Comments on: Are Slavery and Emancipation the ONLY Things Worth Studying from the American Civil War?

By: Bobby Edwards

Bobby Edwards — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:23:39 +0000

Very interesting topic, but I can’t understand the necessity of including slavery as an ingredient in interperting the battle. And, more importantly most of the battlefields here in Virginia are excluded from an adequate NPS Interpertation anyway. It’s up to the individual to do due diligence in doing his own battlefield research using all of the possible resources: Official Records, Maps, Book Articles, Magazine Articles, Old Letters, and Regimental Histories. That’s where the Study of the Battle Begins. It’s important to collect material from both sides in the understanding of what happened in the battle.

Over 90% of the Battlefields are Simply fields, woods, and terrain that no longer resemble the actual field of battle, when troops engaged in a life and death struggle. Historians write articles from a variety of sources, and when they paint the picture of action and engagements on a field with their Maps, Charts, and Diagrams, there may be much missing, especially if the original reports are flawed.

I would find it a bit insidious to see pamphlets on Southern Slavery or Northern Slavery, when visiting a Battlefield. Perhaps the Stories or Movies [Gangs of New York] about the Draft Riots in New York following the Gettsyburg could be appropriate at Gettysburg (as a Post Script), but I just can’t see interjecting an Issue that doesn’t relate to the Battlefield. Remember, Men Fought, Bled, Died, Cried, and Felt Pain on the Battlefield. They were not thinking of Political Issues, They were Thinking of Killing Others, of Protecting their Friends, and Of Surviving the Battle. Perhaps, Lawrence Chamberlin expressed it best, when asked why his Soldier Fought. It was Simple – “They Fought for Each Other”.

The Naked Display of Political Correctness on the Battlefield is the Reframing of History. As a Vietnam Veteran Seeing War on a Close Up and Personal Basis, My Brothers Have a Lot of Respect for those they Fought – The Enemy. There’s a Lesson to be Learned There. You will never find me Pushing any “Slavery Message Buttons” at Seven Pines, Ellerson’s Mill, Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill, Savage Station, Glendale, Malvern Hill, Bermuda Hundred, Petersburg, Reams Station, Charles City Rd, Peebles Farm, Jones Farm, Davis Farm, Beef Steak Raid, Burgess Mill, Hatcher’s Run, Five Forks, Dinwiddie Court House, or any Other Battlefield in Richmond or Petersburg.

By: Stephen Graham

Stephen Graham — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:38:06 +0000

As I indicated originally, I expect that the average battlefield visitor has a moderate awareness that the Civil War occurred, i.e., they aren’t at the same level as someone reading Return to Bull Run.

By: marty hancock

marty hancock — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:58:24 +0000

Stephen,
Exactly. No use in preaching to the choir. I respectfully submit that most battlefield visitors are informed also. I would hope that the ones who aren’t would be moved enough by the events, the bravery, and the sacrifice displayed in these battles to seek more info on their own.

By: The Civil War in the classroom

The Civil War in the classroom — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:53:22 +0000

[...] XHTML ← Are Slavery and Emancipation the ONLY Things Worth Studying from the American Civil War? [...]

By: Stephen Graham

Stephen Graham — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:22:07 +0000

How many people reading Return to Bull Run are unlikely to have read some introductory Civil War history beforehand?

By: martybrvt

martybrvt — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:18:10 +0000

I have to side with Eric on this. I think that most neophytes already have the perception that slavery caused the Civil War. While not untrue this is a gross oversimplification. As you suggest, slavery should certainly be a subject at Sumter, Harper’s Ferry, museums, but not necessarily battlefields.
In John Hennessy’s wonderful “Return to Bull Run” he does not preface the work with a discourse on causes of the war or the morality of slavery. He explains how the armies got there, what the leaders were trying to accomplish, then sets up and describes the battle. I think battlefields should present in the same manner.

By: Doug Nielsen

Doug Nielsen — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:34:42 +0000

I can’t even spell civil war correctly. I apologize, one year old twins screaming in the background.

By: Doug Nielsen

Doug Nielsen — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:33:31 +0000

A fantastic question that I’ve actually thought of many times. I have family in Penn and Conn and every cival war exhibit we see highlights slavery. To be completely honest, I believe it is a guilt issue. To constuct a Cival War Museum and dedicate it towards some theme of slavery offers the donor, congressman, etc. forgiveness for past American sins. We are always hearing and learning about our “haunted past” of slavery where it seems France, England and others are off the hook of their imperialism/colonialism.

I also believe the exhibits should be tailored to the “I just drove from Colo to see this and will never be back” visitor. If this means concentrating on slavery than so be it. However, just as exciting is the stories of anti-slavery citizens and their sacrifices towards the cause of ending the act, white and black.

It’s the same idea as WWII? We focus on the mass killings of Jews even though there we many other ethnic groups slaughtered.

We focus on the Vietnam War and leave out the massacres of Cambodia and Laos. Etc. etc. etc.

By: Stephen Graham

Stephen Graham — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:02:46 +0000

Brett,
I fall someplace between Hennessy and Taylor on the subject. Any battlefield interpretation should place that particular battle within the larger context of the war. One part of that context is why the war occurred. It needn’t be a dominant feature at every battlefield, but it should rate the equivalent of a paragraph. One consideration is that each battlefield should presume that at least some visitors will be almost completely unfamiliar with the Civil War and some basic information should be provided to orient them.

With regard to mentions of the Civil War in those sites devoted to slavery, your analogy is flawed. The National Slavery Museum should discuss the war as it is important to the overall subject. Since it is in Fredericksburg, mention of the battles would be appropriate, with perhaps a suggestion of visiting the appropriate NPS facility for more information. But many sites will have no direct connection to the Civil War and thus it would be inappropriate to mention it. Understanding the details of Civil War battles is less important to understanding slavery than the reverse.

I think you’re incorrect as to your comments about the “best customers”. While actual visitor data would be interesting to examine, I expect that the one-time visitors constitute a far greater proportion of the revenue and visitor stream than the buffs do. So the exhibits should be tailored to the one-time visitors, rather than the buffs.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:55:53 +0000

Outstanding post on a fascinating subject. I agree with your take for the most part; another question is that of geography. Many travelers to Civil War sites (such as myself, living in California) come from some distance to visit a few locations, so it would be important to ensure as comprehensive an exposure as possible. That said, I agree that it should be in context to the battle, monument, etc being exhibited.
While the idea of picking appropriate sites to place information on slavery and emancipation is one I agree with, I would also support all sites having some sort of NPS-standardized reference list, so if a patron, especially one who may not be able to visit multiple sites in one trip, wants to learn more about any issue, the information is at their fingertips.
The key point here is dissemination of information to as many people as possible, and battlefield and museum visitors are a huge part of this, as these folks are clearly interested. There is an implicit responsibility to promote learning, so I feel that the opportunity to educate should be seized.