New Hampshire Monument at Antietam

[Regular DOC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's probably why there's even a park there aside from being a cross roads burg unlike some other battlefields.