Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
Letters to the EditorSaturday, August 11, 2007 1:16 AM CDT
Trees at Gettysburg shouldn't be cut down
Advertisement

I can't imagine why the Gettysburg Military Park cemetery will cut down 10 acres of trees at that location.

The trees must be beautiful and it takes 20 to 50 years to grow a tree. Some of them must be very old, having stood since 1863.

My great-great-grandfather fought in that war and Major Alfred A. North is buried in Springfield. There are lots of really old trees at Oak Ridge Cemetery.

Mary A. Merritt

Forrest

Video stories
Most commented stories
Community calendar
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 7 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Eric wrote on Jan 25, 2008 1:18 AM:

" I grew up in Gettysburg, and have spent a lot of time on the battlefield. I now live in Colorado, and just heard about this. I'm also a certified arborist, and can't believe this is happening I'm appalled. This seems to be the most irresponsible thing our national parks service could do! 576 acres of trees…somebody is getting rich. That’s a few million dollars of lumber for someone. If you’re a true preservationist then all the monuments, and access roads need to go because they weren't there in 1863. For that matter most of the population, infrastructure, and business wasn't there either. If you are a true preservationist then get rid of it all. Stopping the evolution of a planet is as ridiculous as getting rid of all the people, buildings, and traffic lights downtown. What next thousands of dead bodies baking in sun for the visitors of the battlefield. I think we can all see the forest for the tress... "

Nathan reaspons To Nathan wrote on Aug 14, 2007 1:43 PM:

" If you really believe that we have nothing to learn from the bloodiest 3 days in American history, the tactics that preceded it, and those that followed (go deeper than slavery), then I feel sorry for you my friend. Many tactics worked at Gettysburg, and many did not. Mistakes were made on both sides, yet in the midst of it all was a few examples of uncommon humanity. For those of us who have studied the tactics of warfare, we have learned a great deal from what transpired there. There are lessons to be learned there that cannot be absorbed in a history book. "

To: Nathan wrote on Aug 13, 2007 9:51 PM:

" Sorry to burst your bubble but we have no lessons to learn from the Civil War in terms of the horrors of war. We have much more well documented and timely examples ready to hand. Nor are we ever likely to see a rerun of an American Civil War arising from the same sets of issues and conditions that underlaid the first. When we once again see domestic strife on that scale, nothing will be in any way related to the earlier event. No, war is a nasty business and examples proving this abound - in history books, literature and the arts. Still, we go back and do it again and again anyway. "

Nathan wrote on Aug 13, 2007 4:08 PM:

" Having lived in Gettysburg for many years, I can tell you for a fact that the National Park Service does not bilk tourists out of money. This is a money looksing service provided to give people a perspective about our history. And to the poster who loves trees and hates war-if we forget about the battles we fought, and the reasons we fought them, we are very likely to fight them again, having learned nothing and forgotten all. You cannot appreciate the importance of places like Little Round Top and Devil's Den unless you can see what the opposing forces saw. You will get absolutely no sense of how really terrible battles can be if you can't see it from the warrior perspective. The worst three days in American History should not take second place to new tree growth. "

Crybaby wrote on Aug 12, 2007 8:09 AM:

" I guess, when considering trees, one has to consider the 'considerer'. Robert Frost 'saw' a poem. Ca. governor Ronnie Reagan, contemplating (in so far as he was able to 'contemplate') the Redwoods, saw only houses. The Park Service, evidently, sees battlefields. Personally, I can only hope that the Park Service never gets around to retro-dating Valley Forge. "

Nature vs Man wrote on Aug 11, 2007 11:03 PM:

" I understand the urge to "maintain" the battle sites of the Civil War from the perspective of those who milk big tourist dollars out of them. On the other hand, I like trees. If there is a lesson to take away from all of this is that Man and his wars come and go, and fade from memory, while Nature marches on. The world is chock full of forgotten battlefields, but we do not have near enough trees. So, if we just want to preserve the memory of a specific battle, we can still do it in the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial National Forest. Let Nature have her way. "

Tony S. wrote on Aug 11, 2007 8:10 AM:

" What I read about this is they are cutting down trees that have grown since the Civil War ended. About 10 acres of trees around the McMillian House and Devil's Den at Gettysburg National Military Park will be cut down. Park historians have stated the extra trees give visitors the impression that troops engaged in "jungle fighting." Trees old enough to have stood during the battle will not be cut down. The Park Service is trying to restore as many 1863 views as possible. So far, the park has cut 165 acres of trees, but officials said they've been careful to leave in place trees that stood during the battle. I commend them for trying to present a more historically correct Gettysburg. "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?