Blog 4 History

Gary B. Nash is a fairly popular historian for not just high school history instructors, but college professors as well. If we were to take Nash at face value in his assessment of Robert Morris, we would come to the conclusion that the man was one of “wealth, hugely increased during the depths of the war, he was supremely insensitive to the poor. A former slave trader and present slave owner, he had little sympathy for African-Americans. As for Native Americans, his interest was only I the profits he could accrue by speculating on their lands.” He was a man who had only “contempt for ordinary people,” Nash would summarize. Indeed, Nash hit the tri-factor in his Social Justice analysis. He declared Morris insensitive to the important causes of the Era: the poor, blacks, and Indians (and women). Nothing else matters to those who teach Social Justice Revisionist history such as Mr. Nash. Indeed, important subjects, but not the end all or be all. [Gary B. Nash, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America, (Penguin, 2006)]

Emphasis is the key to how someone writes and/or teaches American history. Certainly Morris owned some slaves, as did most of the Founding Fathers. His contempt for “Democracy” was also nothing out of the ordinary for time; many Founding Fathers were hesitant supporters of Republicanism and doubted the virtue of a Democracy of any kind. As for land speculating, yes it was Indian land, and indeed Washington, Morris and many others invested heavily in the West; only unlike Washington and others, Morris would lose his fortune doing so and ultimately die broke. He was also incarcerated in a debtors prison. But most importantly, what Morris meant to the success of the American Revolution cannot be overstated yet time and time again, he is seen very much as Nash depicts him above.

In a new book by acclaimed author of Sons of Providence — winner of the 2007 George Washington Book Prize — Charles Rappleye brings us Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution, (Hardcover, 416 pages; Published November 9th 2010 by Simon & Schuster).

As Rappleye, an Amateur historian (why is it that I find myself drawn more and more to Amateur historians over the so-called professional trained ones?), notes in his Introduction, Morris has been largely forgotten by history and when he is remembered, it is with similar disdain as offered by Mr. Nash. Morris was a complex man with very distinct perspectives, but as Rappleye mentions, Morris was “no ideologue. [He was] pragmatic, creative,” and with “steadfast integrity.” His personal honor and ability to deliver won him the allegiance of such Founders as Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, and John Adams; though never his radical cousin Sam.

Morris introduced key concepts of banking and finance into the fledgling American government that were crucial to its financial situation. Morris was incredibly active in the government and an early Patriot who was a vocal critic of the Stamp Act. As a matter of fact, during the crucial months of 1777, when the Congresses fled from Philadelphia, Morris “ran the operations of the government virtually single-handed.” And at a time when the country had no currency and an economy in shambles, Morris dipped into his own financial wealth and single-handedly kept the Revolution afloat. Morris was a patriot and Founding Father who deserves more respect and a better “perspective” than what most historians and educators provide. Thus, if you are interested in some context to Morris and his ilk, read Rappleye’s even handed and fascinating account of Morris and the Revolution.

From the news article:

A less festive bunch it’s hard to imagine.

This is Hitler and his henchmen celebrating Christmas in 1941 – not that you’d know it from their glum expressions.

These probably had something to do with the recent dispiriting failure of Nazi attempts to seize Moscow and take control of Russia.

Read more

Instead of doing a “Best of 2010,” as I’m not sure why anyone would care and it seems a bit presumptuous of me to assume anyone would care (though I am a blogger and that seems to indicate otherwise!); Nonetheless I decided to simply reflect upon this past year of teaching, one that might include having taught my last AP U.S. History class. (Which ends this May).

As I have stated year in and year out as a teacher, today’s kids are just as motivated to learn as kids 50 years ago or 20 years ago! Are there kids who have checked out? Sure, but I can’t sit here and tell you that when I was in school in the 1980s that we were better educated and taught by better educators; simply not the case. Are there bad teachers? Sure, and yes some do try to indoctrinate their students. I have addressed the issue of Teaching for Social Justice all year and will continue to do so. I have also found one person’s view on what makes a good teacher. I also liked looking at the progress of the Historical Profession as well. For future educators and students, I liked the idea of using the iPad to enhance learning.

One thing I think I do a good job of is engaging my students. I have a sense of humor and allow it to come out (never force a sense of humor, you either have it or you don’t) and when you can either get students thinking or laughing, then, for a brief moment, you can trick them into learning. I’ve talked about how counterfactuals and Historical Contingency can impact learning.

This has been a challenging year for me and for various reasons: First) Time, I am in the final stages of my Masters program, I also coach football in the Fall for my son’s HS team and we had a great season making it to the “Elite 8” in Colorado. [photo left is my son, he plays Center]. However, leaving the house at 6:30 AM and not returning until 7:30 PM was a challenge (then from 8ish to 11ish school work) ; Second) Teaching, not sure I enjoy AP U.S. History, especially the way the “administration” wants us to teach it. We’re facing more budget cuts, which means pay cuts, job cuts, and from what I hear, 33-35 kids in a classroom. The life of a Public School Teacher!

As for APUS, I’m not sure I want to teach it right now. I enjoy my U.S. Studies and International Forum courses, which are electives. I can design the curriculum and determine the pace, that’s a big plus. U.S. Studies is early American history through the Civil War and I can do so much more with it and not feel like I am in a race. International Forum is a change of pace class that takes students outside of the United States (it is really more of a seminar the way I can present it) and challenges kids to see the world from a perspective that is not always presented to them. Is it simply prestige that drives me to teach AP? Maybe. I do not know what next year holds, but whatever way it goes I will take the challenge.

What it comes down, ultimately, is what happens within those four walls, to be a teacher is about letting go of all the B.S. and just do the best you can with those 30+ kids. Hope this finds you all well and Happy New Year!

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
by Pauline Maier

[Pauline Maier is the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of American History. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1968]

In 1997 Alfred A. Knopf published Maier’s American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, which I did not read until a year and a half ago for my Constitutional History graduate class. American Scripture was well researched and well written. American Scripture was on the New York Times Book Review editors “Choice” list of the best 11 books of 1997 and a finalist in General Nonfiction for the National Book Critics’ Circle Award. Maier’s most recent work is a fantastic follow up. Her research is simply awesome with as daunting an index as you’ll see that makes Ratification far more impressive than American Script and a book that places Maier in elite company as a constitutional historian. What I love about the book is it nicely fills a void of sorts by not focusing on the Constitutional Convention, but instead ob the complicated and often intricate ratification process where the people did indeed debate and ultimately select the Constitution as the law of the land.

American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence
by Pauline Maier

As an AP US History teacher I find Maier’s work incredibly useful and frankly it will take me years to properly incorporate some of the chapters in the book. In particular I loved the sections about the Virginia and New York ratification process and the depth in which she goes. There is so much in this book that every time you pick it up you will undoubtedly pick up on something new.

From the Publisher:

When the delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, the new Constitution they had written was no more than a proposal. Elected conventions in at least nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify it before it could take effect. There was reason to doubt whether that would happen. The document we revere today as the foundation of our country’s laws, the cornerstone of our legal system, was hotly disputed at the time. Some Americans denounced the Constitution for threatening the liberty that Americans had won at great cost in the Revolutionary War. One group of fiercely patriotic opponents even burned the document in a raucous public demonstration on the Fourth of July.

In this splendid new history, Pauline Maier tells the dramatic story of the yearlong battle over ratification that brought such famous founders as Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Henry together with less well-known Americans who sometimes eloquently and always passionately expressed their hopes and fears for their new country. Men argued in taverns and coffeehouses; women joined the debate in their parlors; broadsides and newspaper stories advocated various points of view and excoriated others. In small towns and counties across the country people read the document carefully and knew it well. Americans seized the opportunity to play a role in shaping the new nation. Then the ratifying conventions chosen by We the People scrutinized and debated the Constitution clause by clause.

A top notch book and one destined to pick up some awards down the road in my hopeful opinion.

There has been some discussion about WikiLeaks and whether is it a good or bad thing for historians? Does the top secret information help historians write a more accurate narrative or do the leaks ensure that future access will be even more difficult and ultimately hinder future historiography? Is it ultimately so harmful that it could never be useful? Is there a level where historians are not entitled to such sensitive data? All legitimate questions.

The Chicago Tribune spoke with several historians and authors about the leaks and about the comparisons some are making between WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers. I think they are born from much different circumstances and motivations, but certainly there are some similarities. Here is a sample from that editorial:

Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz rejects similaries between WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers.

“It’s not as if we’re still up against the Vietnam War; and everybody has a right — no a duty, to play Daniel Ellsberg,” Wilentz, whose books include “The Rise of American Democracy” and “The Age of Reagan,” said.

“But this is extremely dangerous, given the imperatives of diplomacy. Is there some profound deception of the American people and the world going on which, as with Ellsberg, requires an insider to, in effect, blow the whistle? I don’t get that sense. I get the sense that there are people out there, like the WikiLeaks people, who have a simpleminded idea of secrecy and transparency, who are simply offended by any state actions that are cloaked.”

But Ellsberg believes there are parallels to the documents he leaked nearly 40 years ago. He says that while early media reports about WikiLeaks focused on gossip and personalities, memos are now emerging that show greater U.S. involvement in Pakistan than the government acknowledged, a pattern revealed by the Pentagon Papers about Vietnam.

“This means the Obama administration is on a path that is as dangerous as can be,” Ellsberg says, noting Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. “I think the press did a disservice by leading with so much gossip, which isn’t terribly important.”

Certainly WikiLeaks will ultimately not be a bright spot for the Obama Administration, but I am more concerned about its impact on future historian’s access to sensitive documents. Never will we get enough access or enough information no matter how sensitive, but I do worry how this impacts the future. For now, we have some extraordinary documents (I have looked through some and it is enormous and incredible), but I have yet to see a smoking gun. It’s real foreign policy and political agendas. I do also worry about the revealing of informants and sensitive data. There has to be plenty of information leaked that could get people killed, I hope not, but I wonder.

So in the end there are multiple aspects to WikiLeaks, certainly good and bad.

I did not get a chance to post anything on December 7 in honor of Pearl Harbor, but every class I had that day it was a point of discussion. From simple discourse on how something like that (a massive sneak attack) can happen to the reasons for Japanese aggression, the specifics of the attack, and some interesting “What Ifs?” I think a good history teacher makes their class a more enjoyable experience when students are engaged in critical thinking with such teaching devices as “counterfactuals” (What if) and “contingency.” I bring this up as I came across an excellent article by Aaron Astor over at the The Moderate Voice.

One of the fun things about the study of history is the use of counterfactuals. That is, positing an alternative history and wondering how things would have ended up differently. What if the US Navy had never won at Midway? What if the Pacific Fleet really was destroyed at Pearl Harbor? Did FDR really know it was coming – and what would have happened if he had responded differently? And so on.

But counterfactuals are deceptively simple. History does not follow a linear path where one alteration could predictably recalibrate all subsequent events. It’s not like a great Excel financial model where by plugging in a different input you get a predictably different output.

I have found that counterfactuals are better for my basic U.S. History class and contingency better suited for my AP U.S. History students. But as Astor notes, it is the combination of the two that really takes the discussion and critical thinking to a new level.

But counterfactuals without respect for contingency look more like Monday morning quarterbacking. Should Bragg, for example, have been able to rout Rosecrans’s forces once and for all at Chickamauga? Well, sure! But could he have really planned for the accidental gap to appear in Union lines that fateful day in the first place? And what of the serendipitous arrival of Longstreet’s forces – just in time to drive through the Union gap and force a near disastrous retreat back into Chattanooga? As with most cases, a closer examination reveals the futility of pushing this line of reasoning. There were just too many forces that converged at a particular time to make it all happen the way it did.

There is a danger, however, that we reduce history to nothing more than randomness, so where does that leave us? Well, as Astor notes, we can throw up our hands and declare history essentially useless to understanding today or we could “spend more time marveling at the past for its own sake.”

Good stuff and good food for thought as we find our way as teachers of history.

In my regular (Non-AP) United States history class we are in the final two weeks of the quarter and have hit the 1980s. As I have mentioned recently, I use documentaries and docudramas whenever I feel they will be helpful. If the documentary is even tempered in its presentation and is not “boring” I can keep my students engaged. What I mean by “even tempered” is the slant or point of view of the video. Today I showed a video at the recommendation of another teacher. The video, Images of the 80s, produced by ABC and Time Magazine, narrated by Peter Jennings. I got a kick out of it, the 1980s was of course the start of what our textbook calls the “Conservative Revolution.” I won’t even go into how the textbook portrays the events. How Jennings described Ronald Reagan? “Simple” and “lucky.” Now you could call the man lucky (he didn’t die when shot at point blank range), and he did speak plainly to the American people and proudly (patriotism) and he did indeed believe in American Exceptionalism. I’m sure it’s just me, but you could tell just how much Peter Jennings hated the 1980s while watching this video.

Through out the years I have come across Civil War letters that I thought were excellent content wise, but just never fell in with the research I was doing. Therefore I want to start sharing these letters with you here, from time to time. The first one:

Albert P. Wright was a 44 year old carpenter when he enlisted as a private on May 13, 1864. He was mustered into Co. I of the 58th Massachusetts Infantry. Albert was captured less than a month later, on June 7, 1864, at Cold Harbor, Va., and was sent to Andersonville Prison, Ga., on June 21, 1864. There is no further information known about Private Wright other than he never returned home from the war. Wright undoubtedly died at Andersonville and is one of many unknown Union soldiers who died there, a fact unknown to his wife Nancy at the time she wrote this letter.

Gilsum, June 23, 1865

Dear Sir,

I beg leave to address you hoping to obtain some advice and council from you in regard to my state aid to which the city of Roxbury talks of discontinuing on account of not being able to learn anything of my husband who was taken prisoner one year ago this month. When he wrote me on the 19 of June/64 he was well but was a prisoner of war and have been able to learn nothing of him since. In case that he should not be living at this present time should I not be entitled to state aid for one year according to the new law? If so, will not the government stand by and defend and maintain the laws she makes? If not, I do not see the use of making laws. A lawyer in Keene told me the other day that I should be entitled to one year’s state aid together with a pension should he not be living. I wish you would be so kind as to tell me whether this is so and if true inform me what can be done to make the Treasurer of Roxbury do his duty. My state aid for Feb. I never rec’d at all. He says he sent it to me by mail and as he did not have it registered I must lose it. I wish you would tell me whether I can recover it of him or not, and if so I wish you would compel him to do his duty in that respect. I have a family of small children to maintain and by his aid is all I have to depend upon. I am unable to earn anything for my health is not good and I want all the law will allow me, and if he is not honest he ought to be looked after. I wrote to my husband’s Captain in May. He wrote me he had not been able to learn anything of him as yet but would inform me as soon as he did. He may be so emaciated that he is not able to come home quite yet and I think it not right to stop my aid until something definite is known at least. I suppose you have no means of ascertaining anything of him at any rate. I will tell you his name and Co., and Regt. He enlisted last May in Readville, Mass. in the Army of the Potomac, belonged in the 58 Regt., Co. I, Mass. Vols., his name Albert P. Wright of Gilsum, N.H. I hope you will excuse the liberty I take in writing you for I think Mr. Dudley not acting according to the laws of the state. Someone ought to apprise you of it. I hope you will be so kind as to favor me with a reply soon.

Yours with respect,

Mrs. Nancy Wright

Last year our school district had to cut $11 million dollars, this meant pay cuts and freezes, and jobs. This year we have been informed that due to loss of tax revenue we will have to see another $10 million or so in cuts. This will be the beginning of even more serious cuts. On the table is pretty much everything, from busing to job cuts, and more pay cuts. Our Department Chair informed me that United States AP History could be among those classes that in the future could be gone, why? Well, last year I went from 24 students to a final 12 who finished to take the examine, and this year from 26 to 14 as it stands now. According to administration, due to need to increase class sizes (and I presume reduce teachers) we will have to utilize resources and a room that holds 32 only serving 12-14 does not represent the best use of resources. It was suggested that if I could maintain my numbers into the mid-20s I would most likely keep the class. [Note: all Social Studies AP classes on the possible chopping block.]

Why do the numbers decline? The workload is demanding and the material is significant and complex. I end up with the best, the cream of the crop. Thus, do I reduce the work load, decrease the expectations, and essentially dumb down the class in order to keep the numbers and essentially the class? [Note: nothing has been finalized and all this may never materialize, but nonetheless it has been brought to my attention.]

I have to admit I am perplexed. Last year I had almost 50% scores of 5, if I reduce the quality of the class, do I risk a lower average of scores and then a critical review of my teaching? The goal has always been the AP exam, which I do admit is also problematic. However, as a public school parents expect us to get their student ready for that exam. It is a demanding proposition.

I have to admit that maybe this is an opportunity to make the class more inclusive and accessible, but I fear that I do a disservice to those students who want the challenge and want to be among what they see as an elite group of students of history. I don’t want to lose that either.

[Cross posted over at my other site, Soldier Studies.org]

Deliver Us from This Cruel War:
The Civil War Letters of Lieutenant Joseph J. Hoyle, 55th North Carolina Infantry
Front Cover
BY: Joseph J. Hoyle, Jeffrey M. Girvan

Title: Deliver Us from This Cruel War: The Civil War Letters of Lieutenant Joseph J. Hoyle, 55th North Carolina Infantry
Publisher: McFarland, 2010
ISBN: 0786447575, 9780786447572
Length: 233 pages

Joseph J. Hoyle enlisted in the Confederate Army in May 1862 as a private. By the time of his death in September 1864, he was serving as a lieutenant in the 55th Regiment North Carolina Troops. The personal letters of this soldier, supplemented by the editor’s overview of the events and actions of the regiment, offer a view of the common soldier as well as battlefield and camp culture. The letters also reveal, among other things, how this former schoolteacher urged his fellow soldiers forward at Gettysburg despite a sense that the cause was lost.

Jeffrey M. Girvan is a social studies professional development specialist with Prince William County Schools in Virginia.

McFarland and Mr. Girvan have given us one of the better first hand accounts of the Civil War that I have read in some time. Reminiscent of Stephen E. Ambroses A Wisconsin boy in Dixie: Civil War letters of James K. Newton, Girvan’s subject, Joseph J. Hoyle, is an exception and prolific writer who had some interesting and keen insights of the war. Girvan does a far better job of editing his book than does Ambrose, but nonetheless they are counterparts to a degree.

Hoyle was a spiritual man who loved his wife Sarah deeply, but found himself in the middle of a Civil War that would ultimately claim his life. The letters are often touching and poignant, and though Hoyle’s religious belief allow him a somewhat unusual reaction to war, the battlefield did test his convictions and the length of the war his resolve, though he never stopped believing in the fight and wrote home many times as a correspondent to a local newspaper.

Girvan offers up a nice introductory essay that touches on the historiography of social history of the Civil War soldier, and then continues with excellent historical overviews for each chapter along with solid historical exposition. The presentation is very solid with nice illustrations and maps, and Girvan’s timely and informative elicitation makes this book an excellent contribution to Civil War soldier studies.

–Chris Wehner