Response to an interview in the USA Today on April 23, 1999, by Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior
Please note: The e-mail below was sent to the Descendants of the 136th NYSV, and to the Gettysburg Discussion Group, by Dr. Latschar in response to an interview with Secretary Babbitt contained in USA Today. Secretary Babbitt had mentioned some uses for the battle line of the 136th New York that caused a great deal of concern and dismay amongst our members. We greatly appreciate the Superintendent's very prompt response to this issue.
From: [email protected] (GETT Public Affairs Office)
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:52:02 -0400
Subject: Gettysburg Parking
OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
D18
April 26, 1999
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kaszubski
Descendants of the 136th New York Infantry
Dear Ms. Kaszubski:
I received your email concerning the Secretary of the Interior's statements about Gettysburg National Military Park's visitor center parking lot. I want to assure you that we are very interested in your comments and concerns about the restoration of the Union battle line and the position bravely defended by the 136th New York Infantry Regiment.
The Secretary was correct when he stated that we may continue to use a portion of the current Visitor Center parking lot. However, the National Park Service has not yet decided the exact size and location of the parking area. The draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement does not indicate a specific location for parking for the National Cemetery and the Angle, but NPS would develop some parking to provide access to these sites. The size and location would be based upon recommendations of engineering and design consultants. Pedestrian access, handicapped accessibility to the National Cemetery, and Americans with Disabilities Act codes would be considered during the design process.
A critical consideration in these decisions will be finding a location with minimum impact upon historical battle lines. Ms. Kaszubski, you have my personal guarantee that when the National Park Service is designing this parking area, we will consult with you on behalf of the Descendants of the 136th New York Infantry Regiment to make sure we have a full understanding of the unit's position and your organization's concerns and ideas for the future preservation of the site.
We very much appreciate the energy and support your organization has offered the National Park Service throughout this planning process. I hope we can continue to count on your feedback as we move toward implementation. Thank you for taking the time to send your comments.
Sincerely,
/s/
Dr. John A. Latschar
Superintendent
cc: The Gettysburg Discussion Group
Here's one of our favorite editorials:
At this time, our Park Service is attempting to bring forth upon Gettysburg a new visitor center,conceived with private investment from York developer Robert Kinsley and dedicated to the proposition that a new facility would enhance Gettysburg's important place in American history.
Now, we are engaged in a great preservation war, testing whether Gettysburg, or any historical site so conceived and so dedicated, can respect history or long endure without adequate funding to preserve crumbling treasured artifacts. The Park Service and Gettysburg merchants are met on a great battlefield of that war. Those who support the Park Service plan say relocating the visitor center to less-sacred grounds would rededicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who gave their lives that this nation might live.
"Visitors can't get any appreciation of their ancestors' service if the place where their ancestor died is paved over," noted a descendant of the 136th New York Infantry Regiment favoring the move.
Gettysburg merchants worry that relocating the visitor center away from battlefield lines and the nearby Steinwehr Avenue commercial district would create a final resting-place for businesses that rely on park traffic. But the plans to improve Gettysburg National Park can only improve the business climate by attracting more visitors to the area. It is altogether fitting and proper that the move be made.
For, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground if petty arguments over trinkets and tourist dollars are allowed to take precedence over preserving this nation's treasured history. The entrepreneurs, living and dead, who have struggled to make a living there,would find the suggested improvements would add to their bottom lines, not detract.
The world will little note nor long remember the current battle over Gettysburg tourism, but it can never forget what our
foreparents, both Union and Confederate, did there. It is for us, those who care about history, rather to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion; that this nation, under God,shall have a new birth of freedom; and that the park commemorating the land where they died shall not perish from the earth.
The world will surely note and long remember what we do here and judge us harshly if we let this national treasure slip away.
Source: http://www.nps.gov/htdocs4/gett/yorkdisp99.htm - Website of Gettysburg National Military Park.
Back to our main page.
�
April 7,
1999
�
Kay
Jorgensen
Editor
Civil War
News
234 Monarch Hill
Road
Tunbridge, Vermont
05077
�Dear
Editor:
�
This is in
response to Mr. Franklin Silbey's letter that appeared
in the April 1999
Civil War News. In essence, Mr. Silbey asks
why Civil War
experts have not risen in mass to oppose the
National Park
Service's proposal to develop a new visitor center
and museum at
Gettysburg. Perhaps the answer to his question
lies in the
primary benefits of this proposal, which Mr. Silbey
does not
address.
�
The proposal would
accomplish four major, wonderful goals for
Gettysburg
National Military Park and all those interested in its
historic
resources, and its future. It would enable us (1) to
adequately care
for the park's priceless collections of Civil War
artifacts and our
equally valuable archival collection, (2) to
adequately care
for the magnificant Cyclorama Painting, (3) to
rid the Union
battle lines at Gettysburg from the obscene
intrusion of
modern buildings and parking lots, and (4) to
provide our
visitors with a greatly enhanced opportunity to
understand this
battle and what it meant to the nation.
�
Those who have
read our proposal, who understand this park's
desperate needs,
who understand what we're trying to do, and why,
have written us in
overwhelming numbers in support of this
proposal. This
includes the quiet support and approval of a
"whole tribe of
Civil War experts," to use Mr. Silbey's phrase.
Like the general
public, the Civil War constituency is on record,
in writing, in
support of this proposal. The vast majority of
the Civil War
historians, preservationists, groups and
associations who
commented on the draft plan support it.
�
With help, we can
make this happen. We can save these artifacts,
we can re-sanctify
hallowed ground, and we can certainly restore
the Union battle
lines of July 2nd and July 3rd. Those who think
that restoration
of battlefield land isn't possible should try to
find a trace of
the Stuckey's which once stood opposite the Peach
Orchard, the gas
station which once graced the field of Pickett's
Charge, or any of
dozens of other post-battle intrusions which
have been removed
in the past. And we can do it by moving our
visitor facilities
away from the battle lines, onto a piece of
ground where no
major battle action took place.
�
Another reason
that the plan has received such wide-spread
support is the
unprecedented public involvement process the
National Park
Service used to develop the Gettysburg plan. Over
3700 written
public comments were received, read, and considered,
as the draft
General Management Plan was put together. More than
500 comments were
received during the comment period, and over 30
public workshops
were held. The result has been overwhelming
support -- 75% of
the public comments support the plan.
�
Mr. Silbey asks
where are the historians? In overwhelming
numbers they are
firmly in support of the Gettysburg plan.
�
Sincerely,
�
/signed/
�
Dr. John A.
Latschar
Superintendent
