Concern About Precedent of Another Memorial At Antietam
By Deborah Fitts
September 2005

SHARPSBURG, Md. — A state’s desire to honor the service of its sons in the Civil War can prove harmful to a battlefield.

That, anyway, is the opinion of officials at Antietam National Battlefield, which may be losing its fight to prevent Congress from forcing the park to accept a monument to New Hampshire troops.

The House of Representatives has approved legislation that would allow New Hampshire to put up a monument at Antietam, which is regarded as among the most pristine of the country’s major Civil War battlefields. Action in the Senate could come this fall.

“I’m very concerned,” said park superintendent John Howard. Because of a relative scarcity of monuments — there are only 105 on the sprawling battlefield — “We’ve had the opportunity to do something a lot of parks can’t: restore the fields to a higher level.”

New Hampshire’s quest began several years ago, when State Sen. Robert Letourneau, chairman of the New Hampshire Civil War Memorials Commission, approached Howard seeking to remedy the fact that there is no monument to New Hampshire troops at Antietam. Howard pointed out that in 1991 the park initiated a moratorium barring any new monuments.

“But they had a burning desire,” Howard recalled. “Like any citizen they had the right to approach their legislators and ask for the proverbial act of Congress, which they did.” Supporting the initiative were two of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation, Congressman Jeb Bradley (R) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R).

A House committee held a public hearing on the bill May 12, and the National Park Service (NPS) took the unusual step of opposing the legislation. Speaking on the park’s behalf was Sue Masica, NPS associate director.

Howard said one reason NPS went to bat for the park was Antietam’s proximity to the nation’s capital.

“A lot of our folks in the Washington office visit us here,” he explained. “We’re not a dot on the map. They know the nature of the landscape. The decision was made that this was a good place to take a stand.”

But the committee approved the bill, and the House soon followed suit. Now Howard fears the juggernaut is on its way.

“I have a feeling it’s probably going to move through the Senate pretty much the way it moved through the House,” he said. “We’ve spoken to legislators in Maryland” — including Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R), “who’s been very supportive of the park,” and Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D) — “but I don’t know if it will matter one way or the other, to be honest.”

Tom Clemens, president of the nonprofit Save Historic Antietam Foundation, called New Hampshire’s desire for a monument “a commendable and noble sentiment.” But the precedent set by Congress in overturning the moratorium could subject the park to an onslaught of monuments, Clemens warned.

“John Howard has a drawer-full of people who want new monuments,” Clemens said. “Anyone can arm-twist their state representative, and it could open the flood gates.”

It was fine when the veterans themselves erected monuments, Clemens stated, but since then, “I think they’re just a bad idea.”

He noted that the park has embarked on a long-term plan to restore the battlefield as closely as possible to its 1862 appearance, and new monuments would only hinder the effort.

Also, Clemens said, “Most people who put up monuments today have an agenda.”

He pointed to an equestrian monument of Robert E. Lee that businessman Bill Chaney erected in 2002 at the Newcomer farm, as an expression of his personal admiration for the Confederate commander. Chaney owned the property at the time. although it was within the park boundary.

Clemens and others were dismayed when the statue went up, pointing out that the farm was behind Union lines. The park purchased Chaney’s 45 acres in July, and has no plans to remove the monument — now the park’s only equestrian statue.

“Once we open up our national parks to this kind of thing, everyone will be putting up monuments to their heroes,” Clemens said.

Further, with the park’s budgets growing increasingly tight, “The last thing John needs is another monument to maintain. If someone’s got some extra money to spend, let them restore a barn instead and put a plaque on the side. This is well-intentioned but it’s not a good thing for the battlefield. There’s a lot of other ways to honor the soldiers of Antietam.”

Meanwhile, Howard, thinking proactively, is working to develop a policy to outline what sorts of new monuments “we’d be willing to accept.”

“We’re probably looking at 16 states (with troops at Antietam) that don’t have monuments. So we have a minimum of that many that could legislatively be introduced.”