Charles Bowery commented earlier today that he was curious re: Brag Bowling’s reference to “the good general Confederate community.” Who does he have in mind? More importantly, we might ask what Bowling’s vision for the Museum of the Confederacy involves. Thanks to Brooks Simpson who sent along the following link we have a clear statement from Bowling himself that goes back a few years to the Lincoln-Tad statue at Tredegar. This passage appeared in The Weekly Standard:
“Ten years ago I started to learn about my family. I read intensively, everything I could–not just politically correct history but also other history that’s been suppressed. That’s the way this learning process often starts. My great grandfather served in the Army of Northern Virginia as private under General Robert E. Lee. He was at Sharpsburg–Yankees call it Antietam–at Chancellorsville, other places. And like 90 percent of the soldiers who fought for and served the South, he never owned a slave.
“So–just to show you how the thought process works, for people who are still capable of thinking for themselves–so I thought, well, why is that? If the war is all about slavery, why’s he fighting so hard? It didn’t fit, you see, with everything I’d been taught about the Civil War. Like all his comrades, my great-grandfather gave everything he had. Why? He did it for his country. The South had bad everything–bad munitions, bad clothing, bad food. But they had the best men. They gave everything they had. And they did not do that to defend slavery.”
The war wasn’t about slavery for Lincoln, either, Bowling explained. He ticked off the particulars of his indictment of Lincoln. With his generals he invented the concept of Total War, and waged campaigns of unprecedented savagery against noncombatants and private property in the Shenandoah Valley, the March through Georgia, and elsewhere. He was the father of Big Government, vastly expanding the reach of Imperial Washington in ways unthinkable to the country’s founders. The Northern victory was a triumph for a commercial culture, controlled by Big Business, over a Southern culture of farms and small towns that asked only to be let alone.
“It was all about power,” he said. “Six hundred thousand dead. All so Lincoln and his friends could consolidate their power to tell other people how to live their lives.”
I can just picture the special exhibit on slavery. Thanks again Brooks.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is expected to approve $400,000 in aid to the Museum of the Confederacy. See the story here. Apparently Brag Bowling – former post commander – is still hoping for an invitation or opportunity for the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans to exert more influence over the operations of the museum. If you missed my earlier post I have it on good authority that there are no planned talks with the SCV.
"We don’t have to take the thing over, but if there is a way the SCV could exert more influence and help them, we want to do it," Mr. Bowling said yesterday. "I honestly feel they have kind of lost their way and kind of separated themselves from the good general Confederate community."
Thanks for the offer Brag, but many of us would like to see the MOC continue to focus on history and not fantasy.
Matt over at Southern Pasts applauds the idea of emphasizing individual works of history rather than the standard textbook. He rightly connects the possibility of such a move with the spirit of the recent report, "The Next Generation of History Teachers." [I commented on this report a few weeks back.] Matt gets to the heart of the matter here:
History, in my opinion, is about understanding the complexity of human events—the intersections of people and places and things and ideas. Rather than attempting to draw a set of guidelines for the future, students should be pushed to question the past on its own terms. Why did certain people make certain decisions? What impact did the actions of this group have on that group? Do we see changes? Continuity? How does our understanding of the past directly impact the way we make decisions today? Does history really matter?
Too often, textbooks fail to encourage these kinds of questions. Instead, they tend to provide a fairly simplistic “master narrative” of history, one which places an overwhelming emphasis on political history, often to the detriment of other approaches.
I do think it is important to acknowledge that textbooks can serve an important function, especially for students who need a foundation structured around a master narrative broken down into discrete sections. And there are indeed textbooks that do just this and present history in all of its richness and complexity. There is an excellent online textbook over at Steven Mintz’s Digital History site, which could be assigned for background reading as we move through the various texts. Keep in mind that this idea is for my regular American history survey courses and not for the AP classes. I simply do not see how the class could dispense with the textbook approach given the AP curriculum and its emphasis on content. That said, there are aspects of the curriculum, namely the DBQ essay, that forces students to think deeply about the American past.
I am working with one of my teaching colleagues on a list of books that could be used in such a course. As I mentioned in that previous post I’ve been thinking about such a move for the past few years but for one reason or another failed to make the move. Teaching can be like any other job where you grow sufficiently comfortable with a certain process and resist change. I believe it is absolutely essential for teachers to keep their end of the classroom fresh and challenging for their own well-being.
I was pleased to learn that the Society of Civil War Historians is going to expand the scope of their activities in the near future. The SCWH is a small group of historians who meet once a year for a special session at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association. Other than the meeting there is a newsletter that is released quarterly which reports on upcoming meetings and other related items. The plan is to expand operations to include a biennial conference held in late May or early June. While Florida Atlantic University will continue to serve as the organizational home of the SCWH, Penn State’s Richards Civil War Era Center will co-sponsor. Membership dues will be increased but members will receive the journal Civil War History.
I am sure that most people associated with the organization were pleased to receive this news along with a copy of the constitution for their approval. This is a much needed development which should work to bring even more attention to those currently engaged in the serious study of the Civil War era.
A few weeks back Rebecca Goetz shared her frustration after learning that her entire department received a copy of Bedford/St. Martin’s American History (6th ed.). Her post was written more in frustration with the high costs of these book, but towards the end Rebecca hinted that she might drop the textbook altogether next year. I’ve been thinking along these lines for a few years now. My survey classes use The Brief American Pageant by Kennedy, Bailey, Cohen, and Valparaiso. I use it because it is brief compared with other textbooks currently on the market. While it is brief it is an absolutely boring read and my students are at their wits ends. I haven’t read the book in about a year; however, a few days ago I read the chapter on WWI and was appalled. Keep in mind that I am not attacking the scholarship of the authors, in fact I am a big fan of Kennedy’s work. The text is difficulty to follow and it seems to me that it doesn’t have to be. It’s as if the writers of these books intentionally write in a way that will alienate or bore their readers. Why can’t I use books that are informative and entertaining to read? For the interdisciplinary seminar that I am currently team teaching on the Civil Rights Movement we are reading Harvard Sitkoff’s book and the students are fascinated. We asked them to have the first three chapters finished before the seminar started last Monday and at least half had already read the entire book.
What I plan on doing for next year is ordering a certain number of books that cover different stages of American history. The books must be accessible for high school students with a varying range of abilities. Of course, I am sacrificing breadth of knowledge, but I am hoping to push a deeper more meaningful understanding of the historical method as well as content. The history texts would be supplemented with primary sources of every kind. At this point it is completely up in the air in terms of book choices. Perhaps Joseph Ellis’s Founding Brothers would be an attractive read for the Revolutionary generation, David McCullough’s Johnstown Flood and Eric Foner’s Short History of Reconstruction. English courses read works of literature, poetry, etc, so why don’t we do the same in an introductory history course? I can easily imagine a course where students are able to think about different kinds of historical writing such as gender history or the differences between social and political history.
I would love to hear some of your ideas. What would you have me use in the classroom and why?