Debate Should America's historical battlefields be preserved

Do you think building companies should be allowed to build housing developments and office buildings on historic American Revolution and Civil War battlefields?

I dont think they should. Building companies are destroying our American history just so they can make more money. There are other places they can build instead of historic parks and battlefields.

 

Hmm...Tough choice, but I think in the end I'm gonna have to be against you on this one, Saiyan Chichi. Battlegrounds don't give us the environmental beauty or animal habitats that national parks do - All they do is remind us of two bloody wars where too many people died. I'd give exceptions to battlegrounds that hold especially important events (Lexington and Concord, or Gettysburg, for example), but for the most part I wouldn't have a problem with them being destroyed.

 

Unless it was a MAJOR battle, I don't see why not.

 

It depends on the land they want to build on. If it contains things of historical relevance - buildings and the like, which give us insight into the period, or land that creates an environment for wildlife, serves as a tourist attraction that already brings money to the area, etc. - then no.

If we're talking land that's got no real relevance, however... I don't see a lot of valid reasons for them not to. Granted, I don't think we need more cities, but eh.

Anyway, this isn't an issue that you can simplify down to yes or no. It should be decided on a case by case basis, taking into account the features of the land and it's importance to the community around it.

 

I feel it depends on two things: the significance of the battle itself (Gettysburg, for example, I would never want something built on), and how many dead bodies were just left there or buried there. You have to allow for at least a little respect for those who died.

 

I, too, got to go with the majority (so far) on this one. I think battlegrounds where thousands of people lost their lives, like Gettysburg, Concord, etc., should be preserved. But that only extends to large battles.

 

I dun really know. Personally, I guess I don't really care. Don't really see why they shouldn't be allowed to build over the land. After all, whether it's a luxury or not, it's something for the people, which is exactly what they fought for. *shrugs* Then again, maybe it's karma the lands will be "disgraced", etc.

 

I'm going to stick with the majority here. The Major sites should be preserved, but to try and stop every each of progress from those two wars would just stop progress in general. There is much too much land to take into account from these periods of time.

So.... No to major sites

Yes to unimportant areas.

Victor

 

I think they should. There are several here in Pennsylvania, such as Gettsyburg for one, and this other one near King of Prussia. Today they are preserved as parks- they serve their memorial purposes as well as being a beautiful place to do recreational things at. They are bits of the past and should not be tampered with.