no more monuments.

[civilken]

Perhaps a better use of taxpayer money would be care and maintenance of existing markers, memorials, and monuments.

I never looked at a monument and wondered about the taxes to maintain it. I was thinking about the beauty and the art of the monuments.

 

[civilken]

I think the battlefields might be a better place for some of the controversial monuments that are problematic at the current moment. Some of them are, as mentioned earlier, fine art. The Forrest statue, for instance, has outdone its time where it was - the intent and purpose was of another time that's difficult today - but sitting at Bryce's Crossroads it would be in a better context and more appropriate. Building new ones I'm not so sure about but adding ones who are in unfortunate positions elsewhere might be a workable option. Taking care of all of them is very important. A battle such as Gettysburg should always be carefully preserved and much thought taken with additions.

I couldn't agree more with you put them where they belong.

 

[civilken]

Wasn't there a new monument or one planned for the 2 Marine pilots who died during the reenactment and war games in 1922?

I did not hear about that the Ranger just said there was a moratorium on any new statues.

 

[WJC]

I never looked at a monument and wondered about the taxes to maintain it. I was thinking about the beauty and the art of the monuments.

Thanks for your response.
We are privileged to have beautiful, readily accessible parks, historical sites and monuments in our country. But there is a cost of maintaining that beauty. Choices must be made, but the first choice ought to be to preserve, protect and maintain what we have.

 

[E_just_E]

Perhaps a better use of taxpayer money would be care and maintenance of existing markers, memorials, and monuments.

This is an interesting point in many ways, and here is the breakdown.

Zero federal taxpayer $ goes towards the "care and maintenance of existing markers, memorials, and monuments" in Gettysburg. Since it is a National Park, federal money goes towards the salaries of the people employed there, and the maintenance and care of the existing structures, like the buildings and the roads and the port-a-potties. That's all tax (federal) money pays for.

The museum/gift/bookstore is run by the Foundation. Non-profit entity. No tax payer $ goes there.

Interestingly enough, few moons ago, the commonwealth of PA introduced a Gettysburg license plate. Proceedings of that plate paid for the care and maintenance of the Pennsylvania memorials in the battlefield only. Not many of those were sold, btw...

 

[WJC]

This is an interesting point in many ways, and here is the breakdown.

Zero federal taxpayer $ goes towards the "care and maintenance of existing markers, memorials, and monuments" in Gettysburg. Since it is a National Park, federal money goes towards the salaries of the people employed there, and the maintenance and care of the existing structures, like the buildings and the roads and the port-a-potties. That's all tax (federal) money pays for.

The museum/gift/bookstore is run by the Foundation. Non-profit entity. No tax payer $ goes there.

Interestingly enough, few moons ago, the commonwealth of PA introduced a Gettysburg license plate. Proceedings of that plate paid for the care and maintenance of the Pennsylvania memorials in the battlefield only. Not many of those were sold, btw...

Thanks for correcting my misconception.

 

[W117Monte]

It's pretty interesting that the last three monuments added were all confederate.
I love the 11th Mississippi monument. I find my self waking around it several times every time I go past it.

 

[Northern Light]

I thought the Longstreet monument was the last dedicated monument on the battlefield.

Perhaps that statue was the reason for the moratorium!

 

[Barnesville Blues]

Perhaps at Gettysburg...Gettysburg already has a lot of monuments. I see both sides of it. On the one hand, the monuments were not there at the time of the Battle..so it of course does obstruct the field so to speak. But on the other hand, I like signage...I like to be able to tell whose command was here adn whose command was there...that is my biggest knock on Kennesaw Mountain Battlefield...But Gettysburg is very well signed and has very knowledgeable staff at the visitors center to help you find pretty much any command that interests you. I have no problem with new monuments not be erected, I am just not in favor of removing monuments that have been in place for a 100 years from anywhere...they too are historic.

 

[kel1985]

I understand the moratorium, but I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a few new monuments for the Confederate regiments, especially on the far side of Willoughsby Run to denote their positions and approaches towards the Iron Brigade on Day 1, also across the Chambersburg Pike showing the Confederate approach (roughly) on the Union line there.
But that's just one man's opinion. LOL

 

[dlavin]

So much ado about nothing here? For me on a field such as GB the monuments help with line of sight and visuals especially when viewing things distant. Also many are flat out amazing works of art. My only criticism is with the troop position markers. I've more than once tripped over the concrete stumps with L and R battle positions.

 

[Wallyfish]

I contacted the Gettysburg NPS about the monument moratorium. I asked for a proper response that could be posted here. Plus an explanation for the post 1999 monuments (didn't know congressional action was required on the Louisiana monuments ). Their complete email:

Gettysburg National Military Park (GETT) could not approve the placement of any new commemorative markers, monuments or memorials in any location in the park because we have a policy that no new monuments or commemorate features shall be placed here.

A primary goal of GETT is to preserve the historic landscapes, buildings, monuments, structures, archeological sites, artifacts and archives that are significant to the outcome and commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg. At Gettysburg, battle veterans themselves placed the majority of the existing monuments on the battlefield and in the cemetery between the 1870's and the 1930's. Due to the age of these monuments, and their personal connections with the veterans who survived the battle (and the war), these monuments are now considered to be historic in their own right. New monuments are consequently considered to be intrusions on the historic commemorative landscape of the battlefield, as designed and laid out by the veterans themselves.

You are correct that the 11th Mississippi monument, its advance position marker, and the Delaware monument were placed on the field after the 1999 moratorium. The National Park Service had provided final approval of the Delaware Memorial before the moratorium went into affect. The 11th Mississippi monument and marker was placed on the field as a result of congressional action. The National Park Service management policies state:

With regard to Civil War parks, new commemorative works will not be approved, except where specifically authorized by legislation. However, consideration may be given to proposals that would commemorate groups that were not allowed to be recognized during the commemorative period. (Section 9.6.2 NPS Management Policies. Download the document here.)

 

[Billy Yank]

My own very personal opinion would be to replace the Longstreet equestrian statue with something more substantial befitting his stature in the battle. I also feel it appropriate to recognize Dan Sickles for his role in Day II...like him or not.

 

[mofederal]

I suspect it might be a long time before we see many more statues or monuments at Gettysburg. One thing to remember Congress only works so fast.

 

[rpkennedy]

My own very personal opinion would be to replace the Longstreet equestrian statue with something more substantial befitting his stature in the battle. I also feel it appropriate to recognize Dan Sickles for his role in Day II...like him or not.

To be fair, he had his chance...twice. Sickles preferred to keep the money.

Ryan

 

[CW3O]

I am not a fan of the Gettysburg Monuments.
There are too many of them
They honor soldiers/units differently depending on their ability to afford a fitting monument.

Even though many were paid for and selected by the veterans themselves the variety of sizes, shapes, and colors detract from the battlefield.

I would prefer that all units (on both sides) be recognized with matching monuments. All battled and suffered equally and should be honored equally.

I don't care for monuments to individuals at all, regardless of who they were.
I would also prefer better informative signage.

 

[Larryh86GT]

My wife and I just visited Gettysburg a couple days ago and many of the monuments are just beautiful but we thought with over 1300 markers and monuments it was enough. Thank God many of these were erected long ago because they would cost a fortune to erect now.

 

[infomanpa]

I suspect it might be a long time before we see many more statues or monuments at Gettysburg.

Definitely.....especially with regards to the political climate with Confederate monuments.

 

[unionblue]

There's enough there.

No need for any more.