|
Post by ronald on Nov 9, 2011 19:16:02 GMT -5
It may have been discussed before, but I have to wonder why so very few Texans had much interest in recording what happened while some of the messengers and survivors were still alive.And there seemed to be a lack of interest in preserving the Shrine, What if it was just a hotel site? I guess very few books and movies would have been about it. Such a waste of the information, that could have been.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Nov 9, 2011 20:15:34 GMT -5
The Texan's attitude toward and feelings about the Alamo were not unusual. They didnt gaze upon the facade of the church and feel a lump in the throat; they only saw a ruined warehouse overgrown with weeds and surrounded by heaps of stones. There was nothing iconoclastic about the place until well after our Civil War.
Our nation has a long history of ignoring historic battlefields until it is too late. If you want to see a real heart-breaker, just go to Boston and try to find Bunker Hill (i.e. Breed's Hill). Also, go down to Yorktown - the place Washington and our French allies won the Revolutionary War. There is no battlefield there. Its all gone. Natural erosion of the bluffs has literally dumped that place in its entirety into the Chesapeake.
In fact, until 1863, our nation did nothing to preserve battlefields. Gettysburg was the first, but only its cemetery, Soldiers' National Cemetery. After the war, however, when folks realized that the war was something extraordinary and had been won (or lost, if you are a Southerner) at Gettysburg, veterans groups from various states started raising monuments all over the place. If you've ever been there, Seminary Ridge, Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge look more like classical sculpture gardens than battlefields. On the other hand, the southeastern spur of Little Round Top, where Col Chamberlain and the 20th Maine saved the Union left - and thereby the entire Army of the Potomac - still looks as it did on July 2, 1863, except for tree growth.
Although we recognized the significance of the place to our history and our future, the Gettysburg National Military Park was not created until 1895 - which is about the same time the DRT started clamoring for the preservation of the Alamo. They didn't achieve that until 1905, when it was purchased from Hugo & Schmeltzer and turned into a battlefield park. And even then, the DRT failed to preserve the place as it had looked in 1836. They knocked down and carted off the 2nd story walls of the Convento's west side (the east side of the Convento as well as the entire Cloister had been demolished by Honore Grenet in 1880 - he died soon thereafter, no doubt as punishment) and thereby eliminated a sizable percentage of the Alamo's remaining original building material.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 9, 2011 21:14:48 GMT -5
I agree with David. Often the monuments in our midst are taken for granite (pun intended) until it's too late. I've watch a few historic buildings come down in Texas simply because they didn't have any organized people to defend them. Numerous people and organizations have done a commendable job in Texas, but the fight continues. It may never end because money is such a big factor.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Nov 10, 2011 13:46:36 GMT -5
I think it was just the times that dictated the attention or lack thereof concerning the event at the Alamo. Today, we can watch a war on TV as it unfolds, some of it in real time. Prior to TV coverage we had war correspondents embedded in most every major encampment who documented the troops every move. Even going back to the civil war, while the "media" was basically restricted to newspapers, the population was large enough that the lines of communication (word of mouth) was more prominent. During the siege of the Alamo, the population was sparce. It took weeks and in some cases months before news of the battle reached the major cities of the country, and probably the vast majority of the people had little or no access to newspapers. At the time of the battle, I'm not sure that the importance of the event was even realized as it is today. I think it is what we don't know about the battle that endears it so much to many of us Alamo folks. If we knew all the details of the story it would not tug at us so hard. Isn't it great when someone stumbles onto something "Alamo" that was previously unknown. There are sufficient questions to keep us digging for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Nov 10, 2011 16:33:19 GMT -5
I think you're right about the appeal of a mystery: I seem to be attracted to such things. I'm also interested in King Arthur and Robin Hood, probably for the same reason, as we know even less about them than we do about the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Nov 10, 2011 18:51:41 GMT -5
I agree with David, few battlefields survive time and weather. Gettysburg is one of the few exceptions. The Little Big Horn site seems to have survived fairly well, but, since no battlements or fortifications were built, there wasn't much that needed saving. I know some members have visited LBH, I plan on it some day if I can stay healthy. Although I've done a ton of research, I don't think I'll ever get a true persepctive of the event until I go there. That's the way it was for me at Gettysburg, although I still think it's populated by the ghosts of the honored dead. If you don't believe me, stand on Cemetary Ridge near the "Angle" with your eyes closed. Its postively haunting.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 10, 2011 19:01:19 GMT -5
I'm preserving the 2 hundred year old oak tree on the hill next to my house. I know someone or something had to have a last stand or last sit (ala Johnny Ringo) beneath its boughs before they built the surrounding houses.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 10, 2011 21:10:36 GMT -5
Lou: I am going to disagree with you about Little Big Horn. There are really only two areas preserved which are relatively small considering the LBH in total is larger than Gettysburg. The Custer area, no map at hand, but something like 1800 by 1800 meters, and the Reno Area several miles away. Both are connected by a narrow two lane road. Everything else is private property. Thankfully most is used as ranchland so it's pretty much as it is, but there are several sites which are so critical to understanding the battle that permission from the owner is required to enter and you had better be a friend of a friend of a freind. Then there are the rattlesnakes.
One thing nobody mentioned above and I was surprised is that a lot of what is preserved in our National Battlefield Parks was because many of them were under the juristiction of the War Department until after WWII. In World War I the field of Pickett's Charge was occupied by Camp Colt, the Tank Corps training center. Chickamauga was the training area for nearby Fort Oglethorp. Looking at the lineages of many U S Army Infantry Regiments you will find that about ten were first activated at Chickamauga National Park. By the way anyone that has a picture of Camp Colt, in WWI I would love to see it. I have been looking for years.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 11, 2011 10:28:26 GMT -5
I think most of LBH has been preserved in that there's very little construction that changed the topography. There have been other geological changes, such as the river itself not entirely in the same place it was in 1876. Also, you can walk down from the Custer Hill/Monument area all the way to Deep Ravine and you'll see quite a few markers along the way where soldiers or warriors fell. Still, I do agree that my views seemed terribly restricted in that you can barely glimpse any part of the river itself (the spot where Reno retreated is visible from Reno Hill), nor the site of the Indian village, all of which is on Crow or private land. Each year the Friends of Little Bighorn host a special outing that takes the lucky few who sign up into areas otherwise closed to the public.
All in all, I'd have to rate the site one of the better preserved and one where you really can get a good feel for what happened, the distances and terrain involved, far better than other sites I've seen (the Alamo certainly stands out here). Omaha Beach was another one that seems to have changed very little.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 11, 2011 10:31:36 GMT -5
Lou - I need to return to Gettysburg and spend more quality time. My main objective last time was Little Round Top, but I need to see more of that battlefield.
You're absolutely right about LBH. I'd been reading about it since childhood, read all the books, studied maps for hours on end, but NEVER got a real idea of what the place and battle were like until I walked over it for several hours. Kudos to my poor wife for suffering through our 8 hour day there, but at least the September weather was perfect, sunny and bright, and she found a nice place to sit and read and relax. She also toured part of it with me and did not find it completely boring, which is a REAL recommendation!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 11, 2011 10:34:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 11, 2011 11:07:15 GMT -5
Allen: Tell me you would not have loved to walk all over Nye-Cartright and Luce ridges as well, as followed Benteen on his scout to the west? That is what is missing in my view. It also occurs to me that just because what surrounds the government owned areas now is pretty much the way it was, and you can still see but cannot get the feel, there is no ironclad promise that what is the Real Bird homestead today is not the Real Bird Hotel and Casino of tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 11, 2011 11:56:40 GMT -5
Lou - I need to return to Gettysburg and spend more quality time. My main objective last time was Little Round Top, but I need to see more of that battlefield. [\quote] Allen, I honestly don't know how many times Ive been to Gettysburg, but looking back only one that was truly worthwhile. from a true historical perspective. We spent 3 days, there and spent each day, just looking at events of one day of the battle (and even then all we did was a drive by of Culp's Hill, and ignored the town completely. Too many people have overly relied on Killer Angels forgetting that it is a work of fiction and as such the action on Little Round Top bears little resemblance to what really happened. The role of the 20th Maine on the 3rd day is also totally fictional (iirc, that was reallly the work of the 2d Minnisota, who were also the true heros of the 2d days fighting). As you well know a good map is invaluable, but I would xerox copies of Shelby Foote's Civil War (volume II) chapter on Gettysburg to plan out my route and highlight what to look for before my next trip.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 11, 2011 14:32:39 GMT -5
Chuck - Yes; I would like to have access to all parts of the battlefield, especially along the river to get an Indian perspective,which is really essential. You get a bit of it in Deep Ravine when you look back, uphill, but that's just a glimpse. We also have no access (or even a veiw) to the area of Reno's fight, the timber, and that section of the village, where Gall's family was killed in the first minutes of the battle. Herb - that's the kind of thing I had in mind. I barely had time for an hour's drive around the place last time. Re; 20th Maine, I need to get out my copy of the book "The Twentieth Maine" by John J. Pullen, which follows the regiment through the entire war. I was aware that "Killer Angels" was a terrific read and stimulated my interest in Gettysburg but is, after all, ficiton. There were other units up there and other leaders aside from Chamberlain. There's a statue of Warren there and he's been called "the hero of Little Round Top" for his recon job. Here's an interesting article on this: www.civilwar.org/battlefields/gettysburg/gettysburg-history-articles/defense-of-little-round-top.html
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Nov 12, 2011 1:42:49 GMT -5
Herb, first of all, it was not the 2nd Minnesota Infantry, it was the 1st Minnesota. And while nobody doubts their outstanding and truly mind-boggling courage, they just happened to be nearby when Hancock needed a unit to hit an advancing confederate brigade to delay its advance long enough for Union forces to concentrate on Cemetery Ridge. And that's what they did - they charged, got slaughtered but succeeded in delaying the enemy's advance. While they were dying, other Union regiments formed up behind them on Cemetery Ridge. The 1st Minn. did not stop the Confederate advance, just delayed it.
On the other hand, the 20th Maine beat back a Confederate brigade's assault on the rear of the Union line on Little Round Top. Like the 1st Minn, they launched a bayonet charge against the advancing Confederates - but only after their ammo ran out. The 20th flung the Confederates, who outnumbered them 4 to 1, down into the valley between Big and Little Round Tops. But they didn't stop there. Pivoting on their center and then their right flank, they proceeded to hit a second confederate brigade and sent them flying back to Devil's Den. Afterwards, the 20th assaulted Big Round Top and seized it from the remnants of the 1st Confederate brigade.
At the rifle platoon leader and company commander courses of the U.S. Army Infantry Officer's School in Fort Benning, GA, we did not study the charge of the 1st Minnesota on July 2, 1863 at Gettysburg. We studied the actions of LTC Chamberlain and the 20th Maine on Little Round Top because that was the decisive action of July 2. Chamberlain saved the Union Army. If the 20th had withdrawn after running out of ammo, Law's Alabama Brigade would have swept over the peak of Little Round Top and charged down its western slope into the rear of the Union line. They could have mounted 1 or 2 batteries of artillery on its northern side and enfiladed the entire Union left on Cemetery Ridge. The troops who had assembled there during the charge of the 1st Minn. would have been slaughtered.
Chamberlain's leadership and tactical handling of his regiment during the fight for Little Round Top was so outstanding that he is still the subject of intense study at the Infantry Officer's School.
|
|