I’ve become obsessed with trying to figure out exactly what happened on July 4 in the military park.
Particularly I’m trying to determine if there were any racist comments made by the monument “defenders.”
This is in part because I want to know and in part because it is important to know and in part as a test of what can be found out, accurately, from retrospective reports.
If we want to help the National Park Service make decisions about how to respond to these occurrences in the future and if we want to encourage civil dialogue, we need to be accurate in our statements.
I have found first-person reports, even from people I find trustworthy, to be inaccurate.
One question involves the issue of numbers: People who I would say I trust have told me there were very few armed men in that park that day and others who I would also say I would trust have told me there were thousands. I believe both are incorrect.
I’m not sure we’ll ever know – perhaps a hundred?
Many people have said the Methodist Minister from Hanover (Trent Somes) was surrounded by the defenders as he entered the Lincoln Cemetery.
An alternative explanation is that Somes walked into the group.
(It turns out I’m not the only one who’s asked this question).
When I watch the video of the incident I hear some awful language and I hear someone call Somes “gay.” This is not appropriate, but to me it is not racism.
There was a lot of conversation, and there were certainly some odd views presented.
The members of the group tried to diffuse the situation several times:
“Let’s take it easy.”
“Let the guy go.”
The discussion was more heated than you’d expect at a casual dinner party but overall I didn’t think it was out of control.
Eventually the police showed up and asked Somes to leave. In my opinion that was probably a reasonable decision and I think the officer did an amazing job.
When I try to imagine it the other way around – armed man in camouflage walks into a BLM demonstration – I have to say I think the outcome would have been pretty similar.
The Virginia Monument video with Scott Hancock also shows heated arguments on both sides, but I do not hear any racist comments.
As Hancock gets out of his car I notice his sign says something about “KKK.” I’m not sure what that is about.
At about 5:53 in the video an angry guy says “Get the hell out of here. You don’t like this country there’s plenty of other ones.”
At about 6:50 the guy on the bike gives the finger and says “welfare checks” but I can’t hear the rest of the sentence.
Many people have said the guns the protestors were carrying were loaded. Perhaps they were, but how would they know?
Other people have said that tourists stayed in their hotel rooms for fear of going out onto the battlefield. Some probably did, but how many?
If you have more information to contribute to this page I would like to hear it.
I think they are both in the wrong. The battlefield is not a place to come and spout any kind of protest of any kind. Armed people just touring the battlefield testing the 2nd amendment is one thing. Gathering in a huge group to intimidate what they thought was going to be destruction of the battlefield is another thing all together. If monuments were destroyed for any reason that would be not only a crime but ignorant. The people that fought on both sides of that battle were both Americans. Therefore they are remembered in a more positive light than say the Nazis. People should come the the battlefield to learn, observe, and pay homage to those that fought and died for the country that we find ourselves living in today. Had it not been for the battle of Gettysburg there may not have been an end to slavery. There may not even be a country where we are able to post our sometimes silly opinions about things. The battlefield park is not a place for protest but a place for personal growth and reflection. Lets keep it that way!
Dear David,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. I am so sorry it took me so long to approve it.
Mr. Hancock, I was present three different times at the park that day. I support Liz Diaz on her analysis. I am a traditional Christian who follows the steps of Christ; therefore, I cannot support BLM. Black Lives Matter with capital letters is the cry of volatile words that simplies an endorsement of the breaking of God’s moral law since the BLM movement enthusiastically supports Planned Parenthood that embraces the killing of babies in the womb, especially black babies. If you have a difficult time swallowing this fact, check the history of Planned Parenthood. The echoes of this catchy slogan Black Lives Matter resounded on the violent streets of Portland, Oregon, and other places in the USA where cursing Antifa and BLM rioters burn Bibles and U.S. flags, destroy property, injured police officers, and incited the killing of others…of all races. Intertwined in the motto’s short syllables is a Marxist class struggle narrative in bitter conflict with the Church’s social teachings and responsible for the death of tens of millions of lives…and the eternal damnation of countless souls. So we also differ on what being a Christian demands.
FRan Ingram
Well I’m obviously really late to the party. Nonetheless, since this post & comments are still up, wanted to point out that Ms. Diaz’s comment is filled with inaccuracies. I am not assuming this was intentional on her part; don’t know if she was present at the VA & MS state monuments on July 4. If she was, not sure how she could get so much wrong; if she was not, her comment illustrates the dangers of “fake news” and unconfirmed second hand information. As far as BLM goes, there’s a mixture of truth and distortion in what Ms. Diaz says. At least one of the 3 founders openly acknowledges being significantly influenced by Marxist thinking. I can easily, as a committed follower of Jesus Christ who submits to the authority of God, support a great deal of what BLM articulates while still critiquing certain aspects of their platform.
Dear Dr. Hancock,
I appreciate your contribution to this dialogue. Perhaps if you think it might contribute to the discussion you would say what aspects of Ms. Diaz’s comments you believe to be inaccurate.
Chuck Stangor
Subject: Alice in Gettysburg
After working over 40 years for the Navy as a Financial Program Analyst in Southern California, I wanted to relocate to another state. I never thought I’d leave California but politics and greed changed it into a place I no longer liked.
During those 40 years, I would vacation in PA every few years. I loved the history and farmlands – Philly, the Amish and Gettysburg. It’s a wonderful place. Peaceful.
Shortly after we arrived in Adams County, the covid lockdown hit but we were relieved to have it lifted enough for us to spend our first 4th of July in Gettysburg. We decided to walk around town and the battlefield. We were surprised to see BLM flags and Scott Hancock in his BLM tee shirt.
Later in the Gettysburg Connection we read his writings. I felt like Alice in Wonderland who fell down the rabbit hole and everything was fantasy!
We read that Commissioner Qually considered the removal of all Confederate monuments! What would visitors see? A one-sided battle? I understand the Commissioner is concerned about the economy but that is not the answer.
I have a suggestion for the Commissioner; why not stop Mr Hancock and his group of about 9 people from harassing visitors? He is not good for the economy. Why is Hancock’s group not in the First Amendment Zone with the other protestors?
Scott Hancock was yelling at visitors who were not engaging him. He was forcing visitors to interact with him. He staged things with BLM flags wearing BLM tee shirts carrying signs of “KKK” and shouting “Jesus” comments and “do you agree black lives matter?” Then Mr Hancock writes how he was harassed for expressing his views. How they tried to suppress his free speech. They did not. How he had “racial slurs” hurled at him. This is not true. He is race-baiting. I don’t appreciate his staging events at the battlefield and then claiming victim status to get local support.
We talked to a couple that had wanted to visit Gettysburg for years. Finally made the trip this year and there was Hancock and his group putting BLM flags in front of Lee’s monument. He was carrying some sign about KKK. They no longer wanted to take pictures or even return to Gettysburg. Why was his group not in the First Amendment Zone?
BLM is a Marxist, anti-Christian, anti-American political organization. BLM does not care about black lives. They burn down black businesses too. I call it Burn Loot Murder because that’s what it does. Hundreds of violent riots are connected to BLM. They announced “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family” and its founders say they are Marxist who will “dismantle cisgender privilege “. I was surprised to see Hancock spouting about Jesus in a BLM tee shirt! An oxymoron! BLM hates America and wants to take it down. To support BLM is to turn away from Jesus. To support BLM you are turning your back on America.
This is not my interpretation of BLM. This is what it’s founders state. They want reparations. To me, the idea that white Americans who never had a slave should pay black Americans , who never were slaves is stupid and self serving.
3 women founded BLM; Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. They identify as Marxist. You can go to m4bl.org to read the goals just click on the menu and get more details.
You will see “ACAB” or “1213” on buildings. That’s BLM and stands for “All Cops Are Bastards” . Scott Hancock supports BLM, Critical Race Theory (that insults whites) and he pushes the 1619 Project, a twisted racist revised history claiming America was founded on oppression and not freedom. Nothing could be further from reality. They are teaching this nonsense to our children in schools.
I watched Mr Hancock’s own videos (where there were no racial slurs at him). He wrote that they followed him home but on his own video they left before he did. I guess Hancock is right when he wrote “facts are what you make of them”. I read some other writings of Mr Hancock . One titled “The Limits of Black Forgiveness “. A very racist point of view. I am tired of racist talks of my whiteness , white quilt, white fragility, white supremacy and white priviledge. The double standards are sick. Hancock writes of whites apologizing to him. For what? I don’t offer an apology. I owe black people nothing. I did nothing wrong and nobody owes me.
Hancock’s bio states, “He has more recently begun exploring how whiteness has been manifested on post-civil war memorialization of battlefields”.
I can explain this. It’s simple. In Gettysburg it is because all the dead soldiers were white.
If you support Black Lives Matter with signs on your property or wearing their logo and you are NOT anti-Christian or not anti-American then you are ignorant to what you support. Do some research. Who are the founders of BLM? What are their goals? What do they preach? It may shock you. If you still support them and have signs on your property, I find that despicable but at least you’ve identified yourself and we know who to avoid.
Liz Diaz
Adams County
Dear Chuck,
Kudos to you for all your research and organization to try and arrive at the truth.
After watching the videos, I agree with you that seemingly there was no “racism”. But does the “n” word actually have to be used for there to be a racist remark? For there to be racism displayed?
In the Scott Hancock video the crowd vehemently denies that the Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg were fought to defeat the institution of slavery. Many of the people there, especially the one man seen with a rifle over his shoulder and the bikers, had come to “protect” the Confederate monuments, to defend what they represent, namely, State’s Rights, White Supremacy, and the Lost Cause. Is that not a display of “racism”?
But why is that the only question to be considered when approaching the Park Service or the Gettysburg Borough about the intimidation many residents and visitors felt due to the presence of armed men in the Battlefield and in the town? Does it matter whether we know if their weapons were loaded or not? Does it matter how many there actually were? Doesn’t the fact that they came, uninvited, to “defend” the Confederate “Cause” and intimidate anyone who disagreed with them provide enough concern that future encounters could have a tragic result?
I think, rather than ask if any racism occurred, why not ask when and why did it become legal to openly carry firearms in the National Park? Is that what we want visitors, including families and school children to witness when they come to Gettysburg?
I know first hand accounts can be less than accurate when it comes to numbers but I do think first hand accounts should be trusted when people, no matter how many, feel afraid to go to the Park or into town over the 4th of July, or any day, because they see the guns and the flags of hatred and fear, rightfully so, that it is a recipe for disaster. A disaster waiting to happen.
I am speaking as a resident of Gettysburg, a woman, and a mother. And I know I am not alone in my fears of armed men who intimidate and terrorize. They have no place in our town.
Thanks for listening, Chuck.
Laurel