This is just a brief announcement to let you know that I am now an Amazon.com Associate. Actually, I joined back in early November. As many of you know just about every book link goes to Amazon only because they seem to provide pretty good deals. In becoming an Associate I earn a small commission on each sale. I chose not to say anything at the beginning because I wasn’t sure I would maintain my membership and I had no sense of whether I would make a single penny. Today I received my first commission gift certificate for $17 which covers the first month. I had a choice of receiving a check as well, but I decided to stick with a gift certificate. I feel pretty comfortable with this program given that there is nothing that prevents me from giving an honest assessment of individual titles. It is entirely your choice to click through and make a purchase.
This was also a trial to see if I could make any money from this site. I’ve played around with monetizing the blog before, but a number of factors have kept me from making the move. First, I do not want to ruin the look of this site with a bunch of Google ads that will more than likely not make any money. There are a few Affiliate programs that seem attractive, but that route is going to have to include products that are not only relevant to the subject of my site, but ones that I can fully endorse. I may put up a couple of 125×125 ad spaces in the sidebar, at the bottom of the page and even before the comments section on individual posts. This is a popular method and one that should not negatively impact the aesthetics and user experience. All of this is still up in the air, but please feel free to share your own thoughts. I am all ears.
Now, if you will excuse me I am going to purchase a book.
Today was one of those days that I live for as a historian and teacher. I spent the day in Virginia Beach with a group of 4th and 5th grade teachers as part of a workshop on the Civil War and historical memory. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Fitz Brundage sketch out some of the salient commemorative themes during the postwar period while I worked with the group on analyzing a collection of primary sources and discussing how to approach some of these themes in the classroom. The teachers were enthusiastic throughout both sessions. It was impressive given that the material can be incredibly difficult and even a bit draining to those who are approaching these issues for the first time. We have amazing teachers in our classrooms and we need to support them.
The president was right to describe teachers as “nation builders.” I wish the general public had the image of teachers sitting around engaged in serious discussion as part of their professional development rather than the stereotypical views so closely associated with our worst fears about public education. So, what were we really doing today in Virginia Beach? We were doing what we do every day in our respective classrooms, which is making a G-d Damn Difference. Now what about you?
This morning I lectured about Benjamin Butler and slave contraband in the comforts of my classroom in Charlottesville. By the middle of the afternoon I was walking around Fortress Monroe for the first time. Now I am ensconced in my comfortable hotel room getting ready to give a talk tomorrow morning. Before I do so, however, I’ve got a few thoughts to share about the Lowry scandal.
Thomas Lowry will now take his place on the wall of shame next to Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Bellesiles, and Joseph Ellis. [I highly recommend Peter Charles Hoffer’s Past Imperfect for a thoughtful analysis of these recent examples of unethical behavior.] It’s an impressive list of some of the strangest transgressions in the field and yet there is something about Lowry’s deed that up til now I’ve had trouble coming to terms with. It’s that feeling in the pit of your stomach that somehow won’t go away and that begs for explanation.
One the one hand the decision to alter the historical record makes little sense. As my wife pointed out to me yesterday, it’s not as if it changes anything we can claim to know about Lincoln’s attitude toward military justice. And even if the date was correct it’s not as if Lincoln knew that he would be dead by the next morning. It’s a cheap and meaningless thrill at best.
I actually have less trouble coming to terms (even sympathizing) with the list of characters mentioned above. Yes, they deceived their families, friends, as well as the general public, but the damage was corrected and the guilty parties were punished and forced to come to terms with the consequences of their actions. Lowry will have to face all of this, but his actions went further down that moral road that is clearly marked, “No Return.” In tampering with this piece of history Lowry treated the document itself and the parties involved as a means to an end. As historians we have a moral responsibility to do our best to get the story right because in practicing our craft we establish a moral relationship with those who came before us. That’s right, we have a moral obligation to treat historical figures as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end. Whatever biases we bring to the table and regardless of whether we get it right we intend to tell a true story about the past. When Lowry altered this document he wasn’t thinking about Lincoln or Murphy. He was thinking about himself.
This is what the slightly darkened number five represents to me.
From the acknowledgments section of Don’t Shoot That Boy!: Abraham Lincoln and Military Justice: “As always, any errors, omissions, or ill-founded opinions are the sole responsibility of the author.” [You said it.]
Update from the Washington Post: In an interview Lowry claims that Archive officials pressured him to confess to the document tampering.
Washington, DC…Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero announced today that Thomas Lowry, a long-time Lincoln researcher from Woodbridge, VA, confessed on January 12, 2011, to altering an Abraham Lincoln Presidential pardon that is part of the permanent records of the U.S. National Archives. The pardon was for Patrick Murphy, a Civil War soldier in the Union Army who was court-martialed for desertion.
Charlottesville's Civil War Soldier at Courthouse Square
This week I will be working with a group of 4th and 5th grade teachers as part of a Teaching American History workshop on the Civil War and historical memory. This time around I am teamed up with historian, W. Fitzhugh Brundage of the University of North Carolina, who will take care of the morning session with a lecture that provides an overview of some of the major themes of postwar narratives of the Civil War. My job is to provide teachers with a foundation of content and skills that can inform the way they teach history.
I have a two-hour slot in which to work so my plan is to divide the time between two activities. During the first hour I am going to introduce the group to documents related to the recent debate in Virginia surrounding Confederate History Month. No doubt most of these teachers will be familiar with the controversy, but this activity should give them a chance to think further about many of the points made in Brundage’s opening lecture. I recently completed a lesson in my Civil War Memory class in which we analyzed the very same documents; the lesson concluded with students writing their own proclamation. The results were quite interesting and perhaps at some point I will share a few excerpts.
The next lesson will explore the question of who won the Civil War through a close reading of a collection of primary sources. I teach the Civil War and Reconstruction as part of the same unit and I try to provide as smooth a transition between the two as possible. In other words, I want my students to see the period following 1865 as an extension of a war that raised fundamental questions about the place of African Americans within this nation. In doing so, we move beyond the overly simplistic image of Appomattox as a symbol of reunion and even reconciliation. The challenge of how the nation would be reconstructed raises the obvious question of whose vision of reconstruction would prevail and within what particular time frame. I ask my students to think about these questions to reinforce the importance of acknowledging perspective and the open-ended nature of certain historical questions. Here is a taste of the kinds of documents that we will explore together. [click to continue…]
Welcome New York Times/Disunion blog readers. I hope you take some time to browse my site. Click here for more information about me as well as recent publications and current projects. Click here for additional information about the black Confederate debate. Join the Civil War Memory Facebook group to stay updated on future posts and other Civil War related links.
A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by Clay Risen of the New York Times to talk about what it might take to make their Civil War blog, Disunion, more appealing to teachers. I’ve been reading it for some time and I am thoroughly enjoying both the range of writers and subject matter discussed. Disunion recently won the 2010 Cliopatria Award for best series of posts. We had a nice talk and by the end of our conversation I suggested that an editorial on the recent black Confederate/4th grade history textbook controversy here in Virginia might be worth writing. I wasn’t so much interested in rehashing the historical debate about black Confederates since that has been done to death. Unfortunately, what has been left out entirely from the debate is the fact that the error came about as a result of the author’s failure to understand how to search and assess Online information. It goes without saying that I am honored to published in the New York Times. Click through to the NYTs and the comments which follow.
I know it’s only January, but I know some of you out there are already thinking about professional development workshops for this coming summer. I strongly encourage you to consider the Civil War Trust’s (formerly known as the Civil War Preservation Trust) annual Teachers Institute. This year the gathering will take place in Nashville, Tennessee from July 14-17. I attended and thoroughly enjoyed last year’s meeting in Hagerstown, Maryland, where I took part in a roundtable discussion on how to use social media in the classroom.
I will be leading two sessions this year. The first one will be made available to all participants, though it will cost a bit extra. The title of the talk is, “Cutting and Pasting Black Confederates On the Internet and In Our Classrooms”. We are going to discuss the textbook debacle here in Virginia, but my overall goal is to use this incident as a case study for how to both search and assess Online information. Participants will have the opportunity to evaluate some of the most popular black Confederate websites currently available. Instructors need to be committed to teaching their students how to intelligently access digital information; unfortunately, this has been almost entirely ignored by the media and other commentators in the wake of this scandal. [Tomorrow the New York Times will publish my Op-ed piece on just this issueon their Disunion blog. I will post the text and a link when it becomes available.]
The second session is titled, “Separating Fact From Fiction: Teaching Glory”. I love showing this movie to my students, but all too often teachers fail to introduce it as a popular interpretation of the 54th Massachusetts and the experiences of black Civil War soldiers. While the movie does function as a useful entry point to numerous issues concerning slavery and race there are factual and interpretive problems. More importantly, however, the script offers a highly selective understanding of the unit’s importance to the Civil War that, in the end, may more closely reflect our collective need for a certain view of the legacy of the Civil War. I explored this in a previous post on the movie and how I use it in the classroom. Participants will discuss the roles of individual characters and we will examine specific scenes from the movie. I also plan on distributing a collection of primary sources that challenge some of the interpretive decisions made in the movie and that can hopefully be used in the classroom.
I am looking forward to this trip. I’ve only been to Nashville once and I have never had the opportunity to explore the many Civil War sites in the area. Information about individuals sessions and presenters will be added in the near future so check back.
This is from Jim in Birmingham: I’ll celebrate my ancestors in north Alabama who joined the First Alabama Cavalry USA and fought the slaveholders in Alabama and served with Sherman on the march to the sea.
And Andy Trudeau, that reminds us: This is not a simple conflict.
Mr. TRUDEAU: No. There are so many complex threads involved here. You cannot say something never happened. And right now, I’m a little concerned that there’s a polarization and that there’s groups that claim it was only about states’ rights. There’s another group that’s saying that it’s absurd to think that a Southern African-American would even consider doing anything to support the Confederacy. And they just block any effort to make mention of that, when, in fact, I don’t think you can deny that some of that happened. We’re talking small numbers, but clearly, this is a very complex community. There are bonds of intertwining trust and friendship between black and white that carry forward into the war. And it’s not unusual, I think, especially in some small units, to find African-Americans serving with their white – I guess you’d have to call them their masters. But it happened – not a lot, but it happened.
It’s difficult to know where to begin with this brief comment. First off, I can’t discern whether Trudeau is referring to slaves or soldiers; this confusion is all too common in this debate. If he is referring to slaves than we are talking about large numbers that were present with Confederate armies throughout the war. Kent Masterson Brown suggests that Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia included thousands of servants and impressed men in the summer of 1863, who performed an array of jobs. As for “bonds of intertwining trust” I think it is safe to say that we are on much shakier ground. I have no doubt that the war probably brought master and slave together in close contact and I have no doubt that certain bonds were formed. The problem for any historian researching this, however, is that there is almost nothing available to help fill in the blanks. It should come as no surprise that I have yet to see a wartime account from a slave that references how he felt about his master while in the army. Working on my article on Silas and Andrew Chandler it is easy to imagine the two conversing about how much they miss being away from loved ones, but I don’t have access to one shred of evidence that might help me to better understand Silas’s perspective. If Trudeau is referring to soldiers than he is simply misinformed, which is unfortunate. I would have him talk to Robert K. Krick about the presence of black soldiers in Lee’s army. [click to continue…]