News Coverage

It’s much too early to draw any firm conclusions about what happened on Monday at Virginia Tech.  It is enough if we keep the students and families touched by this horrific incident in our thoughts.  Here at my school we are dealing with a slightly different problem.  We have a large contingent of students from Korea who are struggling with a sense of responsibility for what happened.  Perhaps part of this is cultural, but I have to think that the news coverage of this incident is exacerbating the problem.  The news is constantly referencing the shooter’s nationality.  I have to ask what this has to do with what happened.  Wouldn’t it be sufficient to note that he was a student at Virginia Tech?  After all, colleges and universities are international communities.  It would be unfortunate if the constant referencing of the shooter’s nationality was a way of distancing or minimizing the emotions of ownership or responsibility for what happened; in other words, it allows us to say that at least he wasn’t American.

Check out the post over at Hugo Schwyzer.


New Study of the Civil War Centennial

This is a book that I’ve been looking forward to for some time.  Little has been published about the Civil War Centennial celebrations and even less on its continued influence on the way we remember.  Much of what has been published has in fact been written by Robert Cook who is the author of the present study.  Two essay come to mind, including a recent Journal of Southern History article and another which appeared in the edited collection, Legacy of Disunion by Susan Mary-Grant and Peter J. Parish.  Here is the description for Troubled Commemoration: The American Civil War Centennial, 1961-1965 (forthcoming June 2007):

In 1957, Congress voted to set up the United States Civil War Centennial Commission. A federally funded agency within the Department of the Interior, the commission’s charge was to oversee preparations to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of the central event in the Republic’s history. Politicians hoped that a formal program of activities to mark the centennial of the Civil War would both bolster American patriotism at the height of the cold war and increase tourism in the South. Almost overnight, however, the patriotic pageant that organizers envisioned was transformed into a struggle over the Civil War’s historical memory and the injustices of Jim Crow. In Troubled Commemoration, Robert J. Cook recounts the planning, organization, and ultimate failure of this controversial event and reveals how the broad-based public history extravaganza was derailed by its appearance during the decisive phase of the civil rights movement.

Cook shows how the centennial provoked widespread alarm among many African Americans, white liberals, and cold warriors because the national commission failed to prevent southern whites from commemorating the Civil War in a racially exclusive fashion. The public outcry followed embarrassing attempts to mark secession, the attack on Fort Sumter, and the South’s victory at First Manassas, and prompted backlash against the celebration, causing the emotional scars left by the war to resurface. Cook convincingly demonstrates that both segregationists and their opponents used the controversy that surrounded the commemoration to their own advantage. Southern whites initially embraced the centennial as a weapon in their fight to save racial segregation, while African Americans and liberal whites tried to transform the event into a celebration of black emancipation.

Forced to quickly reorganize the commission, the Kennedy administration replaced the conservative leadership team with historians, including Allan Nevins and a young James I. Robertson, Jr., who labored to rescue the centennial by promoting a more soberly considered view of the nation’s past. Though the commemoration survived, Cook illustrates that white southerners quickly lost interest in the event as it began to coincide with the years of Confederate defeat, and the original vision of celebrating America’s triumph over division and strife was lost.

The first comprehensive analysis of the U.S. Civil War Centennial, Troubled Commemoration masterfully depicts the episode as an essential window into the political, social, and cultural conflicts of America in the 1960s and confirms that it has much to tell us about the development of the modern South.

It would have been nice to have this book as I finished up my project on memory and the Crater.  Click here for excerpts from pamphlets published by the Virginia Civil War Centennial Commission.  While there were plans at the beginning of the centennial to commemorate the battle of the Crater on July 30, 1964 enthusiasm clearly dropped off owing to the Civil Rights Movement and interpretive divisions within various centennial committees.

1 comment

Eric Foner Reviews Freehlings Road To Disunion

The latest issue of the New York Times Book Review includes a short review of William Freehling’s latest study by Eric Foner.  Foner basically summarizes Freehling’s argument, but unfortunately never really penetrates the surface of what is a sophisticated and well-argued book.  More to the point I thought that Foner nitpicked at some of Freehling’s references.  At one point he criticizes Freehling’s emphasis on the role of individual decisions as a salient factor in understanding the triumph of Lower South secessionists over their more conservative brothers in the Upper South:

There is no question that “Secessionists Triumphant” is peopled by a colorful cast of characters, from William L. Yancey, a hotheaded secessionist who tried to inspire Southerners with a sense of nationhood, to James Henry Hammond, a South Carolina planter who preyed on his female slaves. But Freehling’s fondness for individual stories puts undue emphasis on psychological explanations, with words like “frustration” and “rage” sprinkling the text. Moreover, the attempt to assume a popular literary style often seems forced. (Was the pro-slavery theorist George Fitzhugh really dealing in “sound bites”?)

It’s difficult to know why Foner is so troubled by psychological explanations given that Freehling’s book is the result of a great deal of time spent thinking about the motivations and emotional states of these important historical actors.  There are indeed a handful of such references, but I don’t find that they overly detract from the other points made which buttress his central claims.  Perhaps that is not what is bothering Foner:

I think it’s time to declare a moratorium on scholars’ denigrating other scholars for failing to achieve popularity. As Freehling’s own extensive footnotes demonstrate, those much-maligned specialized studies are the building blocks of historical knowledge. Nor is his dismissal of what he calls “multicultural social history” in favor of the study of politics persuasive. Surely, the task of the historian is to integrate the two.

If I remember correctly, Freehling makes a point in one of the early footnotes for professional historians to write for a general audience, which involves a change of style.  Again, I think Foner is nitpicking here.  Freehling does not suggest that the more specialized studies have no place, but that professional historians have resisted taking the opportunity to write books that are readable, but do not sacrifice scholarship, for a general audience.  Freehling does not want historians to write to achieve popularity, but to educate a wide audience.  Finally, I believe that Freehling is trying to resurrect a traditional style of political history that has tended in recent years to take a backseat to social history.  Perhaps in trying to emphasize the importance of individual decisions within the highest seats of government there is a danger of painting a picture that does give short thrift to the kinds of forces at work from the bottom-up that exercise influence.  In highlighting those political decisions, however, it may be worth the price.

1 comment

Order vs. Democracy

You never know how a planned class discussion will go or the direction it will take.  Today my survey courses explored some primary sources which lay out American foreign policy in the late 1940s.  I asked my students to think about the challenges that emerged by the end of WWII and how those challenges sent the United States down a very different path compared with its response to WWI.  I show clips from videos about the Red Scare and HUAC meetings along with images of hydrogen bombs and the classic "Duck and Cover."  In class today we read through Harry Truman’s 1947 address (Truman Doctrine/Containment) to Congress in which he asks for $400,000 400 million dollars to be used to help the nations of Turkey and Greece deal with civil war and the "threat" of communism.  It’s a fairly easy document for students to interpret and it beautifully sets up this country’s foreign policy for the next 50 years.  We talked about this along with the question of what responsibilities the United States was faced with in the aftermath of WWII.  In short, students had to think about what kind of world the United States was attempting to bring about through its actions? 

As we went through the document we came across the following line: "I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid, which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes."  One of my students was struck by the last few words and asked for an explanation.  I asked the class which word stood out and they suggested the word "order."  What is an orderly political process?  A few of the students suggested that it is a democratic system, but than another student suggested that it may not involve democracy.  What a wonderful teaching moment, and one that I did not want to slip away.  With the relationship between order and political systems in mind I asked the class to reflect on the war in Iraq as a case study.  We agreed that one of the goals of the Bush administration was to bring democracy to the country, but that at this point it was unlikely that such a lofty goal is still possible.  I then asked the class to think about what they would be willing to comprise for.  Would they settle for a nation that was without the kinds of political opportunities – the hallmarks of democracy – that we take for granted in exchange for "order" and stability.  Would this be satisfactory narrowly understood in terms of what is best for our foreign policy.  We can imagine a country that is stable without the kinds of violence that have grown all too common, but that maintains "friendly" relations with the United States.  One student asked whether both the Iraqi people and the United States would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.  Is order along with authoritarian violence rather than a democracy sufficient from this perspective?  I tend not to answer these types of questions for fear that I may influence their thinking, but I was surprised by how many students agreed with this assessment.  I wanted the class to consider the possibility that American security may have to do with external conditions that go beyond concerns for freedom and democracy.  It’s not meant as an indictment, but as a comment on the history of America’s foreign relations. 

American foreign policy is incredibly complex following WWII.  It straddles both a concern for democracy and freedom on the one hand along with very practical decisions that highlight "order" and stability over human rights.  We didn’t come to any firm conclusions in connection with all of this, but it is nice to know that the class will be able to consider different moments of American interventionism during the Cold War within a wide context that considers a range of factors. 


A Sad Day

All of you have heard about the news coming out of Virginia Tech.  I learned about it during our lunch hour and had to watch a few of my colleagues scramble to touch base with spouses and children who attend school or work at the school.  Every year we send some of our best students to Virginia Tech and I know a couple of people who teach in the History Department.  My thoughts go out to the families of the victims and rest of the Virginia Tech community. 

This is truly a horrible day.