...actually, my perspective (and the viewpoint from many others who feel similarly whom I've talked to on this point) makes a lot of sense. In my agreement with Chamberlain, if a small 15th Alabama monument was placed in the 'historically correct' location then they should be recognized for their heroic actions. A regiment (North or South) that marches over 20 miles on very little sleep in 90 degree heat, no water, takes the 'Gibraltar' of Big Round Top, then very nearly takes Little Round Top against Federal troops who rested all day certainly deserves recognition. Unfortunately, in this politically correct charged era in which we now live in, I don't see it happening. But, there is also another problem - no one could quite agree on the 'correct spot' to begin with. A hundred years ago, veterans were fighting over monuments much as historians still do today.
To readers of this thread, you owe it to yourself to read Tom DeJardin's excellent book titled, 'Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine.' It's a relatively short book and it's so amazingly written, argued, and balanced you won't be able to put it down and you'll finish it in like two days. The most important thing that you'll take away from the book is that it is FAR from how Chamberlain's charge was depicted in either the film Gettysburg or Ken Burns reputable mini-series, The Civil War. For instance, there was no perfect 'textbook maneuver' regarding the charge and even Chamberlain contradicted himself at various points in post-battle reports. Want to learn more? Trust me, read the book. Anyhow, I'm getting off-topic here. But to address the heart of our discussion here, I feel that yet 'another' monument / statue to Chamberlain is pure overkill for so many reasons:
- I live near Gettysburg and I frequent Little Round Top often. This site is among the most populated sites to the battlefield - the mini roads and pathways are literally choked with tours, school field trips, and normal excess of visitors coming to see where the 20th Maine fought. Trust me, you don't need another monument as people are WELL aware where the 20th Maine monument and battle site are. Besides, there are already 3 markers present, why another one? There is the larger monument that everyone can clearly see near where the color bearer was during the battle, two path markers, and a National Park Service sign on your left as you drive up the road that actually points to your right that reads, "20th Maine Monument." You can't miss any of them. It's not a big area, yet another monument to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine is yet another monument to trip over and it's sheer overkill. Everyone and anyone can easily find this site and learn of what happened there.
- When visitors come to the battle site, some actually wouldn't mind trying to visualize how the landscape looked during the battle. That area has already been cleared and defaced as historic boulders were blown up during construction of the road and 'Chamberlain Avenue' that meanders around the hill. Sometimes it's just nice sitting and listening (*trying* to anyway) the quiet and visualizing the original appearance of the hill. Another monument to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine 'really' needed? Again, not to sound contradictory, but if there was a monument to Oats' 15th Alabama (if ever permitted) it will draw far less attraction than to yet another new monument to Chamberlain. I'm not saying that ANY monument is needed back there to begin with (there are enough markers and monuments enough as it is), but if I had to choose - then I would certainly opt for the 15th and 47th Alabama as preference and I would donate both my time and monetary gift to its placement over that of Chamberlain indeed. Sometimes LESS monuments tell the story better than a 1,000 monuments could ever do. Try visiting Petersburg, Va. or Yorktown, Va. There are far less monuments there and the battlefield itself serves as a greater monument in that it speaks volumes. My friend, I commend your enthusiasm for trying to bestow honor, but you may be doing more harm than good in doing so.
- You mentioned that, "fellow Southerners who fought on that hill didn't want him (Oats) placing his monument away from theirs that were all along Confederate Ave as they didn't think Oates should get all the glory." The Battle of Gettysburg was fought 154 years ago. I don't think that you'll have that problem today in 2017.
- But, if a Federal monument is to be placed, why not give recognition to either Lieutenants Holman Melcher James Nichols of the 20th Maine, they clearly helped to initiate the charge to begin with? And, why not Captain Ellis Spear? If he hadn't taken it upon himself to ensure that both the left and right wing were properly linked throughout the entire battle, the rebels very well may have punctured through. And, it was him and his men who not only lined the two wings together and KEPT them together, but also helped to begin the charge which prodded the right wing to advance. Hence, 'the charge.' As Chamberlain said in his own hand, although he ordered the bayonet "the charge happened almost entirely on it's own."
- I actually own an original pair of late-war used boots previously owned by Chamberlain (they're currently on display at the Appomattox Historical Park). I also own other artifacts once owned by Chamberlain including his signature. When I took many of these items to be displayed as a 'collage,' all they wanted was the boots. Reason being, those museums and parks were careful not to draw too much attention to any one man - but, rather, to an event that encompasses the event as whole. That's teamwork because it gives credit to the whole 'team' and not just to any one man. The same can be said about yet another monument. Share the love in other words, lol.
- And, that takes me back to my previous post: "Would the monument be to memorialize the actions of 'Joshua Chamberlain' the historical figure or to Hollywood *actor* Jeff Daniels? When you dig, and I mean truly research, through the history - you will learn of two totally different versions. Recognize other great leaders, regiments, & historical events who's unsung voices have been unheard for far too long - not being confused with 'Hollywood' actors." Though I can't speak for Chamberlain, I feel, personally, that is what he would want too. In agreement with the NPS, please be careful not to focus all of our attention to just one man to semi-divine / idolatry - but, give recognition to others. If you were a soldier, wouldn't you enjoy some recognition?
In closing, Dr. Rasbach's book, 'Chamberlain and his Supposed Charge at Petersburg' is just one example of the types of books that are needed MORE in the field of historic scholarship. They are post-revisionist - meaning that they step back and do a birds-eye perspective analysis of the research years later without any passion or bias to allow the facts to speak for themselves. Not to get off topic, but I commend this work and Dr. Rasbach's book. Keep in mind that the author did not bash Chamberlain. If anything, he was very delicate, careful, and respectful - all signs of an author with integrity. But, why shouldn't he (or anyone) question / debate the facts? Interesting enough, if one chooses to read this book the material has gained the respect of historians nationwide. I highly recommend this book to anyone for in only 200 pages or less, the author drew to light 15 key points that disputes Chamberlain's account. For example, why or how in the world would have Chamberlain spoken directly to Gen. Grant, who was 5 miles away located at City Point, without the presence of a telegraph out in the middle of the field? You agree that Chamberlain completely bypassed his superior officers when trying to speak with Grant, too? And, that he also carefully wrote a 2 page letter to Grant with bullets and shells dropping all round him? Hmmm. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Chamberlain's account simply coincides against the actual events of the battle, the primary source written accounts of both the Confederates and his OWN men, as well as the actual layout of the battlefield itself. And yes, the maps may be more accurate than you realize. For instance, Chamberlain noted that he was shot having just crossed a boggy swampy marsh. Nowhere on the battlefield is there such a piece of terrain other than where Dr. Rasbach indicated, which is also exactly where Chamberlain's commanding officer's placed him to be (and certainly NOT a mile ahead of the whole army, as Chamberlain stated). Again, allow the battlefield to speak for itself. Fellow historians, Dr. Rasbach's respected book is certainly well worth the time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a Chamberlain admirer here as anyone. The fact that I have several of his artifacts in my personal collection, such as his actual boots, should say something. Heck, I even share Chamberlain's first name (Joshua) and birthday (September 8th). So, it's not that I am at odds with Chamberlain; I'm just trying to keep things grounded and within reason without running away with sheer passion...