New Gettysburg Visitor's Center

[ScottWashburn]

I just got back from a preview visit to the new visitor's center at Gettysburg. It certainly is big :) I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I'm going to miss the rows and rows of weapons and uniforms and the electric map from the old center. But I guess this will really be a better presentation to the general public. There is about equal emphasis on the war and its causes as there is on the battle itself. It is all very nicely done (although parts of it are still under construction). There is a pretty good movie that has a number of familiar faces in it (and I don't mean Lincoln and Lee). I'll be interested to see it again when it is finished (and when I have more time to look at it--I had two cranky teenagers in tow who just wanted to go home).

[Dunn Browne]

I would have to agree with Scott's comments. I too will miss all the relics on display. I was really hoping that with more square footage that we would get to see more of what was in storage. However, I did go in with an open mind and tried to look through the eyes of a first time visitor who's only Civil War experience will be that one trip to Gettysburg. From that view point I would have to give the new center very high marks. A couple negatives that I will point out now : Although the new museum has some excellent displays and does a great job telling the story of the battle, it is like a maze once you are in there. There needs to be a way to guide you through from start to finish.
The movie which I thought was very well done, spent the first 10 minutes on slavery and then jumped to Gettysburg with a very brief mention of Lee's successes at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Don't get me wrong, I was glad to see slavery and the expansion of that institution to the Western Territories given as the major cause of the war, but 5 minutes of a 20 minute movie would with more explanation of the 1861 - 63 events would have been better in my opinion. My wife, who has not been to Gettysburg for around 15 years thought that the New V.C. was excellent, but did find herself wandering about in the museum. One other positive that I would like to mention is that the exterior design blends very well with the landscape. Even when viewed from the tower on Culp's Hill it fits in quite well. I'm sorry if I'm rambling, I just sat down after a seven hour drive home.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

So, is the new visitors' center the corrupt, for-profit, marriage-made-in-Hades abomination it was made out to be when it was first proposed?

It'll be nice to see Cemetery Ridge restored when the old visitors' ceneter and Cyclorama are removed.

[Rob Weaver]

You know, some of us are old enough to remember when the "Cyclorama Center" WAS the NPS Visitor's Center, and the "Electric Map Museum" was the one next door! If you think the VC had rows and rows of guns on display in the last 20 years, you should have seen it when it was a privately owned museum. Cases literally knee-deep in rusting shell fragments. Bits of junk from all over the Civil War. A terribly uninterpreted mess, to be sure, but as a youngster just the sheer breadth of the junk on display overwhelmed me with the size of the conflict. Everything that's happened in those museums in the past 20 years has been positive, especially for the casual visitor.

[sbl]

"Cyclorama Center"

My NPS sources, (my wife) told me that it was known as the "Starship Cyclorama." My daughter, who was once afraid to go into some Disneyworld attractions, was hesitant to go into the Cyclorama even though her mother once ran the program.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new center!

[TimKindred]

Comrades,

The attached pdf is an AAR of his first visit to the new GNMP visitor's center by the chairman of the New Hampshire Civil War Roundtable. I include it without comment for your perusal.

Respects,

[ScottWashburn]

I have to agree that I was disappointed with the relative lack of information on the Battle of Gettysburg itself. Clearly the new visitor's center was designed as a One-Stop-American-Civil-War-Exhibit. While it might be a tad frustrating for folks like us, it will probably do very well for the vast majority who's Gettysburg trip will be their first and only exposure to the Civil War. And I still think it is a big improvement over the old visitor's center. Honestly, if you didn't go to the Electric Map, you wouldn't have learned anything at all about the battle in that place. Rows and rows of guns and uniforms are nice to look at but would not teach the average person very much. I'm sorry to hear about the junky souvenirs (I didn't go into the shop while I was there) that seems inappropriate. But I'm sure the place will evolve over time as they discover what works and what doesn't. Still, I'm most excited at the prospect of returning the site of the old VC and Cyclorama to their original state. That alone is more than worth some junky souvenirs :)

[sbl]

Thank you Tim.

[Rob Weaver]

"My daughter, who was once afraid to go into some Disneyworld attractions, was hesitant to go into the Cyclorama even though her mother once ran the program.
THAT is simply awesome! When I was a youngster, the guide would take the tour out on the observation desk immediately after viewing the painting, and you could have the experience of standing at the same vantagepoint as the cyclorama in real life. Several years ago, I ran into an article by the son of the archetect which indicated that this was a key component of the tour as they envisioned it in 1960 and the entire building was constructed to support that concept. Throughout the 60s, the museum displays were minimal thrwo aways just meant to give you something to occupy your attention until you could view the painting. And, yes, the crowds were huge. Over time, the observation deck fell out of use and the rest of the raison d'etre for the building became problematic. And not to be forgotten - it leaked like a sieve! Spent a lot of winter afternoons up there in college, though. The cyclorama was the best $0.50 show in town!

[Pete K]

Having taken a few Boy Scout hikes at Gettysburg NMP on the old Blue and Gray (two days-13 miles long) hike how does the new VC affect the hike? the VC and Cyclorama were big parts of the old route. the BSA is notoroiusly slow in updating some publications. It was a very good overview of the battle for young students. I've taken boys as young as 10 years to 18 years old and even the parents who have been there were impressed with what they learned. We might take the Troop back this summer, has anyone done the Boy Scout tour recently?

[Regimental_Officer]

I have been reading the thread and I have mixed emotions. To hear that it does not interpret the battle of Gettysburg disturbs me. Roughly 45 minutes away there is a national Civil War museum that is struggling to stay open and yet they build something like this in Gettysburg! I guess to find out what happened at Gettysburg you will have to hire a guide or listen to a tape. Just looking at the VC I do not like it. I think it looks like a Amish farm gone mad. I think money should have been spent on the battlefield itself like cleaning up the high traffic areas such as Little Round Top and Devils Den and exploiting other parts of the battlefield that are just as important but less visited such as the Rose woods and the rear of Culps hill. I feel the new front line of interpretation of the battle will be the reenactors who camp at the Pennsylvania monument and Spangler’s spring. We as reenactors and living historians see Gettysburg differently then the tourist and the NPS. They obviously need the souvenir shop to make money but yet they do not see the kids beating the monuments and statues with swords and guns they purchase there. I’m all for getting rid of any buildings or structures that are on the battlefield and restoring it to its 1863 appearance but I feel not much thought was put into the project and a lot of things were left out. I to enjoyed going into the old musty visitors center and seeing all the weapons and uniforms and such . But I’m sad to see that the new one does not represent the battle as the old one did. I guess it’s out with old and in with the new and it seems the grass will not be greener on the other side .

Matthew Fox
Vincent’s Brigade 2nd Regiment
Chief of Staff

[zouavecampaigner]

The reproduction uniforms and equipment on display are not very endearing, considering the depth of the collection at GNMP...

They also have SOOO much wasted space, and empty walls. I will have to go back and put together a pro and con list soon.

Regards,
Shaun Grenan

[bob 125th nysvi]

and there are things I like about it and things I don't.

First the positives.

If you look at it from the non-CW buff standpoint it gives a fairly good overview of the men, equipment and life style of the CW soldier. The flow of the center is nice. The displays are not crowded and easy to review. The acoustics are nice. Access is easy and it isn't affecting the view of significant sections of the battlefield.

The points I didn't like.

While slavery was the key factor in causing the war it was not the only factor and not of itself the cause of the war (the interrelation of the factors is extremely complex) so the intro panders to current PC trends. There are also factual mis-statements about the importance economically to America as a whole. Again PC.

Some of the displays had artifacts that I think were inappropriate for the time period displayed (ex: The display that had a union knapsack in it had what appeared to be a hardside pack. While there were certainly some at Gettysburg they were significantly out numbered by double bag packs). I also think that the confederate officer's tent display was too heavy and that by that time of the war, particularly on campaign, the confederate logistics tail would not have handled so many items for one man.

But from the prespective of trying to reach the average bored American teenager (and there were a ton of them on the battlegrounds) with some hard information, I think it is a good start.

[bob 125th nysvi]

The reproduction uniforms and equipment on display are not very endearing, considering the depth of the collection at GNMP...

They also have SOOO much wasted space, and empty walls. I will have to go back and put together a pro and con list soon.

Regards,
Shaun Grenan

as a member of my unit and I had a discussion about that as we were standing in front of the displays. 140+ year old artifacts will not look like they were just issued. And admittedly, most soldiers at Gettysburg did not have a brand new kit just drawn from the QM. However, that is as close to what a brand-spankign new Billy Yank or Johnny Reb would have looked the first day he put everything on.

The old artifacts while original are old and there is nothing that can be done to make them look fresh issued.

As to space, go on their busiest days and you won't think those wide open hallways are a waste.

[Dave Myrick]

I have to agree with the following made by others:

1. For those not well versed on the CW, this is a good place to get a good overview.

2. The museum was very lacking in describing what happened THERE July 1, 2 and 3, 1863.

3. The gift shop is set up to gouge the visitors. I saw a Woolrich reproduction horse blanket that retails for $55 at Regimental QM on sale for $120.

While I have no beef with using reproduction items when putting a display together that would put stress and or strain on the original artifacts, I DO object to using items which are poorly made and not representative of the original artifacts. Further I cannot fathom the logic behind the the decision to use reproduction items that never existed during the period. The display with the mounted trooper is horrid. The leather gear on the man and the horse are absolute CRAP! Not only that, they are representative of NOTHING that was issued to any Federal trooper at any time. Leather breast collars with giant brass hearts, brass hardware on everything, some sort of bizarre halter bridle, reins with buckles, 1872 pattern spurs, the list goes on and on.
I urge everyone to write the museum curatorial staff and complain about such attrocious and reprehensible displays.

Dave Myrick

[clconboy]

i just got back from Gettysburg a few hours ago, while i didn't have time to run in and see the new NPS Visitors center i did notice the bus loads of people walking around and visiting the battle field. that always is a good thing.

but sad to hear about the lack of display.

[Swag]

I visited the new center while shooting the new Lion heart films movie, when we had some down time. I was very disappointed in the displays, there was hardly anything to look at, its all touch screen televisions and stupid videos from the Hitler...I mean History channel. I find the old one was far better, at least I think so...just my two cents.

[davidf]

A few comments.

As for the museum not covering the battle of Gettysburg enough, I thought it did. I think at least 1/2 of the exhibit rooms were dedicated to the battle if I remember correctly.

For those who commented on reproduction uniform stuff, thanks for catching the Cav guy uniform. I don't have much knowledge on cav uniforms, so I would have never caught that. Also, it is hard to make a judgement on any uniform in there because the lighting does not exactly make it easy.

But I think one thing we forget to mention alot is that is a plus for this museum is the location and size. Now it is off the significant part of the battlefield and can handle so many more people. Also, being on Baltimore St. allows those people in the family who don't want to do the museum to go to the outlet mall down the road (you can't tell me that that outlet mall wasn't built there without having that in mind!).
Talking with people I know who helped with the making of this museum, the museum was specially designed to take more traffic. The hallway that goes along the length of the gift shop was made just for bus tour groups to come in on (in particular, school children! We all know how they can be troublesome).
The outside look is amazing too. They say they designed the outside to look like local architecture. I think they did that well. The amount of work and the resulting look of the building is very high quality.

I would also have to agree about the gift shop gouging the customers. I found a infantry kepi (not a forage cap unfortunately) that looked like one of those kinds made in Pakistan (key thing, its not a good reproduction) going for $100! Usually they go for $40 or less at sutleries.

There are many pros and many cons here. But I think the movement of the museum and the update to a 21st century look was worth it.

[JoeBordonaro]

I checked out the new Visitor Center last Sunday and was very disappointed. When you walk in the place you are "greeted" by a cavernous, nearly empty room. The next room over is where you go to see the new video about the battle (I didn't feel like paying the $8 to see the 20-minute video and so cannot comment on it). I did notice that there was a waiting line area behind the cashier that looked like the line to get to a ride at Great Adventure. I sure wouldn't want to be in a line that long with a youngster in tow. Looking on the wall behind me a saw two cases of weapons, a sad remnant of the once-awesome weapon display at the old center. The really disturbing part, though, is that none of the weapons are indentified in any way! Over $100 million dollars spent but no money for a labeling gun? If I didn't know what they were I wouldn't have been able to tell a Springfield from a Henry. Mounting the weapons on peg board didn't exactly add to the display. Next, I visited the gift shop/book store. Lots of nice items and books, but all were grossly overpriced. I guess the old outfit that ran the old bookstore had to be gotten rid of so the new outfit could move in and drastically raise all of the prices. While I was there a school group was looking around. None of the kids bought anything. That was sad. I didn't explore every nook and cranny of the place, so maybe it has some redeeming features, but I wasn't at all impressed with what I did see. Speaking of seeing things, I was up on the tower atop Culp's Hill last Fall and saw the new center. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It appears to be a bigger intrusion on the landscape than was the much-maligned, and now gone, "War of the Worlds" National Tower. Also on the subject of seeing things, or more accurately, not seeing things, where did they move the beautiful artillery piece on an original wooden carriage that used to be in the old center? I didn't see it in the new place.
I say move everything back to the old center, rename it "The Gettysburg Battlefield Museum" and use the new building as an administrative area and as a home for the Cyclorama. It could also be used as a welcome center for bus tour groups.
It seems like a good idea to get rid of the parking lot by the old center, but then will most people be able to walk to the Pickett's Charge area from the new center? That's quite a walk. If they all drive over, where will they park? And will the NPS use the congestion as an excuse to restrict private vehicles from driving in certain areas? Time will tell.
-Joe Bordonaro

[Regimental_Officer]

I checked out the new Visitor Center last Sunday and was very disappointed. When you walk in the place you are "greeted" by a cavernous, nearly empty room. The next room over is where you go to see the new video about the battle (I didn't feel like paying the $8 to see the 20-minute video and so cannot comment on it). I did notice that there was a waiting line area behind the cashier that looked like the line to get to a ride at Great Adventure. I sure wouldn't want to be in a line that long with a youngster in tow. Looking on the wall behind me a saw two cases of weapons, a sad remnant of the once-awesome weapon display at the old center. The really disturbing part, though, is that none of the weapons are indentified in any way! Over $100 million dollars spent but no money for a labeling gun? If I didn't know what they were I wouldn't have been able to tell a Springfield from a Henry. Mounting the weapons on peg board didn't exactly add to the display. Next, I visited the gift shop/book store. Lots of nice items and books, but all were grossly overpriced. I guess the old outfit that ran the old bookstore had to be gotten rid of so the new outfit could move in and drastically raise all of the prices. While I was there a school group was looking around. None of the kids bought anything. That was sad. I didn't explore every nook and cranny of the place, so maybe it has some redeeming features, but I wasn't at all impressed with what I did see. Speaking of seeing things, I was up on the tower atop Culp's Hill last Fall and saw the new center. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It appears to be a bigger intrusion on the landscape than was the much-maligned, and now gone, "War of the Worlds" National Tower. Also on the subject of seeing things, or more accurately, not seeing things, where did they move the beautiful artillery piece on an original wooden carriage that used to be in the old center? I didn't see it in the new place.
I say move everything back to the old center, rename it "The Gettysburg Battlefield Museum" and use the new building as an administrative area and as a home for the Cyclorama. It could also be used as a welcome center for bus tour groups.
It seems like a good idea to get rid of the parking lot by the old center, but then will most people be able to walk to the Pickett's Charge area from the new center? That's quite a walk. If they all drive over, where will they park? And will the NPS use the congestion as an excuse to restrict private vehicles from driving in certain areas? Time will tell.
-Joe Bordonaro

I have to agree with you joe about the prices. They wanted things in there that i have seen go for way less sell in there for hundreds of dollars and your first born! I was accepted in putting my book in there but declined because the mark up was 50% i want people to buy and read it not take a small loan out to do so. As for the kids not buying anything now thats sad it's a shame that a kid who gets allowance cannot afford a momento or a book or a hot dog. I think that place will suffer just like the museum in Harrisburg!

[JoeBordonaro]

Matthew,
Too bad more authors don't have your attitude. Of course, then the new bookstore would be empty of books!
-Joe Bordonaro

[tompritchett]

I have to agree with you joe about the prices. They wanted things in there that i have seen go for way less sell in there for hundreds of dollars and your first born! I was accepted in putting my book in there but declined because the mark up was 50% i want people to buy and read it not take a small loan out to do so. As for the kids not buying anything now thats sad it's a shame that a kid who gets allowance cannot afford a momento or a book or a hot dog. I think that place will suffer just like the museum in Harrisburg!

I have just a quick question regarding the bookstore, is it manned in staffed by the NPS or is the a contracted service? In other words, is it being operated at an essencely non-profit mode where revenues are expected to meet operating costs with the possibility of a slight profit or is this being operated by an independent contractor who is allowed to make whatever profit the market can bear and may or not being getting access to the space either rent-free or at a very low fixed price? Given trends started as earlier as Reagen, I suspect that the bookstore is a contracted service. But then, according to all the pundits of wholescale "downsizing" of government this is supposed to make our government more efficient, cost less and be more responsive to the needs of the people.

[Miss L]

Mr. Pritchett:

A refreshment “saloon” will offer typical “museum café food,” according to Lawhon, with some items prepared ahead of time and others requiring on-site preparation. There will also be some Civil War-era items, such as hardtack. The food provider Aramark has a contract for the service.

The museum bookstore will have “more items for sale,” including reproductions of relics and other memorabilia, and “more linear feet of books for sale” than the current bookstore, according to Lawhon.

The for-profit Event Network will operate the store, replacing the non-profit Eastern National that ran the current store. Lawhon said “many” Eastern National employees have accepted positions working for Event Network.

excerpted from -
http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/08/april/museum_april08.htm

[davidf]

Yea, in concerns to who is running the bookstore, I have had experience with them. I tried to get employed there for the summer (no dice, they needed people right away and I couldn't come in until a later date), and learned about all of this stuff listed above. The company that runs it is based out of California. I think two positive things I can take out of the new bookstore is the really nice look, and the fact that they don't play the movie Gettysburg over and over again on a TV in the store (they play other movies now too, thank goodness).

[Ken]

as a member of my unit and I had a discussion about that as we were standing in front of the displays. 140+ year old artifacts will not look like they were just issued. And admittedly, most soldiers at Gettysburg did not have a brand new kit just drawn from the QM. However, that is as close to what a brand-spankign new Billy Yank or Johnny Reb would have looked the first day he put everything on.

The old artifacts while original are old and there is nothing that can be done to make them look fresh issued.

As to space, go on their busiest days and you won't think those wide open hallways are a waste.
Bob,

My understanding is (I have not visited yet so I'm going on what I've read) that the uniforms being used in these displays are very inaccurate reproductions. So in my mind, clean or dirty, old or new, it doesn't really make a difference. Accuracy makes all the diffrence. To me I find it ironic in the extreme that they are in possession of arguably the greatest collection of original Civil War uniforms and equipment and they choose to outfit their displays in bad reproduction uniforms. But who knows, maybe they are going through some preservation efforts right now and those uniforms will make an appearance. We can at least hope.

[JoeBordonaro]

Ken,
Oh yeah, the uniforms used in the displays are very inaccurate reproductions. And the mannequins don't even have heads! Plus the mannequins are the color of Caspar the Friendly Ghost! Plus the accoutrements aren't even put on correctly! The displays couldn't be much worse.
-Joe Bordonaro

[Ken]

Joe,

That's pretty sad. After all it is a museum. You expect accuracy to be a major objective in everything they display. I really hope a lot of this is due to them having to meet the opening day deadline and in time we will see improvements. So far it doesn't sound very promising.

[firstmdes]

All that has been posted here sounds pretty sad. I have not had the pleasure to visit Gettysburg in a year or two, so I have not visited the new center. I was wondering if any of you who have posted these negative reviews have taken the time to contact the NPS via email or snail mail and explain your displeasure? True, maybe they are still in the process of putting together their exhibits and what is up might be temporary, but you should still give them your input (especially on the inaccuracies).

As to the mannequins, there is a new approach in museums that reduces the realism of the mannequin. The historical objects on display should be getting the attention, not the display rack. It is sort of a minimalist approach. At least that is what we do at the museum where I work. Let's stop worrying about the mannequins and worry about the history.

[hanktrent]

As to the mannequins, there is a new approach in museums that reduces the realism of the mannequin. The historical objects on display should be getting the attention, not the display rack. It is sort of a minimalist approach.

In theory, I totally agree with that. It's why I hate "living history" where everything is supposed to look old-timey even when it's deliberately inaccurate, and the visitor doesn't know what to learn from and what to ignore. An original artifact on a modern display rack at least makes it clear what's supposed to be studied and what ignored.


Let's stop worrying about the mannequins and worry about the history.

However, if the manikins are wearing inaccurate repro uniforms in inaccurate ways (and I don't know myself, since I haven't seen them), we're right back to the original problem. The visitor can assume that the headless odd manikins themselves are just display racks, while thinking that the reproduction uniforms themselves and the way they're worn, are there to teach about history. If those things are wrong, they're part of the history and they do matter.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[firstmdes]

However, if the manikins are wearing inaccurate repro uniforms in inaccurate ways (and I don't know myself, since I haven't seen them), we're right back to the original problem. The visitor can assume that the headless odd manikins themselves are just display racks, while thinking that the reproduction uniforms themselves and the way they're worn, are there to teach about history. If those things are wrong, they're part of the history and they do matter.
I agree with your above statement 100%, but the internet once again proves a difficult carrier of my thoughts! ;)

There is no doubt that the items on display and the way they are displayed on the 'racks' should be accurate. If someone has found them to be wrong, then contact the NPS and tell them. Be polite and try not to come across as a 'know-it-all'.

My comment about forgetting about the mannequins and concentrating on the history meant, let's forget about critiquing the display racks, the paint colors and the design and center on the history. The history includes the items displayed, the way they are displayed and the interpretive panels.

Sorry for the confusion!

[bob 125th nysvi]

Bob,

My understanding is (I have not visited yet so I'm going on what I've read) that the uniforms being used in these displays are very inaccurate reproductions. So in my mind, clean or dirty, old or new, it doesn't really make a difference. Accuracy makes all the diffrence. To me I find it ironic in the extreme that they are in possession of arguably the greatest collection of original Civil War uniforms and equipment and they choose to outfit their displays in bad reproduction uniforms. But who knows, maybe they are going through some preservation efforts right now and those uniforms will make an appearance. We can at least hope.

handle the uniforms so I can't answer that one way or the other.

Does anybody KNOW who supplied the uniforms or are we getting someones OPINION?

And what is authentic? Is it PEC or anything that may have been used during the war? Suppose the NPS has matching original garments? Then are the uniforms inaccurate?

I don't know the answers to the above questions. If someone does I'd like them to pipe up.

Too many times reenactors have grasped onto one "fact" and claimed it was gospel.

What I do know is they were reproductions, behind plastic and were somebody's impression as to what a couple of CW soldiers might have looked like.

As to the quality of the garments and if the vision present was created by someone with knowledge or a Hollywood director?

Don't know and won't speculate or state and opinion. All I'm saying is I understand WHY they chose to use reproductions verses originals.

[Elaine Kessinger]

I hope you have more luck telling the GNMP folks something is amiss than I had when I pointed out that a dress was on the maniquin backwards at Harper's Ferry. The reply I got was "that's the only way we can get the dress on with the arms." Having delt with maniquins and dress forms of many types, it just made my fingers itch to get in the display and see why that was.

However, I do want to point out that they had some of the most acurate reproductions on the maniquins that I have ever seen.

Sorry...Back on track to G'burg

Elaine Kessinger

[Brian Wolle]

I'm surprised none of you Southern boys had the complaint I've heard a few times: it was all over slavery. While I think that is so, I feel you have a perfect right to argue that fact.
Other things: One case of rifles and upon looking for the tag to tell me the name of the one I did not recognize I noticed -no tags at all!
The book store has FAR less books in it than the old one. Now, I can understand not tagging guns ad infinatum, but last time i looked, weren't books one of the main ways to educate people???
The thing about dummies. Gee, how hard can it be to get reenactors to camp out in front of the place to show correct uniforms??? The wax museum does it every years and PAYS the participants. Novel approach.
One person said it was TOO BIG. If you spend five-six hours in the place, when are you going to see the battlefield?
The Gettysburg address room was real cheesy. An afterthought. And whats-his-face paid THEM to use his voice. You know the guy -he had integrity a while ago. Hint: he was way too short to play Abe.
I could probably go on but I wasn't in there that long.
By-the-by. The most pleasant time I have as a reenactor is when i go to LRT and just talk to the visitors. Last time I had OR, WA, CA, TX, FA, NY, MI, ND, Canada and Australia. Think I didn't have fun?

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

Yep, I was at the preview opening that day. By the way, if anyone wants to see pictures of the exhibits and whatnot, I have a video on YouTube I made the day it opened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_tXIfGzuhA

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

I'm sorry to hear about the junky souvenirs (I didn't go into the shop while I was there) that seems inappropriate.

Yeah, tell me about it. They had all these little Boyd's Bears models of Grant, Lincoln, Lee, and Meade, and these little flimsy tin cups, and packets of hardtack for the tourists. Absolutely pitiful, I'd say.

[CUPP]

good video hopefully when I go to the The big G-burg event next month i get the time to see the visitors center

[RebelBugler]

I'm surprised none of you Southern boys had the complaint I've heard a few times: it was all over slavery. While I think that is so, I feel you have a perfect right to argue that fact.
Other things: One case of rifles and upon looking for the tag to tell me the name of the one I did not recognize I noticed -no tags at all!
The book store has FAR less books in it than the old one. Now, I can understand not tagging guns ad infinatum, but last time i looked, weren't books one of the main ways to educate people???
The thing about dummies. Gee, how hard can it be to get reenactors to camp out in front of the place to show correct uniforms??? The wax museum does it every years and PAYS the participants. Novel approach.
One person said it was TOO BIG. If you spend five-six hours in the place, when are you going to see the battlefield?
The Gettysburg address room was real cheesy. An afterthought. And whats-his-face paid THEM to use his voice. You know the guy -he had integrity a while ago. Hint: he was way too short to play Abe.
I could probably go on but I wasn't in there that long.
By-the-by. The most pleasant time I have as a reenactor is when i go to LRT and just talk to the visitors. Last time I had OR, WA, CA, TX, FA, NY, MI, ND, Canada and Australia. Think I didn't have fun?

It is ironic that you should bring up the slavery question. My opinion is that far too much time was spent dwelling on the subject of slavery. The majority of the $8 movie was spent on slavery and the civil rights struggle. Perhaps 5 minutes of the film discussed Gettysburg. There were a few scenes of the battlefield at Gettysburg and of some actors-re-enactors portraying soldiers presumably on the battlefield including USCT troops. Lincoln and the Republican Party were presented in the most glowing terms and essentially portrayed as fighting so that all men would be free. Considering this is an election year, my immediate reaction was the Republication National Committee must love the praise. According to the movie, "The Future of Freedom hinged on Gettysburg". Towards the end of the movie, there is a vignette of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Essentially, the movie suggests that our countries founding was corrupt because of slavery, we had the war over slavery, then Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. Even President Wilson’s visit to the battlefield in 1913 was countered with a criticism of Wilson continuing Jim Crow. The movie was not only critical of the CSA during the war, but critical of civil rights in the USA until present. In my view, the film deviated from what I paid my $8 to see and would have been more appropriate if I were visiting the Civil Rights Museum rather than the Gettysburg Visitors Center. As an aside, the same information that is included in the paid movie can be seen by watching the free videos in the museum area. The movie, by the way, is entitled “A New Birth of Freedom”.

[Brian Wolle]

yes sir. Do you also notice how they leave it as a bad message instead of a good message? It's like, "shouldn't we be ashamed?" instead of "America is the ONLY country in the World in it's entire history to fight an internal war to rid itself of the enslavement of a different race of people." This is also the argument against reparations: with over 600,000 casualties, we have already PAID reparations.

[RebelBugler]

yes sir. Do you also notice how they leave it as a bad message instead of a good message? It's like, "shouldn't we be ashamed?" instead of "America is the ONLY country in the World in it's entire history to fight an internal war to rid itself of the enslavement of a different race of people." This is also the argument against reparations: with over 600,000 casualties, we have already PAID reparations.

Bryan, you are correct that the tone of the movie attempts to leave one with the impression that we, as Americans, should be ashamed. While I frankly but respectfully disagree with your statement that we fought a war to rid itself of the enslavement, the movie was highly critical of the United States. Is this how the War should be portrayed to those unfamiliar with the event or impressionable youngsters getting their first taste of history? I found the movie quite depressing....not that I was buying into the rhetoric but rather that our society now found it fashionable to bash our forefathers.

Unlike other historical venues that I have visited and which fostered patriotism and a sense of optimism, this one seemed to try and leave us with a feeling of guilt. As an analogy, it would be like portraying all the Buffalo Soldiers as mean spirited individuals who indiscriminately went around attacking Native Americans.

If historical exhibits like Gettysburg continue the demonization of our ancestors, future generations of Americans will have no one to look up to.

[hiplainsyank]

I agree wholeheartedly that a movie at the Gettysburg NMP should spend more time on the battle than the context. Context is good but a person can be contexted to death. Heaven knows people know little enough about the battle, and need help understanding what they're going to see.

That said, why do we have to act as if our "forefathers" (and foremothers) were so perfect as to be beyond criticism? Don't you think there really was something not quite straight about a country that declared "all men are created equal" at its founding, but had generational slavery, like from George Orwell's Animal Farm (Isn't that the one that has the line: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?)

Heck, probably 99% of white Americans, US and CS, were shockingly racist by today's standards...and sexist, and anti-semitic, and, if they were Protestant, anti-Catholic. They were what they were, but there still were some great ideas floating around despite their imperfections. Same for us today.

Why can't we simply accept them, warts and all, being honest about them and their motivations, and still manage to honor their sacrifice to their causes, and their bravery in the face of dangers and odds (in the case of Confederates) I wouldn't choose to face personally? And then go, "Well, I'm glad we think about things differently today?"


PS- I am heartily thankful we ended slavery, but I would be prouder if we would have ended it without a war, like other countries such as Britain. As much as I am passionate about studying the Civil War, its culture and battles and personalities, it would have been better NOT to have sacrificed 600,000 lives to end it.

[firstmdes]

I agree wholeheartedly that a movie at the Gettysburg NMP should spend more time on the battle than the context. Context is good but a person can be contexted to death. Heaven knows people know little enough about the battle, and need help understanding what they're going to see.
I have not had the chance to visit the new Visitor's Center and I am not an employee of the National Park Service, but maybe the purpose of the film was to orient the visitor to the times that led up to the battle and the legacy it left behind. The battlefield, with its thousands of monuments and endless interpretive signs, tells the story of the battle. Americans need to learn history without staring at a flickering screen!

As to all the discussion of slavery and us feeling bad about ourselves...maybe we need to look inward to see our nation's failings from time to time. I don't go to Gettysburg or anywhere else so I can feel better about myself and see how wonderful the U S of A is! We made mistakes (i.e.: slavery, genocide of the Native Americans, Japanese Americans in concentration camps, etc.) and we need to remember those mistakes. Maybe this idea that Americans are wonderful is why many in the world hate us even without ever meeting us!

Sorry for the tirade...it just needed to be said!

[tompritchett]

and we need to remember those mistakes. Maybe this idea that Americans are wonderful is why many in the world hate us even without ever meeting us!


Yes, this is a great country (in one form or another I gave 15 years of my life in service to her), but remembering that we have faults and have made some pretty big mistakes in our past, helps us keep a proper level of humility. After all, it is their lack of apparent humility that tends to cause Americans to be rubbed the wrong way by the French. Now whether or not teaching that lesson is proper function for a NPS video at a Civil War battlesite - that is a totally different issue for which I have no answer at this time, having not seen the video in question.

[bob 125th nysvi]

PS- I am heartily thankful we ended slavery, but I would be prouder if we would have ended it without a war, like other countries such as Britain. As much as I am passionate about studying the Civil War, its culture and battles and personalities, it would have been better NOT to have sacrificed 600,000 lives to end it.

that slavery did not exist in England itself only in her colonies.

It wasn't woven into the fabric of the society like it was in the American south so eliminating it really impacted a very small percentage of the people in England. Really an insignificant portion even from a political power standpoint.

In the south the manpower it provided was the basis of the south's agricultural wealth. And that wealth formed the basis of the south's political power structure. They really couldn't give it up without some sort of substitute to fill the economic vaccum.

Then of course there were massive social ramifications to freeing the slaves and making them citizens. Issues England (and even it's colonies) didn't face.

It of course would have been MUCH better to end it without a war.

However the people in charge at the time couldn't (or wouldn't) find a peaceful method of resolving both where political power should have resided and how to free the slaves.

The result was a tragic war.

[firstmdes]

that slavery did not exist in England itself only in her colonies.
That statement is not entirely true. Please read the following:


The last form of enforced servitude (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain with the beginning of the seventeenth century. But by the eighteenth century, African and Indian (from East Asia) slaves began to be brought into London and Edinburgh as personal servants. [1] They were not bought or sold, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somerset forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Steuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations. While in London, Somerset had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law as there was no legislation for slavery in England. In his judgment of 22 June 1772 he declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." It was thus declared that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law. This judgment emancipated the ten to fourteen thousand slaves in England and also laid down that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England. [2]
The above was taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist#Slavery_in_Great_Britain and cites the following as the sources of the information:

1) [www.freeafricanamericans.com Paul Heinegg, Free African Americans of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware, 2005], accessed 15 Feb 2008
2) S.M.Wise, Though the Heavens May Fall, Pimlico (2005)

[Crusader16]

I went to the museum a few weeks ago overall I liked it but it was much different. Most of what I felt was off with it has already been said, the high prices, not enough info about the battle and little too much info about slavery. The only thing I really disliked was the last video shown in the museum. I got the impression from the film that the sacrifices the veterans made were underscored by the discrimination that was still going on at the time of the reunion. That racism was evil and did go on at the time but I don't think it should smudge the service of the men on both sides who fought and died at Gettysburg and the war in total.

[westcoastcampaigner]

Ken,
Oh yeah, the uniforms used in the displays are very inaccurate reproductions. And the mannequins don't even have heads! Plus the mannequins are the color of Caspar the Friendly Ghost! Plus the accoutrements aren't even put on correctly! The displays couldn't be much worse.
-Joe Bordonaro


Joe,

I went to the museum for the first time this past Sunday and saw those mannequins you are referring to and the uniforms and equipment on them did not appear to be as you stated "very inaccurate reproductions". All of the items on both of the mannequins looked like very high end reproductions...reproductions that your average mainstrwam reenactor would scoff at once they saw the price tag. The items I saw appear to be made by the following makers:

Uniforms: CJ Daley

Hats: Dirty Billy

Leathers: Nick Duvall

Shoes: Robert Land

Blankets: Charlie Childs

Tinware (canteens, cups, etc.): Ulrich

I believe I even saw some various odds and ends that I thought may have been made by Nick Sekela.


In my opinion all of the people listed make quality and accurate products. Also from what (with the exception of the missing heads) the uniforms and accoutrements were placed correctly on the mannequins. So maybe things were changed from the time you saw them to when I did but I thought they looked fine. I know most people (including myself) would like to see original items on those mannequins but if you look at the area that they are in you realize that there is just too much natural light that would damage those original items and the way those booths are just sitting out in the open like that there really is no realistic way from keeping natural light out.

I am not saying I was not disappointed with some of the things I saw. I thought the way a lot of the original items were labeled was awful and an example of that would be "Federal Tin Cup...About 1863". I saw this everywhere and was horrified. They could have done a little more research and nail down an actual date and province of the artifact or give a little more of a back story to it. Or the Isaac and Campbell knapsack that is in with other original Federal items that would comprise a basic infantryman's kit where a Federal double bag should be placed instead. As far as I know Federal troops were not issued I&C packs.

After all of the bad things I heard about the museum before going to it I was surprised to find myself not as disappointed as I thought I was going to be. There are more artifacts than I thought there would be, at least enough to keep me satisfied when I go there. My hope is that with all the original items they have in storage, they will come up with some system to rotate them in and out on a regular basis. I really like the way they have used what use to be the wall of cannon tubes by mounting them to the pillars outside the entrance to the cyclorama to give the lines of people something to look at while waiting to get in. I couldn't care less about the "gift shop/hardly a bookstore" as there are plenty of other places with much better selections I can buy a book and the rest of the crap I would never buy.

Anyway those are my thoughts.


Josh Sawyer
Liberty Rifles

[bob 125th nysvi]

The last form of enforced servitude (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain with the beginning of the seventeenth century. But by the eighteenth century, African and Indian (from East Asia) slaves began to be brought into London and Edinburgh as personal servants. [1] They were not bought or sold, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somerset forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Steuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations. While in London, Somerset had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law as there was no legislation for slavery in England. In his judgment of 22 June 1772 he declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." It was thus declared that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law. This judgment emancipated the ten to fourteen thousand slaves in England and also laid down that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England. [2]

John the ruling does support that slavery DID NOT exist in England even though no slavery legislation existed this is an example of "case law". The judge upon looking at the case and the law decided that no one could legally be a slave in England. What had happened is that people had brought slaves acquired in other places to england and the concept had never been tested by law.

And even then 10-14K in numbers was a drop (a SMALL drop) in the bucket as a percentage of population.

Not only were the numbers in America much larger the percentage of slaves to total population was in the double digits and in slave states the high double digits.

[tompritchett]

Not only were the numbers in America much larger the percentage of slaves to total population was in the double digits and in slave states the high double digits.

As of the 1860's census, there were more slave in both Mississippi and South Carolina than there free whites.

[CWAUTH1]

I like the new center, much more to see.

[firstmdes]

John the ruling does support that slavery DID NOT exist in England even though no slavery legislation existed this is an example of "case law". The judge upon looking at the case and the law decided that no one could legally be a slave in England. What had happened is that people had brought slaves acquired in other places to england and the concept had never been tested by law.

And even then 10-14K in numbers was a drop (a SMALL drop) in the bucket as a percentage of population.

Not only were the numbers in America much larger the percentage of slaves to total population was in the double digits and in slave states the high double digits.
Okay. So English law does not recognize slavery as possible in Britain. Tell that to those in bondage. There were slaves whether they were recognized by the government or not. The ruling may have effectively eliminated slavery, but slavery was present or there would not have been a ruling. As to the number of slaves related to the population, I don't care if there were 1 billion people in England, 10-14k slaves are 10-14k slaves too many. Are we arguing what constitutes slavery or how many have to be enslaved before it is called slavery?

[bob 125th nysvi]

Okay. So English law does not recognize slavery as possible in Britain. Tell that to those in bondage. There were slaves whether they were recognized by the government or not. The ruling may have effectively eliminated slavery, but slavery was present or there would not have been a ruling. As to the number of slaves related to the population, I don't care if there were 1 billion people in England, 10-14k slaves are 10-14k slaves too many. Are we arguing what constitutes slavery or how many have to be enslaved before it is called slavery?

you are.

Today there ARE humans in the US in a state of bondage that most of us would recognize as slavery. they are held in that state illegally and when the government finds out about them it moves to free them.

Does that mean that someone is legally a slave in the US?

If it does than we have not abolished slavery as we all claim we have.

If it doesn't then in a legal sense slavery DID not exist in England and the court ruling reinforced that and freed everyone who was held in an illegal state.

I am not arguing numbers or morality but legal facts.

Laws are the basis of government and its society. Slavery did NOT legally exist in England. When an English court was confronted with the fact that someone was illegally held in bondage it moved to free them. Elimination of illegal slavery in England had no adverse affect on society as a whole. Just as if America was somehow able to eliminate urban gangs today, there would be no adverse affect on society whole.

The same can not be said for the elimination of LEGAL slavery in the US. Elimination of the status of the slaves was in effect the destruction of the south's largest economic base and the elimination of millions of dollars worth of legal private property.

It was much easier for England to peacefully eliminate its virtually non-existant illegal slavery than for the US to find a way to peacefully eliminate its massive legal slavery.

[firstmdes]

you are.
I was not arguing numbers I was asking a question. Now that we have an answer we can move on.


Today there ARE humans in the US in a state of bondage that most of us would recognize as slavery. they are held in that state illegally and when the government finds out about them it moves to free them.

Does that mean that someone is legally a slave in the US?

If it does than we have not abolished slavery as we all claim we have.
In my mind, you are correct. Just because someone does something that is illegal, it does not mean it is legal. So the presence of slavery in England does not mean slavery is illegal. We agree again!


If it doesn't then in a legal sense slavery DID not exist in England and the court ruling reinforced that and freed everyone who was held in an illegal state.
Not necessarily. If England has not made a law saying that slavery IS illegal, then it is legal. Laws are usually made to protect a 'right' or to say that something cannot be done. No laws against slavery existed in England; therefore, slavery was legal.

I understand that this is one person's opinion and interpretation of the facts, but it makes sense to me:


"Historians have argued for decades about what Mansfield actually said in his oral decision and its effects.6 Today's prevailing view on the decision's narrow holding, which this article strengthens using new evidence, is that in Somerset Mansfield did not intend to emancipate slaves in England. Yet this does not mean that Somerset had no significant effect on English slavery law, and had at most a sort of moral force in rhetorically challenging slavery.7 Nor does it mean that Somerset had no important imperial consequences, addressing only slavery in England, while leaving colonial slavery legally intact.8 As this article argues, Somerset matters because Mansfield's decision deliberately transformed both the law of slavery in England and the law governing slavery in England's colonies in subtle but powerful ways. In addition, it represented the clear emergence of a new idea of freedom in English law."

and

"First, during the period 1540 to 1771, despite the existence of involuntary servitude, Englishmen increasingly defined themselves as free and unenslaveable, but they encountered Africans outside Africa as "almost universally enslaved or ... in conditions of extreme subordination."9 English law complemented this cultural understanding of the disparity between English and nonEnglish status, particularly for Africans, because it recognized "slavish servitude" for slaves, usually blacks, who came to England, an intermediate "near slavery" legal status between "classical chattel slavery,"10 on the one hand, and full "emancipation"11 on the other. Thus, the dominant view of the status of slaves in England during this period rejected two polar positions, classical chattel slavery and full emancipation on arrival in a "free" jurisdiction."

Somerset's Case and Its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective GEORGE VAN CLEVE as found at http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.3/cleve.html

There are also more similar interpretations of English laws and judicial rulings here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law


I am not arguing numbers or morality but legal facts.
I agree this is about legal facts and not the other issues. That is what I have been trying to say with the quotes and other supporting material which I have posted here.


Laws are the basis of government and its society. Slavery did NOT legally exist in England. When an English court was confronted with the fact that someone was illegally held in bondage it moved to free them.
Not necessarily. Please see the above examples.


Elimination of illegal slavery in England had no adverse affect on society as a whole. Just as if America was somehow able to eliminate urban gangs today, there would be no adverse affect on society whole.

The same can not be said for the elimination of LEGAL slavery in the US. Elimination of the status of the slaves was in effect the destruction of the south's largest economic base and the elimination of millions of dollars worth of legal private property.

It was much easier for England to peacefully eliminate its virtually non-existant illegal slavery than for the US to find a way to peacefully eliminate its massive legal slavery.
I agree that it was easier to eliminate a system that was not as popular and not as integral to England as it was in the United States.

[bob 125th nysvi]

to have a civilized debate.

Much of what you said has merit and I think we are dancing our argument on the subject on the head of a pin.

When is or is not the existance of an (either illegal or extra-legal) institution a proof that it legally exists. I'd have to consult an English lawyer but I'm not sure the the non-existance of a law preventing something is the same as giving permission for it to exist.

No matter what Somerset intended in his ruling it is a classic example of case law. Judge "A" ruled 'X' in 'Y' jurisdiction therefore your honor the same ruling applies in this jurisdiction. Judge "B" rules yea or nay and if nay it goes to a higher court. If yea it starts to become the law of the land until addressed legislatively.

Sort of makes me glad I'm not a lawyer.

[firstmdes]

Okay. We agree on yet another thing: Neither of us wants to be a lawyer...English or otherwise.

I suppose we with have to call this a draw and find something else to butt heads over, huh? ;-)

Thanks for helping me learn a little about British slave history...not that I was itching to learn it! :)