Destroying the trees on the Gettysburg Battlefield (vanity)

Old Lady ^ | March 18, 2005 | Old Lady

[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.

[Old Phone Man]

Again... I walk the Gettysburg fields daily.. I've lived here for almost five years and have been coming uo here for ten more. I know much about what happened here... more than the average bear, I might say too.

Cutting down a projected 600 acres of trees is just not my cup of tea... I also believe that this is Hallowed Ground, and if you could dig up some of the veterans who fought here they would say the same thing..

I've documented the rape of Gettysburg daily, and I despise what I see... In fact, I'm sick over it!

I have countless numbers of photos showing 100 year old trees (some older than that) lying in their death throes... Beautiful Red Bud that will never accentuate the beauty of the land again... 150 year old stately Cedar trees that once cast their shadows over millions of visitors including the veterans themselves... Gone!

Joshua Chamberlain in his writings talks often about this Hallowed Ground sanctified by the blood of both North and South... He talks about healing the wounds not only of the men involved, but the very Ground itself.

The present Park supervisors are playing the taxpayer for all thay can get, while basic maintainence of the Park suffers.... I say For Shame!

[95Tarheel]

I think it is imperative that there is some effort to keep the landscape quite similar to what it was, so that we can appreciate the geography of the battleground and the tactical considerations faced by the soldiers. I would shudder at the horror of allowing the entire military park to become another densely overgrown forest.

There are plenty of national forests and wilderness areas and state parks where trees and their beauty can be appreciated.

I confess though, that it seems like common sense to allow some of the best trees to remain, if they significantly contribute to the beauty of the park. I'm not such a strict literalist that the park has to remain exactly as it was (that's not possible, anyway).

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

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.

One other thing, the park was actually created to prevent the battlefield from becoming a huge "Wally World" type of circus attraction. Just before Congress intervened, there were numerous concession stands and gallerys located near Devil's Den, a trolley line running through the "Valley of Death," and a number of brothels behind Little Round Top. The War Department actually controlled the park until FDR's administration, and during the 1920s, it was used as a training area for tanks, which used Little Round Top as a target. I learned this stuff from a very good friend of mine, who is a licensed battlefield guide, and another friend, who is a former park ranger.

[pepsionice]

Simply put...trees do not make a hallowed ground. It will not matter whether trees provide cover over this sacred soil. It will not matter if one person or ten thousand people come to the park on bright sunny June day. The park lives by itself. We don't need to micromanage or get into dynamic fights over what grows or doesn't grow in the park. We all seem to have way to much time on our hands...and need to find a nice gardening habit for our backyard instead.

[WideGlide]

When I look out across those hallowed grounds I see FAIRWAYS that could have been. ROFL </kidding>

[Rodney King]

Joshua Chamberlain in his writings talks often about this Hallowed Ground sanctified by the blood of both North and South... He talks about healing the wounds not only of the men involved, but the very Ground itself.

Theoretical question: If the park naturally became overgrown with poison ivy, you would be against removing it because it is hallowed ground?

[flying Elvis]

Getting trees cut in an National Park is a major undertaking, even when the funds are available. Environmental studies are performed and only after all the powers that be sign off on it, is it allowed to move forward. That being said, many of the trees we see on the battlefields, especially Vicksburg, were planted as soil conservation measures. We now know that planting trees is not always the best way to conserve and natural grasses are the way to go. This will be a boon to Vicksburg for there are so many trees in the park as to make it undecipherable to someone who has not spent many hours studying the battle.

[95Tarheel]

I agree with your posts- they seem to have a more proper perspective.

[Safetgiver]

but they would have had to be in excess of 142 years old ... and bullet proof. Look at old photo's and you don't see much timber...or even brush from the sheer number of volleys shot through the area.

[RightWhale]

Can't imagine the battle.

It is not necessary to reenact the battle there anymore. It was a massive battle, let the place heal. The survivors of the original battle staged the reenactment 50 years after the war, that should do. Can't see anything from Little Round Top? Nobody saw much from Little Round Top then, either.

[Old Phone Man]

A picture is worth a thousand words, and I possess about five hundred pictures... Still counting, too.

The present Park administration is bilking the taxpayers of millions of dollars by NOT maintaining the REAL neccessities of the Park... 99% of the deer have been killed off so the Park can plant seedlings for countless orchards that were here at the time of the battle... Fence lines are changed countlessly to appease the current superintendent.

If you want to really know any battlefield you have to walk its land continually, reference your own maps and read constantly.. When you do this you learn to appreciate and respect nature...

You don't have to depend on some politically correct Nazi superintendant raping the land to appease those in kind and his (0r her) legacy.

Anyway, in ten minutes I'll be out there with my camera, continuing to record the rape of Gettysburg.

[Tallguy]

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.

I am a Civil War 'buff'. If restoring the battlefield means more people like myself will be attracted to the battlefield, then I suggest that the 'contemplative purpose' will have been met. Sorry, but we disagree.

[Tallguy]

They are talking about restoring the Park to the 'look' that the ground had at the time of the battle. Trees that were there then and 'witnessed' the battle will remain.

[Redcloak]

The trees are a later addition. They don't belong there if the idea is to present the site as it looked in 1863.

[Rodney King]

If you want to really know any battlefield you have to walk its land continually, reference your own maps and read constantly.. When you do this you learn to appreciate and respect nature... You don't have to depend on some politically correct Nazi superintendant raping the land to appease those in kind and his (0r her) legacy.

So really, this has nothing to do with the battlefield per se, but simply that you know every inch of this particular piece of land, have grown to love it, and don't like other people f'ing with it?

[Tallguy]

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.

What the heck are you talking about? What they are doing is removing a few stands of trees that have altered the sight lines on the battlefield. This is not a forest, for crying out loud. I live less than 30 minutes from Gettysburg.

[flying Elvis]

I am a Civil War historian and while I commend your concern for the battlefield, you both are completely wrong on this one. Witness trees are those that were present during the battle. You may want to designate trees from the reunions as witness trees, but that does not make them important to the historical interpretation of the site. Many of the trees in our battlefield parks were planted in order to stop erosion, not give shade to hikers and picnicers. Furthermore, many of the trees present at the time the parks were commissioned were there because no one had bothered to preserve the land after the war. Cutting them down is fitting. Everything in the parks are supposed to be for the purpose of interpretation, not recreation.

Here's an excerpt from the enabling legislation for Vicksburg National Military Park:

DUTIES OF COMMISSIONERS

SEC. 5. That it shall be the duty of the commissioners named in the preceding section, under the direction of the Secretary of War, to restore the forts and the lines of fortification, the parallels and the approaches of the two armies, or so much thereof as may be necessary to the purposes of this park; to open and construct and to repair such roads as may be necessary to said purposes, and to ascertain and mark with historical tablets, or otherwise as the Secretary of War may determine, the lines of battle of the troops engaged in the assaults, and the lines held by the troops during the siege and defense of Vicksburg the headquarters of General Grant and of General Pemberton, and other historical points of interest pertaining to the siege and defense of Vicksburg with- the park or its vicinity;.... ...PENALTY FOR INJURING PROPERTY

SEC. 7. That if any person shall, except by permission of the Secretary of War, destroy, mutilate, deface, injure, or remove any monument, column, statue, memorial structure, tablet, or work of art that shall be erected or placed upon the grounds of the park by lawful authority, or shall destroy or remove any fence, railing, enclosure, or other work intended for the protection or ornamentation of said park, or any portion thereof, or shall destroy, cut, hack, bark, break down, or otherwise injure any tree, bush, or shrub that may be growing upon said park, or shall cut down or fell or remove any timber, battle relic, tree, or trees growing or being upon said park, or hunt within the limits of the park, or shall remove or destroy any breastworks, earthworks, walls, or other defenses or shelter on any part thereof constructed by the armies formerly engaged in the battles, on the lands or approaches to the park, any person so offending and found guilty thereof, before any United States commissioner or court, justice of the peace of the county in which the offense may be committed, or any court of competent jurisdiction, shall for each and every such offense forfeit and pay a fine in the discretion of the said commissioner or court of the United States or justice of the peace, according to the aggravation of the offense, of not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars, one-half for the use of the park and the other half to the informant, to be enforced and recovered before such United States commissioner or court or justice of the peace or other court in like manner as debts of like nature are now by law recoverable in the several counties when the offense may be committed.

[Old Phone Man]

Post 18: I am not a tree hugger, either, but since I've seen a couple hundred of them (many centurians) in their death throes on the ground, I think I'm going to go out on the battlefield and hug one right now.

[BadAndy]

"I vote for chopping them down."

I am against chopping them down. A chainsaw is much more efficient. Remove all the trees and brush that weren't there at the time of the battle. Restore the field to what it would have looked like around the time of the battle. It gives a better sense of the battle terrain. If you don't do it, it becomes just an overgrown field. Those who don't want the field maintained are like the libs who won't allow forest management. What next, allow some oak trees to grow at the Custer battlefield?

[reagandemo]

I agree with you. I like the restoration of the battle field to it's original state. Matter of fact I like the way they are trying to do it to so many battle fields. Perryvill near where I live is a wonderful living museum.