A Convenient Omission

Dimitri Rotov is apparently very impressed with Donald B. Connelly’s new biography John M. Schofield and the Politics of GeneralshipHe quotes the author who asserts that “Too many writers, unfortunately, treat both the civil and military sectors as relatively distinct and monolithic entities. They presume that the military and political spheres can be readily delineated …” To anyone familiar with recent Civil War historiography this is not a new idea, but Dimitri claims that “This is not just an excellent new biography, as Steve Woodworth blurbs it, it is a new model biography for Civil War historians. Its attention to the cloud of politics enshrouding every general of Schofield’s rank is precedent setting.”  I received an advanced copy of the book some time ago, but have not had a chance to read beyond the introduction.

What is surprising is that given Dimitri’s rants about the so-called “centennialist school” he does not note that this book was published under the editorial supervision of none other than Gary Gallagher.  The book is part of the Civil War America series which is published by the University of North Carolina Press.   Gallagher, according to Rotov, is one of the most devoted of the centennialist school.  (I still have no clue what that means exactly, but let’s leave it for now.)  My guess is that this recent description of the guilty parties would easily apply to Gallagher:

A generation of young Civil War buffs who read widely in the 1960s, has come to the fore under the profound influence of Nevins’ editorial policy. Many of them are now professors sitting on two stools, doing whatever serious research is required by academic norms and lusting in their hearts to write the next blockbuster nonfiction Oprah offering. They don’t fit well into the universities and the universities tend to distrust them.

Such descriptions are absolutely laughable at best.  A quick glance at the series-list suggests that Gallagher has been on the lookout for innovative approaches to the study of the Civil War for some time.  Gallagher has been pushing for a more inclusive study of the war for over ten years.  Perhaps these rants are entertaining for those who are historiographically naive, but my guess is that most informed readers just laugh it off.  Back to Connelly’s biography and Rotov’s claim that the merging of both the military and political spheres reflects a step in a brand new direction, let me suggest that this is not the case at all.  A quick glance at my shelves includes general studies and biographies that go back to the 1950′s and has increased sharply in the last two decades.

Addendum: Apparently Dimitri did give Gallagher credit for the Connelly biography in an earlier post.  Perhaps a revision of the already vague concept of “centennial history” is in the offing.  For an excellent survey of recent literature that covers just the intersection that Dimitri references see “Blueprint For Victory: Northern Strategy and Military Policy,” in James McPherson and William J. Cooper eds. Writing the Civil War: The Quest To Understand, by you guessed it, Gary Gallagher.

0 comments

J.E.B. Stuart: Coming To An Intersection Near You

Oh how I love this kind of nonsense.  Leave it to our popular perceptions of history to bring out the goofy side of us all.  Just recently the good people of Leesburg, Virginia worried about a northerner who purchased a building in town and renamed it in honor of Joshua L. Chamberlain.  Now we move just north over the Potomac to Urbana, Maryland where some are proposing slowing down the traffic on Rt. 355 with a life-size statue of your favorite cavalier J.E.B. Stuart.  And why not, after all nine days before the battle of Antietam he did pass through and while in town attended the famous Sabers and Roses Ball which attracted all of the Southern Belles in the area.  If this project goes through I suggest that the town commission Mort Kunstler to paint the ball in all its glory and romance. 

It is sad that given the rich history of the area the best some can do is beat a dead horse.  So much for imagination.

1 comment

History Detectives

Are you tired of the History Channel’s Modern Marvels, Civil War Journal, or other assorted shows on Hitler’s last days in the bunker?  If yes, than you need to check out PBS’s History Detectives.  The show is now in its fourth season and essentially brings together four investigators who are "devoted to exploring the complexities
of historical mysteries, searching out the facts, myths and conundrums that
connect local folklore, family legends and interesting objects." The History Detectives are Wes Cowan, Elyse Luray, Gwen Wright, and  Tukufu Zuberi.  In achieving these ends the team utilizes both traditional research skills such as library and archival work with modern technologies such as forensics and ballistics.  The reason the show is so successful is that it always begins with the personal inquiry and builds from there.  One or two of the detectives visit the individual or family for a quick chat about their story and object and asks what they would like to know.  From there it’s off to track down leads by going to the library or consult with an expert.  Through it all the viewer gets a snapshot of how historians and other researchers go about doing their work.  Microfiche readers are a common sight as well as dusty volumes in archives.  Best of all you watch as leads run dry and as the team juggles the difficulties of competing explanations.  All the while the personal story is being transformed into a broader narrative that connects to some important aspect of American history. 

One of last night’s episodes focused on a couple from Terre Haute, Indiana.  They were curious about an eyeglass with an image of Jefferson Davis and wanted to know if it was used by an ancestor to indicate their sympathy with the Confederacy.  Wes Cowan took the lead on this one with Elyse Luray in support.  He made his way to Lafayette, Indiana where the ancestors, Mary and Henry Wagstaff, had taken in a 14 year old Confederate prisoner of war who was quite sick.  Cowan also discovered a letter written by Henry Wagstaff indicating his Confederate sympathies.  While this established his political position it still did not confirm that the eyeglass was used as some kind of signal.  After consulting with an expert the team learned that the eyeglass dated to the 1880′s and not 1861 as the family thought.  Cowan ended up in the Atlanta History Center (a dynamite museum with an excellent Civil War exhibit) to talk to curator Gordon Jones. Jones explained that the popularity of the Davis eyeglass reflected the shifting feelings of the white South surrounding Davis and the beginning of the Lost Cause movement.  They included some wonderful old reels of Confederate reunions and mentioned organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of Confederate Veterans. 

Following the investigation the team returned to Terre Haute to report on their findings.  This is usually the best part of the episode as the investigation returns to a more personal level.  The findings are not always positive, but typically some object is returned to the individual or family which along with the findings serves to connect the local story with something much more important and meaningful. (In an episode last week a man was shown for the first time the grave of his grandfather.)

The show’s website includes a section on modern investigative technologies and teachers will want to check out suggestions on bringing the concept of the show into the classroom.  Most of you no doubt watch the show, but if not you don’t want to miss it.  Here in Charlottesville History Detectives airs on Mondays at 9:00pm – check your local listings

1 comment

Calling All Founding Fathers

[Cross-posted at Revise & Dissent]

I am currently making my way through Gordon Wood’s new book of essays on the Founding Fathers, titled Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different.  There are a number of things that I like about Wood’s scholarship.  While his recent books are accessible to a general audience [see The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin and to a lesser extent The Radicalism of the American Revolution] he hovers just below the level of the more popular historians such as David McCullough and Doris Kearns Goodwin.  His books are written clearly, but they maintain a certain analytical rigor that raises the quality of his work to a higher levelThis combination means that I can easily use Wood’s essays in my AP US History courses.  My students enjoy reading his articles, and more importantly, they help with focusing the class on important points of discussion.

Wood’s place just below the tier of popular historians is played out in that wonderful scene in the Harvard Square bar in the movie Good Will Hunting.  In this scene Will (played by Matt Damon) confronts Clark, who is a graduate student in history, and who has just asked Will’s friend a difficult question about the market economy during the Colonial period in hopes of impressing two young girls who are listening in on the conversation.  At this point Will enters the discussion:

WILL: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob’ly, and so naturally that’s what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That’ll last until
sometime in your second year, then you’ll be in here regurgitating
Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming
effects of military mobilization.

CLARK: (taken aback) Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of–

WILL: –"Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inheriated wealth…" You got that from "Work in Essex County," Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagiarize the whole book for me?

It’s a wonderful scene in the movie and as everyone knows this is his introduction to the Skyler character played by Minnie Driver.  This is the kind of publicity that most academic historians can only dream about, but later on in the movie Wood is overshadowed by another historian who turns out lived next to Matt Damon’s family in Boston.  The scene is set in Sean’s office (Will’s psychologist and played by Robin Williams) in which they are discussing various books that line his shelves.  At one point they get to a history book when Will comments: "If you want to read a real history book, read Howard Zinn’s "A People’s History of the United States." That book will knock you on your ass."  If I remember correctly, Zinn’s book enjoyed a few weeks on the NYT’s best-seller list following the release of the movie. 

Even more than Wood’s accessibility, I especially appreciate his focus on trying to understand the Founders on their own terms, warts and all.  His judgments tend to be even-handed, never wanting to simply measure their success morally or politically by our own standards.  After all they did not occupy our world and many of them would have found it impossible to anticipate the logical consequences of their actions. 

One of the more interesting chapters in Revolutionary Characters is on James Madison.  Wood addresses the debate over the apparent inconsistency in Madison’s political thought between his support for the new Constitution and his shift to a states’ rights position by the end of the century.  Scholars have struggled to explain this shift or whether there ever was in fact a shift in his thinking.  Wood takes Madison at his word who maintained to the end of his life that he had remained consistent and that it was Hamilton who had abandoned him.  According to Wood, "There were really not two James Madisons":

How to explain the consistency in Madison’s thinking?  First of all we have to get back to the eighteenth century to understand exactly what he was trying to do in 1787.  It may be that we scholars have been attributing far more farsightedness to him than he was in fact capable of.  In our eagerness to make Madison the most profound political theorist not only in the revolutionary and constitution-making period but in all American history as well, we may have burdened this eighteenth-century political leader with more theoretical sophistication than he or any such politician can bear.  We want him to be one of the important political philosophers in the Western tradition.  If the English have Hobbes and Locke, and the French have Montesquieu and Rousseau, then we Americans at least have Madison. (155)

It turns out, according to Wood, that although Madison called for a strong central government – initially by introducing the Virginia Plan – that would act as a check on the states, he was not looking to prop-up the kind of government that Hamilton and the other Federalists created in the 1790′s.  And that government was nothing less than a "real modern European type of government with a bureaucracy, a standing army, and a powerful independent executive." (165)  There was in the end nothing inconsistent between wanting the new government to check what he perceived to be the "endless quibbles, chicaneries, perversions, vexations, and delays of lawyers and demi-lawyers" in the state assemblies and the creation of Hamilton’s "modern war-making state."

What I find so valuable about Wood’s focus, which also explains why his publications are so useful in the classroom, is that he ignores the presentist obsession with how the Founders apply to today’s world.  Whether you agree with his conclusions and why is worth debating, but Wood forces his readers to step out of the modern world.  We assume they created a government and in doing so anticipated the drastic changes that have come to define this nation’s history.  Another way of getting at my point is in noticing the importance that contingency plays in his writing.  The Founders were uncertain as to what they were creating and differed widely over the Revolution’s success.  Wood constantly reminds the reader throughout the chapter on Madison that as much as his Virginia Plan and Federalist Papers anticipated modern politics that he was still deeply committed to maintaining elements of a pre-modern world.  In other words, as much as they were looking forward, they were at the same time holding on to important aspects of their pasts.  This is an incredibly valuable point to make in the classroom in attempting to get students to think about the dramatic changes that the Founders helped bring about and whose consequences could barely be seen.  I use Wood in the classroom to bring home the importance of stepping out of your own shoes when you study any aspect of history. This to me is a crucial part of the imaginative process that is so important for students of history to grasp.

I was recently reminded of this when I stumbled across a blog for Richard Brookhiser’s new book What Would the Founders Do: Our Questions Their Answers.  Here is a description of the book:

What would George Washington do about weapons of mass destruction? How would
Benjamin Franklin feel about unwed mothers? What would Alexander Hamilton think
about minorities in the military? Would Thomas Jefferson support assisted
suicide?

Examining a host of issues from terrorism to women’s rights to gun control,
acclaimed historian Richard Brookhiser reveals why we still turn to the Founders
in moments of struggle, farce, or disaster—just as Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther
King, Jr., and Bill Clinton have done before us.

In the only book of its kind, Brookhiser uses his vast knowledge of the
Founders and of modern politics to apply their views to today’s issues.
Brookhiser also explores why what the Founders would think still matters to us.
After all, the French don’t ask themselves, “What would Charlemagne do?” But
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams and all the rest have
an unshakeable hold on our collective imagination. We trust them more than
today’s politicians because they built our country, they wrote our user’s
manuals—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution—and they ran the
nation while it was still under warranty and could be returned to the
manufacturer. If anyone knows how the U.S.A. should work, it must be them.

I find this approach to be laughable.  (Amazon is selling both Brookhiser and Wood together for a special price, which is interesting.) The book is the result of the very popular questions that Brookhiser has had to answer on book tours from people wanting to know where the Founders stand on various issues.  I would much rather see Brookhiser respond to the point that he himself makes above which is that people in other countries do not obsess about equivalent historical figures in their own countries as we do with the Founders. Why is that?  Wood addresses this briefly at the beginning of Revolutionary Characters:

The awe that most of us feel when we look back at them is thus mingled with an acute sense of loss.  Somehow for a brief moment ideas and power, intellectualism and politics, came together–indeed were one with each other–in a way never again duplicated in American history. (9-10)

What Brookhiser seems to miss in the basic assumption underpinning his book is that it is a mistake to pick the Founders out of their material/cultural/political/economic world.  The error is even more egregious given that there is no doubt little attempt to understand their world. In the end we learn much more about Brookhiser than anything about the Founding Fathers.  I want to understand the Founding Fathers as they understood themselves
and am not interested in what they have to say to us today. 

I’ve thought about introducing an exercise along these lines in my classes.  The idea would be to ask my students to spend some time debating what various Founders might say about our own problems.  Here is why I’ve resisted.  First, I am much more interested in hearing what my students think about these problems.  More importantly, however, this obsession with the Founders fits too neatly into our tendency to look to others to solve our problems.  Go to any major bookstore and look at the size of the Self-Help section.  It is one of the largest and reflects how easy it is for most people to surrender to others the task of thinking for yourself through both personal and other external issues.

I am under no illusion that the "noble dream" of objectivity is possible, but it seems apparent to me that we can distinguish between historians who take seriously the task of trying to suspend their own values and assumptions about the past in hopes of gaining a glimpse of a very different time and place as opposed to using them for our own partisan purposes.   Historians like Gordon Wood introduce enthusiastic students of history to a group of men who lived during exciting times.  In the process students learn a great deal about individuals who helped bring about our modern world even if they did not fully anticipate or embrace itIt is in that little pocket of contingency and uncertainty where real historical understanding awaits.

0 comments

Museum of the Confederacy In Financial Trouble

Today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch reports the following:

The Museum and White House of the Confederacy, struggling financially for
several years, got more bad news yesterday with the General Assembly’s approval
of a two-year state budget. The museum would receive just $50,000 of a $700,000 grant the downtown
institution had requested for fiscal 2006-08.  "We anticipated a one-time grant to help us temporarily sustain our operation
and allow us to plan a more financially secure future," said Carlton P. Moffat
Jr., chairman of the museum’s board of trustees. "We are disappointed that the
state chose not to grant the majority of our request.  The money was to have been used to reverse the museum’s deficit, expected to
reach $500,000 this year, and for planning.

Behind their financial concerns the museum has contemplated moving, along with the White House of the Confederacy, to a more accessible location. 

Visitation at the White House, a National Historic Landmark, has declined
steadily from a high of 92,000 in the early 1990s to about 55,000. One problem
is that the museum’s small campus near 12th and East Clay streets has been
nearly crushed amid expansion of Virginia Commonwealth University’s medical
campus.

I sincerely hope that the museum and the city can work through these issues.  The museum holds a wealth of valuable artifacts and documents, and their recent exhibits clearly reflect a willingness to consider controversial topics that are all too often ignored. As a historian and teacher I would hate to see us lose all of this.

2 comments