Blog 4 History

I got a chance tonight to catch a re-airing of the History Channel’s Aftershock: Beyond The Civil War. Though I enjoyed the documentary and as far as I can tell it did an excellent job establishing the general mood and conditions of the South and the state of continued violence that ravaged blacks, whites, and Indians, it did so by sensationalizing, and in at least one instance, flat out misrepresentation.

In a small region of North Carolina, a group of Indians and former slaves become bandits dedicated at first to steal from wealthy white plantation owners. The group was lead by Henry Berry Lowry, who became a legend and to this day is idealized as a kind of Robin Hood. According to the History Channel, Lowry was a freedom fighter who was inspired to wage war because of the brutal execution of his father and brother by KKK and Home Guard members out to intimidate innocent law abiding people. And though they were executed, it did not happen as dramatized by HC and nor were the actual circumstances even mentioned. In the scene depicted in the documentary, a group of Home Guard Southerns show up with rifles loaded, take aim at the helpless pair standing along a lonesome road, and fire away in a brutal scene of white racism and terror – which indeed happened time and again in the South during Reconstruction. However, this is not how this particular incident happened. Here is what really happened:

“On March 3, 1865, Allen Lowry and his son William were tried in a hastily organized sham court, declared guilty of theft, and executed in Robeson County. While William was almost certainly a member — and perhaps even the leader—of a gang that committed robberies, it is unlikely that the elderly Allen was involved in any raids. What is certain is that the two men’s deaths sparked North Carolina’s famous Lowry War, a seven-year period of raids, robberies, and murders.” [Jenny McElroy, "March 1865 — Executions Spark the Lowry War," This Month in North Carolina History, March 2008.]

The gang was indeed a kind of Robin Hood band, only they were not interested in helping the poor, freedom, or helping their neighbors. They were motivated by jealousy, and “the riches of their more affluent neighbors became too tempting for four of Allen Lowry’s sons…”

They were not freedom fighters, but as I understand it, gangsters who wanted to “Get Rich, or Die Try’n.” Kind of the 50 Cent of their time. They were, at their core, outlaws bent on revenge and plunder. However, the HC has decided to use their interesting and sensational story as a narrative device.

Tell us about history, show us dramatic recreations, just do it honestly. Just because the idea of the Lowry Gang being freedom fighters who steal from the evil racists Whites and give to the minority poor makes us feel better, does not mean it is a license to make fiction. There is plenty of examples of terror and terrorism by Whites, as properly shown in the HC‘s handling of the Ku Klux Klan in Tennessee and Arkansas. Stick to the facts HC, and stop sensationalizing history, stop Hollywoodizing your productions. You might lose some viewers who want HISTORY!

“I always wanted to become a citizen of the United States and when I became a citizen it was one of the happiest days in my life. I think about the United States and I am a lucky person to live here. When I came to America, it was the first time I was free. It was one of the reasons I joined the U.S. Army because I wanted to show my appreciation.” — Corporal Tibor Rubin

Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor as a child, Tibor “Ted” Rubin came to the United States in 1948, and settled in New York where he worked as shoemaker and butcher.

In 1950 he joined the army, fulfilling his promise to himself to become a “GI Joe.” He shipped out and fought in the Korean War.

Rubin distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism during the period from July 23, 1950, to April 20, 1953, while serving as a rifleman with Company I, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. While vastly out-numbered, he helped to fight off Chinese soldiers but his group was overwhelmed, he was captured and sent to a prisoner camp. There he would again save the lives of his comrades by using what he had learned as a child in a Nazi concentration camp during a 2 year ordeal.

An extraordinary story that I saw on the Military Channel tonight, which is becoming a favorite of mine above some other channels.

I took the week off to get some things accomplished that I needed to, so my apologies for a lack of posting, but I have been taking daily assessments of the blogosphere and noted a few things which I will comment on now.

There has been some controversy over the History Channel’s upcoming Sunday evening program, The People Speak. Last time I checked the History Channel is a privately own company and can decide what programming it wishes to have. I like most of what the HC airs, so, I’m not going to get all bent out of shape over this. I visited the HC site for The People Speak and the premise seems harmless. I like the idea that Democracy is not a spectator sport and I agree with the spirit of the show.

From what I hear, the actors do a sensational job with their readings from American history, so if the show can engage students to investigate history and determine how bad or good our country has been, and do so from various perspectives, so be it.

So why am I writing this? Well, Howard Zinn is widely used in schools (link is a source) and is gaining momentum in classrooms and now in educational Television. This concerns me as Zinn is being promoted as an expert on American history. He might be an expert on American history, but he is an ideologue who has no interest in objectivity. Does the proliferating use of his propaganda – passed off as historical text – mean culpability on the part of those who use him in the classroom? No, I myself use sections from his book A People’s History of the United States (and here) in my AP Classes. I do not assign the entire book, however, and the reading is used with other texts that one would call “conservative.” My hope is that the students can see both sides of the issues we were dealing with.

So how are Zinn’s teachings and diatribes used in the classroom? Well for some it is about “social justice,” whatever that means!? I did some more research and found some startling things. The People Speak is of course a part of Zinn’s push to radicalize educational instruction. His website is all about promoting his books and ideology. Fine, once again, he can do what he wants. Yes, I said “radicalize” because he has already established himself as an activist and has given up objectivity. He wants social change.

Here are some organizations that are promoting Zinn’s historical theories:

Rethinking Schools Online promotes education from Zinn’s ideological position, which they proclaim proudly that, “most of which first appeared in Rethinking Schools magazine or books — are pegged directly to Zinn’s work.” They pass themselves off as an educational resource. They are part that, but mostly part something else.

They do not promote American values and traditions fairly, but instead focus on developing students as “global citizens.” They can focus on what they want, but there is no attempt at balance or fairness in regard to teaching American history and culture. Also, what do they mean when they say “global citizens”? Not what you think, but what do you really think is their goal here? I have an opinion but will refrain from offering it.

They also promote a guide to teaching “Early Childhood Education.” Just look at the table of contents. Taking each one individually, I would not have a major problem with most, but taken as a whole there is little objectivity and there is no attempt at balance. What is the message here? I’ll leave you to decide. I do note that they are switching the focus on our children at a young age, and frankly, this is nothing short of Zinnism and propaganda. They have an agenda.

Perhaps the most startling organization I found described (as the others) as an educator resource is Teaching For Change.

They are in the business of “building social justice starting in the classroom.” Once again, Howard Zinn’s name (and writings) is all over this site. They seek to provide “teachers and parents with the tools to transform schools into centers of justice where students learn to read, write and change the world.”

So the notion that Zinn’s influence is only used as a counter-point or a harmless teaching device is questionable at best. I am sure there are responsible teachers who use his work as a counterpoint, but I suspect they are few and far between. There are movements within our educational system that have motives beyond teaching history.

The greatest concern are the school teachers themselves, the ones who are taken in by the above (and other) organizations that do not promote higher learning and critical thinking. They are promoting an agenda that is deeply rooted in political and ideological views. How do teachers who use these resources really teach American history? That is the question!

I received a copy of Joan Waugh’s U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth several months ago and put it in the “pile” and promptly moved on. Yet 2 weeks ago for some reason I picked it up and looked at it. This turned into actual reading and I am pleased to have done so.

Waugh’s book is exceptional, beautiful, and poignant. Grant has indeed existed within American pantheon as both a “hero” and a “myth.” Indeed, numerous American characters have enjoyed the blessings of heroism and the pitfalls of myth.

I will say here and now that I have never read a Grant biography (all the way through) until Waughs, and I will most likely not read another. And I do not feel compelled to do so. Waugh’s delicate and touching narrative of Grant’s final months and days was truly wondrous and brought me nearly to tears.

Waugh gives as honest portrayal and history of Grant that could be asked, I think. Was Grant a God to be admired on a pedestal, no. Was he a drunk? No. A butcher, nadda. How about, was he a terrible and thoughtless President, no. But he certainly had his faults. My God, he was human. I cannot imagine a better or more even presentation of Grant than Waugh’s book. I loved this book.

Photo Credit: General U. S. Grant, one month before his death, writing his Memoirs at Mt. McGregor, June 27, 1885. Grant would died on July 23, 1885. The former general and President was nearly bankrupt at this point and wrote his memoirs in hopes of leaving something behind for himself and his family. This photo to me is poignant and powerful.

My Great-Grandpa Clarence Weygant, a World War I veteran shown here (center) with his chef whites on. He was a cook but I know he saw combat as well. I am still gathering information on him. I have learned from my Uncle that Clarence was kicked out of school before he was 18 for being what was described as, “incorrigible,” and that he lost himself for awhile but decided to sign up as a dough boy and went to France. Just thought I’d share the picture!

Received my copy of William L. Shea’s Fields of Blood: The Prairie Grove Campaign (Civil War America).

Publish date: November, 2009.

Hardcover: 392 pages
Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
ISBN: 0807833150

From the publisher: “William Shea offers a gripping narrative of the events surrounding Prairie Grove, Arkansas, one of the great unsung battles of the Civil War that effectively ended Confederate offensive operations west of the Mississippi River.”

Dr. Shea is an exceptional historian (not that he needs me to proclaim this!) and it goes without saying that he is the foremost expert on the trans-Mississippi region which I also take an interest in. The best compliment I can give Dr. Shea, his books are not just scholarly, but readable. They are like Joseph J. Ellis, Gordon S. Woods, James M. McPherson, and others. As an aspiring historian, published author, master’s candidate, and history enthusiasts, I appreciate the history writer as much as the historian. Shea is a scholar who writes very accessible books that enthusiasts such as myself enjoy and learn from.

I came across an excellent interview with William L. Shea and found the following Question and Answer:

What research challenges did you face?

Professor Shea: When Earl Hess and I began our research on Pea Ridge ages ago, we were warned that it was impossible to do a book-length study of anything on the Trans-Mississippi because of a lack of documentary material. We also were advised not to bother because the Trans-Mississippi was a backwater of no significance. But we were heedless youths and pressed ahead undeterred. Over the next few years we found hundreds of manuscript collections scattered across dozens of states. We ended up with far more material than we could possibly use.

So it was with Prairie Grove. I came across letters, diaries, and official documents everywhere I looked. I cannot recall ever storming into an archive and not coming out with a pile of photocopies or notes. The biggest haul came from New York City, of all places. The headquarters papers of the Confederate District of Arkansas have been hiding in plain sight at Columbia University for nearly a century. Even more remarkable, many of the “missing” Confederate division, brigade, and regimental reports from the battle were resting in the New York Historical Society, only a few blocks away. What this trove of Confederate documents was doing in “enemy hands” is a story in itself, but a definitive history of the Prairie Grove campaign could not have been written without it.

Too often trans-Mississippi campaigns are dismissed because they did not always involve the numbers of their Eastern counterparts, however, I can tell you they were no less violent or intense. And as Dr. Shea points out, there is an abundance of letters, diaries, correspondences as the men of these Western armies were very concerned with documenting their experiences. And as noted above, Shea discovered important documents not seen before that helped him to piece together a wonderful battle narrative.

Anyway, I am six chapters in tonight and am absolutely enjoying “Fields of Blood” which is, as usual for a Shea book, very readable and informative!

What are the best American Civil War Regimental Histories? Not the best regiment, but the best book about a Civil War regiment?

I’d like to invite my fellow Civil War bloggers to join in and let me know what regimental histories they have enjoyed and why.

My pick: Stand Firm Ye Boys from Maine: The 20th Maine and the Gettysburg Campaign, by Thomas A. Desjardin (Oxford University Press US, 2001). The book is well written and Desjardin’s fight narrative of Little Round Top is second to none. He balances the exploits of the 20th Maine with those of the Alabama troops they squared off against. Good regimental history books are not a series of chapters detailing with the actions of the unit. They take us on a journey and tell a story about the men who fought and died. Dejardin also had to balance the story of Joshua L. Chamberlain and the rest of the men. Finally, the book is well researched and includes a roster that details the occupation, age, height, and other vital data for the historian.

[I am making the assumption that any book that deals with a specific regiment for an individual campaign or battle qualifies?]

But there are so many other Civil War regimental histories worthy of any top lists! What are yours?

It looks like Mr. Dreyfuss had a nice day recently at Gettysburg as he continued his crusade championing American civics and history instruction. Last Friday thousands showed up for the keynote Dedication Day speaker and Oscar-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss. After giving what appears to have been a well received speech on American ideals and virtue, the following event occurred:

When the United States Marine Band opened the 10 a.m. ceremony with a rendition of the National Anthem, hundreds spontaneously joined along, singing the Star Spangled Banner in unison. Similarly, when the band closed the 60-minute program with “God Bless America,” many throughout the crowd waved small American flags. [link]

The Governor chimed in saying, “We’ve got to remember that what made this country great is the American spirit,” said Rendell. “If we retain that spirit in our hearts, there is nothing that this country cannot do.”

Despite the apparent success of Mr. Dreyfuss, I’m still not sure what place Hollywood stars and Rock-n-Roll singers should have as cultural warriors.

[This is not an image of the actual letter]

The letter appears to be the only one Lincoln wrote to a child while in office that survives as an original document, he said.

“There was a letter sent to youngsters Clara and Julia Brown, the original of which has been lost, and this letter to young [George] Patten,” Raab said. The letter to the Browns also was written while Lincoln was president.

Patten, who was about 8, had proudly informed his classmates and teacher that he had met Lincoln, but they laughed at him and were so skeptical that his teacher wrote the president in an attempt to verify what her student said.

Lincoln responded directly to the boy from the White House on March 19, 1861, about two weeks after his inauguration.

Read more…

I’ve often been fascinated how reviews can vary so much in regards to American Civil War books. Reviews for The American Civil War: A Military History, by renown British author/historian John Keegan perhaps represents one of the finest examples of such variety in reviews. I understand that every reviewer is not equal, and that some have an agenda. Still, the recent remarks concerning Keegan’s book differ wildly.

Reviews for The American Civil War range from flat out glowing remarks such as:

Chris Patsilelis declares that Keegan’s “assiduously researched and comprehensive new work …gives us a vivid, panoramic overview of dynamic, mid-19th century America.” Not to be outdone, John M. Taylor, notes that “Mr. Keegan’s fine book will find its way to many a bookshelf, especially those north of the Mason-Dixon line.” The Brits chimed in declaring, “Keegan’s most original contribution to his subject…”

To the other extreme, there have been some rather scorching reviews, such as:

James M. McPherson, who found that the “analytical value of Keegan’s geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed.” And yet even more blunt comes Steve Raymond, “Moreover, Keegan’s narrative is shot through with errors. Examples: He attributes a Ulysses S. Grant quote to Robert E. Lee, then 40 pages later attributes it correctly to Grant. He locates the Battle of Champion’s Hill on the wrong side of the state of Mississippi, says Confederates surrounded at Vicksburg planned an escape to the east side of the Mississippi River when they were already on the east side, and has Confederate General James Longstreet wounded in the arm on one page (wrong), in the throat (correct) on another.”

I will say that the reviews of Keegan’s book have been mostly positive.