April 1, 2000

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc J. Storch [<mailto:mstorch@execpc.com>]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:06 AM
To: rjsamp@ameritech.net <mailto:rjsamp@ameritech.net>
Subject: Music

RJ,
Ok, send large check to me anytime! See enclosed scan that we found at
the State Historical Society in a box of adds and ends!
Marc

Click for large photo

April 2, 2000

OK OK I Get it.

Oliver Norton "Army Letters 1861-1865"
Brigade Bugler Third Brigade (Under Colonel Rice, 44th NY who replaced
Strong Vincent of the 83rd PA who was Brigadier, killed at Little Round Top
Jul2, end 1863. First Division 5th Army Corps (now commanded by GRIFFIN in
August 1863, moved up from Division command??)

Norton write in a letter to his sister August 22, 1863: Colonel Rice's
"eagles" had hatched a pair of "stars" and "marching orders" to report to
Baltimore. Command of 3rd Bde fell to Joshua Chamberlain.

August 26, 1863: "Colonel Rice, who has commanded the brigade since Colonel
Vincent fell, is appointed Brigadier General and assigned the command of
First Division, First Corps. Our new commander is Colonel Chamberlain of the
Twentieth Maine, a very fine man (formerly professor in college), but not
much of a military man."

So now we have BG Rice coming over to command the 1st Division 1st Corps and
the Iron Brigade. and on September 9, 1863 he circulates the Division and
Brigade Preludes for the DRUM ORIENTED 1st Brigade, 1st Division, 1st Corps.
V Corps was BUGLE ORIENTED from the Get go.

Now we know the Iron Brigade Prelude from September 1863 on.....

The obvious questions: who sounded the calls at Division and Brigade. And
did the men ever learn/recognize the call for the Iron Brigade?

JIM: I'll get you the MIDI files shortly.

Thanks MARK!

RJ Samp

100 W Roosevelt Road
Building A2, Suite 201
Wheaton, IL 60187

W- 630.462-7681
F- 630.462-7843
M- 630.561.3249
H- 630.871.0828
E- rjsamp@ix.netcom.com <mailto:rjsamp@ix.netcom.com>

April 2, 2000

April 11, 2000

You may start placing orders for the Infantry Bugle Signals for Non-Buglers Manual.

Features the Top 10 Must know bugle signals for Infantry Re-enactors. Abbreviated to only 20 calls..... Repetition. Sung ditties (featuring my horrid voice). How to use the calls and when. A day in Camp by the Bugle. Ending a Battle and Marching by the Bugle.

Articles by Robert Braun and Dom Dal Bello (and August V. Kautz himself!).

Even a little Skirmisher drill.

90 minute tape $5
Haversack size manual $5
Big Manual (for your bugler) $12.50

Add postage

As a favor to my kids (the cassette duplicators and labeling work crew), I will add one free SET for every 10 sets ordered (hey, maybe your entire company can learn the calls?!). Postage is about $5 on 10 sets.

10 packs will get priority attention.

Thanks!
RJ Samp

RJ Samp
The Samp Company Inc.
dba Sales AutoMated Presentations

Office Address (can also be used for Mailing Purposes):
100 W Roosevelt Road
Building A2, Suite 201
Wheaton, IL 60187

This tag is reportedly All original in design and size, color, etc.
So what do you guys think? I can get more.
                                          Randy P.

Click for larger Photo

April 30, 2000

From: Doug/Laurie/ Rasmussen

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry L. Russell <jlrussell@aristotle.net>

NARA Reproduction
Fee Schedule (Proposed)

The NARA proposal to revamp the system and fees for providing copies of
Military Service Records, Bounty-Land Warrant Applications Files, and
Pension Application Files has been published in the 25 April 2000 issue
of the Federal Register. Public comment is invited and should be
directed to

NARA Regulation Comment Desk
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Fax: 301 713-7270

The comment period closes on 26 June 2000. NARA prefers that you use
either the postal address or fax number to submit our comments rather
than e-mail.

A complete copy of the Federal Register notice is available from the
NARA Web site at http://www.nara.gov/nara/fees-pro.html.

The proposed Reproduction Fee Schedule covers a number of items, but the
Military Service Records, and the Pension and Bounty-Land Warrants are
of the greatest concern to genealogists. NARA proposes three major
changes:

1. The NATF Form 80 would be discontinued, to be replaced by two new
forms: NATF Form 85 to request both Bounty-Land Warrant application
files and Pension files (more than 75 years old), and NATF From 86 to
request Military Service Records (more than 75 years old).

2. For all three types of files, NARA would no longer send a selection
of pages, but would send the complete file. This would eliminate the
two-step process currently used and should be beneficial to most
genealogists.

3. The fees for all three types of files would be raised. For Military
Service Records the new fee would be $17.00, regardless of the number of
pages included in the file. For Bounty-land Warrants the fee would be
$17.25, again without regard to the number of pages. For Pension Files
the fee would be $40.00, regardless of the number of pages.

Finally, the proposal would go into effect on 1 September 2000, if
approved.

Many genealogists may consider the proposed fees to be excessive. NARA
specifically invites comment on the proposed fee schedule. The FGS/NGS
Records Preservation and Access Committee urges everyone who wants to
comment to carefully read the full proposal before submitting comments.
The proposed fees are intended to cover the actual cost of locating,
copying and mailing the records, plus 10% as authorized by law, and are
based on the average size of the files. NARA states that the average for
Military Service Records and Bounty-land Applications is somewhere under
20 pages, while the average for full Pension Files is 105 pages.

The FGS/NGS Records Preservation and Access Committee will be looking at
the NARA proposal carefully, and will submit comments as appropriate.
Individuals who would like to provide input to the Committee's
evaluation are welcome to do so but are also encouraged to comment
direct to NARA at the address given above. Comments for Committee
consideration should be e-mailed to fgs-access@fgs.org, or mailed to
Federation of Genealogical Societies, Attention: RPAC, PO Box 200940,
Austin, TX 78720-0940. In order for the Records Preservation and Access
Committee to adequately evaluate such input it must be received by 26
May 2000. The deadline for comment to NARA, however, is still 26 June
2000.
>
Posting of this message to other mail lists is encouraged. A copy of
this message will also be available on the Records Preservation and
Access page of the FGS Web site <http://www.fgs.org/fgs-recordsnews.htm
and on the NGS Web site <http://www.ngsgenealogy.org

Thought you might like to know about this.  Doug Rasmussen
From: Jerry L. Russell <jlrussell@aristotle.net>
To: heritagepac@aristotle.net <heritagepac@aristotle.net>
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:34 PM
HERITAGEPAC ALERT 4/29/00

The Interpretation War Rages On...
"I do not want to hear about battles
when I go to a Civil War park.
 I am not really interested in battles."
Ms. Kate Stevenson
Assistant Director
for Cultural Resources
National Park Service
April 8, 1999

 It's been just over a year since the first shot was fired in the battle to
dilute the interpretation of the "battle history" at Civil War
battlefields.

Ms. Stevenson (who says her remarks "were taken out of context" but has
failed to offer ANY context in which they might be acceptable) made it
clear to the rank and file that a "broadened interpretation" of Civil War
battlefields is what the boss lady wants.  And we all know how that
works--especially in government.

U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Dem-Ill) has gone even further,
writing into advisory legislation for the funding of the National Park
Service last year that increased emphasis must be placed on "slavery as the
cause of the Civil War" at all NPS battlefield sites.

Our position, from the very beginning, has been that the dilution of the
history of the battle, and of the men who fought there, is not only
contrary to the wishes of the Congresses which established these national
battlefields, it will necessarily turn battlefield interpretation into a
cookie-cutter experience for the visitors who come to the battlefield to
learn ABOUT the battle.

If you hear basically the same propaganda-line at all Civil War
battlefields, then why bother to visit more than one?  If visitation falls
off, then battlefields will be even more *under*funded than they already
are, will receive even *less* attention from the National Park Service than
they do now.

This is not what we want to happen.  How about you?

As for the continuation of the NPS campaign, the following letter was
recently sent to the St. Louis CWRT from Chris Eckard, Chief of
Interpretation of the Ulysses National Historic Site, National Park
Service, and published in their April newsletter:

It was my pleasure serving as a guest speaker at the February meeting of
the Civil War Round Table.  My tanks to Denice Santangelo and our
organization as a whole for the opportunity.  It was an entertaining
evening and I appreciate the warm welcome.

 The issue raised by Gina Mills in passing [Thanks, Gina!] just prior to my
talk, that of a perceived threat to battlefield interpretation at National
Park Service (NPS) sites, is an important one.  This topic was actively
discussed in various Civil War media last summer, and it is of obvious
significance to the NPS.  I feel that it is important to clarify to the
members of the Round Table the NPS stance on battlefield interpretation and
ease any concerns.

I would like to cite official NPS correspondence with regard to this
issue.  These references come from letters which were addressed to Mr.
Jerry Russell, who raised concerns similar to those of Ms. Mills in his
HERITAGEPAC newsletter several months ago.  The respondents include NPS
Chief Historian Dwight Pitcaithley and Katherine Stevenson, the Associate
Director for Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships and source of
the original quote.

 After noting that her remarks about battlefields had been taken out of
context, Ms. Stevenson states that "The National Park Service has no
intention of diminishing its interpretation of military action at the Civil
War sites it manages.  The military accounting of the battle has been, and
will continue to be, the focus of NPS interpretation at these battlefield
parks."  She goes on to say that the NPS "will also, more than it has in
the past, provide some sense of the causes and consequences of the war and
the significance of the battle in the larger context of the war."

Dr. Pitcaithley, who has been an active and eloquent spokesperson for the
NPS on this issue, states the following:  "I cannot imagine a scenario that
would include a visit to a Civil War park where the military history was
not the cornerstone of the presentation.  Indeed, the public would be
ill-served by this agency if military history were not presented at
military sites."

"At the same time, I would argue and have, that if military history is all
the public learns at a battlefield, it is also being ill-served.  Battles
and wars occur for some reason or reasons and the Civil War was no
exception.  The job of the National Park Service...is to discuss the events
that occurred on the field of battle and to place these events in a larger
context.  Does this mean I want to adopt a 'broader scope' for our
interpretive programs at military sites?  Yes!  Does it mean that the
National Park Service is moving away from the military interpretation of
battlefields?  Clearly not!"

 This is not mere government-speak.  Across the board, NPS managers at
Civil War sites are working toward presenting a level of interpretation for
*all* visitors, not at the expense of others, but in an attempt to be
conclusive.  Much as many of us are thrilled with the purely military
aspects of our battlefields, there are others who visit with a different
perspective.  It is the responsibility of the National Park Service, indeed
our Congressional mandate, to reach *everyone* with our intepretive efforts
and connect them with the site.

 Embrace this process if you can, for there are many fascinating stories
out there that go hand-in-hand with those of advances and retreats, the
roar of the muskets and cannon, and the final tally of victory or defeat.

Let's take this from the beginning.

Kate Stevenson said what she said, in whatever context (we have her
remarks on video tape as part of a national teleconference for NPS
employees).

 She obviously hasn't visited very many Civil War battlefields, or she'd
know that plenty of the interpretation is already aimed toward the
positioning of the battle in terms of the larger picture of The War.  But
she wants "more..."

 As for Dr. Pitcaithley's remark about military history being "the
cornerstone of the presentation," let me suggest that you visit any large
building and view the "cornerstone."  The "cornerstone" is merely the
*beginning* of the building, usually the first stone laid; but the building
itself is much, much larger and broader in scope than the cornerstone of
the building.

 Military history--the history of *what happened* at the particular
battlefield *should be* the *building*, NOT the "cornerstone."

As stated earlier, military history is NOT "all the public learns at a
battlefield," as any visitor who has paid attention can tell Dr.
Pitcaithley.  Various exhibits, photographs, and artifacts are presented to
give a "broader scope" to the battlefield's interpretation than *just*
military history.

 But to add even *more* other-than-military-history to an already crowded
agenda for most visitors who have an equally crowded timeframe to spare
obviously *requires* that something be left out, *something* be diluted.

 She and he both want to add "more" other-than-military-history to the
interpretation, but they can NOT add "more" TIME to the visitors' visits.
Somethings gotta give!!!

And that "something" will obviously be "military history" (which is, after
all, not a very politically correct topic anyway...).

Where does it say that "the responsibility of the National Park Service,
indeed our Congressional mandate, to reach *everyone* with our interpretive
efforts and connect them with the site"?????

 Is not that like unto "dumbing" down the teaching of a schoolroom class in
order to "reach *everyone*" with the lesson?

And did any one bother to ask battlefield visitors WHY *they* CAME to the
battlefield?  I've been to every major Civil War battlefield in the
country, and most of the minor ones, and I have never ONCE been asked WHY I
came.

And you know the reason for that?

Because they KNOW why I came.  I came to learn about the battle along with
probably 90% of the other visitors.

Has the Park Service gotten any *complaints* about the battlefield
interpretation at Shiloh or Antietam or Fort Sumter or Kennesaw Mountain or
Gettysburg?
I *seriously* doubt it.

 I have friends who are historians at most of those parks and I have never
heard such reported.  Instead, I have had many historians--who interpret
*the battle* and *the men who fought there*--say they have received many,
many compliments from visitors on the excellence of their
interpretation...of *military history*.

 Is there *any* record of anyone (other than Kate Stevenson, Rep. Jackson,
and a few other politically correct folk) complaining about the
interpretation at our NPS battlefields?  Not that I know of.

 It is obvious that Ms. Stevenson and Dr. Pitcaithley and Rep. Jackson have
decided what *we* NEED to know about the Civil War, and they are going to
use the Civil War battlefields to "teach" us.

 If you have written your Senators and Member of the House, write again
(c/o U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510 and c/o House of Representatives,
Washington DC 20515) (and letters, *real* letters carry a lot more weight
than phone calls, FAXes, and e-mails)--please write again.  And if you
haven't written yet, it's time!

Ask your Senators and Congressman to tell the National Park Service to
leave the interpretation at Civil War battlefields alone unless there is
some pressing reason to change.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Ask them to ask the Park Service: what was the basis for Ms. Stevenson's
arbitrary change of policy in the first place?

Ask that they inquire of the Park Service:  Have any surveys ever been
conducted at the battlefields that have shown that visitors want to know
*more" about other-than-military-history and *less* about the the battle
and the men who fought there?

If you are a CWRT member, ask your RT to send a group letter to the
Senators and Congressman who serves your area (in ADDITION to your personal
letter), posing these questions.  If you are a member of the American
Legion or the VFW or the SUV or the SCV, ask your national organization to
request that all of the Senators and Representatives in the Congress ask
these questions of the National Park Service.

Help us start a firestorm of inquiries to Congress to make the Park
Service *justify* this policy change with more than whining ("It was out of
connntext!") and platitudes ("It is the responsibility of the National Park
Service...to reach *everyone* with our interpretive efforts...") which are
not true.

If YOU don't care, who does?
If YOU won't help, who will?
If YOU won't write this weekend, when WILL you write?
If not YOU, *who*?????

We're a couple of days early, but please take this message as a

 MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!

for America's Civil War battlefields.

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Associates
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study Must Also Strive To Save!