It is with great pleasure that I welcome friend and fellow historian Peter Carmichael to Civil War Memory for a guest post on black Confederates and Confederate slaves. Professor Carmichael is currently the Eberly Professor of Civil War Studies at West Virginia University and has published extensively over the past fifteen years.
Continue reading "Peter Carmichael on Black Confederates and Confederate Slaves" »
A few months back I was contacted by George Rable to take part in the yearly luncheon/dinner panel of the Society of Civil War Historians which meets as part of the Annual Meeting of the Southern Historical Association. This year the meeting will be in New Orleans and needless to say I am very excited and honored to be taking part. The panel includes the following:
Presiding, George Rable, University of Alabama
Kevin M. Levin, St. Anne's - Belfield School, "Blogging the American Civil War"
Anne Sara Rubin, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, "Mapping Memory: Digitizing Sherman's March"
Mark Grimsley, Ohio State University, "The Virtual Archive Rat: Exploiting the Online Availability of Traditional Sources"
I asked both Anne and Mark to forward their presentation abstracts, which will be published in the next issue of the society's newsletter. They can be found below.
Continue reading "The Civil War in a New Age: Blogs, Technology, and the Internet" »
Today I receive an advanced proof of Disunion!: The Coming of the Civil War, 1789-1859 (November 2008) by Elizabeth Varon, along with a pamphlet outlining future volumes in the Littlefield Series. The series is edited by Gary Gallagher and T. Michael Parrish and is edited by the University of North Carolina Press. The series will include sixteen volumes and will be published between now and 2015. Future volumes include:
The Secession Crisis by Shearer D. Bowman
Politics in the Civil War by Mark Neely
The Home Front by William Blair
The War For the Common Soldier, by Peter Carmichael
The War in the East by Carol Reardon
The War at Sea by James McPherson
The Role of Religion in the Civil War by George Rable
The War in the Western Theater by Earl Hess
Diplomacy in the Civil War Era by Howard Jones
Memory by Caroline Janney
War in the Trans-Mississippi Theater by Thomas A Cutrer
Women in the War by Thavolia Glymph
Emancipation by Joseph P. Reidy
Reconstruction by Mark W. Summers
The Civil War in a World Comparative Context by T. Michael Parrish
That's one hell of a line-up.
I recently learned that my friend Barton Myers has been selected to receive a Harry Frank Guggenheim Dissertation Fellowship for his research on guerrilla violence and the origins of political dissent in the Civil War South. Barton is working on his dissertation at the University of Georgia, the title of which is “Controlling Chaos: Unionists, Military Policy and Irregular Warfare in Confederate North Carolina” The foundation funds research on violence, aggression and dominance and annually awards ten fellowships in an international competition open to the social and natural sciences. The competition for these fellowships is extremely tight, which makes his selection that much more impressive. His M.A. thesis, "“Executing Daniel Bright: Race, Loyalty and Guerrilla Violence in a Coastal Carolina Community, 1861-1865,” is already under contract with the LSU Press. The manuscript examines the dynamics of race, southern Unionism, and Union army counter-guerrilla policy in northeastern North Carolina. Barton is clearly on his way to an impressive scholarly and teaching career.
As part of Edward L. Ayers's installment as the ninth president of the University of Richmond, a Civil War symposium was held which included Ayers, Drew G. Faust, and Gary Gallagher. You can view the symposium here.
Richard Williams recently posted a short article by historian John Coski on the relationship between Jim Limber and the Davis family, which appeared in the winter issue of the Museum of the Confederacy's newsletter. While Coski does point to mutual bonds of affection between Jim Limber and the Davis family, he also suggests that there are many questions that cannot be answered. This, of course, could change in the future. While Coski does not address the debate surrounding the proposed statue of Limber and Davis, his analysis does bring the question of whether such a statue is justified based on the available evidence into sharp relief. Is the Sons of Confederate Veterans justified in proposing a statue based on such limited evidence? If so, why? What precedent would this set in terms of the way we go about commemorating and remembering other moments in American history in our public spaces? Finally, I hope Mr. Williams is not operating under the assumption that Coski's essay ought to be interpreted as tacit support for this proposed statue. If anything the essay highlights the wide gulf between what serious historians can legitimately conclude about this relationship and the message that a marble statue will no doubt communicate. You will find Coski's essay below.
Continue reading "John Coski on Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber" »
If you love Civil War history than Philadelphia's Union League was the place to be this past weekend for the first biennial meeting of the Society of Civil War Historians. There were about 225 people registered for the conference. The Union League was an ideal place to hold the first meeting given its significance to the Northern war effort and its role in fostering patriotism and in raising regiments in the Philadelphia area. The building is decorated with an incredible amount of artwork, including statues and paintings as well as a 20,000 volume library. Just about every high-ranking Union general can be found as well as a massive 1841 portrait of George Washington by Thomas Sully. My personal favorites were two naval paintings, one of the battle between the Monitor and Merrimac and the other between the Alabama and Kearsage done by Xanthus Smith.
The sessions were wide-ranging and most ended with insightful commentary and questions from the audience. The opening session by Mark Neely on nationalism was quite good as well as the roundtable on Michael Fellman's Inside War. I particularly enjoyed Jeff McClurken's paper on the role of Baptist churches in Pittsylvania County and Danville after the war in rebuilding their local communities as well as Jim Broomall's paper on the demobilization of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was nice to see that my conclusions on the same subject are not too far off. The highlight of the conference was a panel on public history with John Coski, Dana Shoaf, John Hennessy, and Paul Reber. I am not going to comment on the individual presentations since I plan to blog much of what was discussed in the near future. Finally, the plenary session on the state of Civil War military history with Gary Gallagher, Joan Waugh, Joe Glatthaar, and Carol Reardon was quite interesting. Each panelist took about 10-15 minutes to discuss his/her own approach to writing military history along with the question of what constitutes Civil War military history. I will also comment on aspects of this session at some point.
I couldn't have been more pleased with my session on teaching. [You can read my presentation here.] The session was scheduled for the final time slot on Tuesday afternoon so I was a bit concerned that there wouldn't be anyone in attendance apart from my wife and parents. Thankfully, we had a pretty good turnout and the questions which followed allowed all of us on the panel to discuss a number of issues related to the teaching of history. I am going to do what I can to push the SCWH to build on this first step. This could include a few more session on teaching at the next meeting at the University of Richmond in 2010 or perhaps even a workshop for area teachers. When I was asked last summer by Gary Gallagher to put this session together I immediately thought of including Jim Percoco. His talk on Lincoln statues and how he utilizes them in class was quite impressive and gave me a great deal to think about as I put together my own course on Civil War Memory. I also appreciate Ron Maggianno for his insightful comments and Andrew Slap for chairing the session. The best part was having my parents in the audience. They were visibly "proud of their little boy."
Finally, I got to meet some wonderful people and touch base with some old friends. I even met a few of my readers, including one very prominent member of the Civil War community. Before the opening session he introduced me to his wife and she looked at me and said, "my husband spends more time with you than with me." Now, I don't want to be responsible for any failed marriages (LOL) but I can't think of a better endorsement. Fellow blogger Harry Smeltzer was also in attendance; he's a pretty cool dude. As with any conference, the best part was the after hours get-togethers that usually include a few cocktails.
I have nothing but praise for the organizers of this conference, especially William Blair who spent all three days running from session to session and taking care of logistics. For those of you who have a serious interest in Civil War history I encourage you to consider attending the 2010 meeting in Richmond. In contrast with most academic conferences this is not a stuffy affair and you just might find yourself chatting with Ken Noe, eating breakfast with Michael Fellman or laughing over a cocktail with Peter Carmichael. It was a real whoot.
This talk was presented today in Philadelphia at the 2008 Meeting of the Society of Civil War Historians. The panel was titled, "Gearing Up For the Civil War Sesquicentennial in the High School Classroom" and included, James Percoco, Ronald Maggiano, and Andy Slap.
When it aired in 1989 Ken Burns’s epic documentary about America’s Civil War garnered the largest audience in PBS history. Viewers who had little interest or knowledge of the Civil War were attracted to the powerful images and sounds as well as the narration by David McCullough and commentary by Shelby Foote - the combination of which served to introduce a heroic and tragic story to a national audience. While historians have spent considerable time analyzing Burns’s documentary as historical interpretation, little attention has been given to the ways in which the film can be utilized in history courses on the high school level.1 All too often the film is used as a launching pad to other classroom activities or simply shown with little student preparation; such an approach renders students as passive observers rather than engaging them in trying to better understand the choices that went into the film’s script along with how the various elements come together to tell a coherent story.2 More importantly, students fail to see the film itself as a product of long-standing assumptions about the war that are embedded in our popular imagination and often guarded as sacred. The beginning of the Civil War Sesquicentennial in 2011 will provide a unique opportunity to introduce questions of memory and interpretation in our high school history classes. In the time that I have today I would like to talk briefly about how I engage my students with questions of memory and interpretation through a careful viewing of Burns’s The Civil War.
Continue reading "Using Ken Burns's "The Civil War" in the Classroom" »
Fellow Civil War blogger and author, Richard Williams, seems bewildered by some of the responses to the proposed statue of Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber by the SCV in Richmond. [Read the Richmond.com article here.] It's impossible to know which academics he is referring to, but no doubt he read my earlier post on the subject, which included a number of objections. Williams's objections are all over the place and for the most part make little sense. First, let's dispense with his whining about the legality of the Lincoln-Tad statue. Williams is indeed correct in pointing out that the organization responsible for the statue is having some difficulties with the IRS and have recently lost their status as a tax-exempt organization. I'm not sure why this is important, but let's admit it and move on.
Second, Williams refers to the Museum of the Confederacy's year-long program to commemorate the life of Jefferson Davis. No doubt, the MOC should be engaged in such programs and I only wish that other organizations were able to muster the resources and interest to mark the bicentennial of Davis's birth. That said, it is not the case that the MOC is "celebrating" Davis's life as Williams points out. Anyone who visits the MOC knows all too well that their mission is to present exhibits and public presentations which reflect the best in Civil War scholarship. Their line-up for a recent symposium on Davis's life included, William Cooper, Joan Cashin, William C. Davis, and Donald Collins. I've read all of their books on Davis and Mrs. Davis and I can state with confidence that they are not engaged in celebrating. Again, it is hard to know what this has to do with a proposed monument to Davis at Tredegar. Finally, Williams suggests that Gary Casteel, who has been hired to sculpt the statue, is a sufficient reason to approve the final product. Williams is "confident [that Casteel] will produce a beautiful and historically accurate statue.
Not once does Williams comment on the design. I have absolutely no problem with another statue of Davis in Richmond; the question, however, is whether this particular design, which acknowledges Davis's relationship with Jim Limber, is appropriate. [Background on this story can be found here.] I am willing to grant that everything in that story is true, though Davis scholars have noted that some of the details are sketchy.
The question that I would like Williams to address is whether he believes that a statue depicting Davis holding hands with his adopted black child reflects his broader views on race. I understand that race relations were incredibly complex in the antebellum and wartime South, and it is important to understand the context and background for this particular decision on the part of the Davis family. I wonder, however, whether this is the best way to proceed since so little has been written about this incident. What do you think Mr. Williams? More to the point: What message does Williams believe that visitors with little background in American history will walk away with? Does Williams and the SCV believe that this statue reflects Davis's overall beliefs about race? Will visitors know that Davis was a large slaveowner, president of a government whose expressed purpose was the preservation of slavery, and that he remained committed to a racial hierarchy to the end of his life? Does the SCV plan to include some kind of plaque that will assist visitors in their attempt to understand this statue?
As I stated in the earlier post, it is easy to see what is behind this particular statue. The SCV is engaged in a conscious effort to distort the history of the South and the Confederacy to a point where issues of slavery and race are moved to the background. Their world is inhabited by friendly slaveowners and loyal black slaves and soldiers. This self-gratifying view of the past comes at a heavy price, however.
One wonders what Jim Limber or one of Davis's own slaves would think of such a statue. Unfortunately, in the hazy world of the SCV such questions have little weight.
Recent Comments