On Tuesday's New Day show, CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley bristled over President Donald Trump suggesting that he might deliver his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination in Gettysburg, with the liberal historian declaring that the "utterly terrible idea" would "denigrate" the historic Civil War site "in a crass fashion." He also theorized that Trump's claim is just a "canard" to make "people like me" more willing to accept the President giving the speech at the White House instead. Fill-in CNN host Erica Hill brought up the possibility of having the speech at the famous battlefield and asked Brinkley for his "gut reaction" to the suggestion, leading him to complain that Trump would grab the site "by the scruff of the neck" if he gave a political speech there:     DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I thought what an utterly terrible idea that is. I mean, Gettysburg is sacred to all Americans. It's where over 40,000 Americans died or were left on the ground -- were casualties during the Civil War. People go there for solitude and contemplation about America's past. It is not a place that should become politicized. It should not be able to be Donald Trump's going to grab Gettysburg by the scruff of the neck and give a red meat speech to his base which his divisive. So I would say, "Leave Gettysburg alone and find another venue." After Hill argued that it would be ironic for President Trump to speak at Gettysburg after defending Confederate monuments, Brinkley further excoriated the President over the matter: BRINKLEY: It's all a bit nutty. I mean, here is Donald Trump defending Confederate monuments staying up -- refusing to strip the name of rogue traitors like Bragg from federal forts now talking about speaking at Gettysburg -- remember, not giving a speech there about public policy, but self-aggrandizing himself, making that the center of the Republican National Committee -- the middle of the battlefield and cemetery at Gettysburg. I can't think of a worse idea. The segment concluded with Hill wondering if Trump was just floating the idea of using Gettysburg to gain more acceptance for the option of speaking at the White House, garnering agreement from Brinkley:     HILL: Do you think that, in floating Gettysburg, it's a way to make the White House seem more palatable? BRINKLEY: I do, and I think it's sort of a canard, you know. He went to Mt. Rushmore -- he's saying he'd like to see his face on Mt. Rushmore -- Pennsylvania is the all-important swing state -- so if he can get in, give a speech in Pennsylvania -- but really it forces people like me to say if I have a choice of Gettysburg or the White House, I would say -- historians would say, "Do it from the White House" -- not denigrate Gettysburg in such a crass fashion. This episode of New Day was sponsored by National and Consumer Cellular.Their contact information is linked. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, August 11, New Day on CNN. Click "expand" to read more.  New Day 8/11/2020 7:32 AM  ERICA HILL: President Trump says he's now considering accepting the presidential nomination speech at the White House or -- and this is a new one -- possibly the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg. … I mean, just  your gut reaction to this -- I'm curious -- when you heard possibly Gettysburg? DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I thought what an utterly terrible idea that is. I mean, Gettysburg is sacred to all Americans. It's where over 40,000 Americans died or were left on the ground -- were casualties during the Civil War. People go there for solitude and contemplation about America's past. It is not a place that should become politicized. It should not be able to be Donald Trump's going to grab Gettysburg by the scruff of the neck and give a red meat speech to his base which his divisive. So I would say, "Leave Gettysburg alone and find another venue." HILL: I have to say, it's not the same thing, but when we heard this, one of the first things I thought of was the interview that the President had at Normandy, and when we saw him there with all of those crosses in the background. And that really struck a chord with a number of people as well because it became so politicized. To think that we're now looking at Gettysburg where the President has in recent weeks really taken it upon himself to do his best to shore up the confederacy -- right? -- that we keep Confederate flags and monuments to Confederate generals -- that, too, leaves you scratching your head. BRINKLEY: It's all a bit nutty. I mean, here is Donald Trump defending Confederate monuments staying up -- refusing to strip the name of rogue traitors like Bragg from federal forts now talking about speaking at Gettysburg -- remember, not giving a speech there about public policy, but self-aggrandizing himself, making that the center of the Republican National Committee -- the middle of the battlefield and cemetery at Gettysburg. I can't think of a worse idea. Going to places like Normandy is important on anniversaries, and I would urge Donald Trump to go to Gettysburg and reflect on the battle there at the appropriate time, but this is deeply inappropriate. The White House isn't much better, but at least with these weird times with COVID-19, one could say that is the residence of the President and it might be fitting for him to do it from the White House, but Gettysburg is just gauche and misguided. HILL: Do you think that, in floating Gettysburg, it's a way to make the White House seem more palatable? BRINKLEY: I do, and I think it's sort of a canard, you know. He went to Mt. Rushmore -- he's saying he'd like to see his face on Mt. Rushmore -- Pennsylvania is the all-important swing state -- so if he can get in, give a speech in Pennsylvania -- but really it forces people like me to say if I have a choice of Gettysburg or the White House, I would say -- historians would say, "Do it from the White House" -- not denigrate Gettysburg in such a crass fashion.