Blog of the Week, Vol. 1, No. 11

     Blogging is an exercise which really has no definite rules. There are a lot of blogs out there, but I tend to stick with certain ones such as history. Blogging has also been around for a long time on the Internet and while the younger generation is not blogging like they used to as they flit among the  social media pages in search of the next new thing, there are plenty of people who continue to blog because it is one of the best information transferring systems on the Internet for academic types. In fact, more of those people or groups are still beginning to enter the blogosphere and one such is the Organization of American Historians.

     Recently, the OAH began its blog, Process. This is a blog that is open to all of its members to use as a means of sharing their thoughts. Unlike most blogs which are forums for their creators, Process is one where potential contributors send in their pitch for a post. They are then commissioned by the staff concerning a topic and after the post is written, it gets reviewed. So basically what we are seeing is a peer reviewed blog which means the information is going to be accurate which is not the case for many bloggers out there.

     Process began on March 2nd, 2015 and runs one to two posts a week. Comments are welcome and moderated which makes this a far better place for actual intellectual conversation than the insult fests over on HNN. The topics are not solely historical. Teaching is a featured topic and current events are often explored through a historical lens. The range of history runs all fields too.

     I think this is a very welcome addition to the OAH stable of publications. One of the greatest things about being a historian is when your voice is heard. The OAH has been working hard to create platforms for that purpose. The Journal of American History, The American Historian, and now Process form a trio of platforms that allow multiple voices to be heard without one having to be a professor at a D1 university for twenty or more years.

     With that in mind, if you are looking for information portals, consider Process. I have not been disappointed since it began to appear. History is such a huge field and there are so many perspectives out there. The posts have been nothing short of intriguing as all kinds of subjects have appeared in the blog. Process allows for the creation and distribution of inforamtion with its historical background shortly after it occurs whereas the print publications are often being developed months if not more than a year before it sees print. This is why the OAH having this blog has made what I think is a substantial step toward maintaining relevancy in our field.

     This is the information age and as a result we want information on current events quickly, not months later. Blogs are excellent platforms for that information and Process is rapidly establishing itself as an academic cutting edge blog for accurate information distribution. So go to http://www.processhistory.org/ and see for yourself. Be prepared to learn!

The Mad Historian's Athenaeum, Vol. 1, No. 11

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. xix + 909 ppg.

            This volume of the Oxford History of the United States came out in 1988 and was the second volume to be published in the series. James McPherson, George Henry Davis ’86 Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton University, won a Pulitzer Prize for penning this outstanding contribution to American Civil War history. At the time of its release, Battle Cry was immediately acclaimed at the definitive one volume work on the Civil War. McPherson, a lifelong student of the Civil War, managed to compile an outstanding overview of the lead up to the conflict as well as what happened during the war in 900 pages. The downside was that it was only an overview, not a detailed in depth series of volumes on every aspect of the war. Of course, that project would be one in which several historians, specialists in researching various aspects of the Civil War, would rival any history of the war to this date.

            There are two major problems with this work. One is that as an entry in the Oxford History series it focuses almost exclusively on the Civil War itself. It does not cover other aspects of American history from 1848 to 1865 except as they relate to the central conflict. Yes, the conflict was the central story of that time period, but there are other stories that need to be included in an American History volume covering that period. McPherson does mention class, race, and gender in this history, but he doesn’t go into them except as pertains to the war. Granted, he would not have had a great amount of research available during the 80’s to work with comparable to now, 2013. As a result, the book appears to be dated from a modern historiographical point of view.

            In addition, the book is now twenty-five years old and is showing its age in spots where newer research has changed the interpretation of the facts. This is not McPherson’s fault because it is the fate of all historical works. However, while I think the book could stand a good revision to keep it current, McPherson decided in 2003 that he would not write a revised version. Looking at McPherson’s body of work, it is clear that he has written many works on the Civil War for more than forty years and added to his own legacy. I think he is going to leave the project to other historians. We also have to consider whether a one volume book should exceed 1000 pages which would almost certainly happen if Battle Cry were to be revised. 

            Even with these two criticisms, Battle Cry remains an excellent condensed Civil War history. What really made this book stand out from others was the amount of detail given to the cause of the war itself. When we recall the period of time McPherson was working on the book, we have to remember that the Lost Cause myth was still prevalent as the dominant explanation of the war. Battle Cry helped end that erroneous and racist interpretation which deliberately obscured the real history of the war and its cause. McPherson had done extensive research on the United States Colored Troops earlier in his career and he made good use of that knowledge in Battle Cry. The subject was not shoved under the rug, nor was the massacres and murders that took place when black troops surrendered. He also brought up the fact that Confederates hated the USCT with a passion which only serves to drive home the racism of the period. 

            Those looking for a detailed analysis of the battles will be disappointed as McPherson devotes most of the pages to why the battles took, and what the results and effects were after them. Since Battle Cry is an overview of the conflict, deeper analysis of the battles awaits the reader in over books. Instead, McPherson weaves the history of the conflict in the various theatres around the battles to show the overall tempo and pace of the war. This strategic analysis results in a book that is not bogged down in battles, but rather one where the flow of a campaign is laid out as it affected everything around it. Commanders get quite a bit of attention as well as politicians. The anti-war effort of the Copperheads and Peach Democrats are explored as is the last ditch attempt at national preservation in the South via allowing blacks to fight for the Confederacy which came too late for the few units to enter combat. 

            All in all, Battle Cry is still a worthy book to read and a good volume in the Oxford series. As already explained, a revision is necessary and without one over time another one volume history will eventually supplant this as the best overview of the war. It is far more likely that a double volume or trilogy will end up taking its place as it will incorporate additional subfields of American History as well as giving additional space to other historian’s areas of interest. With that said, we must remember that McPherson’s themes throughout the book are still just as relevant today as they were in 1988. Nothing has changed in that regard. Additional research over the last twenty-five years has only strengthened McPherson’s assessment of the cause of the war as well as how the events played out. This makes Battle Cry a durable and still preeminent Civil War history.  

     Update: I think the relevance of this book is such that its use by instructors in high schools and colleges across the nation has made an impact on how we perceive the Civil War. Judging by the screams and howls of indignation at the removal of the CBF in South Carolina and the massive attacks by people against symbols of the Confederacy and racism, I'd say James McPherson's book has played a pretty big role in establishing a factual based history in the minds of people. That is a great thing. This book has been used as the textbook for a lot of Civil War classes and I would have no issues using it myself in a course. 

     McPherson has written a lot about the Civil War so we could use his works to build a pretty solid CW library. Dated as the book might be, it is still right on target with its information. So if you have a neo-confederate in the family who wants to fly the CBF and really has no clue about the Civil War, a copy of Battle Cry of Freedom would make a great gift for any occasion!

Tilting at Windmills, Vol. 1, No. 10

The AP American History Course 

     Last year a great big ruckus was raised over the AP American History course. It seemed to some people that the course was not including as much "indoctrination" type history as it used to which of course was not in alignment with their way of thinking. Quite a few people jumped on this bandwagon and began to decry the new standards. Even state legislators made a pitch to prevent this course from taking place in their states. As is usually the case, the entire affair turned out to be just another entry in the culture wars. However, the root of the complaint turned out to be something else.

     After doing some digging, the complaints about the AP American History course seem to have come from one individual, Mr. Larry Krieger. This individual started lodging complaints about the course saying that it omitted the Founding Fathers, religion, founding principles of the nation, and many individuals like George Washington. One of my fellow bloggers, J.L. Bell who runs the Boston 1775 blog ran a nice series on this subject. I highly recommend you read his series of articles and the comments. Boston 1775 First AP entry of Four

     Basically to condense this, Mr. Krieger was trying to manipulate the information because he stands to lose money with the new AP History Course. Mr. Krieger is the founder of Insider Test Prep, a company that makes test guides for AP courses. Insider Test Prep The College Board who runs the AP History course made changes in the format which basically eliminate Mr. Krieger's test guide from being of any use. Instead of memorizing facts which was the way the course operated in the past, the newer course requires analytical thinking. In short, the pedagogy involved with teaching the course changed.

     As an American History teacher who has taught the survey course in a community college setting, I have left the old lecture model behind. It does not engage students in any meaningful learning. There is a reason why students hate history. The lectures are boring. They serve no purpose. There is no real learning going on with a lecture model based course on history. This is the old AP model and the system the tests were built on. New AP American History

    The new model is inquiry based learning. Lecture is still involved, but should be minimized. The emphasis is now on why events happened in the past. Memorization of facts is still important, but unless one understands the context involved, the memorized facts are pretty meaningless. Since the argument over the Confederate battle flag and the Civil War is still ongoing, let's look at that from the new AP model. 

     Under the new model, the emphasis is now on why the Civil War started and how. A student should be able to say why it occurred and how events took place that led to it. In other words, they should be able to employ analytical thinking in developing their answer. Since the answer is slavery, the students should be able to describe why slavery was the cause. This is also why many of the rag wavers have problems with this. One cannot say state's rights was the cause because when analytical thinking is employed it becomes pretty apparent that state's rights had nothing to do with the cause of the Civil War at all.

     I think that's a pretty good reason why the new pedagogy is better for the AP American History test as well as for any history course. You can memorize all the facts you want, but unless you can put them to use in answering analytical questions it is nothing but trivia. Guess what? Students love history in this new pedagogical model. They embrace it. They learn history. They develop their critical thinking skills which are what employers want more than anything else. How do we know this? The employers told us that is what they want! What Employers Want

     So as a result, I am constructing every class I teach around analytical learning. This is not easy and it takes some work to do. Yet, my students are telling me that this is what they want. Mr. Krieger may not like it, nor may many of the people that failed to look at the facts when he started his whining, but Mr. Krieger seems to be more interested in his financial profits than student learning. I have a REALLY BIG issue with that and so should you. 

    

According to Jim, Vol. 1, No. 10

 

Using Facts: Use Them or Do Not Bother 

     As we continue to work through the Civil War period I have been showing my students the causes of the conflict. I have always told them that they should rely on facts to make their choices on anything because facts matter. The cause of the Civil War is pretty simple, yet has been distorted by many people even before the conflict ended. Most of the time this distortion is in conjunction with political ideology of the time period in question. Today's distortion reflects that quite well. Unfortunately, there remains a large number of people who prefer to ignore the facts and rely on beliefs which means they are willfully ignorant of the cause of the Civil War.

     As I ask my students, "What cause the Civil War?" let us look to what the people of the past said. I point out to students that when they examine a source for information they need to examine the entire source, not just one part of it. That source needs to be placed in context with the events surrounding it and matched with other sources to build a larger picture. If they take one sentence from a source, it is not representative of the entire document nor of the larger group or groups of people in the time it was created. It could be representative of the document if said source can be summed up in that sentence. That is rarely the case though. 

     To use one sentence or part of a source while ignoring the rest of the source, especially if the rest of the source contradicts the sentence is known as cherry picking. To purposely disregard everything else that contradicts the sentence is a distortion of the factual record and a grave misrepresentation. Historians are trained not to do this. They are trained to use the historical record in its entirety or as much as they can access when making interpretations. This is where the historian differs from a hack or psuedo-historian wannabe. 

     Far too often, especially when dealing with the cause of the Civil War I see gross misrepresentations where people use a sentence from a source to support what they say. In many cases they are wrong and in essence lying about what they are trying to say. In the case of the Civil War, the facts show that slavery was overwhelmingly the cause of the conflict. There are those that say state's rights was the cause of the Civil War, not slavery because there was no way that many men would fight for slavery. Yet, when we examine the primary sources, it becomes very clear that slavery was the cause.

     So why do people insist on something else? Most of the time it is because of their ancestry. They do not wish to believe that their ancestors fought on the behalf of something so vile as slavery. They will cherry pick through the sources and pull up bits and pieces to support a fantasy that falls apart when the facts are shown. A case in point lies with a few documents known as the secession declarations or ordinances of secession. These sources were created by the delegates of the state conventions that voted to secede from the United States. 

     Here is what is so amusing. Those people of the Civil War era wanted everyone to know why they chose secession. They were clear about it. Every one of the documents shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery was the reason they chose to secede, specifically the expansion of slavery into the western territories. However, those that want you to believe something else caused slavery will ignore those documents or pick out the pieces that do not list slavery. We see this happen all the time. 

     So, that's where having the primary sources digitized comes in handy. A quick visit to the Avalon Project gives us some primary sources like these here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp You will find links to many state papers of the Confederacy plus four of the secession declarations including that of South Carolina, the first state to secede. Being the technological savvy instructor I am, I went straight to that source and put it on the screen for the class to see. 

     Going through the document line by line reveals something. Specifically that slavery was why the delegates chose to secede. It is pretty plain. A word search reveals the word slave or slavery is listed in the document 18 times. The word right is listed 19 times with six of them being in conjunction with slavery. The other uses of the word revolve around the attempt to establish the compact theory of government where states are in a compact with the federal government. 

     Now, in reading this document one might think that the compact theory was accepted at that time. This is of course erroneous which is why sources have to be set in context. If one were to rely on the document alone, it would stand. However, was the compact theory accepted constitutional doctrine at the time which is what some people try to say it was? The answer is no. How do we know this? Because of other sources which clearly show that the compact theory had been proposed and rejected multiple times.

     There were three Supreme Court cases that dealt with the compact theory before the Civil War and in all three cases the Court rejected the theory as the basis of government and instead stated that the source of the government's power was through the people and could not be negated by the states. These cases are Chisholm v. Georgia, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, and McCulloch v. Maryland. So when you look at the South Carolina secession document knowing that the Supreme Court had ruled against the compact theory (Thomas Jefferson be damned!), it is pretty clear that the delegates were basically ignoring the Constitution and trying to give their ideas credence.

     Fortunately, they failed. So there really is no reason for anyone to believe the Civil War was caused by state's rights. Why? The people of the past told us why they seceded. When they tried to say their choice was their right, they were deliberately lying knowing full well that they did not have that right. Yet, today many people will try to say they did. Sorry, but the facts contradict them. That is why the facts are so important. Anyone can say anything, but only the facts will support or reject their statements. Those facts must be examined in their whole and in context. 

    So when you read something that makes you wonder if it is true, you would do well to check the facts. Unfortunately, too many people do not want to take the time to do so. You might ask if my students believe me...ask them. I showed them the primary source documents so they could make up their own minds. 

    

      As for the general population, here is the challenge: If you think the Civil War was caused by something other than slavery, prove it. Use primary source documents that clearly show it was caused by what you say it was. In other words if you are going to say it was caused by state's rights, show me that state right where the people of 1860/61 said it was causing their decision to secede. Show me the primary sources and explain their context. I just showed where South Carolina's delegates said they had the right to secede which they did not, but that the cause of their secession was that of slavery.

     So far no one has been able to do so in the five years since I first issued this challenge. The primary sources reject their claims every time. 

Blog of the Week, Vol.1, No. 10

     There are a lot of Civil War blogs out there to choose from, but I limit myself to a few. The individuals who maintain these blogs have to meet some of the higher standards I ask of those who study the Civil War. I refer my students to various blogs and I want them to see blogs with factual information, not made up statements. As a result, many Civil War blogs lack credibility and those that do are not on my reference list. One blog that has met high quality standards is Andy Hall's Dead Confederates.

     Andy is from Texas and refuses to buy into the Lost Cause myths and the lies spawned by it. Instead, he requires proof in order for a claim to stand. The Lost Cause fails miserably when held to the light of inquiry. He holds a BA in History and a Master's in museum work. After reading his blog entries for several years, I have to admit that I rarely disagree with Andy on anything CW related. Even when I do it often is just a matter of perspective. Since I will refer something I don't know much about to Andy, I disagree with him very rarely.

     It seems like Andy began this blog on June 15, 2010. I know I've been following it since some time later that year. He has built up a large number of posts and has over 600,000 hits on the blog. He has authored two books, The Galveston-Houston Packet: Steamboats on Buffalo Bayou and his most recent, Civil War Blockade Running on the Texas Coast. Dead Confederates has attracted many readers over the years including some of the usual trolls and neo-confederates, but that only serves to make the forums more interesting.

     You can find the blog here at this link: Dead Confederates.  Depending on what is going on, you may be able to catch Andy giving a talk on the Civil War or one of his books. Just check his speaking schedule. I think this blog looks nice and professional. He uses WordPress and it is relatively easy to comment on the blog. A list of recommended blogs is on the right hand side of the page along with a list of historical sources on the Internet.

     Again, if you are interested in the Civil War and want a blog that is based upon factual evidence, Dead Confederates is a blog you will like. I highly recommend this blog and were I to use ratings would give it my highest one.

The Mad Historian's Athenaeum, Vol. 1, No. 10

 Ed. Note: Every fifth week the Mad Historian reviews a work of fiction, usually from a series of science-fiction or fantasy novels. Even a Mad Historian needs a break from reality!

Martin, George R.R. A Clash of Kings. New York: Bantam Spectra, 1999. 1032 ppg.

            In his sequel to the best selling Game of Thrones, Martin continues the Song of Ice and Fire. Five kings vie for the Iron Throne and plunge the continent into a brawling civil war that wrecks the kingdom. Daenarys Targaryen searches for safety for her followers as well as a means to take back her father’s kingdom with her three dragons. The Night’s Watch seeks to find what is occurring beyond the Wall as Winter comes closer to the land. Chaos reigns as kings clash.

            In many ways, this sequel builds and expands the world Martin has constructed. More characters are introduced and of course, more people die. Martin continues to kill off main characters with glee along with thousands of others as armies fight for control of areas. Duplicity is the name of the game for many as changing sides is explored by weaker houses jockeying for favor. All of the details collide in a literary orgy of mayhem. Martin’s world is definitely not for the weak of heart. 

            For me, this book was the one that sold me on the series. I had been watching the TV series, but following the characters of Tyrion and Arya in the book hooked me. Those two have to survive by their wits as they lack the physical strength and political power to dominate others. In many ways they are the two best characters in the series. The fact that they survive all five of the books published as of yet also gives them some credibility as survivors. They also seem to be the characters that experience the most personal growth. I will say Jaimie Lannister seems to as well although not in this volume.

            Whereas the first volume of the series set the stage and introduced the characters, Clash of Kings is the book that explores the early months of war when uncertainty dominated the landscape. This is the book that hooks most readers for the long haul. It is definitely not high fantasy, but grounded in reality albeit with dragons and magic. Additional characters introduced in this volume such as Tywin Lannister and Bronn really add color to the series. I think the best characters in the series are the ones that play minor roles. Martin takes pains to make them seem real as opposed to featureless literary props that show up and die in the appropriate spots. It gives the series depth and adds a high degree of color to the pages. (Bronn is my favorite character in the TV show).

            If anything, this book has even more adult content in it. Blood drips from every page. Profane men stalk the pages taking what they want from helpless men, women, and children. Rape is a common occurrence which has alienated some readers, but is in keeping with historical events in our own world. Martin is definitely not writing Young Adult fantasy here. Instead, his work tends to echo events of our own past which should make readers inquire as to just how romantic our past was. Chivalry did not exist for the most part and it is in scant supply in Martin’s world.

     Martin’s style of writing continues to be a main driving force. His TV background is very evident with the short POV chapters and I really think that is a major reason why the series has been so successful. I do think the book is a bit long, but then again it definitely delivers a powerful punch. He could easily have written 500 more pages, but then that would have slowed down the storyline and dragged out the events beyond a comfortable point. In any event, Martin delivers an outstanding entry to the series. Fans will not be disappointed with the results.