[Ansteorra] re: Kansas State Historical Association (etc)
morganbuchanan at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 28 12:13:07 PST 2002
I was interested in discovering the truthfullness of the story as well. I
found that a Baron in Calontir had posted a similar but different story from
another news paper to a public forum. So I went to the site for Fort Scott.
I sent an email to the email address listed, and in VERY short order, got
a personal phone call from John Daugherty, the Superintendant of Fort Scott.
I was very impressed.
A) The policy against this "reenactment that involves exchanges of fire,
hand to hand combat and casualties" has always been against national parks
policy. I asked him about Gettysburgh, and he assured me that those
reenactmetns do NOT happen on the proper grounds of the park.
B) The policy is largely due to two things. 1. The extreme liability due
to the dangers inherant with the firing of weapons. 2. They don't feel
that it's proper to do that kind of activity essentially on memorial
He DID INDEED tell me that both the story from the KC Star that Burke
initially posted and the followup story in the Wichita Eagle in which Mr.
John Daugherty was quoted existed. What seems to be the case is that the
initial story quoting Raymond (forgot his last name) was taken a bit out of
context. They decided to align their state parks policy to be in line with
the National Parks policy. Mr. John Daugherty felt his quotes were taken
out of context in the followup story in the Eagle.
Just info as I found it. Mr. John Daugherty seemed very reasonable, and a
truely interested historian.
Yours in Service,
Lord Morgan Buchanana
From: Burke McCrory <bmccrory at oktax.state.ok.us>
Reply-To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] re: Kansas State Historical Association (etc)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:19:54 -0600
At 09:48 AM 2/28/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>1). With all due respect to His Excellency, and his CW friend, could we get
>some independent verification of said article? *I* certainly couldn't find
>it on the Star's archives this morning, and there were numerous articles
>from the 26th there. (Note, I am not accusing anyone anything -- but all
>too often we have people passing misinformation and hoaxes in good faith.
>It happens, it should be checked for.)
>2. Since this only refers to lands owned by the KSHA, I'm not sure that
>it's really relevant to the SCA. Certainly if they pass a law banning all
>war type stuff in Kansas, that will matter, but that's not what this is.
>(I'm not supporting it, mind you. And if it IS true, I'll be right behind
>all the screaming CW reenactors, but I still don't think that it will
>the SCA in Kansas. They just won't use KSHA sites).
It had not occurred to me that this was not a true story. I have emailed
my friend and he is backtracking it to see if we can find the original
link. I will let people know what I find.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
More information about the Ansteorra