New Gettysburg Visitors Center

[Guy Gane III]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

My opinion???

I didn't realize that I was actually in Gettysburg.

I thought I went to see a movie about Gettysburg and see artifacts...

I ended up feeling like the video was very Union biased and basically about slavery.

John Pagano said it best... "What happened to the Confederate perspective??"

One lousy enlisted outfit?? It's like they are trying to take out any bit of emotion and just throwing out vague information for you to follow.

Oh and I didn't know that a 1/3 of Southerners owned slaves. :confused_

I've been to a lot of museums, lately and I felt more upset at the "dumbing down" of info and just trying to attract more empty-headed tourists to spend money on a $100 crap hat.

I'd love to see the looks on the faces of the REAL VETERANS if they were still alive. :baring_te

Pissed,

[Bill]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I visited the new Visitors Center last Sunday. I was in and out in about an hour. I can't say anything about the place that hasn't already been said. For the average visitor to Gettysburg the displays are probably excellent; but if you are visiting to learn about the material culture of the period, don't bother.

They did recreate the officer and enlisted camping display from the old museum, which was good. They used the shelter half from the old display with the third foot loop added by a soldier, which is now toward the front. There was also a different ammo box with stenciling I've never seen before. Sad to say, because of the lighting and my old eyes, I couldn't make out exactly what was stenciled on the box. (I have a weird interest in ammo boxes.)

I have to echo what Dave Myrick said. I have no problem with the NPS using reproductions in their displays, especially if they are trying to portray what the clothing and equipment looked like during the War. But, why couldn't they spend a few hundred dollars more and buy some decent reproductions? It's not like more authentic stuff is hard to find these days.

I asked about the lack of signage on a lot of the items on display and was told that was a work in progress.

The fact is, these new museums aren't designed for people like us. Their goal is to educate the masses, not give us a place to count the stitches in cartridge boxes! I've spent hours in the old Visitors Center and the old museum in Lee's headquarters. That type of museum doesn't exist anymore. The average person just isn't interested in looking at twenty different cap boxes, a hundred muzzle loaders, or counting the staves in a Gardner Pattern canteen.

[Jimmayo]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

If everyone who has negative comments about the new VC wrote their congressman and complained, one of them may start asking questions. Bearucrats will respond to pressure from that part of government. If nothing else rock the boat a bit. I plan on doing it but want to visit first.

[davisonschaplain2]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I too, can't say much that hasn't already been said, my wife and I visited yesterday and we were very disappointed, I agree that it was very Union Biased , too me things seem to have been more commercialized, It seemed to me that the Gift Shop was bigger than some of the exhibits. 99.99 for a kepi in the gift shop. For some new visitors to Gettysburg it may seem cool, but for others such as myself, they are ruining what used to be a good time.....

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

To All,

My recent visit to the new Visitors Center left a sad impression on me. What happened? No Artillery display. Very poor tagging of items. A terrible Weapons display.

One word: Sterile.


The list of negatives would fill this page. I think the most despicable thing is that I am forced to watch a Politically Correct movie in order for me to see the Cyclo-rama; which by the way was the only shining Star. I was told that they did not get the amount of traffic in the old Theater so they piggy backed the two together.

The two artillery pieces used as pillars are almost unnoticable and the place lacks that old musty smell.(Probably for the better) But it was what made the trip memorable.

My Roger and Ebert rating: Two Thumbs down...

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[jigadier brindle]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I think the most despicable thing is that I am forced to watch a Politically Correct movie in order for me to see the Cyclo-rama

Just out of curiosity, what about the movie was politically correct?

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Just out of curiosity, what about the movie was politically correct?

Mr. Brindle,

To echo Mr. Gane's comments above, it was Union slanted and spoke, in my opinion, too much about Slavery. This is Gettsyburg; why couldn't they just focus on the Battle, the participants and significance on each force thereafter?

I have been going to Gettysburg every year since 1992. If you look at it from that perspective, and not as a first time visitor, you will see the difference.

My suggestion to anyone going the Gettysburg is to hire a Battlefield Guide. It's worth the $$ and you will get to see things the Visitor Center doesn't mention.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[ajroscoe]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Speaking both as a professionally-trained historian and as someone who works in a museum, I thought the film at the new Visitor's Center did an accurate job of giving an overview of why the war came about and how it led up to the battle. The purpose of something like the visitor's center is for new visitors to come there and get an understanding of the basic events that led to the battle and the basic events during the battle. There are both battlefield guides and park rangers that provide more in-depth information for that very reason. The Smith family from Columbus, OH probably isn't as interested in hearing about the differences in issue of .54 caliber versus .58 caliber Lorenz rifles as a reenactor would be, and the park service knows that they would drive away visitors if they tried to force that information down people's throats. If people are interested in learning more about the weapons in the displays (which I do agree should have a few more pieces, such as a M1861 Rifled Musket) or about specific parts of the battles should seek the expert information that the park provides (though of course there aren't enough rangers around). As for the movie, it I thought it reflects the issues that led to the war well. The Southern perspective of the war is about State's rights, but they're argument was about their right as states to have slaves. There is no way to deny to the public at large that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The public knows that already. Saying the war was about slavery does nothing to dishonour the men who fought on either side. There is no difference in the bravery it took Barksdale's men to charge all the way to McGilvery's guns or in the devotion to duty of the men of the 1st MN. There is no difference in the sacrifice of units like the 26th North Carolina and the 24th Michigan. But it is impossible to say that the war would not have happened if it were not for slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy said as much in 1861 in his famous cornerstone speech. The movie is understandably short and all the causes of the war could take a day to cover. The movie treats both sides' views of slavery fairly, that it was the basis of the Southerners' way of life and that they were understandably worried about losing it, but it does not shy away from saying the truth that the war was caused by slavery, and we owe it to ourselves to tell the truth about the war.

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

Speaking both as a professionally-trained historian and as someone who works in a museum, I thought the film at the new Visitor's Center did an accurate job of giving an overview of why the war came about and how it led up to the battle. The purpose of something like the visitor's center is for new visitors to come there and get an understanding of the basic events that led to the battle and the basic events during the battle. There are both battlefield guides and park rangers that provide more in-depth information for that very reason. The Smith family from Columbus, OH probably isn't as interested in hearing about the differences in issue of .54 caliber versus .58 caliber Lorenz rifles as a reenactor would be, and the park service knows that they would drive away visitors if they tried to force that information down people's throats. If people are interested in learning more about the weapons in the displays (which I do agree should have a few more pieces, such as a M1861 Rifled Musket) or about specific parts of the battles should seek the expert information that the park provides (though of course there aren't enough rangers around). As for the movie, it I thought it reflects the issues that led to the war well. The Southern perspective of the war is about State's rights, but they're argument was about their right as states to have slaves. There is no way to deny to the public at large that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The public knows that already. Saying the war was about slavery does nothing to dishonour the men who fought on either side. There is no difference in the bravery it took Barksdale's men to charge all the way to McGilvery's guns or in the devotion to duty of the men of the 1st MN. There is no difference in the sacrifice of units like the 26th North Carolina and the 24th Michigan. But it is impossible to say that the war would not have happened if it were not for slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy said as much in 1861 in his famous cornerstone speech. The movie is understandably short and all the causes of the war could take a day to cover. The movie treats both sides' views of slavery fairly, that it was the basis of the Southerners' way of life and that they were understandably worried about losing it, but it does not shy away from saying the truth that the war was caused by slavery, and we owe it to ourselves to tell the truth about the war.

Very well put. It just depends on your level of interest.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[jigadier brindle]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

It is impossible to say that the war would not have happened if it were not for slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy said as much in 1861 in his famous cornerstone speech.

Well said, Mr. Roscoe.

I think only Mr. Stephens may have said it better himself . . .

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

The war was ugly, and the issues are not something easily dealt with - but to say the war was simply not over slavery and that by talking about slavery we are "ignoring" the Confederate view is wholly inaccurate. From the way Mr. Stephens spoke in his Cornerstone speech, it seems mentioning slavery is discussing the Confederate view.

Why focus on this touchy subject at Gettysburg? Where else do we discuss the underlying issues of this most ruinous conflict? What better venue, than the battlefields themselves should we delve into this topic? The museum certainly covers the battle itself - it just happens to tell that story within the context of the war, and ultimately what is the story of Gettysburg without any context? With no meaning or context or explanation we are left with names and dates footnoting a confused past.

[UnicornForge]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

As a resident of a town near Gettysburg, I visited the old Visitor Center fairly frequently over the years, and have developed strong friendships with people intensely involved in the reenactment community residing within the town. The local newspaper, The Gettysburg Times, had articles about how upset the family that donated the Old Visitor Center and its collection of artifacts were. The building and collection there was originally a private collection and museum, and if I remember the articles correctly, the collection was donated with the stipulation that the collection would be on display. My understanding is that the family was threatening to sue to get their collection back.

I used to enjoy walking through the old Visitor Center on my frequent visits, educating my eye by comparing items within displays of hats, musical instruments, guns, cannons, undergarments, outer clothing, different horse tack, and numerous other items.

For me, walking through the New Visitor Center was a very sad and disappointing experience. Gone are my pleasurable excursions though relics that were becoming as familiar as my home. Gone were the reminders what period items looked like. For myself and my friends, the loss has been one of quiet morning. Over the years we have listened to the information given to the local press about the plans and goals for eventually in the distant future, turning the main strip through town into park service property. We have watched as they purchase town property and converted those properties to their will. Sadly we joke about the future of “Gettysburgville” and the articles in the local papers that described a future with park service employed actors portraying the evils of slavery for visitors on the main street through Gettysburg.

Come up and visit us. Welcome to Gettysburgville.

[Jimmayo]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

The new visitor center is a continuing part of the Reconstruction period which started after the war and is still hapening. After all the folks who could tell what the old visitor center was like have died, then the new visitor center will have no critics and all will be well in Gettysburg.

[NYCivilWar]

Re: New Gettysburg Visitors Center

I'd like to know how rows and rows of guns, bullet-riddled furniture, cases of hats, walls of pistols, with absolutely no context, helps to explain the American Civil War? It seems to me that most of the criticism about the new museum at Gettysburg has come in the form of complaints against the lack of repetition among items. There aren't enough of x on display, or there used to be rows of x at the old museum. Within the NPS, Gettysburg has the largest collection of Civil War artifacts, and as others have echoed in this thread, why not tell the story of the Civil War at Gettysburg, where there is the richest amount of objects to tell that story?

I admit that there are aspects of the new museum that aren't great, but what is impressive is that the items now make more sense when you see them on exhibit. Let me give you a great example. In the old museum there was a display of bullet-riddled furniture. OK, cool, but how did it get like that, where was it, what story and context goes with that item? Now you can go through the museum, and in the 2nd day exhibit there is a chest of drawers that was in the Trostle Farm hit by bullets. Within that display it tells the story of the farm and the battle that went on around it (9th Mass. Battery specifically). The bullet-riddled piece now adds, and highlights, a portion of the story of the battle.

For those of us, and I think I can say a great majority on this forum, it is the material culture of the war that we are enthralled with. So, yes, I can see why some would criticize the lack of 200 guns, or 50 hats on exhibit. But we are the ones that already have an interest in the Civil War, we are not the ones that have to have a musket explained to us, or a specific piece of equipment, we already know that stuff. For those who don't, an overwhelming majority of visitors to the museum, there HAS to be context to provide an understanding of what they are looking at. I understand the fact that we, as living historians are a part of the visiting public as well, but I don't think that we will lose our interest because there are 150 less guns or x on display. Seeing the old museum and how things were displayed may have been the spark that ignited some people's interest in the subject, but again, I pose the question, how do rows and rows of objects explain the battle of Gettysburg, or the Civil War? It doesn't.

Some have criticized the topic of slavery discussed in both the film and the museum. Yes, the film does go into a great deal about slavery, but SLAVERY was at the root of the conflict. If we don't understand this, and what brought the war on, how can we understand the war itself? As for slavery in the museum, the first gallery is devoted to the coming of the war, but it is the smallest gallery in the entire museum. So I think that those who criticism the museum for over-playing slavery should go back for another visit.


And finally, if you want to see something specific that isn't on display any longer, make an appointment with the curatorial department. It is FREE to researchers. You don't have to pay to examine an item. There may be less on display than the old museum, but there are now items on display that haven't seen the light of day in years.


I am not defending the new museum, because I have my own criticisms of it, but most come in the form of design, flow, and the overwhelming use of technology. What I do defend is the concept of how the museum explains and provides context for both the battle and the war itself. I think the issue of concept and the number and type of objects on display are two separate categories that have been lumped together into one criticism.

Just my thoughts, tear me apart if you will.

-Kyle M. Stetz