Posted on 03/18/2005 10:44:28 AM PST by Old Phone Man
If you care about the Gettysburg battlefield, drive out to Devil's Den and look at the beautiful old trees. You won't find many because the park service just cut most of them down.
Some of these trees were over a hundred years old. Some were "witness trees" when the Civil War veterans came back to dedicate their monuments.
The trees provided a place of shady contemplation in the hot summer sun for thousands of visitors. Many of us who care about the battlefield are sickened by their loss.
The park service plans to make the landscape look like 1863 so rangers can point to a hill and say "they came from there" without annoying trees getting in the way.
Would we allow the park service to go into the Gettysburg National Cemetery and destroy all the trees planted after Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address? No, we wouldn't, and we shouldn't allow them to do that to the park.
When Congress established the Gettysburg National Park in the 1800's, they did not intend the park to be a war college, frozen in time so we could all study battle tactics. That was NEVER the purpose of the park.
Civil War veterans came back over decades to dedicate their monuments and to attend reunions, and they NEVER asked that whole forests be destroyed to make the landscape look like 1863.
The park has a deeper purpose--a place to honor the dead and reflect on war, a place of peace, healing and contemplation. That is why we have the monuments, the Peace Light Memorial, and why the veterans came for reunions.
The people behind the current plan to cut down thousands of trees don't understand this or don't care.
Later this year, the park service plans to cut down a large area of woods behind Devil's Den, which will be a terrible tragedy. Please find out about the park service's plans, complain to your representative in Congress or become active in other constructive ways before our woods are devastated.
I have plenty of photos but don't have a website to post them from onto Free Republic.
I'm fully in favor of restoring the battlefield to what it looked like in 1863, sorry.
Of the Civil War battlefields I've seen, Gettysburg is by far my least favorite. A monument every 6 feet, etc....Can't imagine the battle.
Antietam, by contrast, is about 10 times better. Far more moving seeing an empty field.
Bump.
I remember seeing the big old trees at Gettysburg. When you look up the trunk of the tree, you see the bullet holes, still bleeding from the lead balls, inside. It would be terrible to cut down these trees.
I recognize and applaud your sense of respect for this hallowed ground. That said, How does cutting down some trees keep it from being "a place to honor the dead and reflect on war, a place of peace, healing and contemplation."?
I have visited the battlefield on several different occassions, and each time am greeted by an overwhelming sense of history and reflection.
Personally I don't see how that emotion would be detracted from by making the battlefield appear as it did in 1863. In fact just the opposite, I would be much better able to appreciate the nuances of what happened there and how dangerous certain places such as Devil's Den really were if I could get a better sense of exactly what the combatants faced. Just my 2 cents.
I don't think those are the trees they are talking about. I think the Park Service is removing trees that were planted after the battle. If they have bullet holes I'd think that's a keeper.
It is true that in one area near the old visitor center, there are many monuments right next to each other.
However, Gettysburg has miles of ground, so the next time you are there explore beyond that crowded region.
When the park was established in the late 1800's, the park service was asked to mark the battle lines -- which they did. You can find the markers. The park service could easily cut a swath through forests, or build paths with placards -- instead of destroying hundreds of acres of old forest.
The original purpose of the park was to honor the dead, and for reflection on the battle. Chamberlain's writings speak with reverence about the land.
The veterans of the Civil War never would have supported this.
It is easy to say "make it look like 1863" until you see the devastation, the millions in cost, environmental damage, and realize it was not the purpose of the park to freeze the landscape in time.
I guess they'll need to scatter a few thousand rotting corpses around too. Just for authenticity mind you. </sarcasm>
I haven't been to Gettysburg, but I agree with most of the other posters. A dense forest gives one little appreciation of what it would have been like at the time of the battle. The battle wound up developing where it did largely because of the terrain, and its general openness had an enormous influence on what happened in the battle.
Understanding Battlefield Rehabilitation
at Gettysburg National Military Park
Then it would be alright with you if they built some condos there? After all, no need to freeze the place in time.
The next time you to to Gettysburg, drive to Devil's Den.
In the hot summer, thousands of people visit there. They would climb in the rocks or sit quietly on the hill and ponder the great valley and Little Round Top where the second day of the battle took place.
Now ALMOST ALL the shade trees in Devil's Den have been destroyed. It will be impossible to sit there in the summer in 80-90 degree heat in the burning sun.
It is criminal. There was no good reason on the face of the earth to destroy those trees.
How could you possibly know that? The last one died in what, '59? '61? Do you channel spirits like John Edwards?
Gettysburg Military Park was run by the War Department for a number of years and was a required "staff ride" for officer education. During WWI, Dwight Eisenhower was put in charge of the Army's first tank training camp and it was at Gettysburg. The machine gun range he established fired into one of the Round Tops.
Some of the trees cut down yesterday at Devil's Den at Gettysburg were over 100 year olds -- I sat and counted rings on the stumps. These trees were there when the veterans came back to dedicate monuments and attend reunions.
The park service has also cut down some "witness trees", trees present during the battle, but they will deny it.
(1) Near the peach orchard (2nd day of the battle), behind the (foundation) ruins of the Wentz house, was a massive old shade tree that was easily several hundred years old. We heard from a friend who works within the park service that it was a "mistake" to cut down that tree. Now this year the park service planted tiny seedlings for an orchard at the same site. We think maybe the large old tree was cut down because its shade would have prevented the seedlings from growing.
(2) In the swale behind the Cordori house (on the scene of Pickett's Charge), most of the trees were cut down last year. Environmentalists took core samples and counted tree rings and said some of the trees were growing there at the time of the battle.
ping
I am not a tree hugger and I am usually the first to say "timbbbbeeer". However, I am opposed to those actions that try to simulate the past. That is what environmentalism is about and I am opposed to most of their agenda.
Not to be too technical, but they would have had to be in excess of 142 years old just to be saplings at the time of the battle. 100 years old just makes them 1905 seedlings.
I've been to Gettysburg several times.
Devil's Den is a favortie place of ours to take the kids so they can let out some energy climbing the boulders.
It would be more difficult -as a visitor - to do this on a hot day without any shade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.