Kevin Levin's Remembering the Battle of the Crater

Let's get straight to the point here. Kevin Levin's new book, Remembering the Battle of the Crater: War as Murder,  is an exceptionally solid work. The book is meticulously researched, and most important, it provides insights into the ever-dynamic (and my personal favorite) sub-field of historical inquiry: memory studies. The book begins, fittingly enough, with the battle itself - underscoring the deeply ingrained racial prejudices against the black soldiers of the United States Colored Troops. It then traces, through the development of the Lost Cause narrative and the systematic exclusion of black people from the southern body politic, how blacks were essentially written out of the Crater story, not only in the South but for some northerners as well - even though they played a significant role in the bloody attack.

I found the chapter called "Whites Only" among the most compelling. This discussion of how early battlefield interpretation left little room for the commemoration of the black soldiers who fought there is clearly building (admittedly so) on David Blight's conclusions in Race and Reunion. Early reconciliation gestures formed the foundation of the park's development.  In the latter decades of the nineteenth century, northern (white) veterans would travel south to visit the sites of their past battles. In the case of the Crater, they were often treated cordially by their former enemies including William Mahone and others. When meeting, veterans from both sides discussed shared virtues of bravery and fortitude - and significantly noted "all feelings of sectional strife [were] entirely forgotten or blotted out." (91)

These meetings, aiding the efforts to put land aside for the creation of a national park, unfolded against the backdrop of a challenging balance between economic development and historic preservation. Without question - the promotion of tourism loomed large for Petersburg officials - and by 1932, land had been secured for the dedication of a national park. The Crater site (formally a golf course) was added in 1936. A subsequent battle reenactment (in 1937) and the National Park's interpretive signage and literature scarcely noted the involvement of African American soldiers in the Union attack.

This narrow commemorative focus took hold and continued through the twentieth century - into the era of the Civil Rights movement and the Civil War centennial. Early commemorative efforts combined to write a persistent message: reconciliatory gestures and shared racism worked to minimize the sacrifices of black participants at the Battle of the Crater. Only recently has the African American narrative gained a place on the battlefield.

Things that I would like to discuss with Kevin over beers:

Without question the interpretive stance at Petersburg (and many other battlefields) for the longest time framed the war as a white man's conflict. Equally true - northern veterans on missions of reconciliation intentionally played down issues involving race. This book does a splendid job at focusing in on a particular place as an emblematic site of one strand of Civil War memory.

Those who read Cosmic America regularly know that I think this particular strand of memory was atypical in the contexts of commemorative cultures broadly defined. But I admit that it existed in certain times and in certain places. I will also note that this strand of memory is significant in terms of how Americans write twenty-first century commemorative culture that challenges a national racist past. As such, Remembering the Battle of the Crater is an outstanding source, which convincingly shows how groups of people can interpret history according to their needs - reconciliation and economic benefit - and in fact, develop commemorative themes that dictate empowerment.

My bar-stool questions for Kevin (and he will have some time to think about it, we next meet in March 2013): what did the veterans (those whose reconciliatory efforts helped develop the site as a national park) have to say when their former enemies were not around? Were they so cavalier about dismissing racial issues or black peoples' involvement in the war? Were they quite as forgiving when it came to former enemies? How would you define a national commemorative ethos and where does the Crater story fit in?

Of course I have questions...that's what I do. And my own conclusions may diverge somewhat from those offered in Remembering the Battle of the Crater. But all of that notwithstanding, I say buy the book. Read it. You'll thank me later for the recommendation.

K

 

Blogging "Civil War Blogging"

Over the weekend, C-Span aired a panel on Civil War blogging from the Civil War Institute summer conference last June. It featured myself, Brooks Simpson, and Kevin Levin. You can watch it HERE. I have noted more than once that I feel the Civil War Institute is doing some of the best work out there in terms of connecting academics with the public - it is always a honor to spend a week with such a fine assemblage of historians and enthusiastic participants.

Now that I have had a chance to think about it, there are a couple of points on which I would like to elaborate (both Brooks and Kevin have offered their reflections on the panel). I thought CWI director Peter Carmichael did a great job moderating the panel - and posed numerous questions giving each of the chance to to explain the nuances of engaging the public through a relatively new medium in comparison to what some might term the work of a traditional historian. To begin, as I noted during the discussion, blogging is in its infancy - and in terms of blogging as it relates to academic pursuits, even more so. As the medium develops, the questions will certainly change. Bloggers' methods will undoubtedly change as well. While our objectives will surely remain - to engage with the broader public in a meaningful way - how we go about doing this will take various courses depending on technological developments, the creation of new platforms, and any number of other things. At the end of the discussion,  National Park Service historian John J. Hennessy offered some very kind remarks for those of us on the skirmish lines of historical blogging. I thank you, sir.

There are clearly some issues that need sorting out when it comes to defining the academic blogger's role in the context of the profession of historian. One aspect of the dialogue that I found troubling was Pete's suggestion that we relegate some contributors to the virtual cornfield. Those who, sometimes under the cover of anonymity, offer a counter narrative of a dubious nature are seeking to exploit the ease at which individuals garner information from the Internet. Historian-bloggers, by engaging with this narrow, even reckless segment of the public, are thus complicit - we are giving them the space to carry out their aims and whether we like it or not, the implication is that we could be offering up the platform of credibility to those who really have no idea what they are talking about.

At Cosmic America, unless threatening or unnecessarily vulgar, the authors of all comments get their chance to speak their mind (this is the case on my related Facebook and Twitter pages as well). One of the stated purposes of this blog is to unlock the mysteries of historical memory. People's interpretations of the past, whether based on evidence or purely delusional, are the foundation of historical memory. In the 21st century, conversations on the blogosphere  are a vital part of that collective memory - what in years to come will certainly be some bright graduate student's dissertation topic. In answering Pete's question: are we gatekeepers? I would say no - we are facilitators. Regarding the credibility issue, that will sort itself out in time. I always ask people who make questionable claims to offer evidence. They never do.

K

 

The Weekend in Retrospect

Greetings all - time to do a little catching up after a brief absence. Over the weekend I managed to get a couple of important things done. One, I ran the San Francisco Marathon. It was cold, foggy, congested, and the hills were BRUTAL. But I had a good time. This, of course, means that I have now completed the LA/SF challenge - a feat for which I was awarded a giant medal - so I can rest for a while before I take on training for Las Vegas this December.

But enough about me.

I also read Kevin Levin's new book on the Battle of the Crater. I plan on writing a review of this study in the next few days, but here are a couple of very quick comments. I enjoyed the book very much. I believe that Kevin had tapped into something about the battle and battlefield that has gone unconsidered for too long. In terms of memory studies - the analytical backdrop for this book - there are many things here that Kevin and I could discuss. Stay tuned...I will expand shortly.

Finally, I was disappointed that no one knew who this person was - featured in the Cosmic America question of the day. So, if you give up.....her name is (or rather was, she passed in 2010) Cammie King. She played the role of Bonnie Blue Butler in Gone With the Wind. It was a minor part, but pivotal to the plot as I am sure you all know. King was four years old when she was selected to play the young Butler, a role for which she earned a whopping sum of $1000. Actually, not bad for a four-year-old in 1939. After GWTW, she went on to do a couple of other bit parts, including the voiceover for Young Faline in Bambi. And that was pretty much it for her show biz career. Much later in life she joked, "I peaked at five." Here is a shot of King in her Hollywood heyday.

Peace,

Keith

Can Social Media Bridge the Gulf Between Academic Historians and the Public?

[caption id="attachment_2015" align="alignleft" width="236" caption="I may have a few ideas..."][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Of course, I believe that the answer is yes. This summer, I will take part in a panel at the Civil War Institute's annual conference at Gettysburg College with fellow Civil War bloggers Kevin Levin, Brooks Simpson, and Mark Grimsley. The so-called "gulf" is one of the principal issues that I will be addressing.

Years ago, before the Internet opened the doors for real-time access to just about anyone anywhere in the world, the television historical documentary probably stood alone as the medium most likely to serve as the middle ground on which academic historians and an informed public might relate.

In 1996, historian Gary Gallagher, writing of Ken Burns's The Civil War, noted reactions among academics, who protested the absence of issues falling outside the field of military history (such as the home front, religion, or gender themes) and the public, who focused on the military and picked nits over missing campaigns and the prominence of the eastern theater of war. The two groups could not see eye-to-eye.

But Gallagher really went after academics. They, he argued, were "content to speak to one another in a language that [excluded] anyone outside the university community...a sense of "we know best" [permeated] much of their commentary about Burns." In short, scholars were put off by the public's fondness for battles, generals, and narrative integrity. They wanted "real history" as defined by scholars. One might assume then, that these scholars returned to their studies and continued to ignore the public. Perhaps they proceeded with their dense works laden with esoteric language that no one ever read. Who knows?

Has anything changed? Yes indeed. The advent of blogging and micro-blogging (i.e. Twitter) has extended the reach of those academics who are both ready to accept the literate public into their super-special club, and willing to embrace the tools that make it possible.

The limits of blogging are defined only by the limits of the blogger. Not all blogs are created equal. Academics who blog, and there are a number of first-rate bloggers, are successful precisely because of their openness, their consistency, their engagement with the commenting public (regardless of the comment) and of course, their historical content - often defined not by scholars...but by the public scholars seek to reach. Student-run blogs are also worthy of mention. 901 Stories from Gettysburg, for example, brings the voices of the battlefield to the public - all courtesy of the research of Gettysburg college students. The blog has its shortcomings (there is currently no forum open for discourse), but as it develops it is sure to become a wonderful platform for academics, students, and the public to exchange ideas.

Twitter is perhaps the most powerful, but alas, most misunderstood and misused tool. Many historians, historical institutions, and lay people alike miss opportunities to create and maintain informed conversations on historical matters (in 140 characters or less - believe me...it's possible) by ignoring this communication powerhouse. Granted, Twitter can be a number of things - a platform for self-indulgent narcissists with too much time on their hands, or, it can be a media dumping ground - harnessed by would-be marketers for free advertising. Both fail miserably to reach anyone. But with patience and attentiveness, Twitter can (and does) facilitate discourse between academic and academic, academic and the public, and the public with everyone.

In 2012, the University still is what it is (snicker). For now, exclusivity reigns triumphant, and many (but most certainly not all) of its scholars look condescendingly at a public who just doesn't know any better...all the while creating more of the same. But as things change - and they always do - some academics are extending their reach beyond the hallowed halls of academia, breaking traditions, coloring outside the lines, and (if you can believe it) functioning in the real world.

Which means the way we teach and learn history is changing too. Maybe it's time to add my Twitter handle and blog address to my vita. You know...I am not kidding about this.

Peace,

Keith

Yes...I Believe They Mentioned Slavery

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

There has been a lot of hullabaloo over at Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory concerning a recently discovered secession document. We are familiar with other secession papers - those that discuss in explicit detail the threat to the institution of slavery. Well, this document from Florida is consistent on the slavery position...and it has stirred up a fuss.

I would like to direct you to both the posts and especially the comment threads following. Click HERE for the January 10th entry discussing Florida's Declaration of Causes and HERE for the January 11th follow up piece featuring a video by historian Dwight T. Pitcaithley discussing Florida's secession.

I am intrigued by those who insist that this document (and others like them) are presented "out of context" and that southern states were not seceding to defend slavery. I am more than a little interested in what context they are thinking of.

So - if any of you out there can specify exactly what the southern states thought was more important to protect than slavery please do so. And if you say "their rights" you get a C-. I want to know what "rights" (from a white southern perspective) trumped the right to own slaves and why they would go to war to protect them. You can give me the top three...that would do just fine. Anyone who writes me off as a "revisionist" gets a D. I like to go straight to the source and let the secessionists do the talking when it comes to cause.

Peace,

Keith

Civil War Institute Conference 2012

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

[caption id="attachment_1579" align="alignright" width="150" caption="I should have a new battlefield hat by 2012"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_1577" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="The 2011 CWI crew - I hope to see some familiar faces in 2012! "][/caption]

Well, I have officially signed on to do the CWI Conference this coming June 2012. Just like last year, I will be keeping the world up to date with all the usual social media suspects - so stay tuned - it's almost like being there! In addition, this year I will be part of a panel on (what else?) Civil War blogging with Brooks Simpson and Kevin Levin - two first rate historians and expert bloggers. I'll also be leading some discussions concerning Gettysburg. You can bet that I will talk about the battlefield, reconciliation, and Civil War commemoration. Click the tab above for the whole schedule - you will see that I will be in some good company. This is one you will not want to miss - you can get registration information HERE.

Peace,

Keith

Black Confederates. Really? REALLY??

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - I've been on Youtube again. It's a guilty pleasure, really. Last night was a real kicker. I followed a few video "suggestions" to a series of posts on black Confederate soldiers. There seems to be this warped idea out there that there were thousands and thousands of blacks serving as soldiers in the Confederate army. One estimation claimed as many as 90,000 black people shouldered a musket for the glorious CSA. You have got to be freakin' kidding me. 90,000?? That is bigger than the whole Army of Northern Virginia at its grandest.

Now I am not saying that blacks were absent from the military scene. When the ANV (or any other CS army) went somewhere, they took black people with them. They were - you guessed it - slaves. They did what they were forced to do. Laundry, cooking, clearing trees, building fortifications, etc. Slaves were drafted in to Confederate service in others ways too (much to the irritation of their masters). They built fortifications around Atlanta, Richmond and Petersburg, for example. These were the toils of slaves. They were not willingly serving the Confederate cause.

The very idea of this is perverse at best. Imagine - blacks serving a country conceived on the idea of racial inequality and the protection of the "peculiar" institution. Wow. Does that mean that a slave or two may at one time have picked up a musket, maybe - but regiments or even divisions of black soldiers. You think we would have heard of them.

Seriously, I have never seen or heard of a letter written by a Union soldier describing the several regiments of black Confederates he faced in battle. I have never read a newspaper describing black Confederate divisions defending a Rebel position. I am guessing it's because they didn't exist. I mean really, don't you think Ken Burns would have at least said something about this? (Insert Ashokon Farewell theme music here..."Dear Mama - today 90,000 black Reb soldiers marched by...we fear the worst...I have dysentery....blah blah blah.")

Now the prospect of raising limited black troops had crossed a few Rebels' minds. Even Robert E. Lee thought it was a good idea. But nothing of significance ever happened in this regard. Rebels in power decided that if they armed blacks, then what they had been fighting for would have been pretty pointless. Late, late, late in the war CSA Congress finally passed legislation to raise a few black troops as sort of a last ditch effort. And there were reports of a handful of black troops drilling in Richmond early in April 1865. But this was way too little waaaay too late.

Now after the war, some United Confederate Veterans dressed up a few former slaves in Confederate gray and paraded them around, I suppose, to show that the war wasn't about slavery and that blacks were in favor of Confederate independence. Oy. So if you are trying to prove that black people supported the Confederate war effort just stop. Or better yet, show me some real evidence that these thousands and thousands of black soldiers actually existed. Put them on a map, show me the battle reports, anything. Just saying they were around doesn't make it so - evidence does.

Have a look at my friend Kevin Levin's Blog, Civil War Memory for a comprehensive look at this topic - he has spent a great deal of time and effort examining the all claims from the moderate to the bizarre. Another friend, Jaime Martinez just wrote a succinct piece on Black Confederates for the Encyclopedia Virginia that you can check out HERE. And of course, if you have any real evidence that these guys actually existed - please submit in the comment section.

Peace,

Keith