Blog 4 History

Do I have a bias as an aspiring historian? Do I have personal and cultural preconceptions that hopelessly doom me to not treat certain people, events and institutions fairly? Before you judge me, ask yourself the same question. Then feel free to respond.

Here’s a Précis of an article (I had to write for my “Historical Research Methods” Graduate Class) that I found fascinating:

McCullagh, C. Behan. “Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation.” History & Theory, Feb 2000, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p 39-66.

The question of historical objectivity seems to rest within a philosophical debate of epistemology. In our quest for pure history void of bias, McCullagh argues that there are two main types of biases: personal and cultural. The former correctable and the ladder, not so correctable. Within these two types of biases are four different ways in which historians express their bias: 1) misinterpretation of data; 2) omission of data; 3) incorrect descriptions of data; and finally, 4) misguiding the reader. Not all are intentional and some are correctable depending on the source of the bias.

Much like the idea that an army is a reflection of the society and culture that has produced it, so too is the historian. Because we are human we are fallible and some argue we are hopelessly destined to be unable to remove those cultural forces at play. But are we to simply accept the notion that we are destined to produce, even if ever so subtly, bias interpretations of history? McCullagh seems to argue yes and no.

Personal bias can and should be scrutinized and avoided in McCullagh’s opinion. By using “reasoning” strategies that focus on “detachment,” “fairness,” and “honesty” good historians can avoid personal bias. For example, historians must ask themselves: Why did he or she select the topic of study for their examination? Does the historian have an agenda? When a Christian sets out to write about the Great Crusades, is he seeking to right some perceived wrong in written history? The mere act of selecting a topic expresses some point view by the historian and therein a bias, does it not? A historian is looking for something when he selects a topic, something that they want to find. If the historian can employ critical control and be conscious of his own personal bias, he can largely avoid it, according to McCullagh. He can avoid misinterpretations and omissions, errors in descriptions, and therefore not mislead the reader.

The possible problem with McCullagh’s belief in removing personal bias from historical interpretation is the idea of “detachment.” How does one consciously remove those biases? I find this to be wishful thinking on McCullagh’s part. For as he admits, cultural bias is very difficult to understand and correct, and with that being said individual bias flows from culture. It seems the only way to truly avoid personal bias would be for historians to be assigned topics to describe, interpret and explain. When the historian does not have a vested personal interest in the event(s), then, maybe, a pure historical record void of prejudice could be produced. But even then, we have to question what is assigned to the historian, who assigns it, how was it assigned, and why was it assigned?

Cultural bias is a completely different animal than personal bias, as McCullagh admits. Cultural relativism and bias stem from societal circumstances. How we see the world is ultimately how we are impacted by the environment in which we have lived. Each generation reinterprets history from its own ideological view of it. We use history. Historians become not truth seekers, but cultural warriors. They are reflections of their society and time, and how and why they wield the pen, speaks as much about them as how and why an army fights a war.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s comments on the Government Spending Bill, a.k.a., “Stimulus” are below. Here’s a highlight:

“But one of the good things about reading history is you learn a good deal. And, we know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work.

“In 1940, unemployment was still 15%. And, it’s widely agreed among economists, that what got us out of the doldrums that we were in during the Depression was the beginning of World War II”

He is right. The New Deal DID NOT create the jobs and sustain them. This bill will have the same results, I fear. I hope McConnell is wrong. Here’s a prediction: in 12-24 months or so there will be more panic as this bill will not create the jobs it promises. Then there will be another hurried attempt to expand government, destroy free market capitalism, and take us another step towards socialism. After all, it’s working so well in Canada and France. Then taxes will have to be raised, you can’t spend trillions and not raise taxes. But a lot of people feel this should happen anyway. I disagree.

I will refrain from making judgments about President Obama and his performance thus far until after his first 100 days. Frankly, he’s between a rock and a hard place. He has to act on the economy. I just don’t think this bill needed to be so large and commit so much money to things that do NOTHING to stimulate the economy.  My concern with Obama is the promised “change” in government and his pledge to not appoint lobbyists (which has happened), and that some of his appointees (to critical positions) seem to be incapable of paying all their taxes and figuring out things like Turbo Tax. Are these truly the people that represent change? I hope so, but I have my doubts. Finally, Obama promised to install hope and remove fear from government hyperbole, this past week’s doom and gloom from him, was not hope.

Here’s Mr. McConnell’s response to last night’s sellout bill:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Friday regarding the Democrats’ agreement on the trillion-dollar spending bill:

“The question of whether or not the economy needs help is really not in debate. I don’t think there’s a single member of the Senate that believes that no action is the appropriate course for us to take.

“But one of the good things about reading history is you learn a good deal. And, we know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work.

“In 1940, unemployment was still 15%. And, it’s widely agreed among economists, that what got us out of the doldrums that we were in during the Depression was the beginning of World War II.

“We have another example.

“What is called in Japan the Lost Decade of the 1990’s, where stimulus packages similar to the one we’re considering tonight were tried again, and again, and again. And, at the end of the 1990’s, Japan, looked very much like it did at the beginning of the 1990’s, except that it had a much larger debt.

“Now, we’ve not seen the compromise proposal, which has been discussed here tonight. And, I know there’s been a good faith effort on the part of those involved to pare down the size of the underlying Senate measure.

“But as near as we can tell, even after those efforts, it is roughly the same size as the House bill.

“According to the figures I’ve been given, the House bill is about $820 billion. The Senate bill, under the compromise, we believe, would be about $827 billion. Bear in mind the interest costs on either of those proposals would be $348 billion. So we’re really talking about a $1.1 trillion pending measure.

“A $1.1 trillion spending measure. We’re looking at a $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year.

“We believe that the Secretary of the Treasury and the President will suggest to us as early as next week that we need to do — what has commonly become referred to as a TARP round – some kind of additional assistance for the financial system as early as next week. We’re talking about an extraordinarily large amount of money and a crushing debt for our grandchildren.

“Now, if most Republicans were convinced that this would work, there might be a greater willingness to support it. But all the historical evidence suggests that it’s highly unlikely to work. And so, you have to balance the likelihood of success versus the crushing debt that we’re levying on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and, yes, their children.

“And the need to finance all of this debt which many suspect would lead to ever higher and higher interest rates which could create a new round of problems for our economy.

“So let me just sum it up by saying no action is not what any of my Republican colleagues are advocating. But most of us are deeply skeptical that this will work. And that level of skepticism leads us to believe that this course of action should not be chosen.

“We had an opportunity to do this in a truly bipartisan basis and the President said originally he had hoped to get 80 votes. It appears that, the way this has developed, there will be some bipartisan support, but not a lot. And it’s not likely, in the judgment of most of us, to produce the result that we all desire.

“So, I will not be in a position to recommend support for this product as it has developed in spite, again, of the best efforts of those who worked on the compromise. I commend them for their willingness to try to work this out. It seems to me that it falls far short of the kind of measure that we should be passing.

Amen.

I have to thank Ted Savas for reviewing my book, The 11th Wisconsin in the Civil War: A Regimental History, and posting it on Amazon.com. Here is that wonderful review!

Invigorating and Useful Regimental History, January 28, 2009
By T. P. S. “Savas Beatie LLC”

There were thousands of regiments in the Civil War. Only a handful have had histories written on their service, and only a slim number of those are worth reading. You can add Chris Wehner’s 11th Wisconsin to the latter category.

This Federal outfit spent its entire career (as did most Wisconsin regiments) in the Western Theater. This region and its campaigns remain woefully understudied, even though the fighting, personalities, and politics were just as fascinating–and perhaps more so–than those in the Eastern Theater. Like so many regiments, the 11th lost more men to disease than bullets. But not because it was stationary guarding some stretch of railroad deep in the rear. The Badgers did guard railroads, but they also logged hundreds of miles chasing Confederate irregulars in Missouri, fought their first battle in Arkansas, and ended up sucked into the maelstrom of Grant’s Vicksburg campaign. Later, the regiment served under the inept Nathaniel Banks in Louisiana and Texas, and capped their combat experience in the useless fighting at Fort Blakely in southern Alabama. By the time it was all over and they were mustered out in September 1865, the men of the 11th had traveled on foot and by rail at least 9,000 miles (and probably more, concludes the author).

The appendices are especially valuable and for some people will be worth the price of the book. The first is a roster with information on each soldier (name, rank, status, wounds, death, etc.). This will be invaluable for genealogical purposes. The second describes the civilian occupations of the members, the third relates to muster sites, and the fourth is a victory sermon by a member of the regiment. The final appendix lists the Army of the Tennessee officers, structure, and how the 11th Wisconsin fit into the entire structure. Experts won’t need it, but beginning students or descendants of members of the regiment will find it useful. Add in the maps and photos (many previously unpublished of men of the regiment), and you have a well rounded and nicely structured regimental history.

Unlike so many books of this nature, Wehner’s is deeply researched and relies on letters, diaries, newspapers, journals, and official records as far as possible. The text is also well written–engaging, in fact–which is also a treat.

Although the price is a tad steep at $45.00, if you are like me and enjoy reading about people, places, and outfits you know little or nothing about, I can highly recommend this title to you

.

I have a bunch of books that I need to mention and hope to review several of them.  I’m starting to get books I did not ask for and cannot promise a review for those!

First up, author Nate Levin sent me a copy of his Carrie Chapman Catt: A Life of Leadership. Catt was a woman’s rights and suffrage advocate in the late 1890s and early 1900s. This is a short presentation and looks to be written so that I might consider assigning it to my high school students. We’ll see!

Osprey Publishing sent me several samples of their “Men-at-Arms” publications, in particular The Confederate Army 1861-65, volumes 5&6, and Trenton and Princeton, 1776-77 Washington Crosses the Delaware. Once again, these might be very handy in my classroom for book projects. I think too often we send students to the computer lab to perform webquests, when they need more instructional focused reading.

McFarland has been very active recently and I have several titles to share, first up is Roy Z. Chamlee, Jr.’s Lincoln’s Assassins: A Complete Account of their Capture, Trial, and Punishment. I have to admit I do not know much about this 2 volume set. I have doubts it will compare to Lincoln’s Assassins: Their Trial and Execution by James L. Swanson and Daniel Weinberg, but I plan and reading it and giving it a chance. I can tell you Swanson’s book is a helluvalot cheaper! This is a reprint in paperback of the hardcover original from 1990.

Gen. Fitz-John Porter was accused of disobedience during the Battle of Second Manasses. A new book covers this controversial event, Fitz-John Porter, Scapegoat of Second Manassas, by Donald R. Jermann. Union commander Major General John Pope blamed the loss on charismatic and popular Major General Fitz-John Porter, whom he charged with disobedience of orders and shameful conduct before the enemy. A court-martial found him guilty. But was Porter really guilty or did he save the country from an even greater disaster? This book addresses the question of Porter’s guilt or innocence, examining the trial and its aftereffects from several perspectives. [From the book.] The book looks well researched and at just shy of 300 pages very readable.

I also have John F. Schmutz, The Battle of the Crater: A Complete History and also Stephen R. Bradley: Letters of a Revolutionary War Patriot and Vermont Senator, (ed. Dorr Bradley Carpenter) both of which I plan on reviewing.

And finally, the one that I will read first, War Memory and Popular Culture: Essays of Remembrance and Commemoration, edited by Michael Keren and Holger H. Herwig .

Some have not appreciated my last post. Don’t care. I felt like it and it made me life,  appalled, and smile. I will keep it up, don’t visit this site if you don’t like it.

Anyway, I have been preoccupied this past week with many things. I have an article that I am working on, graduate school, and as a teacher I have had several projects and developments that have been time consuming.

I promise to contribute more next week!

Chris

WARNING: This is funny as heck , BUT, Adult Language and other stuff… DO NOT PLAY IF THE CHILDREN ARE AROUND!!!

You’ve been warned.

Brooks Simpson over at Civil Warriors has a great post.

Simpson wrote: One of my evolving credos is “Good information helps lead to good decisions.” Let’s put it this way: “historians” who can’t get their facts straight have no business posing as experts dispensing advice.

In response to a column by Jay Winik where Winik wrote, among other things:

In six weeks alone during the Wilderness Campaign, Lee inflicted some 52,000 casualties upon Grant’s men, nearly as many soldiers as America would lose in the entire Vietnam War. The single battle of Cold Harbor was an unmitigated bloodbath; 7,000 men slaughtered in under an hour, most of them in the first eight minutes, more than the Confederates lost during Gen. George Pickett’s infamous Gettysburg charge.

Post-Inauguration speech reflection. My U.S. Government class enjoyed, for the most part, the Inauguration. I wasn’t sure I wanted to spend the entire class (95 minutes) on the ceremony, but it worked out well. They didn’t get to see all of it, but did see most of it as well as Obama’s speech.

Not surprisingly, it was the first time most (29 out of 32) had ever seen a live Inauguration. During the pre-Inauguration lead up, from 9:15 to 9:45 or so our time, we had several discussions. Among them:

We talked about the unprecedented peaceful transition of power we have had as a country. We talked a little bit about Europe and Asia, my students were able to bring up several coups and bloody revolutions.

My students were amazed by the number of celebrities, I was not but I follow the news more than they do.

Several times students noted the diversity of the crowd and the black faces filled with joy. I have not a black student in any of my classes. This lead nicely into frank discussions about politics and race. What did Obama’s election mean for race relations in our country? Most students were very aware that this was a big moment in our history. A couple of students did express frustrations that it was even a topic, they felt America was not racist to begin with.

Also, what about a Native American President? This was brought up. I was pretty sure we have not had a President elect who was Native American.  Republican Charles Curtis was Vice President to Herbert Hoover during 1929-1933 and was a quarter Indian.

The procession of past Presidents was interesting more for me than the students. Luckily they could identify all of them (they have only been my students for 2 weeks and we’re just entering the 1800s.). Several discussions about Clinton that I had to quell, even though they were too young to really remember much about him. Interesting!

I had several students who thought Bush has been treated unfairly and when he was announced and the heckling in the audience (such as the “na, na, hey, hey, goodbye” or whatever it was and the booing) they thought it tasteless and not appropriate. I don’t blame them. Absolutely classless.

Now our attention turned to President Obama and his family. Several female students thought the Obama’s to be a lovely looking family.

As for the President’s speech, the students felt like they followed it well and for the most part understood what he was talking about. Several were surprised by his references to religion. Comments such as “God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness” stood out for my students.

My students felt Obama’s focus on the economy was important, and that he addressed the terrorist issue and his resolve to continue to defend the country.

We did discuss afterward Obama’s comment, “For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.” As we have been discussing the role of government and how far it needs to go, and how far is too much. We have done so (this past 10 days) from the perspective of: Limited Government, Separation of Power, Checks and Balances, Federalism, and included readings from the Federalists and anti-Federalists. So those discussion and readings were brought up in a few ways. But mainly it broke down party lines, those students with Liberal beleifs and those with Conservative beliefs were most vocal. Not a surprise!

By this time we were out of time and my students had to move on. I reflected on the speech and felt it was fairly good. I especially enjoyed how he ended it, and have it here for those who missed it (here is link for full text):

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of Americas birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned.

The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.

Let it be said by our childrens children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and Gods grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

I was moved by this ending and that he looked back to the Founding Fathers in such a way.

My students and I are watching the presidential inauguration this morning (it’s 10 am here in Colorado) , very exciting and we have had some excellent discussions!

I have been thinking for several days about what to do in honor of the upcoming Presidential Inauguration. Then it occurred to me that with a lot of people harking back to the heady days of Abraham Lincoln, that I should be doing the same thing. So I decided to spend today looking through my set of the “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln” and other books for a Lincoln quote. A quote that if I had the power to make sure President Obama would read and consider, this would be it. After much deliberation I have come to my selection, as quoted from “The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty,” May 1955, p. 7). Now this is not a famous quote I have selected as I immediately dismissed all those as surely Obama has read them many times. So I looked deeper than usual for something I have not seen before (or at least do not remember seeing) and something that hit a nerve with me. Here it is:

That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself…I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will be wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich.

Obviously Lincoln was talking about property rights and as outlined in the Declaration of Independence that each of us has the right to the “pursuit of Happiness.”  It is not a right to be happy, but it is our natural right to be able to pursue happiness. And so in closing, may we all work hard enough and be lucky enough to have that happiness.

May God bless President Obama and may these next four years indeed bring a change we can count on and a change for the better.

UPDATE (1/20): This is abosolutely amazing: BBC World News America has unearthed a fascinating clip of Dr. Martin Luther King speaking to the BBC’s Bob McKenzie in 1964 in which Dr. King predicts an African-American president “in less than 40 years.”

To watch this video click here.