When Does Preserving History Become Exploiting It?

In the first part of this discussion, we asked whether a historic place sometimes has a better chance of surviving when it is given a new purpose. A World War II airfield becomes a racetrack. An old military building becomes a restaurant. A factory becomes part of a museum. Someone comes for one reason, notices something left from another time and asks a question. A conversation begins, and history survives.

But then the discussion moves onto battlefields, and suddenly the question becomes much more difficult.

Is a battlefield simply another historic place, or is it something different?

Gettysburg may be the perfect example. The battlefield is not one hill, one field or one building. The battle unfolded across miles of farms, roads, woods, ridges and communities. The terrain itself affected what happened. Elevation mattered. Sightlines mattered. The distances between positions mattered. Where soldiers could see, where they could hide and how they moved across the ground all shaped the battle.

In that sense, the landscape itself is an artifact.

So how much of it should we preserve?

Do we save every acre over which soldiers marched? Only the places where the heaviest fighting occurred? Do we preserve the hill but not the field below it? The artillery position but not the ground the artillery fired across? A farmhouse used as a hospital but not the road along which wounded men were carried?

It sounds simple until someone actually has to draw the boundary.

Suppose Little Round Top itself is perfectly protected, but everything surrounding it slowly becomes subdivisions, shopping centers, hotels and parking lots. Technically, the hill survives. But did we really preserve the battlefield? If a visitor stands where a soldier stood in 1863 and looks across rooftops and streetlights instead of the landscape that soldier actually saw, has something important already been lost?

At the same time, Gettysburg is not only a battlefield. It is a town and a community. People live there. They work there. Children grow up there. Those people need homes, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels and businesses like everyone else. We cannot reasonably expect every community touched by history to stop developing forever because something important happened there generations ago.

So where should development stop?

And once development begins, another uncomfortable question follows.

Who should be allowed to make money from history?

Hotels benefit because people travel to Gettysburg. Restaurants benefit because visitors need somewhere to eat. Bookstores, museums, guides and souvenir shops all depend in some way on the historical importance of the area. None of that is automatically wrong. In many ways, those businesses help make the history accessible. A family hires a battlefield guide, the guide earns a living, and the family leaves with a much deeper understanding of what happened there. A restaurant hangs historic photographs on its walls and a child asks who the soldiers are. Once again, a conversation starts.

That is commercialization helping history survive.

But somewhere along the way, it can cross a line.

At some point history can become decoration. Sacrifice becomes branding. Tragedy becomes entertainment.

That is where Gettysburg’s ghost tours make me personally uncomfortable.

People have always been fascinated by ghost stories, and Gettysburg certainly has the setting for them. Thousands of men were killed and many thousands more wounded during three terrible days of fighting. Homes, churches, barns and farms became hospitals. Families lived surrounded by suffering and death. It is not surprising that stories of hauntings grew from a place like that.

Someone could argue that ghost tours serve the same purpose we talked about earlier. Maybe a person visits Gettysburg because they are fascinated by paranormal stories. They take a tour, hear the name of a soldier, learn something about a building or discover what happened on a particular street, and that curiosity leads them deeper into the history.

Maybe history found them through an unusual doorway.

But to me, there is still a difference.

At Sebring, racing is not built around the suffering of the airmen who trained at Hendricks Field. The racetrack simply became the next chapter of the place.

With some forms of battlefield entertainment, the suffering itself can become the attraction.

Come hear about the soldier who supposedly walks this hallway. Come stand where someone died and see whether you can contact him. Come experience the haunted battlefield.

At what point have we stopped asking people to remember the dead and started asking the dead to entertain us?

That is where the line begins to feel uncomfortable.

It does not mean everyone who takes a ghost tour is disrespectful. It does not mean every paranormal story connected to Gettysburg is automatically making a mockery of history. And it certainly does not mean businesses surrounding historic sites should not benefit economically from the people those sites attract.

But it does raise a question about responsibility.

If your business exists partly because thousands of men fought and died nearby, does that create an obligation to treat their story differently?

Maybe a restaurant should absolutely benefit from people visiting Gettysburg, but perhaps the photographs on the walls should explain who those soldiers were rather than using them simply as decoration. Maybe a hotel should acknowledge what happened on the land around it. Maybe a business that benefits from battlefield tourism could support preservation or historical education.

Perhaps the issue is not making money from history.

Perhaps the issue is what we turn history into in order to make that money.

A bookstore specializing in Civil War history is clearly commercial. A battlefield guide charges for their time. A museum sells admission tickets and merchandise. Hotels advertise their proximity to the battlefield. All of these things involve people benefiting economically from something that happened there long ago.

Yet most of us probably would not consider those things disrespectful.

Then we move farther down the road.

A souvenir shop filled with increasingly ridiculous merchandise.

A haunted battlefield attraction.

A business using the deaths of soldiers as its primary marketing gimmick.

At some point, most of us probably feel that history has become something else.

The difficult part is deciding where that point is.

Battlefield preservation presents the same problem. Preserving every acre exactly as it appeared during a battle may be impossible. Preserving only a handful of monuments and famous locations may not be enough. Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between—protect the landscapes, sightlines and significant ground necessary to understand what happened while allowing the surrounding community to continue living and growing.

But even that creates more questions.

Who decides which ground matters most?

Should someone be prevented from building a home on privately owned land because soldiers crossed it 160 years ago?

Should businesses face restrictions because they operate near sacred ground?

Should only certain kinds of businesses be allowed around a battlefield?

Would that preserve the character of the place, or would it turn the entire community into something artificial and frozen in time?

And if tourism generates the economic interest that helps keep a battlefield protected, how much commercialization are we willing to accept in return?

That is the contradiction at the center of this discussion.

Tourism can threaten history, but tourism can also help keep history alive.

Businesses can cheapen a place, but businesses can also create opportunities for people to encounter the past.

Development can destroy historic landscapes, but communities cannot remain frozen forever.

Preservation is not simply about deciding what we save. It is also about deciding what we allow to happen around what we save, and what kind of relationship we want the present to have with the past.

We want future generations to walk Gettysburg and understand what happened there. We want children to stand on those hills and ask questions. We also want the communities surrounding these places to survive and remain places where people can live and work.

At the same time, we owe something to the people whose sacrifice made that ground historically important in the first place.

So perhaps the challenge is not choosing between preservation and progress.

Maybe the real challenge is recognizing when progress helps carry history forward and when we have turned history into nothing more than a product.

And that leaves a question I am not sure any of us can answer easily:

Where should that line be drawn, and who should get to decide when we have crossed it?

Can history survive by changing? Read the first part of this discussion and explore what happens when old military sites are given a new life instead of being left behind.

Can history survive by changing? Read the first part of this discussion and explore what happens when old military sites are given a new life instead of being left behind.

Support the preservation of America's military history