Category Archives: Sesquicentennial

06/18/13

“Was It Worth It?”

From Gary Gallagher's "The Union War"

From Gary Gallagher’s “The Union War”

Back in March I attended a conference at Gettysburg hosted by the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College. I never wrote about it. There seemed to be plenty of bloggers discussing its content, structure, successes, and shortcomings. Personally, I enjoyed the sessions I attended and was happy to meet face-to-face a number of people I had known previously only online. As I recall, Pete Carmichael, Director of CWI, opened the conference by questioning the thrust of Civil War interpretation in regard to the horrors of war. Dr. Carmichael showed a photo of an armless Civil War soldier and asked how often we are willing to share such images with visitors to parks. When Dr. Carmichael finished and opened the floor for questions, Brooks Simpson came to the microphone and observed that Dr. Carmichael’s address could be summed up with the question, “Was it worth it?” It’s been a few months, but that is how I remember it, and the subject came up again over the course of the conference.

I was reminded of that conference when last week a friend sent me a copy of an article that appeared in the latest issue of The Journal of the Civil War Era titled “Revisionism Reinvented? The Antiwar Turn in Civil War Scholarship” by Yael A. Sternhell.  Dr. Sternhell argues that “a new revisionist trend in Civil War scholarship is in full bloom.” She describes the “old revisionism” which flourished in the 1930s, but then states that “much of the revisionists’ agenda has been discredited over the years.” I wrote about the “revisionists” in a past blogpost. See here.

Given the numbers of books and monographs being published in recent years, I’m not sure how anyone could come to a proper synthesis of Civil War historiography. Dr. Sternhell chooses to focus on a few books and articles, not all of which I have read. One, however is Harry S. Stout’s Upon the Altar of Freedom: A Moral History of the Civil War, which I have read. Frankly, I wasn’t that impressed. For example, Stout’s grasp of events in Missouri is pitiful. I would have to agree with most of what this Amazon reviewer wrote. Sternhell also writes that “Stout argues that the Union army was fighting a total war against southern civilians and combatants alike, in which the dictums of just war were freely and unapologetically breached,” yet in her notes she admits that “the debate over the severity of Union policies toward the South began before the close of the war and has continued ever since.”

Sternhell also cites David Goldfield’s America Aflame: How The Civil War Created a Nation. I have not read this book, but considering that it is not published by a University press, I would be a bit suspect (not that there aren’t some excellent books published outside the academy). However, since Sternhell tells us that Goldfield’s mentor was Avery Craven, I feel little need to read it. Again, see my previous blogpost on the revisionists.

Sternhell cites Michael Fellman, a scholar who did some excellent work on guerilla warfare in the Civil War, but Sternhell quotes Fellman, “For most of its history, America has celebrated its military establishment, built it up, and used it around the world as an instrument of international power.” This statement ignores the fact that early Americans distrusted standing armies, and the fact that the Civil War in particular was fought not by a “military establishment” as we might envision that today, but by citizen-soldiers who answered the call to arms then quickly returned to their civilian pursuits. Fellman’s statement also raises the question of whether or not America’s power has historically been more a force for good in the world or bad.

More than once in her essay, Sternhell seems to accept potshots leveled at U. S. Grant. Stout, she quotes as saying, “Emancipationist rhetoric was actually (and unbelievably) employed by Grant and Sherman to justify Indian exterminations in the 1870s and later. Indians, they argued were standing in the way of ‘Americans” freedom to expand, and therefore they deserved to be exterminated.” I’d like to know where Stout finds Grant calling for the “extermination” of anyone. Grant repeatedly called for policies that (at least to his way of thinking) would allow Indians to become citizens of the United States. Sternhell also cites Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War.  Foreman apparently “contends that Grant achieved his monumental victory at Vicksburg not by any great military feat but by starving out the town’s civilians.” This likely comes as a surprise to the numerous military historians who have studied Grant’s Vicksburg campaign and praised it as one of the most masterful of all time. Furthermore, I wonder, not having read Foreman’s book, does she offer an alternative to Grant’s siege? One that would have cost fewer casualties?

Sternhell tells us that “new revisionist” authors see the Emancipation Proclamation as a mere “political ploy” and a move to weaken Confederate military capabilities. Criticism of the EP is nothing new, but Goldfield, according to Sternhell, “argues that other means might have achieved freedom for the slaves, had the democratic process been allowed to succeed.” This one really has me scratching my head. Who exactly does Goldfield think thwarted “the democratic process?”

In the end, Sternhell admits that the “new revisionism” is not very convincing. The “new revisionists” want to answer the question “was it worth it?” (and the question seems to be mostly directed at the Union side) with a resounding “no” just as the “old revisionists” did. There is, however, just too much evidence of the centrality of slavery  in bringing on the conflict, and the importance of the Union to Northerners (and many Southerners). If we are going to answer “no, it wasn’t worth it,” then we must allow that freedom is not worth killing and dying for, and that The United States of America is not, and has not been, the beacon of hope and freedom to the world that it claims to be. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” becomes mere words on fading parchment. From our vantage point 150 years and countless wars later, these might be debatable points. We might even need to admit that democracy as we practice it is not always the answer for other countries. But, the generation of loyal Americans who actually endured the Civil War from Ft. Sumter to Appomattox, as Gary Gallagher wrote, “possessed a strong sense of their nation as a democratic republic unique in the world, bequeathed to them by the founding generation and destined for future greatness if poisonous questions relating to slavery could be settled.”  It was  “worth it.”

I would suggest that one’s time would be better spent reading other books than those discussed by Sternhell. Here are a few:

The Union War by Gary Gallagher; Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South by Stephanie McCurry; The Civil War As a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll; Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America by Allen C. Guelzo.

 

12/14/11

“Civil War to Civil Rights”

     The National Park Service adopted the theme “Civil War to Civil Rights” to guide interpretive programming during the Sesquicentennial in order to help show the continuing relevance of the epic conflict of 1861-1865 to today. (See here, here, and here.)The theme is useful to the extent that it highlights the struggle of African-Americans to claim their rightful place as citizens in American politics and society. It provides a connecting interpretive thread between the various Civil War sites that the NPS oversees, including battlefields, and the NPS sites that focus on the civil rights of African-Americans, such as Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Brown vs. Board of Education in Kansas.  

     Given the general public perception that the Civil War had something to do with ending race based slavery in America, I believe most people make the automatic mental jump from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950-60s when they hear the theme “Civil War to Civil Rights,” which is, I’m sure, what was intended. The jump from the Emancipation Proclamation and Appomattox to visions of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and lunch counter sit-ins is understandable since so many of us were actually living during that latter time period. And, I’ve heard historians say that there was no meaningful civil rights legislation from the end of Ulysses S. Grant’s administration until Lyndon Johnson.

     Yet, civil rights is a term that should have meaning for all Americans, not just African-Americans. The struggle for civil rights has been the story of America since its founding. That is why we have a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Even including those first ten amendments, the original Constitution did not guarantee rights to every individual residing within the country’s borders. It did not specifically cover every right we now consider essential. Furthermore, it was argued that the Constitution applied only to the federal government, not to the individual state governments. Therefore, the story of America is a story of struggle and growth in the realization of America’s founding declaration that people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and its democratic form of government. And that growth has come in fits and starts. There have been periods of expansive broadening of civil rights and periods of retrenchment. 

     The first question that must be asked is: what are civil rights? The following are six definitions from a recent Google search and a thought or two of my own regarding each:

1.   Rights derived from the social contract – the consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live.

        What happens when there is a majority who will not allow a minority to have certain rights?  

2.   Equal treatment of all people with respect to protection of the law and to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.

         This sounds a lot like our Declaration of Independence, but is the Declaration law? Remember, the federal government was formed by the Constitution, not the Declaration. Nevertheless, Abraham Lincoln once said he never had a political feeling that he did not derive from the Declaration. Of course, it was vehemently argued that the founding documents only applied to white men.  African-American slaves were considered property and slave-holders argued they had property rights regarding their slaves.

3.   The right of certain individuals not to be discriminated against in employment, public accommodations, housing, voting and education because of their protected class status.

      This seems like a very narrow definition. Why “certain individuals”? And why should there be “protected classes”? Shouldn’t everyone have the same rights?

4.   Those rights that are considered to be unquestionable; deserved by all people under all circumstances, especially without regard to race, creed, color, or gender.

     This is a very broad definition, which begs the questions, what rights are “considered to be unquestionable” and who is doing the “considering”? What happens when your rights interfere with my rights? And the phrase “under all circumstances” raises all kinds of scenarios that deserve further discussion.

5.   A broad range of rights, freedoms, and privileges granted by the U.S. Constitution.

      This might be a better definition if it said “protected” instead of “granted.” But, it still leaves unanswered what the difference is between “rights, freedoms, and privileges” and from whence exactly these rights, freedoms, and privileges come. The Declaration of Independence said “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But what exactly is the meaning of the terms “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

6.   A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another, gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public spaces. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some cases sexual orientation.

      This last definition comes from Cornell University Law School. It’s a definition that millions of Americans of the past would not have recognized. It’s a definition that would be celebrated by many Americans today, but for others it rubs the wrong way. I find that much of my reading lately directly or indirectly relates to this subject. Although it has certainly been argued that the most important expansion of civil rights in America was the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments as a result of the Civil War, and that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950-60s radically changed American society, the struggle for civil rights did not end in 1865 (or 1877) and suddenly re-start in the 1950s.

 

 

12/3/11

B. Gratz Brown at White Haven 2011

   

  I was too busy to post much over the summer, so this is a very late post. In August, Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site presented the annual living history program,”Night Walk Into the Past.” Over the years the program has had different characters, themes, and formats. I have been involved the last three years since I’ve been there. The first year I portrayed a railroad worker of the nineteenth century and last year I was Joseph Reynolds ca. 1860. Those years I was assigned a character and handed a script to memorize. This year I wrote my own script. After several re-writes and input from our Site Historian to make it the right length and fit for the overall program, I portrayed B. Gratz Brown in August, 1861. Unfortunately, I am already 21 years older than Brown would have been in 1861 (he was born in May, 1826), he was sporting a much longer beard, and he would not have been wearing glasses. While I may not have looked much like Brown, I hope my script, which contained some of Brown’s own words, and my performance conveyed a sense of Brown’s convictions, his passion, and his view of the momentous events unfolding in that violent summer 150 years ago. I wish I  had a video, but to my knowledge, no one made one, so here is my script, if you’d like to read it:

Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen.  I’ve just arrived at White Haven to speak with Colonel Dent, to let him know I saw his son-in-law General Grant at Ironton and to relay a message from him. I must say, I wasn’t expecting to see anyone else, but perhaps you are here to wish Colonel Dent well on Grant’s promotion. I see familiar faces so I know many of you reside in St. Louis. If you cast your votes for my election to the state legislature, let me thank you. I suspect many of you have read my editorials in my newspaper the Missouri Democrat, so you know where I stand on these vexing issues dividing our country today, but on the chance that some of you have not, if you will all indulge me, I will explain my views.

Like Colonel Dent and several of you here tonight, I am a Southerner. I come from a distinguished family of Virginians and Kentuckians, men who fought for our independence from Great Britain and for the founding of our democratic form of government. Yet, I have openly declared myself an opponent of slavery. This may not be typical of a Southerner. However, I strongly believe the institution of slavery retards progress, and cannot be reconciled with freedom and popular government. You may recall that I was forced to defend my honor as a gentleman when challenged for my views in 1856 – the last duel fought on Bloody Island. That scoundrel Thomas Reynolds, claiming to be a Democrat, and courting the German vote, was merely doing the bidding of the slave power in this state. When I exposed him in my paper, he challenged me to a duel. I tried to avoid such an outdated form of chivalry, but when he called me a coward for doing so, I had no choice but to issue a challenge myself. Reynolds shot me in the leg, and I’ve had to use this cane ever since.

When I arrived in Missouri more than ten years ago, I became a dedicated Democrat.  I remained a Democrat as long as I could, but when that party rejected free soil principles, when it aligned itself with slavery and oppression; I left and helped found the Republican Party here in Missouri. The platform of the Republican Party mirrors my own beliefs. You have heard me say in speeches and in my editorials: Wherever you see a free citizen of our state, relying upon his own labor, farming his own land, and living by the industry of his own hands, point to that man and say, there is the Republican platform. Free labor and free democracy are synonymous terms, ladies and gentlemen. Free labor and slave labor are incompatible institutions; one or the other must dominate or banish its rival. You must choose which you will prefer – upon which you will rest the liberties of yourselves and future generations.

As a Republican, I campaigned against the election of Claiborne Fox Jackson for Governor of this fine state.  I could see that his claim of being a Douglas Democrat was nothing but a ploy to get elected. And I have been proven right. Since his election as Governor, he and his no-good Lt. Governor, – Reynolds – yes, that same rascal I met on Bloody Island – they have tried every way possible to take Missouri out of the Union. In his inaugural address of January last, Jackson proclaimed that the destiny of Missouri and the slaveholding states was “one and the same.” This is absurd. Though slavery has tended to associate Missouri with the South, she owes no debt of gratitude to that section. She cannot be identified with the South either by geographical position or by natural association. Three fourths of Missouri’s exports go to northern seaports, and two thirds of her imports come from the North.  

As Governor, Jackson refused President Lincoln’s call for troops to put down this unholy rebellion and then carried on negotiations with the rebel government to bring arms into Missouri and to force secession on Missourians. His treasonous designs had to be stopped. I was proud to serve as Colonel of a regiment of my German neighbors in St. Louis who stood up for the Union and arrested that nest of secessionists assembled at Camp Jackson.

My regiment was then sent to Rolla for a time, before being reassigned to protect the railhead at Ironton. We were ninety day volunteers who responded to the President’s call, and supplies were running short. Our uniforms, which had been hastily made, were in tatters, and we were facing a far superior force to our immediate south. When Ulysses Grant arrived at Ironton with fresh troops to relieve me just a few days ago, I assured him that I was quite glad to see him, and we spent some time talking as I turned over my command. I did not know him personally when he lived in St. Louis. I had heard from some that he shared Colonel Dent’s proslavery principles, which might be expected since Grant lived under Dent’s roof here at White Haven. What I learned is that Grant is more a man of my beliefs than Colonel Dent’s. The Colonel might not appreciate that, but he ought to be proud of his son-in-law’s promotion. 

Right now this country needs more patriotic men like Grant. When southern slave states refused to abide by the fair and democratic election of Abraham Lincoln, and fired on our glorious Stars and Stripes, Grant immediately volunteered his services to his threatened country. He told me that we have a government and laws and a flag and they all must be sustained. These are sentiments with which I heartily agree. Grant’s skills seem to lie in military tactics and strategy, and while I am proud of my military service, I feel I can better serve the country by returning to my political career. Battles to keep Missouri in the Union and to abolish slavery must be fought on the field and in the political arena. That great battle at Wilson’s Creek near Springfield this month has shown this to be true.

Now, I’ve heard that the rebels are claiming a great victory at Wilson’s Creek.  I tell you, although they were greatly outnumbered, our Union boys fought bravely and dealt a stunning blow to those secessionists. General Lyon gave his life on Bloody Hill, but his gallant actions at Wilson’s Creek and here in St. Louis at Camp Jackson have secured St. Louis and Missouri for the Union. Furthermore, he drove those traitors Jackson and Reynolds out of Jefferson City which allowed a provisional government that is loyal to the Union to be established. General Lyon should be revered as a national hero.

It grieves me deeply to say that my young cousin, Cary Gratz, also fell at Wilson’s Creek. I fear many more may be sacrificed upon the altar of freedom before this wretched rebellion is put down.

Well, my apologies for keeping you all so long, but we are facing trying times and I hope you will consider the things I have said. I actually came out here at Grant’s request to ask Colonel Dent to pass on information about him to his wife up in Galena, Illinois. He has sent several letters to Mrs. Grant, but with the mail being interrupted and him moving his headquarters so often, there is no telling when or if she will receive them. So, I will take my leave of you now and see if I can deliver General Grant’s message. Good night and may God bless and preserve our United States.

 

 

Night Walk 2011 cast: EricHudson, David Newman, Anne Williams, John Samson, Sherie Phillips, Bob Pollock, Cynthia Knittel Van Sluys, Doug Harding.

09/6/11

Howitzers at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site

On pallets at Grant's Farm 2009

Back in 2009 I was asked to go across the street from U. S. Grant NHS to Grant’s Farm (yes, they are two different places) to check out a couple of cannon tubes that are owned by the Busch family. These had been owned by the Busch’s for so long that they were not sure exactly how or when they acquired them, or whether or not they were even authentic. I am certainly no expert on Civil War artillery, but I went to have a look, took some photos, got attacked by chiggers all up my legs, and began to do some research. As it turned out, the cannons are authentic. It seems likely that they were acquired as surplus from the Federal Arsenal in St. Louis, just as were the Civil War era rifle barrels used to create the famous fence at Grant’s Farm.

The cannons are actually cast iron 24 pounder howitzers manufactured by Cyrus Alger & Co. From civilwarartillery.com:  

Cyrus Alger & Co.:  Cyrus Alger, who during the War of 1812 furnished the government with shot and shell, in 1817 started South Boston Iron company which at an early date was known locally as Alger’s Foundry and later became Cyrus Alger & Co.  The Massachusetts firm was a leading cannon manufacturer and when Cyrus died in 1856, leadership was assumed by his son, Francis, who piloted the company until his death in 1864.  During the war, both Army and Navy were supplied with large numbers of weapons.  The initials “S.B.F.” (South Boston Foundry) occasionally may be found on cannon, but the signature is traditionally “C.A. & Co., Boston, Mass.” or, rarely, “C. Alger & Co., Boston, Mass.”

These two are marked “C.A. & Co., Boston, Mass.” They are dated 1846 and have the inspector’s initials J.W.R., James Wolfe Ripley, who was, according to Civil War Artillery.com an Army inspector from 1832-1863. Surprisingly, these two cannons bear consecutive serial numbers, 78 and 79. How these two stayed together through the years of use is a mystery. No one has been able to determine how they got from Boston to St. Louis. There has been some speculation that these could be the very cannons that were smuggled into Camp Jackson by the secessionists in 1861 in crates marked “marble,” however there is no evidence to support that theory at this time. Also, the letter sent by Jefferson Davis to Governor Jackson indicates that there were “two 12-pounder howitzers and two 32-pounder guns” sent to St. Louis, not 24 pounders. See here.

Usually 24 pounders like these were used in garrisons, not in the field. This is from the Robinson’s Battery website:

 24-pounder flank howitzer, Model of 1844. Total length, 69 inches; weight, 1480 pounds; total production, 577 from 1846 to 1864; known survivors, 269. These howitzers were essentially an iron copy of the 24-pounder bronze field howitzer, Model of 1841, without handles. The howitzer pictured is mounted on a restored upper flank carriage. It was among the first 300 cast by Cyrus Alger & Co. from 1846-49. It differs slightly from the final 277 made by Alger and six other foundries in that it has a 1.06-inch wide chase ring whose rear edge is located 7.0 inches behind the muzzle face. Those made after 1849 have an 0.8-inch wide chase ring whose rear edge is located 5.5 inches behind the muzzle face. All have a cylindrical 12-pounder chamber.

 

Mounted on field carriages and ready for unveiling on Sept. 17.

You can read more about 24 pounders at To the Sound of the Guns here. As noted there, Ulysses S. Grant had a battery of 24 pounders at Shiloh. Also see here. This has provided an interpretive link to Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. Andrew Busch has loaned the cannons to the park for display through the sesquicentennial. On September 17th there will be a day of special activities at the park to officially unveil these historic cannons.

 

 

 Update: Craig Swain of To the Sound of the Guns has contacted me regarding this post. He doesn’t think Grant used this type of howitzer at Shiloh. He provided me with another link regarding 24 pounders here.

For a follow-up on this post see here.

 

 

04/30/11

Camp Jackson

     I took leave time from work this weekend to volunteer at the Camp Jackson re-enactment at Jefferson Barracks. It is a three day event organized by “Freedom’s Gateway” which is a coalition of St. Louis area organizations. Although Pam Sanfilippo, the site historian at U.S. Grant NHS has been involved with the planning of this event, the park is not officially involved.

The Slaves' Perspective

     The first day was set aside for school programs. There are two separate camps set; one representing the Missouri Volunteer Militia (the actual Camp Jackson), and one for the Federal Army/Home Guard (the Arsenal). My job yesterday was to guide the students through the Militia camp. I have to say that I really had to bite my tongue as “General Frost” expounded on Missouri’s and Governor Jackson’s desire to stay neutral. I am returning today to witness the re-enactments of the “St. Louis Riots” (or  the “Camp Jackson Massacre” depending on your perspective) and the “Planter’s House Meeting.” I will have more to say, but for now I thought I would share a few photos from yesterday.

Hmmm...Look inside the tent. Why would they need crates of "marble" in a militia camp?

Getting sworn in to State Militia service. This had to be confusing to the kids. I hope their teachers were able to explain it all later.

Fine Civil War era entertainment. This soldier could really kick up his heels!

How many thousands of kids around the country will get drill instruction in the next four years?

01/26/11

On the Limits of Psychology in Historical Interpretation

    In an earlier post on learning to be a historian, I noted that historian James Harvey Robinson in about 1910 said that it was necessary to utilize anthropology, economics, sociology, political science, geography, and psychology in the pursuit of historical knowledge. In the century since, historians have utilized all these disciplines and more with varying degrees of success.  In regards to psychology, in Psychology and Historical Interpretation, a book published in 1988, Kenneth Craik wrote:

     “The contemporary field of psychology is a tremendously diverse enterprise, steadily expanding across many domains of life and constantly developing new lines of inquiry and areas of specialization. Historians moving bravely away from the popular sociological perspective and seeking a fuller and richer understanding of the historical actors they must analyze and interpret must be daunted by the complexities of modern psychology as a scientific endeavor.”

     Although Craik wrote that the intersection of psychology and history had been “meager in quantity” and “narrow in range,” historians in the 1980’s were in fact, using psychological approaches to their subjects. Or, psychologists were beginning to apply their theories to history. Two apparently separate disciplines had begun to emerge, “psychohistory” and “psychobiography.” The two are similar, but psychobiography attempts to explain individual historical figures and their motivations, while psychohistory attempts to understand the motivations of large groups. Both seek to apply modern psychological theory to the study of history and historical figures. Often these theories involve delving into the childhood experiences of their subjects in order to show that childbirth, parenting, and other childhood experiences affect the later actions of adult historical figures, although William Todd Schultz, who writes about, and apparently teaches a course on psychobiography says emphatically, “childhood is not everything!”

     It is only natural that historians should want to have the fullest possible understanding of the people and events that they study. Historians want to know what motivated historic figures. Why does one person become a George Washington and another Adolf Hitler? How is it that Thomas Jefferson could write that all men are created equal and continue to hold slaves? Why did Robert E. Lee order that fateful assault at Gettysburg? What were these people thinking?

     But how useful are psychological approaches to history? Should a degree in history require thorough training in psychology? (Of course, the reverse can be asked: Is a psychologist qualified to write history?) I hold an MA in History, yet I have no real training in psychology. With apologies to my daughter, who holds a BS in Psychology, I must say that the experience that I do have with psychology has left me an extreme cynic. I just don’t believe we can ever really get inside the minds of others. Furthermore, there is so much about the human brain that remains a mystery. Psychiatrists and psychologists debate the degree of affect that biology has on human emotion and reason. How much are we driven simply by chemical reactions in our brains? How much are we affected by our hereditary genes? If we can’t really explain the minds of living persons that we can actually interact with, how in the world can we expect to understand the motivations of people long dead?

     Psychobiographers look at the same evidence available to all historians, which often can be scant, particularly when exploring a historic person’s childhood. In addition, and this is what I think is most challenging, just as psychiatrists and psychologists can often have differing opinions on what causes living people to think and act as they do, the evidence available to historians usually produces varying interpretations. Let me give an example. There is a story of Ulysses Grant and the purchase of a pony when he was a boy. Here is how Grant himself told the story in his Memoirs:

     “…a Mr. Ralston living within a few miles of the village,…owned a colt which I very much wanted. My father had offered twenty dollars for it, but Ralston wanted twenty-five. I was so anxious to have the colt, that after the owner left, I begged to be allowed to take him at the price demanded. My father yielded, but said twenty dollars was all the horse was worth, and told me to offer that price; if it was not accepted I was to offer twenty-two and a half, and if that would not get him, to give the twenty-five. I at once mounted a horse and went for the colt. When I got to Mr. Ralston’s house, I said to him: “Papa says I may offer you twenty dollars for the colt, but if you won’t take that, I am to offer twenty-two and a half, and if you won’t take that, I am to give you twenty-five.” It would not require a Connecticut man to guess the price finally agreed upon. This story is nearly true. I certainly showed very plainly that I had come for the colt and meant to have him. I could not have been over eight years old at the time. This transaction caused me great heart-burning. The story got out among the boys of the village, and it was a long time before I heard the last of it. Boys enjoy the misery of their companions, at least village boys in that day did, and in later life I have found that all adults are not free from the peculiarity. I kept the horse until he was four years old, when he went blind, and I sold him for twenty dollars. When I went to Maysville to school, in 1836, at the age of fourteen, I recognized my colt as one of the blind horses working on the tread-wheel of the ferry-boat.”

     In his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Grant (published in 1981), William McFeely used this incident in Grant’s boyhood to explain Grant’s entire life:

     “In the Memoirs, Grant presented this incident as having provided a lesson well learned in his education as a maturing businessman, but actually it functioned in the opposite way. [Notice that McFeely knows Grant’s mind better than Grant himself knows it.] It reminded him every time he had business to do that he was not good at it, that he was still an embarrassable boy. What was more he had been humiliated and mocked not for being discovered secretly doing something nasty, but for being innocent and open; in effect, he had been told that grown-up things, business things, were the affairs of men who laughed at boys who were direct about what they wanted. The mockery came not from the horse, but from the boys in town who feigned sophistication, from the owner of the horse, and probably from his father, who without malice but with great ability to harm, may have laughed at the boy’s ingenuousness. If the story is seen as demonstrating a second point, Ulysses’ love of horses, the blinding of the animal sours the effect. “My colt” – that unspoiled beautiful mount – became a broken animal, and in the terrifyingly cruel end to which the creature had come Grant saw himself. The blinded beast walked nowhere in ceaseless drudgery. Trivial though the story of the purchase of the horse may seem, Grant spent a lifetime not getting over the transaction with Mr. Ralston.”

     To me, this is a giant leap from history to psychology that is far from provable. As Brooks Simpson wrote in his Triumph Over Adversity:

     “Biographers looking to find the man in the boy have read much into the incident. It was an early sign of his naivete in business; it illustrated his determination to gain his objective; it epitomized his guilelessness and gullibility.”

 Simpson is much more willing to accept Grant’s own interpretation of the story: “I certainly showed very plainly that I had come for the colt and meant to have him.” And, why not? Nothing makes McFeely’s interpretation unassailable.

      In Psychology and Historical Interpretation, Craik wrote:

     “It is reasonable for historians in search of conceptual tools for better understanding the actions and experiences of individuals in history to look to the field of personality as the obvious portal of entry to psychology’s domain…the study of personality has been that branch of psychology that takes the person as a unit of analysis, rather than selected processes (such as cognition, perception, learning, or interpersonal relationships, etc.), and attempts to pull together these other branches of  psychology, plus those from the biological and social sciences, to understand individuals and their fates.”

     In his critical review of McFeely’s Grant, (“Butcher? Racist? An Examination of William S. McFeely’s Grant,” in Civil War History, Vol. XXXIII, No.1, 1987), Brooks Simpson noted:

      “McFeely’s reviewers, then, seemed to agree that a major reason for Grant’s success was the author’s ability to probe Grant’s personality. They took especial note of his treatment of Grant’s attitudes toward blacks and war. And, in keeping with Woodward’s statement that McFeely “has mined the archives scrupulously,” few questioned the evidence cited in support of his arguments.”

Simpson went on to show that McFeely had failed to acknowledge much historical evidence that contradicted his “personality profile” of Grant.

     Biographies that “bring a person to life” are without doubt the most interesting to read. Certainly, historians should find the tools of psychology important in historic interpretation. But, historians need to be careful in becoming so convinced that they know the minds of their subjects that they present their interpretations as fact. All of this is a prelude to my critique of Christopher Phillip’s 1990 biography of Nathaniel Lyon, which will be forthcoming. As we head into the sesquicentennial, here in Missouri there are planned re-enactments of critically important events such as the Camp Jackson affair and the Battle of Wilson’s Creek. There will be much focus on the fiery Connecticut Yankee, Nathaniel Lyon, a central and controversial figure in the unfolding drama of the Civil War, particularly here in Missouri. Phillips “mined the archives scrupulously,” much like McFeely. (It’s interesting to note that in his Preface, Phillips cited McFeely as one of several people who “read parts of the draft and helped me iron out some rough spots, both conceptual and mechanical, and…lent critical eyes to the do’s and don’t’s of biography.”) Phillips’ interpretation of Lyon has been widely accepted and has found its way into the works of respected historians since its publication. Phillips, as much as any biographer whose work I personally have read, put his subject “on the couch,” so to speak, and found a dark and disturbing personality.

01/22/11

Should the NPS Allow Re-enactments that Include Flying Secession Flags Over Federal Sites?

     Someone I know asked me yesterday why the National Park Service allowed the Stars and Stripes to be lowered and replaced by a flag of secession at an NPS site. I hadn’t heard about this, but the event happened at Fort Pulaski National Monument on January 3. It was touted as a re-enactment of what occured 150 years ago when Georgia Governor Joseph Brown ordered state militia troops to occupy the federal facility. No shots were fired that day in 1861, because the fort was only manned by two caretakers. The State of Georgia had not even officially seceded, but the Governor was an ardent secessionist. According to this article:

“After President Abraham Lincoln’s election, Brown called on Georgia to follow South Carolina out of the Union, warning of the dangers of abolition that would lead to miscegenation and racial equality. He ordered the seizure of the undefended federal Fort Pulaski even before a popularly elected convention voted by a narrow margin to secede. The popular secessionist governor may well have tipped the balance in the Deep South state that was least inclined to leave the Union in 1861.” 

     Robert Moore argues on his blog that there were charges of voting fraud at the Georgia secession convention; that the common Georgian was “misrepresented” by the delegates, many of whom were slaveholders.  Craig Swain also has an excellent post about the siezure of Fort Pulaski here. 

     The news coverage of the re-enactment that I can find (video here and articles here, here and here.) say nothing about why the state siezed a federal facility, other than its strategic location and that federal troops might actually decide to occupy it. Why was Governor Brown so afraid of the federal government? There is no mention of the issue of slavery that I have found. There is no questioning of what the legalities were of a state Governor ordering the seizure of a federal facility. Let me make this clear: Fort Pulaski (just like Fort Sumter) was the property of the United States of America, and therefore belonged to ALL the people of the United States. The federal government rightly viewed siezures like these occuring in various states, as an internal insurrection. Perhaps these issues were discussed as part of the program, I don’t know.  

     A ranger that is quoted in one of the articles says it is not even clear if the secession flag raised by the re-enactors was the actual flag the original militia raised at the fort that day in 1861. The ranger is also quoted as saying: “We felt like we needed to do something to honor this historic event.” The Superintendent is quoted as saying:

     “The conflicting loyalties of the Civil War taxed those who lived through it, and even today, the issues defy easy answers,” continued Superintendent Wester. “It is appropriate that we honor the events of the past, and reflect on what they mean to us today.”

     The person who questioned me about this didn’t think “honor” was an appropriate word. From my own point of view, I am reminded of when I worked at Wilson’s Creek NB and it was asked a few times, “If this was a Confederate victory, why don’t you fly the Confederate flag in front of the visitors center?” My favorite response from another ranger: “Well, you wouldn’t fly the Rising Sun over the Arizona would you?”

   Is the proper flag, the flag of the United States, again flying over Fort Pulaski? I don’t know. Was this re-enactment appropriate? How many more re-enactments such as this are we going to see in the next few years? And, what exactly do these events of the past mean to us today?

01/15/11

Slave Auction Held in St. Louis

It was a cold, gray morning in St. Louis as a crowd gathered to witness the first slave auction held on the Courthouse steps in nearly 150 years. As I said in an earlier post, this re-enactment was the project of Lindenwood University Professor Angela Da Silva, who has done living history as a slave woman for several years. I think there were about 300-400 people in attendance, but I’m guessing and I’m not good at estimating, so take it for what it’s worth. I will say that many, a majority, were African-American. I stayed behind the crowd for the most part and tried to listen and observe not only the program, but the reaction of the crowd as well.

There were a few people protesting, a couple of people quite loudly. One man, with the only sign, kept hollering that it was all a lie; that slavery was murder. He shouted out, “Do like you really did! Take her clothes off! Rape her on the steps! Beat on ‘em!” Another man conversed with a city police officer and I heard him say he objected because this “glorified” slavery. Most of the crowd, however, listened respectfully, and after the re-enactment, all were invited into the courthouse to discuss what they had seen and felt. 

Prof. da Silva explained that she is the descendent of Missouri slaves; that she has been teaching Missouri history for thirty years; that her inspiration is her own grandmother, who taught her that African-Americans should be proud that they had survived the ordeal of slavery. She explained that she believed these programs are necessary because if African-Americans don’t step up and tell their own story, it is left to someone else, who may not tell it accurately. Most importantly she said she wanted to do this at this particular time, so that as we begin the sesquicentennial, slavery is the focus; slavery is shown to be the cause of the war that cost the lives of over 600, 000 Americans.  She thanked the National Park Service for bravely agreeing to host and participate in this program. 

The re-enactment was probably as accurate as it could be in a modern setting for a modern audience. It did not follow the “last slave sale” narrative. (See my previous post) I’m not African-American, so I would not presume to tell anyone else how they should feel about this. I will say that no matter how accurate this portrayal was, we can never really put ourselves completely in that time. We have 150 more years of human experience intervening, and we have our own modern day values and mores ingrained in us. I’m somewhat reminded of battle re-enactments. Again, no matter how careful re-enactors are, down to the thread count of their shirts, the experience will never truly be the same as what Civil War soldiers experienced. Do I think living history programs and re-enactments are worthwhile? Yes, I do, if they bring visitors to the park, particularly visitors who don’t normally come to the park, and if the visitor makes that emotional and intellectual connection. Most of all does the program make a visitor think?

You can find more up close photos here.

Also, my friend and co-worker, Abbi Telander posted her thoughts on this on her blog. I highly encourage you to read her post.

Update: After a couple days reflection, a few more thoughts here.