History...Yesterday in the Present

CNN Article

Thousands held at Civil War prison finally get reverent funeral

By Phil Gast, CNN

Updated 6:12 PM ET, Sat September 19, 2015

Some 45,000 men were at Andersonville prison over 14 months; 13,000 died.

Story highlights

• "Funeral for 13,000" remembers soldiers who died 150 years ago at Civil War prison in Georgia
• Events through Sunday will recall stories of courage, despair at Andersonville
• Observances coincide with annual National POW/MIA Recognition Day

(CNN)A simple wooden casket, placed on a raised bier, bore witness for thousands of Civil War soldiers who died while under the guard of fellow Americans.

Battlefields were the places for winners and losers. But survival was the only matter of magnitude at prisons in the North and South, the audience was told Saturday afternoon during the "Funeral for 13,000" at a national cemetery in southwest Georgia.

 

The juxtaposition of yesterday and today was apparent from the beginning of the memorial service at Andersonville National Historic Site: A bagpiper playing "Going Home" led a horse-drawn caisson carrying the ceremonial casket. Sheriff's deputies and members of the armed forces walked in the procession toward the cemetery rostrum. Among those in the crowd were men and women portraying Civil War soldiers and civilians. One woman wore a black mourning dress and veil.

Despite the somber mood, there was a prevailing note of appreciation for the sacrifice of those who died at Andersonville and other prisons.

"It's a great day to be a soldier," said Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel A. Dailey, referring to the role uniformed men played in the forging of a great nation through a bloody civil war that cost more 600,000 lives.

Events planned through Sunday at Andersonville are the culmination of the site's sesquicentennial observance of an often-overlooked aspect of the war: Away from the battles that are famous today -- Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh -- thousands of prisoners endured wretched conditions. At Andersonville alone, nearly 13,000 Federal soldiers and civilian captives died over 14 months. Officials wanted those who fell 150 years ago to finally receive a proper, reverent funeral.

The observance coincides with the annual National POW/MIA Recognition Day.

Dailey, in an address carried nationally by C-SPAN, praised descendants for keeping alive the memories of those who died in the prisons.

He told the story of Sgt. Christian Kephart, a father of four girls who enlisted with the 13th Pennsylvania Cavalry in 1863. Kephart survived Andersonville but died of dysentery at another camp.

No one knows why he enlisted. Was it for an enlistment bounty? To save the country? End slavery?

Only about 1% of Americans serve in the military today. Dailey referenced the POW/MIA flag flying above the cemetery. Since the Civil War, he said, the United States has learned to provide humane treatment for prisoners, including enemy combatants.

Read more: Civil War prisoners clawed for survival

Speakers reminded Americans of the ordeal the soldiers went through. And they prayed to the creator.

"Here at Andersonville, we are suffering from what we have forgotten," said Judson Mitcham, poet laureate of Georgia. "Tell us again how to praise and grieve and witness. Give us this day, forgive us our trespasses."

Officials hope that visitors don't see the weekend events just as a history lesson. There are larger questions of how soldiers transition to civilian life. How a nation binds its wounds after war and tells the story of those who were held captive in all wars. 

Eric Leonard, former chief of interpretation at Andersonville, told C-SPAN that the number of prisoners proliferated after an exchange system broke down, partially because the Confederate government would not agree to exchange African-American captives.

At first, many prisoners that were moved by train from Virginia to Andersonville believed that conditions would be better. But the stockade's main stream quickly became polluted. Officials had no real understanding of how germs and disease spread. They channeled water to create a latrine, hoping the flow of the creek would "flush" the toilet.

"They ... completed the perfect breeding ground for dysentery," Leonard said.

Blog of the Week, Vol. 1, No. 18

     Due the the fact I have a large number of Civil War blogs on my list, I try to highlight the other blogs that don't cover that period exclusively. This week I want to focus on something a bit different. I am going to highlight a site that is a collection of blogs focusing on the liberal aspect of modern politics. To be fair, I will focus on a conservative site which is very similar in its delivery of information next week. I find that in today's charged political atmosphere it is very useful to read a diverse flow of information which features far more fact finding than the political rhetoric which spills across debates, news reports, and social media. (Note: I do not endorse the political views found in the New Republic nor any other site. I am merely featuring the site and as I said, I will feature a conservative site next week).

     The main reason I focus on this blog this week is due to the historical elements in some of the blogs found here. As many know, Sean Wilentz wrote an entry for the New York Times,  Constitutionally, Slavery is no National Institution  which has ignited a firestorm of criticism. Wilentz has written for the New Republic in the past, but his latest NYT entry has generated negative entries in the New Republic. I find that interesting on its own, but it also highlights the fact that this site does feature a good amount of entries that have serious historical information in them.

     Other than that, the site is a heavy liberal site. The blog entries are from a strong group of writers of diverse fields and offer some interesting viewpoints.  I really shouldn't say liberal as much as I should say progressive as the site does not stint on criticizing Democratic politicians when necessary. As a media group that has existed since 1914, it has obviously been around for a long time and changed over the century of its existence.

     The site I am looking at is only the online side of the New Republic. It has existed in magazine form for a long time, but the changes in magazine publishing over the last few years have wrought immense change in the New Republic for several years. Long time editors resigned in December of 2014 over the changes as new ownership has been working to make changes in the publishing and marketing of the magazine.

     In addition to these changes, New Republic has seen its fair share of controversies as plagiarism and falsification of facts and stories have been major issues for many years. That this is ongoing issue across the board in journalism escapes no one's attention. The magazine's circulation has dropped significantly since 2000, but then so has everyone's which is why many changes are being made. Even the website which has far more viewers than the magazine has had a drop in viewers. No reasons have been offered to explain this either.

      Where the New Republic goes from here, no one knows. I like the information flow from the website, but I feel it sometimes can be one-sided as is always the case with politically charged issues. I do like the focus on some of the issues, but not on all of them. The problem with political aligned journalism is that there is always a bias present in it and the facts are being presented to give the best possible light to one point or another. Of course, that goes all the way back to the first historian, Herodotus, who painted his employers in the best possible light as well. Some things never change, do they?

History According to Jim, Vol. 1, No. 18

Top 10 myths about the Constitution on Constitution Day

September 17, 2015 by NCC Staff

(Content from National Constitution Center. The link is here Top 10 Myths about the Constitution) 

The Constitution is our most endearing document, but not everything you read online about the Constitution is accurate! Here are some of the top myths about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers still out there on blogs and websites.
To be clear, these myths are not about interpretations of the Constitution; they center on people and events related to the founding document.

Myth one: The Constitution was written on hemp paper
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written on parchment. The point of debate is that some working drafts of the documents might have been composed on paper made from hemp, which was widely used in that time period.

Myth two: Thomas Jefferson signed the Constitution
Thomas Jefferson didn’t sign the Constitution. This is the most-popular myth at the National Constitution Center, especially when guests enter our hall of statutes of the Constitution’s signers – and ask where the Jefferson statue is. In 1787, Jefferson was in Paris as the United States’ envoy, and he missed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Myth three: John Adams also signed the Constitution
Like Jefferson, Adams was in service for his country overseas when the Constitution was signed. He was in London as the United States minister to Great Britain.

Myth four: The same Founders who wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution
Only six Founders signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Read, James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Myth five: The Constitution was signed by 39 people
It is true that there were 39 delegate signatures on the Constitution on September 17, 1787, but the convention’s secretary, William Jackson, also signed the document. Jackson was picked over Benjamin Franklin’s grandson as the convention secretary.

Myth six: The Constitution says “All Men Are Created Equal”
That is in the Declaration of Independence. The original Constitution avoided the issue of slavery, counting each slave as three-fifths of a person to determine representation in Congress. The 13^th and 14^th Amendments ratified after the Civil War made the “Three-Fifths Compromise” obsolete.

Myth seven: The Constitution established a democracy in the United States
The Constitution actually established a republic, as stated in Article IV, Section 4. After the 1787 convention, someone asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government the new document endorsed: a monarchy or a republic. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin responded.
A democracy, in general terms, was seen as government by the majority of the people. A republic, also in general terms, added safeguards like checks and balances that ensure that a representative government guaranteed individual rights. Over the years, the use of the words became somewhat interchangeable, and their true meanings are still debated.

Myth eight: An enthusiastic country quickly embraced the Constitution
After the delegates signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787, five states quickly signed it. But then the ratification process slowed down as the anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government and demanded a Bill of Rights, bitterly fought the Constitution’s ratification at state conventions. It took until June 21, 1788 for New Hampshire, as the ninth state approving ratification, to make the Constitution a reality.

Myth nine: The convention delegates were unanimous in approving the document
When the Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, 42 delegates gathered at the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall) for the signing ceremony. Among that group, 38 delegates signed the document, with George Read also signing for John Dickinson, who was ill. Three Founders, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason and Edmund Randolph, refused to sign the Constitution, unhappy with the final document for various reasons.

Myth ten: All 13 states took part in writing the Constitution
There were 13 states in 1787, but Rhode Island didn’t send a delegation to Philadelphia. In fact, Rhode Island feared it would be dominated by the new federal government and thus rejected ratification of the Constitution in 1788. It finally approved the Constitution on May 29, 1790, by a margin of two votes.

The Mad Historian's Athenaeum, Vol. 1, No. 18

Patterson, James T. Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. xiii + 448 ppg.

            Out of all of the Oxford History of the United States volumes to date, this one is the least successful. I do not think that is the fault of the author, but rather the material itself. I am writing this review ten years after publication of the book, and quite a bit of relevant information has emerged on the Reagan years alone to alter the content of this volume. That is the problem with writing about recent history. The shortness of the volume also indicates this as well. It is easily the shortest volume in the series which reflects the information available to the author. 

            Patterson’s previous entry in this series, Grand Expectations was a masterpiece. I use it in my classes because it is well researched and provides a vivid account of the years in question. In contrast to that, I cannot use Restless Giant to the extent of the aforementioned book. This is not to say Restless Giant is a bad book. It is quite good. The fault lies in my own expectations. The fact that I lived during this time period may also be part of the issue because my own memories clash with the history, but this is not uncommon in modern history. Individual perspectives color our views of history we experience.

            In any event, the book is actually a good read. Patterson was unable to dig deep into material or unwilling, but the effect is a surface scan of the last quarter of the 20^th century. For students looking for a beginning point this book suffices. Many of the sources are useful and can point the way to additional materials. The work also serves as a good template for what occurred while leaving it up to the scholars to do deeper studies. 

            It really would not surprise me to see this volume expanded upon or even replaced twenty years from now as more information comes to light or is declassified. That is really one of the biggest problems in studying recent history, especially political, diplomatic, and military history. Far more documents are classified these days than ever before and in many cases will not be declassified until many years have passed. This is a huge disadvantage for recent history advocates because many of the people they could develop information on or with will pass away before their role or roles come to light.

            While this book is useful, it has limits. The events since 2000 have seen a major recession, war, massive social change, and a hardening of the culture wars into two opposing groups. Many of these events have their roots in the 20^th century. The end of the Cold War alone is worthy of a book. The Reagan years have recently been closely examined in substantial volumes. This book is the predecessor to those volumes.

Tilting at Windmills, Vol. 1, No. 17

When developing a course which you will be teaching, you should always consider who you will be teaching.  There is a difference in how different groups of people learn. Many older learners will have to unlearn what they think they know and that involves challenging assumptions and beliefs. This is difficult to do so instructors must plan to take longer in the beginning of the class and develop the lessons so that older learners have a chance to break down those assumptions and begin to develop new thinking patterns. Younger students have been in formal education for a long time and are accustomed to following the lead of the instructors. 

Since I teach primarily first year students in one of the history survey courses, I have to tailor the class for students who may or may not be older, as well as students who are not history majors. In fact, I have to prepare to teach students who for the most part have had little positive interaction with history. They tend to look warily at the survey class with a lack of enthusiasm because they expect to sit through long lectures each class period. Right there I can feel the existence of barriers which must be overcome to transfer knowledge to the students. 

Barriers are major obstacles which exist in many different ways in teaching. For the purpose of this post, let us look at the barriers presented by the students themselves. Age, learning styles, attitudes, and previous learning experiences figure prominently as major barriers on the very first day of class. Setting up a class that addresses these barriers is not easy, but the interactive model or active constructionist model serves as good examples of how to overcome these barriers. To do that one has to anticipate the students as belonging to both groups. Allowing for more time in the first few weeks allows for them to make the transformation process which I think all college students experience in their first year of school. 

One of the key things I find important is to create the course within the Transformative Learning Theory. I will go into this more in depth in another post as I want to concentrate on students in this one. Another key thing that is important is approach the development of the survey courses as the only history course a student will ever take. Consider that less than half the colleges in the United States require a history course in order to graduate with a Bachelor’s degree and you begin to understand some of the problems with civics people in this country seem to have lately. I am grateful to work for a school that does require a history course for graduation and I want to make sure we as an institution of higher learning maintain that requirement.

To do that, I have to step up to the plate as a history teacher and deliver a course with the idea that it is the single most important history course a student will ever take because it may very well be the only history course these students ever take in their college education. I have one shot at delivering a meaningful course that transforms their perceptions of history. Whatever I do, it has to count for something. The key is not about their grades, but to change their perceptions of history. It is not about ideology, but about the way they view history. We as instructors need to instill in the students the ability to appreciate history and to look for facts when encountering history. 

Will students remember what we teach them in one course five years later? The odds do not favor that unless the student is majoring in that field or using the information multiple times. Instead, they will forget many of the details, but remember some of the general ideas or themes from the course. That is where we need to focus the student learning. Not detail oriented, but theme oriented. Teach them to understand the themes and how to look up information when they encounter something they need to learn about. Get them to appreciate history and you may very well see them in another class because they appreciate you as an instructor. To get a non-history major to take two or three history classes is a major achievement. To do that, you have to begin by considering the types of students who will be in your classes and developing classes that challenge them, interest them, and educate them.

History According to Jim, Vol. 1, No. 17

     On this anniversary of the cowardly attack by terrorists in New York City in 2001 and the incredible gallantry and courage of the men and women from the agencies that were involved in the actions of that day, I sought to find something to post that would not be a repeat of everyone else's tributes and thoughts. Finally after much searching I have chosen to write about how an event that is seared in our minds fades over time until it becomes history.

     As a professor at a community college I go over 9/11 in some of my classes. While I can tell you exactly what I was doing that day and what I did, very few of my students can. Consider that an 18 year old student in their first semester of college was four on the day of the attacks. Few of the students can recall what they were doing that day. The older students in their thirties can, but from what I can tell, unless the student was in the seventh or higher grades, most have no idea what took place that day.

     In the years following the attack, the people of the United States embarked on a war on terror and a war in Iraq. The students usually do not have a strong connection to these wars unless a direct member of the family was involved. Very few of them have that direct connection which indicates to me that even though a substantial number of men and women participated in the conflicts, they were a small percentage of the overall population.

    Each year another class of students arrives. In 2019 I will start to have students who were not alive when the attacks occurred. For them the events will be history while for me it will still be just yesterday. I will be teaching history for them, a history I played a part of. This is not an uncommon happenstance. The men and women of each war have become teachers and at some point in their lives began to teach a past they had experienced that their students had little to no connection to.

     I can tell you who in my family served in the military and who went to what war. Part of those memories involve the fact that the draft existed for 33 years for most Americans. Military life was a common theme for many families. Following the end of the draft in 1973, Americans and their connection to the military began to decline. The draw down from the Vietnam War meant a smaller military. Today I ask students who in their family served in Vietnam. Almost none of them know. The same goes for Korea, WWII, WWI, and even the Civil War and American Revolution. Most don't know when their families arrived either.

     In short, I find myself teaching history to students who have little connection or association to the events of history. That makes it difficult to build a personal interest between them and the past. One thing I have noted is that students who know their family history to a greater extent than most have a vastly increased interest in history. The past figures importantly in their minds because they feel a connection to it. This is why I find 9/11 to be something unique that I teach. To do it well, I need the help of the student's families.

      Some people do not want talk about this event or the events that followed it. I wish they would take the time to to do so with their families regardless of their connection to the event. Eventually this event will be nothing but history as time marches on. Soon there were be teachers talking about the event like I talk about WWII or the Civil War. They will have no memory of it and it will be an event they have no connection to. Sharing the tales of what took place that day is a way to maintain the connection and place the event in a context that lives on.

     Eventually a break in the chains that link us together occurs. Often that break is found within the family unit. Today we see our students display a horrible sense of historical understanding. A lot of that can be corrected through conversations at home. Family history is a very important part of everyone's understanding of the past. If people want the past preserved, a big part of that has to be done at home. I as an instructor cannot teach family history. That is part of the family roles. What is interesting is that many cultures kept alive their family history over centuries through oral history alone. We see this in Native American cultures, African cultures, and several others with a strong oral tradition.

     The crazy thing is we have the ability to write our history down. We have the ability to record history on paper, video, audio, digitally, visually, and so forth. Yet, every year I ask students about 9/11 and they have no idea what it was beyond a terrorist attack. I ask about Vietnam and they don't know. And we wonder why students do poorly on history and have done so for a century. There is a failure to maintain the personal connection to the events of the past and that is not the fault of the instructor. This is a fault that begins at home.