John H. Summers' “Gettysburg Regress”

John H. Summers' essay “Gettysburg Regress” caught my attention from the very beginning.  I have always been a history buff at heart.  Even now when I go to my parent’s house we tend to stay up till the early hours of the morning watching anything that happened to be on the History Channel.  This essay was one that I found enlightening and enjoyable.  The images from the start of this essay are breathtaking I imagined Seminary Ridge and how the trees looked on the side of the road, some standing strong and some cut down.  When it was told to Summers that the area was in “rehabilitation” to establish a more authentic feel I began to picture all of the changes that were being described.  I could see all the changes and how they could be both good and bad.  I thought about the trees that were being cut down and I agree that cutting down trees is never and good thing, but the goal is good. 

I understood where Summers was coming from when he talked about the old Gettysburg being neither authentic or inauthentic but merely harmless.  The changes that were being made in the present were causing some controversy that had previously been going on, this controversy takes away from the good that is being done to the battlefield.  I agree with the ethical controversy, I do not think that the two firms should have been tied together so closely.  I also see the problem that Summers recognizes as dueling conceptions about what state the battlefield should be rehabilitated to exactly.  I personally would like to see a battlefield like this one has an unchanging relic as opposed to a memorial.  There should be memorials for the lives that were lost, but people still want to experience Gettysburg as it was back then.  If they are going to rehabilitate the battlefields like they were during the war then a memorial is not the answer.

It was very interesting to read about how the different Presidents viewed how the battlefield should be restored.  I could see that it was important to have a dedication like the one President Roosevelt had so that veterans could see that changes were being made to the park before they all died.  But it was President Eisenhower who decided to make some real changes.  I thought it was funny when he used the word “youngsters” just reminded me of an old grandpa.  It is made clear that the rehabilitation is truly important to not only the veterans that served but also that the people are able to see with there own eyes what it really looked like in July 1863.  Again it is established that they are not trying to tear down trees for no reason, they are simply trying to reestablish what the battlefield look like at the time and how important it is to have an authentic environment to portray the battlefield in 1863.

I can see where Summers is trying to persuade the reader to understand the importance of rehabilitate a battlefield that has been marked by age.  I agree with most everything that he is saying, especially about making the battlefield authentic.  It is clear that these changes need to be made to the battlefield and there is obviously and tactful way of making changes and many tasteless and inauthentic things that can also be done.  After reading this essay I would love to go and see this battlefield in person and feel how authentic it really is.