 |
| Battle of Bunker Hill Howard Pyle Source |
 |
| Source |
Or do they?
I have written about battlefield preservation once before, the subject of the area around the Bunker Hill monument came up there as well. I mean, I get it, both sides. Ancient history, get over it, there's land going to waste right there, let's build something on it so the people in this day and age can enjoy it. Damn what went before, who cares?
Well ...
There are people who care, people who understand the history of a place, what it means, and how it may relate to modern times. Not preserving history seems to me a bit like destroying all the photographs of yourself as a kid because you don't look like that any more. Who cares? Your great-great-grandchildren might look at those pictures someday, pictures of someone they never met, of what relevance are those photos to them?
Why bother taking photographs at all?
I was very, very young, a babe in arms literally, in a photograph of my great-grandfather, Alexander Bain holding his newest great-grandson, Your Humble Scribe. By the time I could understand such things and perhaps appreciate who the man was, he was dead, long dead. I had never known him to talk to him or to understand what his existence meant to me.
Still, when I see that picture I think of his daughter, my paternal grandmother, and remember just how much she loved me, and I her. I can still hear her voice and smell her kitchen when I haven't heard her voice or been in that kitchen for over fifty years. Half a century for crying out loud.
I have talked to my kids about their great-grandparents, hoping to somehow keep their memories alive. But will they pass that on to their own children, and they to theirs? I don't know.
I've never visited the site of the Battle of Bunker Hill. While I'm a big believer in "walking the ground" to understand a battle, there is literally no ground to be walked in the environs of the Bunker Hill Monument (which I suppose is actually on Breed's Hill?) So what would be the point?
Of course, Boston is now a major American city, should the city fathers have left the land adjacent to Charlestown, upon which stood the two hills, alone and undeveloped? Without leaving Boston in the same state, much would have been lost in leaving Bunker and Breed's Hills as they were in 1775.
How about the battles on Long Island and in the vicinity of New York City? Leave those as they were? While, as an historian, I think that would have been great, it would be exceedingly impractical and unrealistic to expect such a thing. Boston and New York are important port cities it was inevitable that industry would arise there and people would flock there to make their livings.
Battles often happen around key bits of terrain, like cities, and expecting future generations to preserve things as they were is probably asking too much. And if there's money to be made, expect a politician to chime in, just to get their taste, of course.
Progress is inevitable and merciless in many cases. But surely some bits can be saved?
What say you?
On The History Blog (anyone know what happened to it, btw?) many times they feature an excavation with several layers of civilizations built one on top of each other. Seems like this has always been the case.
ReplyDeleteThe new sits atop the old, if it's a good spot to build in one era, it probably is in another.
DeleteThe aftermath of WWIII with canned sunshine being used probably means no one will be living on those ground zero sites for a loooong time.
ReplyDeleteHiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities, the bombs dropped there don't seem to have made those areas "off limits." Short burst of canned sunshine as opposed to Chernobyl's long lasting melt down which seems to be a gift that just keeps giving. (Note that "gift" in German means "poison.")
DeleteAir bursts, which most nukes are set to do, do little real long-term damage. Sure they'll screw up the area for the immediate future due to pressure and heat and some radiation, but as long as it's an air burst, radiation hot should be manageable within days or weeks at most.
DeleteThe vision of an irradiated hell of an earth with nothing alive at all is humbug. It's something that 'scientists' (who were mostly not scientists, or if they were they were getting some cash under the table from some powerful country that no longer exists but had 3 'C's in the abbreviation) ginned up to scare us uneducated bumpkins over.
No, blow them all and we won't crack the Earth. Or shoot us out of our current orbit. Or, if stored on the Moon and set off all at once, send said Moon flying away.
Burn stuff? Flatten stuff? Irradiate some stuff? Kill a lot of life under the blasts? Yep yep yep. But the boogyman of a dead world with no life ever? Baaahh!
Bingo.
DeleteWe should do like what England does, for the most part. Do archeological digs when stuff is found, but otherwise, eh, keep living. After all, they found Richard III under a parking lot.
ReplyDeleteIf we made every battlefield sacred and sacrosanct, there'd be a heck of a lot less usable land pretty much everywhere. It's nice to preserve stuff, but there's limits to what you can and should protect. Like, should we never have rebuilt Vicksburg or Atlanta after the Civil War? Of course not. But we can put up cenotaphs and other memorials to remind people that something happened at 'this spot.'
You have to be practical.
DeleteI come down on both sides of the fence, sometimes my mood determines which side that day. It's great to remember the past and mark or preserve significant parts of it. But often the significance isn't seen until long after, the people of the time just wanting to put it behind them and get on with living.
ReplyDeleteTake the example here, Bunker Hill. How significant was it? The forces of the legitimate government beat the rebels, but at a high cost. Still, the government won. It gave the rebels some hope, "Hey, we lost, but we gave them a right set of lumps! Maybe if we keep doing it they'll get tired of losing so many men." But is that enough to make it really significant at the time?
In the Late Unpleasantness, Vicksburg, I think, carries much more significance than Gettysburg, at least strategically, but Gettysburg is the one that got the fame.
Heck, bucolic Sonoma County has it's own sort of remembered Almost Battle of the Washoe House during, well, just after the War of 1861. Most stories about it say it was 1865. "Lincoln’s death was much mourned in Petaluma. Shops were closed, black crepe was hung everywhere, flags were at half-mast. A funeral parade was scheduled for the next day with an empty hearse, a riderless horse, pall bearers and a military band. The sermon was given by professor E.S. Lippett in Walnut Park.
The Journal & Argus proclaimed: “Petaluma In Mourning.” Church bells tolled. Every half-hour, from sunrise to sunset, a cannon was sounded.
“Never before have we witnessed so widespread and unutterable sorrow,” the Argus editor wrote.
Yet there were those who held another view. In Santa Rosa, as in San Francisco, several arrests were made of “men rejoicing over the assassination.” In response, all five of San Francisco’s rebel-owned “secession newspapers” were totally trashed by uncontrolled mobs. It was an idea that caught fire in Petaluma." And so, according to local legend, forces set out from Petaluma to teach those seesesch so-an-sos who's who and what's what. It was a warm, well hot, April day. They were hot and dusty after the ~10 mile march and stopped at the roadhouse known as The Washoe House to sooth their parched throats, and according to some "relieve the tension" with the upstairs amenities. Thus, all fires being quenched, they decided it was too hot to finish the march to Santa Rosa and went home.
One account says 1863, with Union men form Petaluma and Southern Sympathizers from Santa Rosa meeting there. But before hostilities could commence they decided to refresh themselves. Well, one drink led to several, some say it went on for several days, and soon the avenging spirit slunk away. The Washoe House is still an operating bar and grill. The Historic Marker, erected by E Clampus Vitus, Yerba Buena Chapter No. 1. makes no mention of the Battle. Photo from the late 1800s https://imengine.prod.srp.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F357F99A-C85A-4DEA-A630-1EA3C7721889&type=primary&q=75&width=990
I'd argue that both Gettysburg and Vicksburg were crucial battles. Vicksburg did allow the North to control the Mississippi, but the defeat of Lee's army was also critical. You defeat the enemy by defeating his armies (as at Gettysburg), but you can also defeat them by cutting him off from his supplies (as at Vicksburg).
DeleteWhat would there be to preserve at Vicksburg anyway? Shelters where the residents took cover during the bombardments? Destroyed homes and businesses? Gettysburg is rural, keep the land as it was (but let the farmers do their thing as they did in 1863) and throw up a few monuments.
One thing I will say, Gettysburg seems far more commercialized than Antietam. Which I found excellent.
I read that as the Battle of Waffle House and said “Wow, not even a war closes those things!”
Delete🤣🤣🤣
Delete🤣🤣🤣
DeleteThe Battle of the Waffle House is documented here: https://youtu.be/jhA5qR2zcEY?si=tWacWtjKvfEhQmFN
Heh.
DeleteGettysburg was a defeat of one army in one battle. That army retreated in good order and remained a significant fighting force. I'm not saying it was insignificant, just that Vicksburg was of much greater importance.
DeleteVicksburg gave the Mississippi to the Federals, cut a vital supply line for the Confederacy and splitting it east and west and allowed a push eastward to try to split it north and south. That necessitated drawing troops from the east to meet that threat.
Gettysburg seriously damaged the morale of the Army of Northern Virginia. Significant only in defense from that point onwards. One cannot win a war by remaining on the defensive. It also turned back the last invasion of the North, a very significant boost for Northern morale.
DeleteMuch greater importance, maybe, but the war would still be won or lost in the East. That was always the case.
Gettysburg, Shiloh, Antietam and other battles like that were 'Soldier vs Soldier' with few civilian casualties. Thus they were 'noble' battles. Noble and easily cleaned up. Dig a big hole, drop everyone in it, pick up the useable stuff, move on. Next year ground recovers, 2 years later just the memorials and damaged trees exist. Noble. Clean. Easy to glorify.
DeleteVicksburg was a friggin months-long siege full of death and destruction and civilians dying and the end result wasn't easily cleaned up and left the ground blasted like the surface of the Moon. Definitely NOT a 'noble' struggle against two forces. Sieges suck. Necessary but they suck, and it takes years and years to even start to get back to normal. Definitely unclean, no glory in a siege.
Hearken back to the Time of Henry V. Agincourt, lots of deaths, but not a siege, a very 'noble' battle (as long as you weren't French.)
The Siege of Harfleur? Horrible, a nightmare made worse by the city leaders not surrendering once a breach was made in the wall. Pretty much wiped Harfleur off the map for years. The battle was bad, but the sack of the city afterwards was everything horrible about sacks of cities, killing every living thing (after rapes and such) and everything not nailed down grabbed by the victors. And, of course, the ensuing fires destroying the city even while the sacking and looting and raping was going on, as generally happens in a sack. Nobody much talks about the siege and the sack, as they were decidedly not 'noble' and 'glorious.'
Really good observation. Nobody wants to remember a siege, they are extraordinarily nasty.
DeleteI think some bits of battlegrounds being saved is a good idea. How much is the big question. Just leaving a statue, a plaque, or nothing removes the ability to envision the scope of the conflict.
ReplyDeleteOur local battleground, which was a famous battle in the Civil War, involved a fort which was never built to last, and nature recovered. There is nothing left, and the site it lost. Texas acquired the ammunition bunkers from WW2, which is where a state park with the name of the Confederate general that routed the Union forces is now located. The plaque states where the original battle was fought to the south, but there is nothing other than that to indicate there was a battle fought in the area. More than likely construction crews that built the industrial facilities in the area, or the jetty for the ship channel, acquired some artifacts, but they're all that remain, and I would guess were tossed into the trash, when someone was taking care of an estate.
How much is indeed the question.
DeleteHave been to the Bunker Hill monument, and your assessment is accurate. At the time, my Destroyer was in the drydock just across from Constitution. That was pretty historic!
ReplyDeleteAh, the USS Constitution, a living monument!
DeleteI am torn Sarge. On the one hand realistically, battlefields near cities are mostly built over and were built over years ago. Battlefields farther out may have been preserved - or not, thanks to developers, who see no land except that it has something built on it.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, it has something to do with appreciation of history. It was impressive to me in Turkey and Greece (and Japan of course) how much old "stuff" is still preserved. Yes, it has tourist value, but it is also valued by its inhabitants. They see value in remembering the history, of remembering where they came.
One interesting example that springs to mind is The Alamo (Juvat and STxAR will know of what I speak) - yes, the mission itself is preserved, but it is now in the middle of what was downtown (a much less desirable part of downtown now). So one can see the structure and read the signs, but imagining the battle field in the clutter of buildings is a bit challenging.
A pretty good one (in my opinion) is the Brandywine Battlefield in Chadd's Ford. Yes, it is not the full battlefield, but there is enough (and the lay of the land is still the same) that one can clearly envision the battle.
The Brandywine site sounds much like the Waterloo battlefield. Most of the field is there and the action can be visualized very easily (DAMHIK) but there are parts which have been destroyed for various reasons. Good reasons are to provide homes and the like. Bad reasons are digging up the entire right flank of Wellington's position in order to erect a giant dirt mound to commemorate the Dutch Prince of Orange. The Lion Mound is cool, great views from the top, but they tore up an important feature of the field. Pissed off the Duke himself when they did that.
Deletedumb question de jour:
ReplyDeletewhy do the city fathers go to so much effort to provide "green spaces" when setting aside an acre or so of an old battle site might accomplish the purpose with an added benefit?
Short answer, they're politicians. Almost by definition that means they're probably corrupt and quite possibly stupid. Just my opinion, but ...
DeleteOften, with old cities here in the States, the 'green space' movement is relatively young. Unless the city planners included it, like Central Park in NYFC. Places that grew by sprawl, like Boston and such, usually had no real city planning. And unlike most European cities, haven't been destroyed and rebuilt like so many European cities, like Paris (which is mostly 'new,' being planned and rebuilt in the 1800's.)
DeleteExcellent observation, now I have an historical reason for why driving in Boston sucks so much!
DeleteI'm glad we've got as much as we have. In land battles terrain is key in so many respects and it's god that we have places like Gettysburg and Waterloo to understand such things. The Custer battlefield also comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteWe are in the process of some preservation ourselves as we prepare for the memorial service for my father, the last of his generation. What's good is that my grandson knew him; what's tough is working through deaths with a 9year old. I have landed upon the idea or stories -as long as we tell the stories; those people are still with us, thus storytelling, which you do so well, Sarge has a vital role in this. Artifacts, photos and yes landscape are important; but the stories, accurately and entertainingly told are what keeps these people alive in us.
Boat Guy
If we forget the people who fought there, especially those who became casualties, then really, what's the point of preserving the terrain. The stories need to be remembered and told to each succeeding generation.
DeleteFWIW, I love your idea. It will help keep the man's memory alive in that small boy.
If you forget the people who fought there, how long before you forget WHY they fought there?
DeleteExactly.
DeleteAnd, Gerry, vise versa works too. Forget or lose the reason why the battle was fought and then it's easy for those who fought to be forgotten.
DeleteMuch like the great renaming and destatueing over the last 20 years.
"Renaming and destatueing," a pox on all their houses for that incredible stupidity.
DeleteSome sites may have already been lost to development and/or commercialization, but this organization attempts to preserve sites where it is possible: https://www.battlefields.org/
ReplyDelete...and yes, they seem to mostly be the more rural locations, which is to be expected, as it is typically only with hindsight that anyone knows what should be/must be preserved for future viewing and understanding context.
PS: I suppose that Lincoln having spoken at the 1863 dedication of the Gettysburg national cemetery likely enhanced its importance in any Vicksburg v Gettysburg competiton. Having visited both locations during my RV travels, I stand in equal awe of what was accomplished, and what the cost, at both locations.
I've driven through Vicksburg, late at night, bound from Gulfport, MS to Omaha, NE. Wish I'd had the chance to stop.
DeleteAs to the American Battlefield Trust, they do marvelous work.
Crusty Old TV Tech here. I may have written on this before, if so, apologies. South of Shreveport, LA there is a field that formerly held an antebellum "plantation" house. https://maps.app.goo.gl/gRLzem9EjT4oc4yQ9 It was smaller than the name implies, but it was historic. Land's End Plantation. It served as a field hospital for the Battle of Mansfield in the Recent Unpleasantness (as my old maid great-aunt called it). The family that owned the property tried to get the state to declare it a monument or whatever. They had artifacts displayed, bloody curtains, swords, field glasses I remember. If your parents knew, they could ask for a tour from the owners. Mine did, thankfully.
ReplyDeleteBut, nothing happened. The house burned down 20-30 years ago. Opportunity lost. How many like bits of history that could have been preserved are not?
A sad tale indeed. History lost saddens me.
DeleteI believe in preserving history, but it does have its costs. There is an area called Land Between the Lakes; it's a National Recreation Area, and includes the Fort Donelson battlefield park. Beautiful place, but when I'm there, I can't help recalling that my mother's side of the family, after being burned out during the War in North Carolina, came to the area to settle, only to be evicted by the Yankee government 80 years later. We go to LBL & my mother points out where so-and-so lived, and where Uncle Such-and-Such owned a store, etc.
ReplyDeleteWould I rather LBL didn't exist? I don't think so, but my mother would rather it had never come to be. Her childhood was there, and towns were bulldozed to make a play area.
Just pointing out that there's often a trade-off to almost anything.
--Tennessee Budd
I understand her point of view. There are a couple of places on the planet for me like that. Not the same, but similar.
DeleteMy wife’s paternal lineage include the Moulton family, who lived on the point where the Boston Naval Yard now stands. During the Battle of Bunker Hill the Brits landed on what had been their property.
ReplyDeleteMy father’s family are Sayles, who also lived near the battlefield in Charlestown. We had a less auspicious existence there, but things improved for us in Rhode Island.
It's great having that sort of connection to an historical event.
Delete