Blog 4 History

Received the latest issue of Magazine of History this morning, its theme: “Lincoln, Race, and Slavery.” I had a few minutes and looked through it during lunch. I posted recently about Lincoln and race, and so this issue was of interest to me.

All of the articles are very strong and diverse, which is not a surprise coming from this fine magazine. Here they are:

Changing Perspectives on Lincoln, Race, and Slavery
Brian Dirck

Lincoln, Race, and Slavery: A Biographical Overview
Allen C. Guelzo

Lincoln and Colonization
Richard Blackett

“That All Mankind Should Be Free”: Lincoln and African Americans
Thomas C. Mackey

Dirck’s (and Guelzo) article I was able to read in its entirety and he does a nice job of covering the historiography of Lincoln and race.  Guelzo’s was probably my favorite as it was very balanced and fair; all are really fair.

We’re obviously aware of Lerone Bennett and other 1960s and 70s writers and historians condemnation of Lincoln.  But what surprises me is that anyone could try to insist that Lincoln did not have some racist beliefs.  He was a product of his environment after all.  But in that same regard, I do not understand how one cannot see that Lincoln was a progressive who truly hated slavery and believed that all mankind deserved the promise of the constitution and freedom.

Lincoln may not have entered the White House as a “Great Emancipator,” and how he ultimately became an emancipator is arguable, but I frankly find all arguments that he was not an emancipator to be dishonest.  Was he the “great” emancipator, that’s debatable, as by the time he issued his proclamation thousands of blacks were already freeing themselves.  But it is, in my opinion, unjust to suggest that Lincoln was not a great mind who understood the wrong of slavery and ultimately wanted to end it and in doing so give equality to blacks. He was more than a “racists with good intentions.”

“Mandatory university program ‘treats’ politically incorrect attitudes for ALL whites ONLY…”

As a History teacher I am well aware the role race has played in our history, and how it has contributed to some of the more sad and terrible events in our history. I do not shy away from this in my teaching and it is openingly discussed. But I when I read the following, I absolutely could not beleive the nerve of this University. When my children are grown I will not be sending them to schools such as the U of Delaware. This is an outrage and an embarrassment to this school:

A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist” and offers them “treatment” for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.

To read more…

It’s getting to the point now where I have to talk about it as I truly believe it’s gone too far. When the latest Superman movie removed the words “the American way” from the original slogan, “protecting peace, justice and the American way,” I cringed but blew it off. That’s Hollywood, and everything from there is a product of those people living in a fake and false world.

But as things have continued: California outlawing textbooks from using “mother and father” as it is offensive to some, for example. And of course all the other crap. We are becoming a culture of “victims” and political correctness has gone too far.

Now, no longer is G.I. Joe action figure a U.S. Marine who fights the enemies of the United States. That’s offensive to SOME. So now according to the toymaker Hasbro,G.I. Joe will become an acronym for “Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity”

Big deal, it’s just a stupid doll. No, it’s a part of our heritage, culture, and mythology… actually, not all myth.

The G.I. Doll’s likeness was based on a real marine, a genuine Medal of Honor hero of Guadalcanal.

As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Brownings on that hillside, 65 years ago this week — manning their section of the thin khaki line that was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of Oct. 25, 1942 — it’s unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 armed and motivated attackers?

But by the time the night was over, “The 29th (Japanese) Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men,” historian Lippman reports. “The 16th (Japanese) Regiment’s losses are uncounted, but the 164th’s burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. … The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low.”

You’ve already figured out where the Japanese focused their attack, haven’t you? Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige’s platoon. Every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.

…

In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.

…

When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel’s face on some kid’s doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren’t. That’s his mug, on the little Marine they call “G.I. Joe.” At least, it has been up till now.

Mitchell Paige’s only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.

If that is not enough, the new Hollywood G.I. Joe movie has lost the American hero, but instead he is an “Action Man,” or a member of an “international operations team” run by the U.N., of course.

And the villain? Remember, can’t offend anyone. I suspect if Hollywood had its way, the Villain would be some American conservative or something. Arabs, Muslims, or foreign dictators of any stripe these days are OFF LIMITS. Instead, we get a villain who is a double-crossing arms dealer!

Exciting. I say this movie flops big time. But that’s the usual for Hollywood these days.

Here’s a selection of books that I am reading as I prep for my upcoming U.S. History B classes.

Bobby and J. Edgar: The Historic Face-Off Between the Kennedys and J. Edgar
By Burton Hersh
Published 2007
Carroll & Graf
Hardcover, 624 pages
ISBN 0786719826

Formerly a journalist who covered politicians such as the Kennedys, Burton Hersh chronicles the relationship between J. Edgar Hoover and his nominal boss, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. With the plethora of Kennedy books out there, where this one will land is yet to be determined. It is an interesting read thus far and has had some fairly good reviews on other sites. I do worry that Hersh’s journalist background hurts the book as he seems enamored with legends, rumors, and conspiracies. But we will see.

The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II
By Andrew Nagorski
Simon & Schuster, September 2007
Hardcover, 384 pages
ISBN-10: 0743281101

Students typically enter my U.S. History B class believing that the United States, with some help from England, won World War 2. When I start to work my way into the narrative, the events leading up to the war’s outbreak, students are often surprised by the vicious and massive slaughter that took place on the Eastern Front.

Andrew Nagorski’s “The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle For Moscow that changed the Course of World War II,” is a great read in its detail and its brevity. The nature of the conflict as Hitler invaded Russia and as an almost hapless Stalin blundered his way through the open stages of the fight, leaves you bewildered and baffled. Hitler’s obtuse generalship probably cost him the prize, Moscow. His army started its campaign a month late, Hitler would slow it down for other objectives, and ultimately the campaign would stall within sight of Moscow. Seven million troops fought, 2.5 million were casualties, and millions more civilians, would all pay the price as two brutal and asinine leaders played a game of pride with human life. Two dictators who with sheer terror and relentless slaughter pounded each other until the very end. It is not an exaggeration to say the war was won and lost in the East before we ever got there.

Drawing on recently declassified documents from Soviet archives, including the files of the  NKVD, along with accounts of survivors and of children of top Soviet military and government officials, and reports of Western diplomats and correspondents, “The Greatest Battle” illuminates the full story of this titanic clash.

I wanted to be a little stronger with my World War I unit, so I havea few excellent books that I think will help me some. Robert Cowley is the editor of The Great War: Perspectives on the First World War, which so far is an excellent, informative, and smooth read.  The essays are impressive and flow from one to the next nicely. Cowley has brought together thirty articles in this book to examine the unnecessary but perhaps inevitable war in its diverse aspects. A number of the subjects covered here are not just unfamiliar but totally fresh. Who originated the term “no-man’s-land” and the word “tank”? What forgotten battles nearly destroyed the French Army in 1915? How did the discovery of a German naval codebook bring the United States into the war?  I also received a re-print copy of C.R.M.F. Cruttwell’s 1932 book, A History of the Great War: 1914-1918, from Academy Chicago Publishers, which I am so far pleasantly surprised with; though the writing style is a bit dry for me. But by far, David M. Kennedy’s Over There: The First World War and American Society, is the key book and has provided me with more notes and antidotes. I have had this copy for some time and have just now begun to read it indepth.  Kennedy is a master historian and covers the political and social aspects of WWI for Americans marvelously.

Mark Moyer’s Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, is a book that breaks the mold for your typical Vietnam history. Moyar challenges a lot of the common held beliefs concerning our strategy and military leadership during the war, he goes so far as to say that the war was “a worthy but improperly executed enterprise.”

Finally, John Keegan’s Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-Qaeda. This book is really more for my interest, but will also offer some excellent talking points during my classes. Keegan brings to life the split-second decisions that went into waging war before the benefit of aerial surveillance and electronic communications.

Maj. Gen. Samuel R. Curtis, on more than one occasion, was accused by his men for having more interest in cotton speculation than in the welfare of his troops. After routing Confederate Maj. Gen. Thomas C. Hindman’s hastily organized force on July 7 as Hill’s Plantation, Curtis’s army reached Helena on July 12. Exhausted and nearly destitute, it took days for his meager force of 10,000 to dawdle in.

With the rebels being classified as traitors with the Confiscation Act of 1862, and Federal troops ordered to confiscation of their property, including the freeing of slaves, cotton grabbing became the main goal of the Union army at Helena and in other Federally held territory in the Western Theater. An Illinois captain, wrote of his displeasure, expressing what most Union soldiers probably felt, that their commanding officers were more interested in acquiring cotton than in the welfare of their troops:

We were moved on July 26th . . . [to] “Old Town Landing” . . . the most pestilential camp we ever occupied, and where the men of the regiment sickened and died by the score. There was no reason that we should be sent to that deadly place, except that we would be somewhat nearer the cotton area. How much of this “cotton collecting,” was done for the government and how much for private interests, I do not know, but from the fact that serious trouble on account of it came to a number of officers in high command [including Curtis and Steele], justifies the opinion that we were not doing very much at that time toward saving the country in this hard and dangerous service, and I know that I but reflect the feeling of every comrade when I say that every life that was lost in those expeditions was a useless and wanton sacrifice.

As the summer wore on, more and more Federal troops became increasingly angry when it became apparent that their officers had crossed the line between enforcement of the Confiscation Act and profiteering. This included Colonel Charles E. Hovey of the 33rd Illinois, as well as Wisconsin officers, and perhaps even Curtis himself.

Here are the issues I am dealing with: 1) Did Curtis (And perhaps Gen. Steele) keep Hovey and his Cotton Brigade in southeast Arkansas on purpose to hunt for cotton?  There are accusations that more could have been done to quell Hindman and the Rebels who would never lose some degree of control on the state, along with terrorizing its people for years.  2) Who profited from the cotton confiscating?  There is no doubt officers on the regimental level were making large sums of money. 3) What are the charges in human life, and not just for the soldiers, but for civilians and slaves.  Human life was lost for the exploitation of cotton so a few could get rich. 4) Col. Hovey of the 33rd Illinois has thus far been ignored for his clear role in this cotton effort, and this needs to be brought to historians attention. I have an article coming to me from the Arkansas Historical Quarterly by historian Earl J. Hess, which seems to be the only scholarly work on cotton stealing along the Mississippi across from Arkansas. I am hoping this will be a good jumping off point for more investigation.

It’s Fall Break here in Colorado and I have greatly enjoyed my first day off in some time. Last night my son’s football team won the 8th grade city championship, 48-0. He is a starting defensive and offensive player on the team. After the win, his coach proclaimed them the best team he has ever coached. Hard for a father not to be extremely proud of his son. I was reflecting back on that today when I picked up to read, “A Soldier’s Story of the Siege of Vicksburg,” by Osborn H. I. Oldroyd (his initials spell OHIO) of the 20th Ohio. After the Battle of Champions Hill he wrote, “our army has never known defeat.” Grant might have reflected later that his Western men were the best he had ever commanded. If the Vicksburg Campaign were a football game, Grant’s Army of the Tennessee had won it quit easily, something like 48 to zero.

The 20th Ohio saw hard service in the West starting at Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth and of course Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign. Regiment losses during service 2 Officers and 87 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 4 Officers and 267 Enlisted men by disease. Total: 360.

Oldroyd’s book is based on his diary, not years-gone-bye romanticism where self-indulgence often convoluted old soldier’s recollections during the 1880s and 1890s. He takes up the narrative on May 1, 1863, after Grant landed his army on the east bank of the Mississippi River, and as his division (Logan) had crossed the Mississippi. The book covers sixty-five days of the Vicksburg Campaign ending in July 4, 1863, with the surrender of Vicksburg.

Logan’s division was at first toward the rear of the campaign and assigned to guard duty. This allowed for the men to spend some time foraging, of which he writes,

How foolish is it for the Southern people to flee and leave their beautiful property to the foe. We only want something to eat. There are some who would apply the torch to a deserted home, that would not due so if the owner remained.

Fear was everywhere as Southerners were convinced Lincoln’s hoards would burn, rape, and pillage. At first his regiment complained at the seemingly obtuse nature of their assignment. “But after we have captured Vicksburg,” Oldroyd writes, “We shall understand why we guarded Hankinson’s Ferry so long.”

But the 20th Ohio was not destined to remain in the rear with the gear. They would lead one of the assaults up Champion’s Hill. Their loyalty and love for one another carried them throughout the war. “A company of soldiers are as a family,” he noted.

They steadily made their way closer and closer to the front as Grant and Sherman entered Jackson. The evidence was clear. They passed the dead, mostly Confederates. One desperate Rebel laid in a garden, clearly dying. He was suffering and Oldroyd gave him a drink from his canteen. He spoke of compassion.

Soon they were in battle, Oldroyd’s bunkmate was shot down, a bullet “through the brain.”

But still on they pressed, “on to Vicksburg” they cried. Comrades continued to fall all around them. He describes the gruesome fate of one,

Thomas Runyan, of Company A, was wounded was wounded by a musket ball which entered the right eye, and passed behind the left forcing it out upon his cheek. As the regiment passed, I saw him lying by the side of the road, tearing the ground [with his fingers] in his death struggle.

They had yet to reach Champion Hill, and the bloody battle that awaited them.

(Hat tip to Teaching the Civil War with Technology)

The “Best Civil War Lesson Plan” Contest
Sponsored by The History Channel and the Civil War Preservation Trust

Do you have a terrific Civil War lesson plan to share – one that is challenging and relevant to today’s students? Then enter the Best Civil War Lesson Plan contest for a chance to win money and recognition!

Prizes: First Place – $1,000; Second Place – $750; Third Place – $500. Prizes are generously donated by The History Channel.

Who May Enter: K-12 teachers nationwide – in public, private, and home schools
Deadline: All submissions must be received by December 1, 2007.
Guidelines: All lesson plans must include the following elements in order to be considered:

* The teacher’s complete contact information – including the name of the teacher’s school with complete mailing address, complete home address, and preferred phone number and/or email address.
* A brief description of the goals of the lesson and comcepts to be taught.
* A list of the materials to be used, as well as copies of teacher-created handouts.
* A brief description of the time involved.
* An explanation of the methods to be used.
* A list of correlating state standards for social studies or history in the teacher’s home state, or the appropriate NCSS standards (www.ncss.org).
* Use of at least one primary source – this could be an historic photograph, document, letter, diary, or artifact.
* Inclusion of elements that are engaging and thought provoking for students with a variety of learning styles.

If possible, teachers are encouraged to introduce the concept of battlefield preservation within their lesson. However, lack of this component will not cause an entry to be disqualified. Teachers are also encouraged, but not required, to submit a method of evaluation with their lesson plan.

Submissions become the property of the Civil War Preservation Trust and The History Channel, and may be reprinted, posted on their respective web sites, or shared via other forms of media.

Winning teachers will be notified January 15, 2008.

Send your lesson plan to:
Education Department
Civil War Preservation Trust
11 Public Square, Suite 200
Hagerstown, MD 21740

I wish I had found this site weeks ago., it is called “The Journal of Harriet Tubman.” (Hat tip t0 TTCWWT) . From the Harriet Tubman site:

Through the eyes of Ms. Jenkins students, you will experience the life of Harriet Tubman. Her students have researched Mrs. Tubman extensively and will attempt to create posts that are representative of what her thoughts might have been. Because of policies prohibiting student blogs in place in our district, students have done their writing in a word processor and Ms. Jenkins is pasting their writing into the blog itself. Some of her students will write as people who have encountered Mrs. Tubman and others will comment on those posts from the same historical and personal persepctive. We will also post a podcast as part of this effort. Please note that we have removed most, but not all, date references to the posts in order to give each post as much of a realistic feel as possible without implying that the writing was done by Harriet Tubman or other actual people. We have also set the blog so that this welcome message will remain at the top

Even though my fellow teachers have to teach the same curriculum, essential learnings, and key terms as myself, how we teach them is still very different at times. What we emphasize, downplay, and even sometimes outright ignore differ from one to another. Obviously, we have a responsibility to teach history without bias. But we are human beings and formulating perceptions is what we do on a daily basis. So our biases become a part of us and inform us. Cognitive Dissonance does not always take place and allow for the expansion of thought. I have noticed several topics of the Civil War that indeed are un-evenly taught out here in my school district. Here are some of them:

• Was Lincoln the “Great Emancipator?” – Kevin recently posted a nice description of what he does at his school; I envy him as the only way I could do what he does would be in what we call an AP (Advanced Placement) class. I teach general history at this point in my career. Depending on one’s line of thought, Lincoln can be portrayed as a political animal who only did what he had to do when he had to do it. We know the quotes well – Lincoln says he would not free a slave if it meant saving the Union, ect. Words are to be respected by teachers and historians, I think, but also their context and the speaker’s intentions. This leads us to interpretation where bias can skew our perception. I tend to portray Lincoln as a progressive who clearly through out his life saw slavery as an evil, a sin. Lincoln was also a politician who as president was sworn to protect the constitution; first and foremost. We know all of the delicate issues with the border states, ect. I see Lincoln as a great “thinker” who was always thinking ahead and knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that slavery would have to end, and it just took him a while to be able to bring that agenda around. Yes, the 13th Amendment ultimately freed the slaves, but for me, Lincoln has to be a part of this discussion.
• Blacks involvement in their own “Emancipation.” – Too easy to not cover this well enough. I had one student who after noting that in some regions in the South where slaves out-numbered the whites, asked me why didn’t they rise up? For some reason, I stumbled around and offered a less than desired explanation. His intent was to point out that Blacks seemed incapable of emancipating themselves in most cases. This was a discussion that does not always happen. It’s one thing to go over Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, but another to provide information showing how Blacks did indeed start to take the initiative and free themselves.
• Sherman’s March to the Sea as “Total War.” – This is still alive and well in most schools. Not just the misconception about “total war,” but also that Sherman’s men committed atrocities on Southern citizens was wide spread. Obviously there was some of that, but not on the scale that some teach. Also, as we now know, it was not total war. Grimsley’s “hard war” is the obvious choice here.
• That the improved technology along with stagnant tactics was the main cause for the high casualties. – After reading Gerald J. Prokopowicz, “Our Hearts were Touched with Fire: Men who Fought the War,” in Aaron Sheehan-Dean’s “Struggle for a Vast Future,” who wrote that the social makeup of the armies was most likely the root cause of the high casualties. Also, Patty Griffith’s essay, “The Infantry Firefight,” in “Civil War Soldier: A Historical Reader,” who really does a nice job questioning the technology theory that rifled guns lead to high casualties. I do not emphasize technology as much, but instead the social makeup of the armies and the soldier’s reasons for fighting as the main factors.

These were just a few of the “major” topics of the war that seem to be taught differently from teacher to teacher.

Having finished my Civil War unit last week I wanted to reflect back on it and share that here with you. To re-emphasize, I teach at a regular public school in Colorado that is very diversified in its level of students. As a public school we are subject to the NCLB act and other government and political intrusions, so we have to follow a standard curriculum and use standardized assessment. Joy!

We as a staff had to come up last year with key terms, vocabulary, essential learnings and understandings for each unit. And overall I really thought we did a nice job doing so. We are allotted 2 weeks to teach the Civil War if teaching a 95 minute block (quarter) class, and about 4 weeks teaching a 45 minute (semester) class. I am teaching a semester class. I ended up taking almost 5 weeks.

It was important to me that my students understood the following (would love feedback, suggestions, critiques, ect.):

Essential understandings dealt with the causes of the war, which acknowledges that there were many causes, but that slavery was the underlining causation. Remove the institution of slavery, and there is no states rights issue and there is no Civil War.

We also wanted our students to understand the social climate, including the average soldier and citizen. We addressed the issue of racism and how it was an unavoidable fact of life because of slavery. Had you been alive during the Civil War you would have been a racist. This thought blew some students away. You might have seen slavery as an evil, you might have even been an abolitionist, but there is very little chance you would have seen the Negro as your political and social equal. This triggered some very heated and interesting debate in the classroom.

Also, it was important for us to cover how Victorian era values played a role in why soldiers went to war and why citizens supported such a fight. Understanding the nature of the conflict beyond the political and military was important.

Covering the fighting and the major battles was also a priority. We discussed how the nature of combat changed from 1861 to 1864. This was a great way to easily show how no one at the time (1861) believed the war would last long, how the North approached the war at first in a conciliatory manner, and then the evolution of hard war (some of my partners still call it Total War).

Within these “big” ideas we get into more detail.

I am now just finishing up Reconstruction which is always a big bummer for the students as they learn how it ultimately failed to help blacks gain true equality. Once again, some great discussion among the students who really did not know a lot of the ins and outs of Reconstruction. As we covered the black codes and Jim Crow laws we reflected back to the opening discussion about racism. Reiterating that though the Civil War was caused by slavery, few who fought felt that they were fighting for slavery. Some would change their minds as they experienced/saw it first hand, but still in the end, it was not enough to overcome the race card.

My desire as an American history teacher is not to point to such things and say to my students, “See, see how awful we were.” But instead to say, “See how far we have come…” Are we perfect, no, but I would not trade my place with anyone else in the world.

-Chris