I have some disagreement with how the No Casino folks have been presenting their case – in some regards I find it misleading, weak on facts, and poorly argued. However, I believe the proposed casino is a horrible idea and that it will likely interfere with the interpretation and the experience of the battlefield. I object to my state government – my employees – awarding the gaming licenses to a group whose site is in such close proximity to the battlefield.
Hat tip to John Hoptak.
Harry Smeltzer
Bull Runnings 
A casino would no doubt detract from the solemnity of the battlefield, until you consider how many of the troops on both sides played cards or rolled dice for money.
Gambling was common among the Rebs, anyhow, though it was said that even the irreligious ones always left their dice and cards with the baggage before a fight—not wanting their kin to find them on their body should they be killed.
LikeLike
A balanced response to the argument from you, Harry. A purely technical approach to what’s proposed, but I wouldn’t have expected anything else. whilst I agree, the ‘sentiment card’ has to be used as most people wouldn’t understand a decision based solely on ‘the experience of the battlefield’. They just wouldn’t care!
LikeLike