PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire Monument at Antietam



Regular DOC
06-08-2010, 09:39 PM
General opinion folks?

http://www.wmur.com/news/23750514/detail.html

I understand both sides here. As a New Hampshire Citizen I would like to see the monumet built. However I can understand the park service not wanting a million new requests.

sbl
06-09-2010, 06:29 AM
I used to be in the 5th NHV and knew guys from the 6th. I have some interest in NH CW/WBTS history.
A quick search has this story going back to 2005 and it's still contested. The proposed monument's design is at least a good looking idea. Maybe the NPS is trying to avoid a flood of bronzed action figures, store manikins, and deists praying on their knees.

BTW the New Hampshire flag display at the State House is worth the trip.

Micah Trent
06-09-2010, 07:31 AM
I understand both views on this, but as an active member of the SUVCW/SVR, I think New Hampshire deserves a monument there as much as the other states represented and I support those who are trying to make that happen.

Quickstep
06-09-2010, 07:55 AM
Hey, Brian. I agree there are two sides to the issue (always are) but those guys deserve to be recognized. I visited Antietam a couple of weeks ago for the umpteenth time, and was struck by how few monuments there appear to be compared to Gettysburg, and I wasn't even aware of this controversy. There's plenty of open space and land there. I don't see what the harm would be to place a new monument. It looks nice to me, certainly not a monstrosity or garish piece of junk. And after all, the place itself is a monument to those who fought and died there, so what's the harm? Sure, they have to draw the line somewhere, but the park is hardly overflowing with monuments at this point. And the action at Burnside's Bridge is probably one of the most well-known events of the war. There are plenty of monuments to more obscure events out there. It would serve a worthwhile educational purpose as well.

Just my two cents....

Pvt_McIntire
06-09-2010, 08:33 AM
One of the reasons that Antietam is my favorite battlefield is the lack of monuments. And there are other states that fought there that also have no monument at all. That being said, and as a former NH resident, perhaps a small monument recognizing all the NH regiments could be erected somewhere on the field. I don't think that there needs to be one for each regiment.

sbl
06-09-2010, 09:11 AM
I don't think it's for want of NH people that care. Perhaps because Gettysburg is on the "main drag" (why the battle was fought there) they put more monuments there back then. Sharpsburg is out there. The 5th NHV's Gettysburg monument has always impressed me because it's simply a New Hampshire granite boulder with plaques. "We're from New Hampshire and we're staying." A large boulder like that would be out of place at Burnside Bridge.

Regular DOC
06-09-2010, 09:54 AM
See I like the idea of each state memorial in Antietam. I agree it is a nice contrast to Gettysburg(not that I don't like the memorials there) to not have a monument every ten feet. I think the park service should allow each state that fought to have a monument if they do not. However I don't want to see a Virgina or PA at gettysburg style monument you know the two you can see from the inernational space station. Somethine small say no more then 4-5 feet in height and a similar width or no larger then the current monuments in the area it is placed.

bob 125th nysvi
06-09-2010, 06:49 PM
if the NPS lifts its moratorium for this monument then the flood gates are open and the battlefield sites will be littered (yes I used that word) with monuments.

Now for the sake of full disclosure my unit has formally adopted the 125th's monument at Gettysburg and informally adopted (because the formal adoptees do not maintain the area around it) the Willard (the 125th's first commander) monument. And we also pay to have replacement monuments installed on the graves of original 125th NYers (and other special cases). But we wouldn't advocate or foot the bill for a new monument to honor where (or everywhere) the 125th fought.

But with that said I with the group that feels that the Gettysburg battlefield would look a whole lot better without the monuments than it does with them.

Also there is the question of MONEY. Who pays for the monument to go up and then who pays for its future upkeep? If a private organization is willing to foot the whole cost and provide for perpetual care then I'd at least be willing to listen but if the advocates expect the taxpayers to foot any (or all) the costs then GO AWAY, we pay for too much non-essentials already.

Regular DOC
06-10-2010, 08:22 AM
But with that said I with the group that feels that the Gettysburg battlefield would look a whole lot better without the monuments than it does with them.




I am not in that camp for the main reason that a large portion of the monuments were put up by the Veterans themselves.

sbl
06-10-2010, 08:37 AM
That's probably why there's even a park there aside from being a cross roads burg unlike some other battlefields.

Regular DOC
06-10-2010, 08:43 AM
That's probably why there's even a park there aside from being a cross roads burg unlike some other battlefields.



Well Sickles had a hand in it. Plus the whole Ike thing helped years later.

bob 125th nysvi
06-10-2010, 07:10 PM
I am not in that camp for the main reason that a large portion of the monuments were put up by the Veterans themselves.

tearing them down because I understand their history not only in a military but social context. To the 19th Century person it was the appropriate thing to put up monuments the bigger the better. Walk in any graveyard and the most interesting and largest monuments are generally pre-WWI. In a social/historical context it makes as much sense for a 19th century person to put up a battlefield monument as it did for the Egyptians to build theirs.

But that was the 19th century. Now we have cemeteries without any grave markers at all we as a culture have moved past physical monuments to those who are long gone and the monuments we put up to our recently departed heros are of a different less grand style. The Vietnam Wall in a very moving monument but it is no PA monument like the one at Gettysburg. What is done is done.

However that doesn't mean that we have to ape the veterans of the 19th Century in order to 'honor' people long gone. Do we really need to plant a monument to every unit on every battlefield of the CW in order to make every one happy? I'd be much more for spending the same money necessary on some quality educational material on the subject rather than on a monument which in a few years will be something most people walk past without even noticing it.

I'll ask the question. How many of you even know WHERE the Willard monument is on the Gettysburg Battlefield? Its there, put up by HIS veterans, you're interested in the subject in general and you don't know where it is (be honest a quick internet search to prove you know how to use a keyboard doesn't count), so exactly how much impact does the monument have on anybody and if nobody goes to see it what's the point?

Regular DOC
06-10-2010, 08:38 PM
tearing them down because I understand their history not only in a military but social context. To the 19th Century person it was the appropriate thing to put up monuments the bigger the better. Walk in any graveyard and the most interesting and largest monuments are generally pre-WWI. In a social/historical context it makes as much sense for a 19th century person to put up a battlefield monument as it did for the Egyptians to build theirs.

But that was the 19th century. Now we have cemeteries without any grave markers at all we as a culture have moved past physical monuments to those who are long gone and the monuments we put up to our recently departed heros are of a different less grand style. The Vietnam Wall in a very moving monument but it is no PA monument like the one at Gettysburg. What is done is done.

However that doesn't mean that we have to ape the veterans of the 19th Century in order to 'honor' people long gone. Do we really need to plant a monument to every unit on every battlefield of the CW in order to make every one happy? I'd be much more for spending the same money necessary on some quality educational material on the subject rather than on a monument which in a few years will be something most people walk past without even noticing it.

I'll ask the question. How many of you even know WHERE the Willard monument is on the Gettysburg Battlefield? Its there, put up by HIS veterans, you're interested in the subject in general and you don't know where it is (be honest a quick internet search to prove you know how to use a keyboard doesn't count), so exactly how much impact does the monument have on anybody and if nobody goes to see it what's the point?

No I admit I don't know. But thanks to the park service I can look it up and find out. For the average tourist the memorials make it nice so they can find out where their particular state troops fought at least a general area. I ask you do you know where the Hospitals were or where their memorials are without a book or internet site? I know most cause I drove around finding them and researching them. But can the average reenactor find them who knows who cares. We all research and study or own interests. I can tell you where Corps were but not every individual unit was during the battle off the top of my head. That is what reference books oh and those internet sites are for. I would not tear down these memorials any more then I would the Great Wall. I have no issues with the memorials cause while you may not need them to follow the battle the average american might. And yes memorials still have importance even those built today. Do we not build a WW1 memorial cause they vets are all gone? Heck no we build it.

Heck the whole reason as a 11 year old kid I became interested in the Civil War is the New Hampshire Sharpshooters Memorial nearby the PA state memorial at Gettysburg. (A fine example of stone work IMHO) Because it caught my attention I wanted to read up on them. From there it migrated to where it is now. If one person be it a kid or adult becomes more interested cause he or she saw a monument on a tour that interested him or her then the monument has been a success. These battlefields are not our personal playgrounds.

reb64
06-11-2010, 02:01 PM
General opinion folks?

http://www.wmur.com/news/23750514/detail.html

I understand both sides here. As a New Hampshire Citizen I would like to see the monumet built. However I can understand the park service not wanting a million new requests.

There has been a long time since Lee gave the Union a break from the war. What did those NH veterans in all those years express about it? I suppose if they raise the funds they could do something modest, but arent we always on here yelling about keeping the battlefields pure? Maybe enough concrete and bronze, I prefer the small markers along the battlefield routes so you can see the field as they did. statues often get vandalized as well. Heck, they wouldnt let us put up a small monument to the confederate dead at Mine creek so we did it right next door on private battleground acres.

sbl
06-11-2010, 02:48 PM
There has been a long time since Lee gave the Union a break from the war. What did those NH veterans in all those years express about it?................"

http://www.weirsbeach.com/newmedia/veteranshq.jpg

Scroll Down

http://www.weirsbeach.com/Largejpgs/nhvahistory.html

sbl
06-11-2010, 02:51 PM
Camped in this one we did, about 10 years ago....

http://www.weirsbeach.com/media2008update/9history/veterans/5th.jpg

reb64
06-12-2010, 05:33 AM
interesting info. curious to know what happened to the large statue

sbl
06-12-2010, 06:40 AM
Looks like the New Hampshire men also put their $$$$ into honoring the living by living it up at Weirs Beach back then. Families as well. Many cottages are still there and rentable.

Ray do you mean the proposed one or the Fifth's Monument at Gettysburg?

http://www.fifthnhvol.org/photos/RemDay06.jpg

http://www.fifthnhvol.org/welcome/113_1314%20%282%29.JPG

Miss L
06-12-2010, 08:17 PM
Mr. Hayhurst:

If you’re referring to the Loammi Bean statue (the one with the fountains and horse troughs at the base), it was struck by lighting and destroyed back in 1931.

The descendents of the Cavalry members still hold an annual reunion in the Cavalry HQ cottage. I attended their open house a couple of years ago – quite an interesting afternoon with some wonderful people and great artifacts.

sbl
06-12-2010, 08:19 PM
No wonder I didn't know about that one. Thanks Miss L.


http://www.weirsbeach.com/newmedia/beanstatue.jpg

Regular DOC
06-13-2010, 08:57 PM
Looks like the New Hampshire men also put their $$$$ into honoring the living by living it up at Weirs Beach back then. Families as well. Many cottages are still there and rentable.

Ray do you mean the proposed one or the Fifth's Monument at Gettysburg?

http://www.fifthnhvol.org/photos/RemDay06.jpg

http://www.fifthnhvol.org/welcome/113_1314%20%282%29.JPG

Well not the fifth but the Lovely Ms. Dame took her pension she was given for her war service and built a home on the lake for "Her Boys" meaning the Vets of the Second. BTW Ms. Hariett Dame is the only woman to have her picture in the New Hampshire Hall of Heros.

Regular DOC
06-13-2010, 09:02 PM
Looks like the New Hampshire men also put their $$$$ into honoring the living by living it up at Weirs Beach back then. Families as well. Many cottages are still there and rentable.

Ray do you mean the proposed one or the Fifth's Monument at Gettysburg?

http://www.fifthnhvol.org/photos/RemDay06.jpg

http://www.fifthnhvol.org/welcome/113_1314%20%282%29.JPG


Isn't there a picturte of the 5th NHV vets with the monument?

sbl
06-14-2010, 10:12 AM
How about that. There is.


http://books.google.com/books?id=uxjVb2A6uF4C&lpg=PA42-IA8&ots=5MqKMWsKq6&dq=%22Fifth%20New%20hampshire%20Monument%22%20Gett ysburg&pg=PA42-IA8#v=onepage&q=%22Fifth%20New%20hampshire%20Monument%22%20Getty sburg&f=true