Gettysburg For Profit

The public outcry against the NPS's proposal to charge a flat fee of $7.50 for admission into its new visitor center must be understood as part of a long-term trend within the city to attract additional dollars to the local economy.  On the one hand the battlefield limits economic expansion and diversification while at the same time it does serve as a means of financial reward if marketed correctly.  It's no surprise that this rub between the sacred and secular has led to bursts of protest and concern by the residents of Gettysburg and other interested parties.

One of the things that I have difficulty getting my head around is the emotional reaction to this proposed entrance fee.  After all, as Brooks Simpson mentioned in a comment on yesterday's post, even in the old Visitor Center (VC) the NPS charged a fee to view the Electric Map.  More on this later.  The bigger issue is the question of where visitor dollars will be spent.  Since the early 1970s heritage groups and other commercial interest groups have worked to reshape the city so as to be more attractive to visitors rather than as a refueling station for families on their way to Hershey Park.  Stores on Main Street have been refitted with period facades, gas lamps have been installed on the streets as well as historical markers that link the downtown to the battle itself.  A number of the NPS's most vocal critics have direct ties with these projects, so it is no surprise that they are concerned about additional dollars being siphoned off by the VC. 

The move towards Heritage Tourism in recent years, with its emphasis on the recreation of historical experiences has only exacerbated competition for the all-might dollar.  Although the general public bemoaned Disney's attempt to build a theme park at Manassas in the mid-1990s, various interest groups were already well on their way of turning Gettysburg and the surrounding area into a place where visitors not only consumed the Gettysburg experience, but also produced it.  Reenactments, which were shunned as inappropriate during the Civil War Centennial were becoming a regular attraction which allowed visitors to experience the life of the common soldier or observe what a battle supposedly looked and smelled like.  All of this came with a price tag.  The sale of Civil War entertainment and goods at the 125th Anniversary of the battle cost visitors $10 million.  This new commercial activity fit in comfortably with the new emphasis on heritage tourism and worked to collapse the distinction between secular and sacred space all together.  Even a walk down Steinwehr Avenue to purchase a kepi, the movie Gettysburg, the latest carefully choreographed battle reenactment or even a ghost tour can be seen as the consumption of Gettysburg Heritage.  It's no longer just junk, but legitimate reminders and connections to the past.

The attempt to link the town with the events on the battlefield have, for some, been threatened by the decision to move the new VC to a location away from the downtown area.  Tighter wallets and gas prices have only added to the concerns of local business owners, commercial developers, and public officials.  There is a great deal at stake.   We may, in fact, be witnessing a decline in interest in the Civil War since the late 1980s – early 90s and it is unclear at this point whether the Civil War Sesquicentennial will improve the situation.  Again, we need to keep in mind that there are only so many dollars that can be brought to Gettysburg so the question of where they will be spent is paramount. 

Finally, it is difficult not to address the hostility that has been expressed over what the entrance fee is for.  I have to wonder whether there would be such an outcry if the film and museum exhibit had satisfied what many people seem to have anticipated.  Forgetting the gift shop for a moment, both features of the new VC seem to me to turn away from the continued emphasis on a narrow range of experiences that have little to do with big ideas or the situation of the battle within the broader scope of American history.  For example, many people are upset with the decision not display the rows upon rows of weapons or the dismantling of the Electric Map.  The dismantling of the EM serves to remind us that certain modes of the Gettysburg experience are deeply embedded even if its function has been supplanted by more sophisticated exhibits.  In the case of the former, it is but a small step to viewing the weapon within a museum and in the hands of a reenactor or actor on the big screen.  This is where most Americans, including many Gettysburg buffs, are most comfortable.  The problem is that the movie, A New Birth of Freedom, and exhibit place these objects within a broader narrative that includes issues such as race and slavery that directly connect to the battle, but tend to make us uncomfortable or keep us from experiencing what we've been conditioned to expect by movies and other other cultural objects.

I am in the beginning stages of collecting material for a chapter on these and other issues relating to Gettysburg, which I am editing with a fellow historian and blogger.  More on that later.  In the mean time please feel free to pass on relevant information and, of course, your comments are always helpful.  I am particularly interested in the information that the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg passed on to their members as part of their fund raising efforts for the new VC.  

Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War’s Most Persistent Myth

“Levin’s study is the first of its kind to blueprint and then debunk the mythology of enslaved African Americans who allegedly served voluntarily in behalf of the Confederacy.”–Journal of Southern History

Purchase your copy today!

6 comments… add one
  • Kevin Levin Sep 22, 2008 @ 16:06

    Eric, — I read the same article. I don’t mean to imply that certain individuals or groups are not justified in feeling let down. Admittedly, I am not in a position to judge such issues since I have no followed them as closely over the past few years as others have. That said, my focus is on what is going to move the VC into the future w/o jeopardizing what I believe is an excellent place for individuals and families to orient themselves before stepping one foot onto the battlefield. Thanks again Eric.

  • Eric Wittenberg Sep 22, 2008 @ 9:43


    The following comes from a newspaper article about these issues:

    “The whole concept was that there wasn’t to be one cent of taxpayer money used to fund anything,” said developer Bob Monahan Jr., whose visitor center proposal was vetoed in the late 1990s in favor of York area businessman Robert Kinsley’s proposal. “Two reasons were given to me why my proposal wasn’t selected — I was proposing a $3 fee to see portions of the museum, and my project was $40 million, which I thought was reasonable at the time. Now look at the costs.”

    About $36 million in state and federal funding are being used to subsidize the project.

    “At a salary of $392,735, it would take 52,364 people paying $7.50 just to pay (Gettysburg Foundation President) Bob Wilburn’s salary,” said Gettysburg businessman Gene Golden.

    GNMP Supt. Dr. John A. Latschar replied: “In a small community like this, you get what you pay for.

    From where I sit, it’s all about a serious lack of candor.


  • Kevin Levin Sep 21, 2008 @ 20:41

    Hi Eric, — I am simply not privy to these apparent long-term concerns re: Latschar’s tenure as superintendent. My focus has been on the content and organization of the new VC which I’ve said repeatedly is one of the most sophisticated Civil War museums. We simply disagree with what a Civil War/Gettysburg exhibit ought to include. Finally, are you really suggesting that the proposed fee is about Wilburn’s salary? I’ve been told that his salary is not dependent in any way on VC profits.

    Thanks for the comment Eric.

  • Eric Wittenberg Sep 21, 2008 @ 18:40


    My issue is not so much the fee but the evident lack of honesty and candor on the part of the NPS. This particular superintendent has a history of this sort of thing, so I suppose it’s something I should have expected. However, the representation that there would be no charge for entry to the museum and then changing it in order to justify Robert Wilburn’s $400,000 salary are where I have issues, my unhappiness with the exhibits themselves notwithstanding.


  • Kevin Levin Sep 21, 2008 @ 16:53

    Hi Richard, — Thanks for the comment. I don’t mean to draw too close of a comparison between the two other than to use the Disney venture to make a point about how visitors to Gettysburg now tend to consume the battlefield. The trend has been on recreating the battle in various ways either through reenactors, video games, ghost tours, and even bus tours. Disney’s plan was to recreate aspects of American history in much the same way, though on a grander scale. I too was opposed to Eisner’s project, but it does highlight trends within Heritage Tourism. The goal seems to be focused on experiencing x, rather than learning about x. I see the VC exhibit as falling on the latter side with its emphasis on placing artifacts within a sophisticated narrative that deals with some very difficult issues such as the cause of the war and Reconstruction.

  • Richard Williams Sep 21, 2008 @ 16:03


    I see no real comparison between the proposed Disney theme park at Manassas (which I opposed) and what’s developed over the years in Gettysburg.

    Mickey Mouse and Stonewall don’t mix well, but the “commercialization” of Gettysburg is, at least, centered around the battle. I love visiting Gettysburg and believe it has a good mix. There is something there for everyone; in my opinion anyway.

    I do not, however, have a problem with the entrance fee. Harper’s Ferry National Park used to be free too. That now costs $4 per individual if on foot or bike or $6 per vehicle.

    Old Virginia Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *