Blog 4 History

John Keegan is a British historian and a foremost military historian. His writing examines warfare throughout history, but focuses on the 14th Century to the modern warfare of the 20th and 21st Centuries. His latest work is on the American Civil War titled, The American Civil War: A Military History. Mr. Keegan is one of the most important modern day living historians in my opinion and I cannot wait to read his latest work.

From the Publisher:

Format: Hardcover, 416 pages
Price: $35.00
ISBN: 978-0-307-26343-8 (0-307-26343-6)
Publisher: Knopf

Also available as an abridged audio CD, abridged audiobook download, unabridged audiobook download, eBook and in large print trade paperback.
ABOUT THIS BOOK

For the past half century, John Keegan, the greatest military historian of our time, has been returning to the scenes of America’s most bloody and wrenching war to ponder its lingering conundrums: the continuation of fighting for four years between such vastly mismatched sides; the dogged persistence of ill-trained, ill-equipped, and often malnourished combatants; the effective absence of decisive battles among some two to three hundred known to us by name. Now Keegan examines these and other puzzles with a peerless understanding of warfare, uncovering dimensions of the conflict that have eluded earlier historiography.

While offering original and perceptive insights into psychology, ideology, demographics, and economics, Keegan reveals the war’s hidden shape—a consequence of leadership, the evolution of strategic logic, and, above all, geography, the Rosetta Stone of his legendary decipherments of all great battles. The American topography, Keegan argues, presented a battle space of complexity and challenges virtually unmatched before or since. Out of a succession of mythic but chaotic engagements, he weaves an irresistible narrative illuminated with comparisons to the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and other conflicts.

The American Civil War is sure to be hailed as a definitive account of its eternally fascinating subject.

Founders: The People Who Brought You a Nation, by Ray Raphael came out earlier this year by The New Press and I am finally getting to read it and I must say I am thoroughly enjoying it. Raphael emerged in 2001 as a top notch social historian for his acclaimed People’s History of the American Revolution, which I use in my AP Us History class.

From the publisher: In this brisk narrative survey, Raphael offers a history of the events between the outbreak of colonial protest in the 1760s and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. He does so through the lives of seven people, some, like George Washington, justly celebrated, others obscure. All seven and many others come alive in their acts and words, their stories serving as the spine of the book. No one will come away without a better idea of how social class, ideas, careers, ambitions and plain luck interwove themselves into the revolution carried on by an entire people. Raphael also weaves his tale around such staple themes of American history as the growth of popular sovereignty and westward expansion. From the author of A People’s History of the American Revolution, none of this is surprising, nor is the skill of his pen. The book adds nothing to what’s already known, but it will delight readers and no doubt add to their knowledge through a tale rarely told so well.

As some of you may already know I am a descendent of Col. Charles H. Weygant of the 124th NY Regiment, who were known as the “Orange Blossoms” as they were from Orange County New Jersey.  Weygant wrote a famous history about the regiment and is credited with having inspired Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage.

I have been gathering letters and diaries from this regiment and it has been a struggle, but I have found this one which is a nice description of their participation during the Battle of Gettysburg.

A letter published in the National Tribune December 23, 1885, from J. Harvey Hanford, Unionville, Orange County, New York, formerly of the 124th New York:

To the Editor :

In a late issue of the National Tribune you invite a minute description of an active private soldier’s experience on the battlefield of Gettysburg. I will try to give you a part of mine. I was 2d sergeant of Company “B” 124th N. Y. Vols., and together with the rest of the regiment and others reached the vicinity of Gettysburg at 8.30 P. M., July 1, 1863. We lay down in an open field, with orders to sleep on our arms, and not take off an article of clothing or any of our accouterments. This was hard sauce after such a march as we had had; but soldier-like, we had to take it out in grumbling. Early in the morning of the 2d we got our breakfast, and were then formed in line of battle behind a stone wall—an excellent position we thought. Not long after the order ‘ Forward, march!’ was given, and after crossing one or two fields we came to the famous wheat-field—and, by the way, it was the finest I ever saw, the wheat breast-high and ready to cut—but we marched through and over it in line of battle, and on looking back not a stock could be found, for it was -all trodden out of sight. When nearly through the wheat-field the order was given, ‘ By the left flank, march !’ and when halt was sounded, I being the extreme left man in the regiment, I found myself on the rocks at Devil’s Den. A battery of guns, commanded by Captain Smith, was soon in our midst. On this spot we lounged for some time, taking it easy. Our signal corps was a little to the left and rear of us, on Little Round Top. Presently a shell came shrieking and bursting near us; we needed no order or invitation to get behind the rocks, but did so at once. Then followed the usual cannonading until the infantry of the Confederates got so close as to pick off all our gunners. Then shone out the bravery of Captain Smith. When he had not men enough left to man the guns, he would come to us and ask and beg of us to help him fire them. Then he would run back to the guns and do what he could, and then back to us, and, with tears in his eyes would say: ‘ For God’s sake, men, don’t let them take my guns away from me!’ (Twenty-two years ago, yet I can see his looks and hear his voice.) O, how I would like to see him and thank him for what he then did, and if this meets his eye I would like to have him write to me. We were ordered to charge, and charge we did, driving the enemy back to the foot of the hill. We made four charges that afternoon, and held our ground until out of ammunition.

A little incident happened after our last charge. As I was kneeling behind a rock and loading my gun, Lieutenant Dennison, of the next company, had picked up a gun, and, there being a rock to my left hand, he jumped over my arms and caught his toe in my ramrod, bending it so I could not use it. I scolded him for it, but looking around I picked up another one. The Lieutenant squatted behind the rock, and was in the act of firing his gun when he was struck by a bullet in the leg. With a cry, ‘ I’ve got it, I’ve got it,’ he started for the rear, but before getting far another one struck him, so he had to be carried off the field. While I was behind the rock I was struck four times, but not seriously. My attention was all the time on an open space, apparently like a pair of bars, in the stone wall at the foot of the hill, behind which the enemy had taken cover. Into this I did most of my firing, as it was all the time crowded full of men. After using all my ammunition I went back to and over the brow of the hill, and there saw we were about to be relieved by other troops. What there was left of us passed through the ranks of the fresh troops, and we made our way to the rear. Our regiment, which was raised in Orange County, N. Y., and was by its Colonel (Ellis) called fhe ‘ Orange Blossoms,’ with the aid of citizens of the county, have erected a nice monument on the ground where we fought. This was all the fighting we were in at this battle, as we were so badly cut up as to be hardly a show of a regiment.

I saw in a paper some time ago that our twin regiment, the 86th New York, which was on our right, were going to erect a monument on the ground, and I hope they will. I think when the battle commenced on the second day I was the last man on the extreme left of the army. I know that at one time the enemy had passed our left flank and were enfilading us; but it was only for a minute or two. Our regiment holds a reunion each year, this year in Middletown, Orange County, N. Y., September 23, 1885. I wish we could see a good number of the 86th New York with us.

“J. Harvey Hanford, ” 2d Serfft. Co. ‘B,’ 124th N. Y., “Unionville, Orange Co., N. Y.”

The period after the War of 1812 is a challenging time as an educator; at least it is for me. The excitement of the late 18th Century creates a lull that is hard to get out of and even the anticipation of the upcoming Civil War does not always help to generate enough interested in my students for the early 19th Century. Nonetheless, this time period is very important and offers numerous developments that of course lend to our understanding of cause and effect when it comes to the Civil War.

This is also a time period that is crucial in my personal quest for preserving American Exceptionalism. One of the things that is being confused centers on American Exceptionalism as promoting, for example, the Puritans as a “Citty on the Hill” community, Manifest Destiny as exceptional, “White Man’s Burgen” as honorable or whatever. As you can see this would be absurd. We teach that this was how THEY saw themselves and then perhaps the reasons why. We seek understanding and we do so without using presentism whereby we become social activitists. As I have stated numerous times (here and here), there is no way any one of us could not have been a racists had we lived in 1830s America. As an educator we can take an emphasis that focuses on understanding the past or we can use the past to promote social change (New Left Historians).

America was considered by many at the time to be a “utopia,” because it was. And indeed it was an experimental society and the leader in republicanism and self-government. It had the widest suffrage of any nation at the time and its commitment to the rule of law and equality for all white men made it the most democratic place on earth. This is undisputed. This is also exceptional.

As for American Exceptionalism that I am interested in here, the teaching of United States history from the perspective of an observer of history seeking understanding. Perhaps the best way to get a sense for America at this time is by reading what foreign observers documented. It would be easy to quote Marquis de Lafayette during his 1824-25 visit or of course Alexis de Tocqueville, who was more a cheerleader than an observer. However, there are better and more balanced observers.

German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel visited American in the early 1800s and declared that America was “the land of the future” and proclaimed that “in the time to come, the center of world historical importance will be revealed there.” Yet that is too easy.

I want to look at two European women who visited the United States in the early part of the 1800s. Harriet Martineau was a nearly deaf English woman of some fame,  contemporaries dubbed her as the “fist woman sociologist.” She spent 2 years in America and afterward wrote a book about her experiences titled, “Society in America” (1837). It was a massive 3 volume work. Was she impressed with America, yes? Was she also critical, most certainly.

Martineau noted early one observation that struck her as incredible, “Throughout the prodigious expanse of that country, I saw no poor men, except a few intemperate ones. I saw some very poor women; but God and man know that the time has not come for women to make their injuries even heard of. I saw no beggars but two professional ones, who are making their fortunes in the streets of Washington. I saw no table spread, in the lowest order of houses, that had not meat and bread on it Every factory child carries its umbrella; and pigdrivers wear spectacles.” ["Society in America" (1837). I, p. 12]

However, as she traveled more she saw the social ills that plagued America (and other nations) in the “political non-existence” of women. If this was the land of equality where was the equality of women? A progressive stance that the world was not, unfortunately, ready for including America.  Of course the likes of Abagail Adams were bemoaning this well before Martineau. But most importantly, she called America out for its hypocritical stance on liberty and equality and yet the existence of Slavery. She came to the just conclusion, “Americans have realized and things for which the rest of the world is still struggling … [yet] the civilization and morals of the Americans fall far below their own principles.” [Ibid, Vol. III, 179-205]

Americans enjoyed a lifestyle and standard of living that far exceed most European societies. As an instructor I can make sure to discuss how America was seen as an exceptional place, as well as discuss the different ways Americans saw themselves as exceptional. Within the dichotomy of what was or was not exceptional, we can teach a balanced and objective view of America.

 Part II: Francis Wright’s views on America as expressed in her 1825 book, “Plan for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in the United States without Danger of Loss to the Citizens of the South.”

Levin, uh, well, thanks for that (I guess I am McCarthy, interesting) and whatever I can do to help you out man! I have no idea why you would put my name in that post? But whatever. Anyway, do please give me a specific link where I call you a “radical”? Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I think you are a radical.  I do not know you, and could not claim to such knowledge. I do not agree with a lot of what you have said recently. That is all. It has turned into some personal mud slinging and I accept my part in that. So please, stop with the hyperbole, and just stick with legit responses to my posts or do not respond at all. I will do the same. I would be interested to know what your thoughts/comments are to my last post?

Since the mid-1960s young historians tabbed “New Left Historians” entered the scene with an eye toward reshaping history. They saw all around them serious issues within the teaching of history. They favored an interpretation of the past that placed its emphasis in such a way as to, in the words of Warren Susman, “remake the present and the future.”[1] What is also clear, is that the evolution of historiography since the 1960s is the belief that “objectivity” and more especially “neutrality” as a historian was a pipe dream.[2] Many, such as Howard Zinn, felt it was their duty to not be neutral as they saw the continual injustice of current (1900s circa) historiography was full of bias and little objectivity. And there certainly were issues with the nature of history at times in the 1900s. The presentation of American History was seen as overtly patriotic and as some would say, history books left the “negative stuff out.” I do not deny that there was a need for some activism, only today it strikes me as odd. There are historians who make such assumptions as if we are still stuck in the 1950s. By far, and I mean by far, from the average High School history instructor to the college professor, American history is taught from the perspective of a very unexceptional American past. The idea that teachers and historians felt the need to be activists made its way into mainstream education and continues today when it is not needed as there is no phantom “Old School” history perspective to attack. It’s been dead for some time. There is no Elephant in the Room on any significant scale.

For example, recently when Carol Berkin writes in the opening paragraph of her article, “Teaching the Revolution”:

For most Americans, young and old, the history of the American Revolution can be summed up something like this: In 1776, all the colonists rose up in unison to rebel against a tyrannical king and the horrible burden of unfair taxes the British had imposed upon them for over a hundred years. During the long war that followed, citizen soldiers shivered in the cold, shared the hardships together, admired George Washington, and won the war singlehandedly against the most powerful army in the world. Then they created a democracy and everyone lived happily ever after.

Except for the part about shivering in the cold, this myth is just that, a myth.

What the heck is she talking about? This myth is long dead and has been for several decades! These Neo New Left historians feel the need to continue where their predecessors left off and to do it they create “phantom” myths. Liberal historians dominate the classroom at both the high school and college level and have for 20+ years. There is no way the above myth is taught in ANY kind of wide-scale or significant way. But to continue to claim such things does allow them to continue the cause and to believe they are somehow making a difference. It is a ruse.

Levin writes [link]:

I don’t mind admitting that I am an enemy of the notion of ‘American Exceptionalism.’ It’s not simply that I fail to see how it applies to American history, but that it has nothing to do with my role as an instructor of history. I’ve said before that I do not consider it my responsibility to influence students in how they judge the collective moral status of the United States through its history and current policies. In addition to the concept of exceptionalism I also steer clear of any notion of America as “God’s Chosen People” or the notion of an inherent “Evil Imperial Empire” that is espoused by some on the extreme Left. That said, I do deal with the historical roots of the idea of American Exceptionalism going back to the Puritans’ notion of a “City Upon a Hill” through Manifest Destiny as well as its later manifestation in the form of the “White Man’s Burden.”

Can someone please tell me what is gained by teaching American history this way? How does it help our students to engage with the rest of the world on a level of cooperation and mutual respect? All I see is a curriculum that promotes arrogance along with the biases of a cultural exclusivist.

First, I would agree with Levin that I too am an “enemy” of his overtly SIMPLISTIC description of “American Exceptionalsim.”

The comments above by Levin expose several things that I have taken issue with and why I dare to speak out against him. The association Levin makes connecting such things as “White Man’s Burden,” “God’s Chosen People” and Manifest Destiny with the teaching of American Exceptionalism is laughable. Teaching American Exceptionalism is not about me teaching that the Puritans were right!

No one in their right mind would teach history as if these ideals of the past were just or exceptional. But like my concern over Berkin in my previous post, by presenting the argument in such a context allows him to declare himself “an enemy” of American Exceptionalism. No one in their right mind would teach American historical movements such as the one’s Levin associates with the idea of American Exceptionalism. Teaching American history is not about leaving out the “negative stuff”– it’s about emphasis. Nothing should be left out and THAT INCLUDES the exceptional aspects of our history. That is my point. (I know Levin will say he does not exclude that, somehow I doubt it, call me crazy!) I very much doubt many current educators are fair in their presentation of history.

What is American Exceptionalism? For me it is about (among other things)  the principles of egalitarianism that permeated during the founding of this country — from the Mayflower Compact to the declaration of Independence and especially when considering that this all took place in an age of Monarchy and Aristocracy. White men were able to vote, and on a vastly wider scale than anywhere else and ever before. It was a radical and incredible evolution that took place and is unique to our history. It was marvelous and on so many levels.

Levin wrote, “I’ve said before that I do not consider it my responsibility to influence students in how they judge the collective moral status of the United States through its history and current policies.”

Yet here is the same educator who openly acknowledges that it is appropriate for him to express his political beliefs in his classroom; which is loaded with very impressionable young people.  I try to avoid such discussions as I know that I have a point of view and that it might come out!

I don’t know how ANYONE can engage their class with their own political beliefs and do so in any historical context and not be biased. We are all biased and there is no way to avoid this, no matter how intelligent and “intellectual” anyone is. Students look up to their teachers, they will absorb every word and be significantly influenced by that educator.

So, finally, and in a round about way I have also addressed why I posted this comment that Levin seems to think I should have censored. I felt this person, though I disagree with him in some respects, has a perspective so I posted it. Besides, last time I checked this was my blog! I will post what I want.

The latest issue of the Gilder Lehrman Institute’s online magazine History Now centers on the studying and teaching of the American Revolution.

Here’s a list of those articles:

• Teaching the Revolution, by Carol Berkin
• Inventing American Diplomacy, by R.B. Bernstein
• Lockean Liberalism and the American Revolution, by Isaac Kramnick
• Unruly Americans in the Revolution, by Woody Holton
• The Righteous Revolution of Mercy Otis Warren, by Ray Raphael
• The Indians’ War of Independence, by Colin G. Calloway
• Women and Wagoners: Camp Followers in the American War for Independence, by Holly A. Mayer

There are also lesson plans for: women’s lives, propaganda, the Revolution as a civil war, and the Boston Massacre.

I wish they would have asked the likes of Gordon S. Wood or Joseph J. Ellis to contribute. Is there anything wrong with the list, well, No. Just depends on your perspective. I wish there was more balance in their selection of historians.If you don’t know what I mean, oh well.

For example, Carol Berkin writes in the opening paragraph of her contribution, Teaching the Revolution:

For most Americans, young and old, the history of the American Revolution can be summed up something like this: In 1776, all the colonists rose up in unison to rebel against a tyrannical king and the horrible burden of unfair taxes the British had imposed upon them for over a hundred years. During the long war that followed, citizen soldiers shivered in the cold, shared the hardships together, admired George Washington, and won the war singlehandedly against the most powerful army in the world. Then they created a democracy and everyone lived happily ever after.

Except for the part about shivering in the cold, this myth is just that, a myth.

I don’t know about you, but here the description and assumption that “For most Americans” the American Revolution can be summed so simplistically is a total liberal fallacy. Who teaches the American Revolution as described by Berkin? However, this is a brilliant opening, because then this historian can go about telling us how the American Revolution failed and how it was nothing special at all. This is the anti-thesis to my argument and why I feel so compelled to stand up for American Exceptionalism.

Berkin later writes, “By accepting the revolutionary leaders and the framers of the constitution as men of their time we can lay the groundwork for teaching the struggle to create democracy that is the engine of so much of our national history.”

I totally agree, accept them as products of their time and establish the radical and “Exceptional” nature of the struggle they undertook to start something unique and never tried on such a grand scale; they were special.

A reader posted that he believed every society to be “exceptional” and I have to say that this is the issue with declaring something exceptional. This entire issue is about cultural relativism. Which is fine if we do not “judge” any culture, but that’s not the case. Do we simply shrug off the continual treatment of women in most Muslim countries and say well, that’s just their culture.  But that is not what happens, it’s about “compassion” for the ways of others and intolerance for our own mistakes. One would say, how can we criticize Muslim nations when we ourselves denied women the vote for so long? How can we criticized when we dealt in slavery for so long? How can we when…well, you get the picture.  It’s as if because we have not been perfect, well who are we?  There are differences in culture and some are frankly far below any kind of acceptable let alone exceptional status.

Boon’s Lick Missouri was named after Daniel Boon and is yet another example of American Exceptionalism. In 1815, the area was a rich and fertile land that was soon occupied by massive migration by whites. One chronicler noted that the  “men were all heroes and the women heroines.” The expansion of America during the early 19th century was uniquely American both in its evolution and exclusion. As one historian has noted, “the pioneers of Boon’s Lick were acting out a recurrent national dream of heroic experience and frontier valor.”

[to be continued...]