Please see part one of my coverage of this subject
For convenience's sake, here is the link to the National Geographic coverage of the sesquicentennial.
While the coverage of the centennial featured a review of the war and how the centennial commission wanted it to be viewed, the reporting on the current commemoration features more about the sesquicentennial itself than on the war; even this focus stays on the basics (how/whats/whys) of this commemoration and not how the readers should interpret it . It does include a couple articles and images about the war, but it also has multiple stories about various issues involved in the remembrance of the war, making for a nice selection of old and new issues.
The article by Mark Collins Jenkins, Civil War at 150: Expect Subdued Salutes, Raising Voices strikes me as representative of the basic themes of the magazine's current coverage (though it repeats the "commemorate, not celebrate" theme that apparently is a staple of Civil War anniversaries. Maybe that - the fear of "celebrating" the war - is a topic for future thought and blogging.)
I also like how it includes several stories rather than just one or two that try to tell the whole story. This provides a broader picture of the issues involved in the anniversary and how it is being marked. These stories include a list of the top 10 Civil War sites to visit, discussion of battlefield preservation, a link to an "inside" look at a re-enactment and more. (Of course, in 1961 magazine space was much more limited than modern website space, but it is good that the current editors are taking advantage of that additional space.)
The main difference between this coverage and the 1961 reporting lies in what appears to be the focus of each era. The 1961 article by U.S Grant III featured a high-level review of the war, with a few specific incidents or battles mentioned, followed by discussion of reconciliation and reunion at then end of the war.That main article basically directs its readers in how/what to feel about the war and does not make any mention of the causes of the war or anything that could have offended supporters of either the Union or Confederacy. A modern article like this may be accused of "political correctness" in its attempt to avoid controversial topics altogether. (Even the article on Vizetelly mostly featured well-known events, battles and personalities; it did not discuss the actual centennial.)
The current coverage, as mentioned above, provides a broader view of the issues surrounding the sesquicentennial, including issues of resources budgeted for this event (or lack thereof) and does not push any certain agenda on its readers.The centennial's apparent obsession with making everybody feel happy about the Civil War (while paying little attention to anything negative about it) is the biggest difference between the coverage in the two eras. Perhaps responsibility for that falls more on the Centennial Commission than on National Geographic but the magazines editors at the time did choose to publish the article as written.
I am certainly no expert on Civil War historiography, but maybe this exercise will help me gain a new perspective on that subject. It was fascinating to see the earlier coverage show the Centennial Commission's focused more on patriotism, pride and general good feelings about the war's end and the reunited nation rather than increased knowledge or understanding of the issues that led to the war and the destruction it caused.The sesquicentennial coverage strikes me as being more balanced, reporting on issues but not leading its readers to a preordained opinion.I do wish the current coverage included more discussion on issues from the war (such as causes, or how the war affected people on the home-front, or any of many other possibilities) but the variety of articles on the magazine's site is a good start to studying the sesquicentennial.
I also have other editions of National Geographic from 1963 and 1965 that include articles about the war. I will try to review them in the near future and see how those descriptions compare to what appeared in 1961 and we see here in the first year of the sesquicentennial.
Showing posts with label historiography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historiography. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
Then and Now: National Geographic Covers the Civil War Centennial and Sesquicentennial, part 1
Here's a link to Civil War Sesquicentennial coverage that National Geographic is offering, with several different articles about this anniversary and related topics. (Please note various pages do include ads for other stories on their website as well as some of the books its society has published. Also, I realize their television channel is offering some programming on the war tonight as well, but my review is limited to the written/published words only.)
Seeing this link reminded me that I own some bound editions of National Geographic from the years of the Civil War centennial; once I saw this link, I decided to try to compare the past coverage of the centennial with the current coverage of the sesquicentennial. In order to keep it at a reasonable length, I have broken this entry up into two parts. (I do fully understand that over 50 years people change as do editorial policies, but I think having information from the same source about both anniversaries provides a good chance to make some basic observations of each era's coverage.)
The April 1961 edition (Vol. 119, No. 4) of this magazine features an overview of the war in an article by Ulysses S. Grant III, chairman of the National Civil War Centennial commission and grandson of Union General U.S. Grant. It includes both wartime illustrations modern photographs of various sites and events.
The article itself is a quick review of the war, touching on topics commonly witnessed in such overviews such as new technologies, the "modern" aspects of the war, the bravery of soldiers on both sides, and the lack of complete unity on both sides (I was surprised to see this article mention that many in the South did not favor secession.) It mentions the Crittenden family as an example of "brother against brother" and also how men of the armies fraternized with each other after a major battle. It does include a section that mentions U.S. Grant's "consideration for the people in territory occupied by his troops" which I have to wonder if any other author would have included.
In the article's last several paragraphs, it moves to a discussion of the centennial and the war's legacy. It uses a phrase much like once seen recently - the Civil War Centennial Commission did not see that time "as an occasion for celebration" but then adds that it "must give us a new understanding of the way in which Americans built from suffering and sacrifice an enduring Nation" which seems to mean it wishes to focus more on reconciliation after the war rather than the causes of the war itself. Other phrases in the following paragraphs confirm that suspicion, including a mention that the people in the country "have given the world an example not only of how to fight a war, but of how to end a war," which it calls an "inspiring" lesson. The article goes on to claim that "the centennial must be a new study of American patriotism" that would help provide a "deeper appreciation of the bravery, sacrifice, and idealism in the American character." Again, not a word is said about slavery, politics, or any of the causes of the war or the violence it produced (or, really, any negative aspect of the era), but its re-conciliatory, almost jingoistic themes are plentiful.
The final sentence of this article takes this theme to a new level: "From this added knowledge, from the entire centennial observance, we should and will gain enhanced pride in being Americans."
Was that really the goal and expectation of the Civil War Centennial Commission? Should it have been? Are we expecting similar results from the sesquicentennial?
This magazine also includes a brief article of a new map its society had produced and approximately 50 more pages concerning the experiences and drawings of Frank Vizetelly, a British reporter for the Illustrated London News. Topics include events he witnessed and observed, including First Bull Run, his thoughts on the White House (Union) reception on New Year's Day 1862, Fredericksburg, and other happenings such as Jefferson's Davis' departure from Richmond. (Here is a link where some of his drawings are available to view)
Please see my next entry for part two of this discussion, where I will mention more about the current reporting and how the two compare or contrast.
Seeing this link reminded me that I own some bound editions of National Geographic from the years of the Civil War centennial; once I saw this link, I decided to try to compare the past coverage of the centennial with the current coverage of the sesquicentennial. In order to keep it at a reasonable length, I have broken this entry up into two parts. (I do fully understand that over 50 years people change as do editorial policies, but I think having information from the same source about both anniversaries provides a good chance to make some basic observations of each era's coverage.)
The April 1961 edition (Vol. 119, No. 4) of this magazine features an overview of the war in an article by Ulysses S. Grant III, chairman of the National Civil War Centennial commission and grandson of Union General U.S. Grant. It includes both wartime illustrations modern photographs of various sites and events.
The article itself is a quick review of the war, touching on topics commonly witnessed in such overviews such as new technologies, the "modern" aspects of the war, the bravery of soldiers on both sides, and the lack of complete unity on both sides (I was surprised to see this article mention that many in the South did not favor secession.) It mentions the Crittenden family as an example of "brother against brother" and also how men of the armies fraternized with each other after a major battle. It does include a section that mentions U.S. Grant's "consideration for the people in territory occupied by his troops" which I have to wonder if any other author would have included.
In the article's last several paragraphs, it moves to a discussion of the centennial and the war's legacy. It uses a phrase much like once seen recently - the Civil War Centennial Commission did not see that time "as an occasion for celebration" but then adds that it "must give us a new understanding of the way in which Americans built from suffering and sacrifice an enduring Nation" which seems to mean it wishes to focus more on reconciliation after the war rather than the causes of the war itself. Other phrases in the following paragraphs confirm that suspicion, including a mention that the people in the country "have given the world an example not only of how to fight a war, but of how to end a war," which it calls an "inspiring" lesson. The article goes on to claim that "the centennial must be a new study of American patriotism" that would help provide a "deeper appreciation of the bravery, sacrifice, and idealism in the American character." Again, not a word is said about slavery, politics, or any of the causes of the war or the violence it produced (or, really, any negative aspect of the era), but its re-conciliatory, almost jingoistic themes are plentiful.
The final sentence of this article takes this theme to a new level: "From this added knowledge, from the entire centennial observance, we should and will gain enhanced pride in being Americans."
Was that really the goal and expectation of the Civil War Centennial Commission? Should it have been? Are we expecting similar results from the sesquicentennial?
This magazine also includes a brief article of a new map its society had produced and approximately 50 more pages concerning the experiences and drawings of Frank Vizetelly, a British reporter for the Illustrated London News. Topics include events he witnessed and observed, including First Bull Run, his thoughts on the White House (Union) reception on New Year's Day 1862, Fredericksburg, and other happenings such as Jefferson's Davis' departure from Richmond. (Here is a link where some of his drawings are available to view)
Please see my next entry for part two of this discussion, where I will mention more about the current reporting and how the two compare or contrast.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Contradiction, struggle, perseverance -a new way to think about history?
I went to a regional "History Day" hosted at Northern Kentucky University and found it to be enjoyable and quite informative. More than that, however, I may have picked up on a new perspective to use when reading about the Civil War or other history.
The speaker, NKU assistant professor Eric Jackson, led a session on how to study the Underground Railroad in the region.It proved to be quite fascinating, and almost made me wish I could take one of his classes. He was very impressive.
One point he made early in his presentation was that, in his opinion, to study African-American history, a student should understand three topics: contradiction, struggle and perseverance.
As I listed to him describe how those applied to studying African-American history (the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal" was an obvious place to start), I actually started wondering if those three topics would be applicable to a broader study of history as well, or, at the very least, to the study of the Civil War.
I didn't ponder that question too long, as I wanted to pay attention to the rest of his very fine talk (it was scheduled for 45 minutes, but a few of us in the audience managed to keep him around for about 15 minutes more) but now that I'm home I will have to look at that and think of those three words whenever I'm reading or watching something related to history. Even if they are not totally applicable to other topics, they should at least help me think of new questions to ask or a new way of thinking about what I'm reading or learning.
1. Contradiction
2. Struggle
3. Perseverance
Undoubtedly, there are other such words to use, and probably better ones for different topics, but this will still give me a different way of looking at whatever I happen to read or study.
The speaker, NKU assistant professor Eric Jackson, led a session on how to study the Underground Railroad in the region.It proved to be quite fascinating, and almost made me wish I could take one of his classes. He was very impressive.
One point he made early in his presentation was that, in his opinion, to study African-American history, a student should understand three topics: contradiction, struggle and perseverance.
As I listed to him describe how those applied to studying African-American history (the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal" was an obvious place to start), I actually started wondering if those three topics would be applicable to a broader study of history as well, or, at the very least, to the study of the Civil War.
I didn't ponder that question too long, as I wanted to pay attention to the rest of his very fine talk (it was scheduled for 45 minutes, but a few of us in the audience managed to keep him around for about 15 minutes more) but now that I'm home I will have to look at that and think of those three words whenever I'm reading or watching something related to history. Even if they are not totally applicable to other topics, they should at least help me think of new questions to ask or a new way of thinking about what I'm reading or learning.
1. Contradiction
2. Struggle
3. Perseverance
Undoubtedly, there are other such words to use, and probably better ones for different topics, but this will still give me a different way of looking at whatever I happen to read or study.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Book Review: My Old Confederate Home
Rusty Williams
copyright 2010
The University Press of Kentucky
After having read Anne Marshall's Creating a Confederate Kentucky (see my review here), I thought perhaps that Rusty William's book would make for a nice follow-up. That intuition proved to be correct, as I really enjoyed My Old Confederate Home.
In this book, Williams employs a very readable, free-flowing style to tell the tale of a property in Pewee Valley, Kentucky that served as a home for former Confederate veterans for over 30 years.
William picks a pair of "characters" to build each chapter around, discussing how those two individuals knew each other or what other similarity they held. This is an effective tool and provides consistency throughout the book.
This book is easy to read, full of enjoyable writing and with a good flow.
Williams shows how the seeds for such a house were planted in post-Civil War Confederate groups that sprung up throughout the south and in Kentucky.
Williams shows how the seeds for such a house were planted in post-Civil War Confederate groups that sprung up throughout the south and in Kentucky.
He also discusses many of the people who played major roles in the establishment of this home, the maintenance and administration of it, as well as how state-wide Confederate groups such as the United Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy contributed and/or tried to contribute to the house.
The role women played - and tried to play - is a very interesting "story within a story" as women as individuals and as members of groups showed a keen interest in the upkeep of this institution.
Williams describes the changing roles of Kentucky state politics in the house, from its beginning to its end as the number of residents inevitably declined. The final chapter, with mentions of the numbers of inmates at the house at various time frames does a great job of serving almost as a "countdown" to the home's final days.
The book does concentrate specifically on the Confederate Home and events surrounding it, but the nature of this story does describe some of the same aspects of Civil War memory in Kentucky as does Marshall's book. Williams' piece adds to the study of just how far the image of Kentucky as a Confederate state spread in the late 1800s and early 1900s and the influence former Confederates and Confederate supporters had throughout the state. Marshall spends more time explaining how this happened, but this books provides a good specific example of the effects of that image. Reading these books back-to-back proved to be a terrific idea and one I certainly suggest other readers to consider.
My Old Confederate Home is a very fine book dealing specifically with the Confederate Veteran's Home in Pewee Valley, Kentucky and is a nice addition to the study of Kentucky's image as a Confederate state.
I gladly recommend this book
The role women played - and tried to play - is a very interesting "story within a story" as women as individuals and as members of groups showed a keen interest in the upkeep of this institution.
Williams describes the changing roles of Kentucky state politics in the house, from its beginning to its end as the number of residents inevitably declined. The final chapter, with mentions of the numbers of inmates at the house at various time frames does a great job of serving almost as a "countdown" to the home's final days.
The book does concentrate specifically on the Confederate Home and events surrounding it, but the nature of this story does describe some of the same aspects of Civil War memory in Kentucky as does Marshall's book. Williams' piece adds to the study of just how far the image of Kentucky as a Confederate state spread in the late 1800s and early 1900s and the influence former Confederates and Confederate supporters had throughout the state. Marshall spends more time explaining how this happened, but this books provides a good specific example of the effects of that image. Reading these books back-to-back proved to be a terrific idea and one I certainly suggest other readers to consider.
My Old Confederate Home is a very fine book dealing specifically with the Confederate Veteran's Home in Pewee Valley, Kentucky and is a nice addition to the study of Kentucky's image as a Confederate state.
I gladly recommend this book
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Pardons for people who helped slaves escape in KY?
The article I am linking here is from May of 2010, and I don't know how I missed it the first time, but I find it interesting and a good idea.
The timing is actually not bad for me, as I'm currently reading Creating a Confederate Kentucky, a very fine book by Anne Marshall, and this article mentions how Kentucky's role in the Civil War was "ambivalent," a description much more understandable when considered alongside Marshall's book. Also the concept of offering pardons for this type of crime, yet no descendants of those convicted of these offenses offers an interesting perspective on how the war and slavery are remembered in current times.
This article does not mention the names of all 44 who were to be pardoned, and I have not yet found out if the pardons have yet occurred, but I will look into it more and see what I can find.(One quick question: did the people undertaking this project ever list all of the names or publicize them somehow? If not, then it is no wonder at all that no descendants have expressed interest in this work.)
Also, I do wonder if it is accurate for the writer of the article's headline to use the word "abolitionists." I tend to think of that word as being for those who wanted slavery eliminated, but does it also count for those who simply helped (or tried to help) slaves escape? Is it safe to assume that these people (I've seen them called "operators" on the Underground Railroad) favored the abolition of slavery? Is helping a slave escape the same as wanting the entire institution prohibited? I'll have to think about that some more while wondering if I'm being too finicky in asking these questions.
I also recommend reading the New York Times' Editorial on this story. The article linked above includes a link to it as well, but I am also linking it in case that makes it easier to find. It is worth the click.
(And again, it is interesting to find this commentary in the New York Times, a newspaper frequently referred to in Marshall's book for its observations and thoughts about Kentucky in the late 1800s. The use of the phrase "Modern Kentucky" in the editorial quickly caught my attention, presumably because I'm reading the book about Kentucky of the past.)
The timing is actually not bad for me, as I'm currently reading Creating a Confederate Kentucky, a very fine book by Anne Marshall, and this article mentions how Kentucky's role in the Civil War was "ambivalent," a description much more understandable when considered alongside Marshall's book. Also the concept of offering pardons for this type of crime, yet no descendants of those convicted of these offenses offers an interesting perspective on how the war and slavery are remembered in current times.
This article does not mention the names of all 44 who were to be pardoned, and I have not yet found out if the pardons have yet occurred, but I will look into it more and see what I can find.(One quick question: did the people undertaking this project ever list all of the names or publicize them somehow? If not, then it is no wonder at all that no descendants have expressed interest in this work.)
Also, I do wonder if it is accurate for the writer of the article's headline to use the word "abolitionists." I tend to think of that word as being for those who wanted slavery eliminated, but does it also count for those who simply helped (or tried to help) slaves escape? Is it safe to assume that these people (I've seen them called "operators" on the Underground Railroad) favored the abolition of slavery? Is helping a slave escape the same as wanting the entire institution prohibited? I'll have to think about that some more while wondering if I'm being too finicky in asking these questions.
I also recommend reading the New York Times' Editorial on this story. The article linked above includes a link to it as well, but I am also linking it in case that makes it easier to find. It is worth the click.
(And again, it is interesting to find this commentary in the New York Times, a newspaper frequently referred to in Marshall's book for its observations and thoughts about Kentucky in the late 1800s. The use of the phrase "Modern Kentucky" in the editorial quickly caught my attention, presumably because I'm reading the book about Kentucky of the past.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)