Civil War Memory

Destroying History or George Bush Just Made My Job Much Harder

Somebody please tell me how I am supposed to teach my students to think critically about the past and understand it in all of its complexity when our president's view of the world is so unsophisticated.

The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation — the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism — the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty.

I understand that he is playing to his political base here and that most reasonable people will give it little thought.  Still, it is extremely frustrating that this man seems unable to move beyond an overly simplistic reductionism that fails to draw even the most basic distinctions between very distinct historical movements.  Isn't it standard practice in our classrooms to steer students away from the Nazi/Hitler analogies?  They are bad rhetorical devices and nothing more.   Why don't we just throw out the curriculum if all my students need to know is that they were all bad.

And this man spent part of his summer reading Albert Camus?

New Study of White Southerners: 1945-1975

Here is a good rule to follow: Don't start a new book the day before classes begin.  There has been some buzz about the recently-released study by Jason Sokol titled, There Goes My Everything: White Southerners In The Age of Civil Rights, 1945-1975.  Sokol teaches at Cornell University and wrote his dissertation under Leon Litwack at UC Berkeley.  I am making my way through the introduction and I can't put it down.  Check out the review in the Washington Post by Jonathan Yardley.

Sloppy Research

This letter-to-the-editor will appear in the next issue of America's Civil War correcting a reference I made in the introduction to the John C. Winsmith letter. 

Dear Editors:
Someone may have already raised this issue, but just in case they have not, I will. In the September issue's "Eyewitness to War" department, Kevin M. Levin made a frequently occurring error in his introduction to the letter from John Christopher Winsmith. In setting the stage for the letter he describes the 1st South Carolina during the "spring campaign of 1864" as being commanded by "Colonel Johnson Hagood." Johnson Hagood, who was the first commander of the 1st South Carolina, had left the regiment after his promotion to Brigadier General in August 1863, with an effective date of July 21. In the time frame of the letter, May 1864, he, with his South Carolina brigade, were in active combat against Major General Benjamin F. Butler's command in the Bermuda Hundreds.

When Winsmith mentions his commander, "Col. Hagood," in his letter, he is referring to Johnson Hagood's younger brother, James Robert Hagood, who by that time had been promoted to command of the 1st South Carolina. It is important to note that his promotion to command was for merit not because his relationship to the first commander. His brief biography from the South Carolina volume of the "Confederate Military History" will illustrate this point. When he enlisted in the 1st South Carolina, Col. Thomas Glover was in command. "He was rapidly promoted, first to the office of sergeant-major, the adjutant of his regiment, then to the captaincy of one of the companies (Co. K), and illustrative of the fact that worth levels all grades, upon the death of the gallant (Colonel Franklin W.) Kilpatrick (killed in action at Lookout Valley/Wauhatchie Junction, Tennessee October 28, 1863), he was promoted over four senior captains and all the field officers to the colonelcy of his regiment. All of these promotions occurred within a year of his enlistment as a private, and three of them were conferred as a reward for 'distinguished skill and valor on the battlefield.' His colonel's commission is dated ten days before his nineteenth birthday, making him the youngest officer of that rank in the Confederate army."

James A. Gabel
Rapid City, SD

Thanks James for calling me on a bit of sloppy research.

The Self As Historical Object

Tomorrow is the opening day of the new school year.  I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit to being just a little nervous.  I enjoy thinking about how to proceed in the first few days.  Those first few classes are by far the most important as the teacher has the opportunity to set the tone for the year.  My goal is to present the subject as an opportunity not just to learn a set of dry facts, but to create a space for serious reflection about some of the deep issues. 

This year I am going to have my students write their own obituaries.  The plan is to hand out a copy of the Obituary Page from the New York Times and have the students reflect on a range of different entries.   Here are just a few questions that they will think about and discuss: (1) What do we learn about these recently deceased individuals? (2) Are longer entries more effective in capturing the individual's past compared with shorter entries? (3) In what ways are these entries selective and what would you like to know about these people that is is not covered and why? (4) In what ways do these entries reflect their authors?

Finally, the students are asked to write their own obituaries.  I like this idea as it forces them to think of themselves as historian and historical object.  How do they want to be remembered?  How important is accuracy in crafting their individual past for others?  I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with.  This could be a bit uncomfortable for some, but hopefully it will prove to be a fruitful experiment.

William T. Sherman and George Steinbrenner: The New "Yankee" Threat

Here is a rather silly editorial from Anderson, South Carolina that I simply could not resist posting.  Seems that one John Brasier is concerned about a new round of Yankee invaders.  No, they are not Union reenactors or members of the northern equivalent of the Southern League (if there is such a thing).  They are fans of the New York Yankees.  It looks like Mr. Brasier has connected enthusiasm for the "Bronx Bombers" with Sherman's hordes:

They’re Yankee fans. And they admit it! Actually, they seem to be proud of it. They are everywhere. At the mall, in the work place, mingling with decent citizens. Here in the birthplace of the Confederacy! There are traitors and scoundrels in our midst in and surrounding the Electric City. Fortunately, they’re easy to recognize. Just look for the navy ball cap with the white interlocked "NY’’ logo on the front.

They spew sacrilege, praising "The Boss’’ and "A-Rod" out in the open with no fear of reprisal. This week, they’ve been particularly obnoxious celebrating a five-game sweep of the Boston Red Sox.

Sure, some are New York-area transplants. Their allegiance to the pinstripes is understandable, if not unforgivable. Besides, we can identify them by their Yankee accents and their preference for unsweetened iced tea

The pain of the past is apparently very much alive for Mr. Brasier:

Why hate the Yankees? Let’s start with the nickname.  The Yankees killed soldiers from South Carolina. They burned Columbia. After the war, they came here as carpetbaggers. Then they came as obnoxious tourists in Bermuda shorts, colored socks and sandals telling us how they do things up north

Perhaps Mr. Brasier should look into starting a grass-roots movement to bring a professional baseball team to the Palmetto State.  He could then stipulate that all players and management must demonstrate a direct connection to a Confederate veteran. 

Ken Burns In The Classroom

In yesterday's post I commented in passing that Ken Burns's Civil War documentary should be used with great care in the classroom.  I've used it every semester in my own Civil War course as it is both entertaining and pedagogically useful in a number of ways.  The documentary should be used as an interpretation of the war.  This means that the teacher must engage the students in an active manner with some type of activity.  One of the easiest ways - though not the only way - is to pose a set of interpretive questions that can be discussed by the entire class following the segment. 

Begin with the various voices: What role does the narrator (David McCullough) play in the documentary?  How much (if any) authority should his own words carry compared with the other "talking heads"?  [Students should have a bit of background here in reference to McCullough's notoriety as a popular historian.]  What is the role of the "talking heads" such as Shelby Foote?  [I also give my students a little background on Foote.]  What specific role does Foote play in the documentary (i.e. historian v. entertainer).  I will admit that I jump back and forth in terms of the usefulness of Foote.  At times I see him as a major distraction while at other times he is a magnet for those who are new to the subject.  More often than not it is a combination of the two views.

Themes that can be tracked by students: How are Grant and Lee or Davis and Lincoln interpreted in terms of both content and the voices that portray them?  Does the documentary do a good job balancing between the battlefield and homefront; eastern v. western theatres; North v. South (Union v. Confederate); enlisted men v. officers; commoners v. elite?  How representative are Sam Watkins of Tennessee and Elisha Hunt Rhodes of Rhode Island?  Students can compare and contrast their experiences as portrayed in the documentary.  What role does the music play in various segments?

These are just a few questions/themes that students can explore while watching this documentary.  I should say that I do not use the entire series as it is much too long.  Students should come away with a firmer understanding that documentaries are interpretations.  Any discussion can easily be expanded to other visual mediums.  Given the number of hours that high school students spend in front of the television it is important that we give them the tools to engage with these images and messages. 

I will post other ideas as to how to use Ken Burns as the semester progresses.

David Blight On Civil War Talk Radio

[Cross-Posted at Revise and Dissent]

David W. Blight was recently interviewed on Civil War Talk Radio which is hosted by Gerry Prokopowicz.  For anyone interested in Civil War memory there is no better place to start than his award-winning Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Harvard University Press, 2001).  The book has served as a catalyst for much of what has recently been written about the subject, including my own work on memory and the battle of the Crater.  I didn't expect to hear anything new from Blight, but I do enjoy listening to him reflect on many of the important themes related to memory. 

The interview touched on Bruce Catton's influence on Civil War historiography and I was surprised to hear that Blight has used A Stillness at Appomattox in his seminars to give students a sense of the horror of war and the difficulties in the transition to Reconstruction.  He suggested that a book could be written on Catton's influence on the profession and the way his scholarship moved beyond the narrowness of the battlefield to discuss the broader meanings of the war -- a topic that has received a great deal of attention over the past decade.  Blight noted that Catton's fine narrative touch has been lost and ought to be recovered by professional historians if only for the sake of providing quality texts for the reading public. 

In outlining his analysis of how the war has been remembered Blight referenced the final episode in the Ken Burns documentary which covers the 1913 Gettysburg Reunion.  Of course, by 1913 the meaning of the war had been "sanitized" or cleansed of any racial references and had been turned into a celebration of national progress and the valor of white soldiers from both sides of the Potomac.  That theme courses throughout this final episode.  In pushing this theme Burns includes a few moments of what appear to be black and white soldiers shaking hands.  Unfortunately, the footage is not from 1913, but from the 1938 reunion and the black men are in fact laborers who were working to maintain the camp during the commemoration.  Jim Crow America is absent from the Burns documentary; instead we are to believe that race relations are peaceful and congratulatory.  I should say that this is a wonderful teaching moment.  Burns's documentary should never be viewed by students without showing them how to analyze it as a historical source.  Directors pick and choose themes as well as footage based on a set of working assumptions. 

It was also interesting to hear Blight briefly touch on themes that I've raised on this blog, including the issue of black Confederates.  He is correct in pointing out that this subject has more to do with the consequences of the Civil Rights Movement and the uneasiness for some in coming to terms with an expanding multi-cultural society than anything related to serious Civil War scholarship.  [Bruce Levine puts this debate to rest in his recent book, Confederate Emancipation (Oxford University Press, 2006.]  He also commented on our fascination with the war and the almost casual way in which we express it: "I love the Civil War."  I've commented on this in earlier posts titled, "Civil War As Entertainment" and "Are You A Civil War Buff?"

Finally, some of you may be interested in his most recent project which is scheduled for publication in 2007.  Blight has edited two recently uncovered slave narratives that were written after the Civil War.  The first was written by John Washington of Fredericksburg who escaped in 1862 and the second by Wallace Turnadge (unsure of spelling) who escaped in 1864 in the Mobile area.  Blight plans to publish both narratives and write a dual-biography of both men who lived into the twentieth-century. 

Civil War Research Seminar

Here is the course description for the Civil War research seminar that I will be offering this semester.  Feel free to offer any suggestions.

Goal of the Course: The goal of this course is to teach students how to research and write Civil War history utilizing the wide-range of primary source material available on the Internet.  This course will focus primarily on the Valley of the Shadow project out of the University of Virginia.  The Valley project provides the most complete on-line archive, including diaries, letters, newspapers, official city/county documents and the complete census reports for 1860 and 1870.  The website allows students to compare life in two Shenandoah Valley counties through the Civil War era and into the immediate postwar period—Augusta County, Virginia and Franklin County, Pennsylvania. 

Course Structure: A normal week will be divided between in-class discussions of secondary source material (articles and chapters) which will provide an overview of important issues related to the Civil War era as well as more focused material related to the Valley project.  At least two days of the week will be devoted to in-class research where students will use classroom computers to work on individual projects.  In addition to assignments covering course readings, students will be required to keep a weekly research log which will include a record of all documents analyzed and general progress on research.  Every other week the group will come together and each student will report on his/her progress to the rest of the class.  This will provide an opportunity for students to offer suggestions or share material that may be relevant to other projects. 

Historians from the area will be invited to join in discussions of course readings and staff from the University of Virginia who work on the Valley project will also be invited to discuss issues related specifically to researching the database.

Research Skills : (1) Choosing a Topic; (2) Formulating a Thesis Statement; (3) Collecting and Analyzing Evidence; (4) Building an Argument; 5) Structuring/Writing Historical Essays and Integrating Primary Documents into the Narrative; (6) Footnotes/Endnotes; (7) Sharing information

Course Requirements: This course is designed along the lines of a college-level course.  You are expected to stay on top of reading assignments and spend sufficient time reading source material for your project. Please note the importance of participation in the grade break-down below.  You must also come to class prepared to discuss reading assignments and will be expected to lead the class discussion at least once.  In addition, a mid-term exam will be given around the fifth week of the course.  Finally, the class will take one field trip to a Civil War battlefield at some point during the semester.. 

Required Text: This Terrible War: The Civil War and its Aftermath by Michael Fellman, Lesley Gordon, and Daniel Sutherland.  Additional handouts will be made available by the instructor.

A Word to Seniors With Varying Degrees of Senioritis: This course is an elective, which means that you do not have to be here.  If the requirements of this course do not fit into your overall goals, please consider taking another course so we do not have any serious problems.  I guarantee that the writing skills learned throughout this semester will benefit you in college. It is up to you to decide whether you will take advantage of this offer.

Breakdown of Course Requirements: Final Research Project 50%, Thesis Summaries, 20%,  Mid-Term 10%, and Participation 20%

The End Of A Long Weekend

Well, I had my first back-to-school meeting today and classes begin next Wednesday.  I am always excited about getting back into the classroom.  One of the best aspects of being a teacher is the ability to start over each year.  You are given a blank slate on which you can literally re-invent yourself.  To my fellow teachers out there I wish all of you the best in starting the new year.  Take a chance and try some new ideas out and remember to have fun.  This is an awesome profession!

A Helping Hand

Over the past few months I've had three graduate students contact me to talk about archival sources and my work on William Mahone, the Crater, and postwar Virginia politics and memory.  My position on sharing my ideas and files is very simple: What's Mine Is Yours.  Of course there are a few exceptions, but barring anything extreme I look forward to being able to help others - especially graduate students.  I should say that I am both surprised and pleased that my work is beginning to make the rounds.  The ego gets a bit of stroking which is fine as long as it remains in check.  I've learned to appreciate those historians who have taken the time to share files as well as for reading rough drafts and offering their own critical comments. 

More importantly, however, the contacts serve as a reminder that doing serious history is a joint venture.  In my view all interpretation is incomplete.  This does not mean that all interpretation is subjective; I have little patience with post-modernist theory that reduces everything down to the text or some type of pragmatic epistemology.  It simply means that what the historian brings to the interpretive table is based on a relatively narrow reading of both primary and secondary sources.  Because of this we share rough drafts as a way to bounce ideas off one another and we inquire into the location or availability of various sources.  Behind it all - at least in my own case - is the hope that someone will share an interpretation that I've overlooked.   The reason I like graduate students is that they are already geared to trying to poke holes in the views of others.  I guess it's some kind of rite of passage.  In short, we learn as a community by disagreeing and challenging one another.

With that in mind I was disappointed to read in the most recent OAH Newsletter that historians seem to be growing more resistant to the idea of debating in public settings.  President Richard White attempted to organize panels around scholarly controversies involving two or more speakers for the upcoming annual meeting in Minneapolis next year.  He was struck by how few were willing to take part, but attempts to explain it by referring to the "culture of caution" that pervades the university.