on a level that I might not consider if I were viewing only the fields and picturing the action of battle. Here in the 21st century, the monuments are touchstones--literally--to the men who fought here.