http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
Obviously, this will be an easy and popular post on Civil War blogs tonight and tomorrow, but it's a subject important enough to deserve much commemoration and celebration.
Plus, from a selfish standpoint, as 2012 progressed, I found myself using my tablet ( thank you Santa Claus 2011) more than my desktop, and that has hindered my posting. I'm hoping that this Blogger app will make it easier for me to post updates like this one, the first I have done like this.
Nevertheless, January 1, 1863 was a tremendously important day in United States history. Lincoln's proclamation was not perfect, of course, and it did not immediately end slavery throughout the land or defeat racism (Northern or Southern), but it was a large step forward for an American President to issue an official anti- slavery document for the nation (and world) to see. It established the ending of slavery as an official U.S. government aim of the ongoing war.
I hope people other than "history buffs" read and think about this tomorrow, even if just briefly. This is more than just another Civil War milestone.
Showing posts with label sesquicentennial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sesquicentennial. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Cincinnati Museum Exhibit: Cincinnati and the Civil War
 |
| Image from Cincymuseum.org |
Cincinnati and the Civil War: The Queen City Responds 1861-1862
Here's a brief description from their site, but if you go to the link, you'll see more, including photos of some of the items on display. It looks promising. You can search my blog for articles on the Siege of Cincinnati, though I'll try to be republishing some of those stories or hopefully creating new ones in the next three weeks. The Siege of Cincinnati took place in the weeks following the Confederate route of Union forces at Richmond, Kentucky, at the end of August 1862.
September 2012 marks the 150th anniversary of the Confederate Siege of Cincinnati, which compelled soldiers and citizens to organize defenses around our Queen City. Learn about the defense of Cincinnati, the Battle of Perryville and other events from the first two years of the Civil War explored through actual uniforms, weapons and equipment of the common soldier as well as photographs, letters, broadsides and paintings of the period from our collections.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Let's Talk About it: Making Sense of the American Civil War
This series, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Library Association, took place at 65 libraries across the country and only 2 in Kentucky. I was fortunate to have a local library earn the grant to be able to conduct this program.
The groups featured a series of shared readings, with one monthly meeting (at least the way the Boone County Library ran the program) to discuss the readings. The main book involved was the anthology America's War compiled by historian and University of Richmond President Edward Ayers. It includes a series of writings, speeches and literature about different aspects of the war. Both fiction and non-fiction works were used, and a few of them were modern, while many were from the war years. Among the authors and speakers whose works appear in this book are Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Jefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Shelby Foote, Gary Gallagher and Bobbie Ann Mason. It will not go down as a groundbreaking piece of Civil War literature, but I thought it met its intended purpose and provided a nice variety of perspectives. (A question that I raised during one of the sessions was how the author chose which writings/speeches to include and which other ones may have been good fits. That may be something I try to explore in future blog entries. It's not a criticism of the book, but, rather, an attempt to look at the "memory" and "perspective" side of it, and how his choices influenced the discussions and what we talked about. The writings published in the book certainly led the discussions in certain directions, so why were these particular selections chosen?)
Some of the additional reading included James McPherson's Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom and Geraldine Brooks' March. (See my reviews and comments about these here and here.) I did not particularly care for the novel March, but perhaps reading some fiction is good for me and can help me further understand the concept of memory and perspective about the war. Maybe I need to expand my horizons in this direction, at least occasionally.
Each of the five session focused on one theme, starting with "Imagining War" before moving onto "Choosing Sides" and then "Making Sense of Shiloh." The final two categories were "The Shape of War" and "War and Freedom." The local scholar who served as moderator of the series (a colleague of mine from the Ramage Museum - that is how I heard about this series) did a good job of focusing on these areas in a brief "lecture" to start the meetings, but once we broke into separate groups the discussions sometimes veered to topics related to the war and our readings, but perhaps not exactly on the theme of the night. That did not matter, however, at least to me.
These smaller discussions, consisting usually of around 10-12 people grouped together, were the heart and soul of the series and the most interesting part of it. Even if we did not always stay exactly on the subject, it was nice to just sit around and talk about the Civil War, sharing opinions and perspectives about our readings, and various battles, personalities, theories and other general Civil War topics. I thoroughly enjoyed it and was glad to find out that I could fit in and contribute to it without embarrassing myself in such a situation.
I hope to find a way to help lead or at least participate in similar future events that engage the public, either through the library and/or through the Ramage Museum, in the future. It was a great way to involve the public in the study of the war and even how we remember it, as people shared how they had been taught about the war and how they perceived events during the war. Participants had lived in areas both north and south, and had visited many different Civil War sites, and their perspectives were very valuable. It was not merely a lecture with people sitting around listening to a scholar or author, nor simply a static display in a museum. I've seen some discussions on other blogs about engaging the public during the sesquicentennial and this program definitely did that. The first few sessions had about 40 participants while the last one was down to about 30, but I thought that was a good turnout, and was impressed that the drop-off was so small over a 5 month period (1 meeting each month from November through March). Everybody I talked with seemed to enjoy it, which I guess is why so many kept coming back for the additional sessions.
If any reader has the opportunity to join a series like this, even through some other program, I strongly encourage you to participate and be active in it. Do not be afraid to make comments or ask questions. That is not nearly as fun or as informative as being an active participant - at least that was my experience anyway.
Monday, June 13, 2011
National Geographic Civil War Centennial Coverage: Part 4
A few weeks ago, I received an email about National Geographic's online coverage of the Civil War Sesquicentennial
This reminded me that I owned some bound volumes of this magazine from the early 1960s and I decided to compare and contrast how this publication covered the current observance and the 100th anniversary of the war. Below are links to the three previous entries I made on this subject.
part 1
part 2
Part 3
For today's entry, presumable the final one on this topic, I turn to the National Geographic from April 1965, volume 127, number 4.
The coverage in this edition is very similar to its initial coverage, in "part 1" linked above. Once again, it features an article written by Ulysses S Grant 3rd, the grandson of the famous Union General and President.
The article discusses the last few days of the Civil War, as Union troops tried to trap the forces commanded by Robert E Lee and force them to surrender. The article includes photographs, from the war period and from the magazine's own era, as well as maps and illustrations of people, places and events during those chaotic few days.
Deciding to focus the coverage on that part of the war was a natural choice and one I can support, but what bothered me about this article was how frequently the author used it to praise his grandfather, either from his own thoughts and memories (though the general died when this grandson was only 4 years old) or from quotes by others. I do not dislike praise for the original U.S. Grant, and much, if not all, of it, was well-deserved, but I did find it difficult to take it as seriously, coming from his own descendant. It struck me almost as being hagiography at times, and certainly not as an objective discussion of the general and his performance. The author's using various terms like "my grandfather," "General Grant" and "the general" throughout the article did not help either.
The author's telling of a story told by his grandmother of a discussion with President Lincoln was quite interesting and something I had not seen before, but, again, I'm not sure an article commemorating the end of the war was the right place for a piece of family history.
I understand why Grant III wrote as he did, and think it's great he felt so proud of his ancestor, but it was not a good idea to have him write this article due to the obvious lack of objectivity.
Besides the frequent praise for General Grant, this article did at times fall back on the 1961's reliance on a theme of "reunification" and how the war brought "a Nation united for all time." This theme was not as constant as in the 1961 article, but did appear at times throughout it.
A large portion of this theme of reconciliation is in the ending pages of the article, where the author makes frequent mention of and reference to his ancestor's generosity in the terms offered to Lee, even including quotes from an essay by Robert Louis Stevenson and from a 1912 speech by Lee staff member Colonel Charles Marshall, showing how "magnanimous" and "gentlemanly" Grant the elder was
It is a good article and worth reading, but while I understand the magazine's decision to have the grandson of what many consider to be an American hero write for it, I wish they had let him do an article to serve as a brief biography of the general and had another author discuss the race to Appomattox.
This reminded me that I owned some bound volumes of this magazine from the early 1960s and I decided to compare and contrast how this publication covered the current observance and the 100th anniversary of the war. Below are links to the three previous entries I made on this subject.
part 1
part 2
Part 3
For today's entry, presumable the final one on this topic, I turn to the National Geographic from April 1965, volume 127, number 4.
The coverage in this edition is very similar to its initial coverage, in "part 1" linked above. Once again, it features an article written by Ulysses S Grant 3rd, the grandson of the famous Union General and President.
The article discusses the last few days of the Civil War, as Union troops tried to trap the forces commanded by Robert E Lee and force them to surrender. The article includes photographs, from the war period and from the magazine's own era, as well as maps and illustrations of people, places and events during those chaotic few days.
Deciding to focus the coverage on that part of the war was a natural choice and one I can support, but what bothered me about this article was how frequently the author used it to praise his grandfather, either from his own thoughts and memories (though the general died when this grandson was only 4 years old) or from quotes by others. I do not dislike praise for the original U.S. Grant, and much, if not all, of it, was well-deserved, but I did find it difficult to take it as seriously, coming from his own descendant. It struck me almost as being hagiography at times, and certainly not as an objective discussion of the general and his performance. The author's using various terms like "my grandfather," "General Grant" and "the general" throughout the article did not help either.
The author's telling of a story told by his grandmother of a discussion with President Lincoln was quite interesting and something I had not seen before, but, again, I'm not sure an article commemorating the end of the war was the right place for a piece of family history.
I understand why Grant III wrote as he did, and think it's great he felt so proud of his ancestor, but it was not a good idea to have him write this article due to the obvious lack of objectivity.
Besides the frequent praise for General Grant, this article did at times fall back on the 1961's reliance on a theme of "reunification" and how the war brought "a Nation united for all time." This theme was not as constant as in the 1961 article, but did appear at times throughout it.
A large portion of this theme of reconciliation is in the ending pages of the article, where the author makes frequent mention of and reference to his ancestor's generosity in the terms offered to Lee, even including quotes from an essay by Robert Louis Stevenson and from a 1912 speech by Lee staff member Colonel Charles Marshall, showing how "magnanimous" and "gentlemanly" Grant the elder was
It is a good article and worth reading, but while I understand the magazine's decision to have the grandson of what many consider to be an American hero write for it, I wish they had let him do an article to serve as a brief biography of the general and had another author discuss the race to Appomattox.
 | |
| Currier and Ives' image of the surrender, courtesy of Library of Congress |
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Camp Dennison Civil War Event June 25-26
Camp Dennison Reenactment
This is courtesy of the Ohio Civil War 150 blog, a very informative blog that I do recommend for people interested in the Civil War in and around the Buckeye State.
Here are a couple of links with some more information about Camp Dennison including Camp Dennison Civil War page
The Christian Waldschmidt homestead will host the event and I recommend visiting it, including the house which was built in the very early 1800s. It's a neat place and the Daughters of the American Revolution do a terrific job with it
This is courtesy of the Ohio Civil War 150 blog, a very informative blog that I do recommend for people interested in the Civil War in and around the Buckeye State.
Here are a couple of links with some more information about Camp Dennison including Camp Dennison Civil War page
The Christian Waldschmidt homestead will host the event and I recommend visiting it, including the house which was built in the very early 1800s. It's a neat place and the Daughters of the American Revolution do a terrific job with it
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
More on National Geographic's Centennial coverage
A few days ago, I posted two entries linking some current coverage of the Civil War Sesquicentennial by National Geographic on its website and comparing that to its coverage of the Centennial in a 1961 edition of that magazine. Here is a link to part two of my previous observations- a link to the first part is within part two.
Today, I'm reviewing the coverage they provided two years after the Centennial had stared, this time from the July 1963 edition (volume 124, number 1.)
This magazine featured two different articles on what had happened 100 years before, focusing on the popular battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
The first article is a brief review of those fights by poet Carl Sandburg, but it focuses mostly on Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. It particularly focuses on Lincoln's interpretation of those victories, quoting from his famous unsent letter to George Meade about letting Lee "escape" and his Proclamation of Thanksgiving from July 15. The theme of reconciliation, so obvious in the 1961 edition, is not so clear in this article, though the last sentence hints at it when talking about how "we" honor "events that made us not a parcel of quarreling states, but a united Nation."
Following this is a much longer more in-depth article by Robert Paul Jordan entitled Gettysburg and Vicksburg: the Battle Towns Today. In this article, Jordan describes his trips to each battlefield and discussion he has with locals and with tour guides including Frederick H Tilberg and Edwin C. Bearss. Mixed in with pictures from his time as well as wartime images, Jordan's story goes back and forth, describing what he sees in the modern towns, and comparing it to what had happened on that land a century before.
Like Sandburg's piece, Jordan's article does not focus on the concept of reunion or reconciliation, despite occasional glimpses of such thoughts. It pretty much covers his observations about the areas and the people he meets, including comments from local citizens, and a few remarks about battlefield preservation. He does try to find "words" that describe each city and comes up with "All roads lead to Gettysburg" and "We have a long way to go (but had come a long way too)" for Vicksburg.
Both articles are enjoyable, and the pictures definitely add to it. I liked one picture in Jordan's article showing a souvenir table along a road - it had the US flag and Confederate Battle Flag flying from the top of the stand, and the items for sale were similar to what you might see today - bullets (30 cents each), books, small metal busts of Lincoln (I have a couple that resemble the ones on that table), a plastic flute with a Civil War logo glued to it and miniature cannons as well. It really did not look much different than such a table 50 years later does.
Jordan's article does have a picture of a re-enactment of a "Southern ball" from 1862 and though that picture does not look appropriate, it was a recreation of an actual 1862 event. A few pages later, though, is a 1860s picture showing many of the "caves" Vicksburg citizens had dug as shelter during the batter. The contrast of those two pictures - the modern colored photo of people in fancy clothes or uniforms dancing and then the gritty black and white image of rough, muddy shelters is quite impressive. I wish they had been put closer together to make their contrast more obvious, but the differences between the two are still quite stark.
Overall, this 1863 magazine did not focus on reconciliation as the main 1961 article had. Instead, the editors chose to feature the two famous battles that ended in the same month 100 years previously, and chose a good combination of articles and images to convey those towns during the war and during the time of these articles.
Today, I'm reviewing the coverage they provided two years after the Centennial had stared, this time from the July 1963 edition (volume 124, number 1.)
This magazine featured two different articles on what had happened 100 years before, focusing on the popular battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
The first article is a brief review of those fights by poet Carl Sandburg, but it focuses mostly on Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. It particularly focuses on Lincoln's interpretation of those victories, quoting from his famous unsent letter to George Meade about letting Lee "escape" and his Proclamation of Thanksgiving from July 15. The theme of reconciliation, so obvious in the 1961 edition, is not so clear in this article, though the last sentence hints at it when talking about how "we" honor "events that made us not a parcel of quarreling states, but a united Nation."
Following this is a much longer more in-depth article by Robert Paul Jordan entitled Gettysburg and Vicksburg: the Battle Towns Today. In this article, Jordan describes his trips to each battlefield and discussion he has with locals and with tour guides including Frederick H Tilberg and Edwin C. Bearss. Mixed in with pictures from his time as well as wartime images, Jordan's story goes back and forth, describing what he sees in the modern towns, and comparing it to what had happened on that land a century before.
Like Sandburg's piece, Jordan's article does not focus on the concept of reunion or reconciliation, despite occasional glimpses of such thoughts. It pretty much covers his observations about the areas and the people he meets, including comments from local citizens, and a few remarks about battlefield preservation. He does try to find "words" that describe each city and comes up with "All roads lead to Gettysburg" and "We have a long way to go (but had come a long way too)" for Vicksburg.
Both articles are enjoyable, and the pictures definitely add to it. I liked one picture in Jordan's article showing a souvenir table along a road - it had the US flag and Confederate Battle Flag flying from the top of the stand, and the items for sale were similar to what you might see today - bullets (30 cents each), books, small metal busts of Lincoln (I have a couple that resemble the ones on that table), a plastic flute with a Civil War logo glued to it and miniature cannons as well. It really did not look much different than such a table 50 years later does.
Jordan's article does have a picture of a re-enactment of a "Southern ball" from 1862 and though that picture does not look appropriate, it was a recreation of an actual 1862 event. A few pages later, though, is a 1860s picture showing many of the "caves" Vicksburg citizens had dug as shelter during the batter. The contrast of those two pictures - the modern colored photo of people in fancy clothes or uniforms dancing and then the gritty black and white image of rough, muddy shelters is quite impressive. I wish they had been put closer together to make their contrast more obvious, but the differences between the two are still quite stark.
Overall, this 1863 magazine did not focus on reconciliation as the main 1961 article had. Instead, the editors chose to feature the two famous battles that ended in the same month 100 years previously, and chose a good combination of articles and images to convey those towns during the war and during the time of these articles.
Friday, April 22, 2011
New Sesquicentennial events in Kentucky
I found this article on Facebook and thought I'd post it here.
The exhibit starts with a lecture next Thursday at 4 o'clock on the campus of my alma mater, the University of Kentucky., I will not be able to attend, but hope to visit the exhibit in the upcoming weeks.
Hopefully sites around Kentucky continue to come up with new ideas and presentations about this anniversary, despite such limited funding from the state.
The exhibit starts with a lecture next Thursday at 4 o'clock on the campus of my alma mater, the University of Kentucky., I will not be able to attend, but hope to visit the exhibit in the upcoming weeks.
Hopefully sites around Kentucky continue to come up with new ideas and presentations about this anniversary, despite such limited funding from the state.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Then and Now: National Geographic Covers the Civil War Centennial and Sesquicentennial, part 2
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.
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.
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, January 29, 2011
Discovering Together: Kentucky's Civil War Landscapes
Here is an updated page from the Kentucky Historical Society with more information about Kentucky's plans for the Civil War Sesquicentennial.
Hopefully the next four years can create a lot of interest in the war and it's effects on the state, as well as the state's impact on the war.
Hopefully the next four years can create a lot of interest in the war and it's effects on the state, as well as the state's impact on the war.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Plans for Civil War Anniversary events in Kentucky
It does not sound overly ambitious or extensive, but still it is good to see the Commonwealth at least making some efforts to recognize the sesquicentennial.
Kentucky Civil War 150th Anniversary
Hopefully more plans develop and more specifics are announced soon.
Kentucky Civil War 150th Anniversary
Hopefully more plans develop and more specifics are announced soon.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Kentucky Civil War Sesquicentennial Commemoration
A few weeks ago, one of my entries mentioned a website for Ohio's planned celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and during that entry I lamented the fact that my native and beloved Kentucky was not on the list of states that site listed as having such a commemoration planned (though through the Kentucky Historical Society, not, apparently, a separate commission.)
Well, the good news is that such a plan does exist. I will post the link to the press release and the text below. It apparently was announced months ago, but I had missed it completely.
This link includes links to some other information about this commemoration. One of them is a press release from August 24 stating that the Kentucky Historical Society had received a grant of $1,050,000 from the state to help with this commission. During the current economic climate, state funding like that is wonderful news, even if that amount must last the entire 4 years.
I regret not learning and posting of this earlier, but I'm glad to see it now - better late than never is true in this case.
As this release mentions, Kentucky's motto of "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" never seems more appropriate than when discussing the Civil War, especially the Bluegrass State's role in it.
http://history.ky.gov/sub.php?pageid=132§ionid=5
News & Events
Discovering Together: Kentucky's Civil War Landscapes
During the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, the Kentucky Historical Society will share with the nation the story of Kentucky's role in this contentious struggle.
The Kentucky motto, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" was tested during the four years of the war. The tenuous stance Kentucky held during the war provides the commonwealth with a unique and complex historical narrative to reveal during the 2011 - 2015 Civil War Sesquicentennial.
During the contentious struggle, United States President Abraham Lincoln powerfully asserted, "I would like to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." The importance of Kentucky, especially its strategic location along transportation routes, surpluses of agricultural and industrial products and large populations for armies, was imperative to efforts to preserve the Union.
In Kentucky, the war truly was a war among families. Kentucky provided soldiers for both armies and was represented by stars on both the United States and Confederate States flags. The state witnessed contentious political debates, and was the birthplace of the presidents of both the United States and Confederate States. Further, Kentucky was home to families who severed relations with one another over the politics and economics of slavery, and to enslaved families, who were forcibly separated by being sold by owners, or by fleeing to the unknown--freedom.
Kentucky's story during the Civil War is a composite of what the U. S. faced on a whole, and even 150 years, later, that story has lingering effects. As administrator of Kentucky's Civil War Sesquicentennial commemoration, KHS invites Kentuckians to Discover Together: To unshackle preconceived thinking about people, places and events of the Civil War and to arrive at a new understanding of our shared pasts.
Well, the good news is that such a plan does exist. I will post the link to the press release and the text below. It apparently was announced months ago, but I had missed it completely.
This link includes links to some other information about this commemoration. One of them is a press release from August 24 stating that the Kentucky Historical Society had received a grant of $1,050,000 from the state to help with this commission. During the current economic climate, state funding like that is wonderful news, even if that amount must last the entire 4 years.
I regret not learning and posting of this earlier, but I'm glad to see it now - better late than never is true in this case.
As this release mentions, Kentucky's motto of "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" never seems more appropriate than when discussing the Civil War, especially the Bluegrass State's role in it.
http://history.ky.gov/sub.php?pageid=132§ionid=5
News & Events
Discovering Together: Kentucky's Civil War Landscapes
During the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, the Kentucky Historical Society will share with the nation the story of Kentucky's role in this contentious struggle.
The Kentucky motto, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" was tested during the four years of the war. The tenuous stance Kentucky held during the war provides the commonwealth with a unique and complex historical narrative to reveal during the 2011 - 2015 Civil War Sesquicentennial.
During the contentious struggle, United States President Abraham Lincoln powerfully asserted, "I would like to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." The importance of Kentucky, especially its strategic location along transportation routes, surpluses of agricultural and industrial products and large populations for armies, was imperative to efforts to preserve the Union.
In Kentucky, the war truly was a war among families. Kentucky provided soldiers for both armies and was represented by stars on both the United States and Confederate States flags. The state witnessed contentious political debates, and was the birthplace of the presidents of both the United States and Confederate States. Further, Kentucky was home to families who severed relations with one another over the politics and economics of slavery, and to enslaved families, who were forcibly separated by being sold by owners, or by fleeing to the unknown--freedom.
Kentucky's story during the Civil War is a composite of what the U. S. faced on a whole, and even 150 years, later, that story has lingering effects. As administrator of Kentucky's Civil War Sesquicentennial commemoration, KHS invites Kentuckians to Discover Together: To unshackle preconceived thinking about people, places and events of the Civil War and to arrive at a new understanding of our shared pasts.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Ohio Civil War 150 website
http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/
I just found this site a few days ago and think it's a very nice one. I am glad to see Ohio is at least preparing to acknowledge the sesquicentennial (it's not much easier to type that than it is to say it) of the war and to provide sources for information about the war. I think it will be a great resource to keep checking on for updates in the region and any events that are planned.
I know the 2011-2015 period seems a long time away, but it's really only 1 year from starting; with the 150th anniversary of Lincioln's nomination and election both occuring in 2010, the prelude to this bigger anniversary is even closer.
This period may be a great opportunity - the greatest of our liftime, at least for those of us who did not live through the centennial of the war in the early 1960s - to spark interest in our country's bloodiest and most terrible conflict.
Perhaps using words like "bloody" may seem a strange way to try to attract positive attention to something, but I feel it is appropriate, maybe even mandatory to do so, as the pain, suffering, and death that occurrred during these years greatly impacted this nation and its future. Americans were fighting and killing each other, and in many instances, the cliche of "brother against brother" or "neighbor against neighbor" were literally true. Why did this happen? How did this happen? What did such a terrible war do to change the United States and its future? These are just some of the questions that more people will soon have the chance to explore and ponder. At least I do firmly hope that is the kind of opportunity these few years will provide.
This year's bicentennial of Lincoln's birth has witnessed an outpouring of new books, articles and discussions of the 16th President, and even when I walked through grocery stores, Lincoln magazines had prominent places on the magazine racks. Who ever thought I'd buy an Abraham Lincoln publication at Remke's?
Something similar will - hopefully - take place starting in 2011, perhaps on an even grander scale. Time for planning events and coming up with ideas will pass by quickly, so I am glad to see this site from the state neighboring my home. I also am glad to see the list of states that also have similar sites, according to a link on Ohio's, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. (Here's a link to get to those pages: http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/links/ )
Unfortunately, my beloved native Kentucky is not on that list. Hopefully that changes soon. These four years can hopefully help people, especially children, develop and further interest in the Civil War and history overall.
At the James A Ramage Civil War Museum, I know that one of the key goals of 2010 will be to start developing plans for 2011 and beyond (especially 2012, the 150th anniversary of the Siege of Cincinnati.) Coming up with ideas, determining which ones to pursue and how to do them will all be important steps. Hopefully (I know I use that word a lot in describing this anniversary period) we may even be able to collaborate with other local history and Civil War groups in at least some events.
This will take a lot of planning and effort, and I'm glad to see several states have already started this process with these websites dedicated to the war's 150th anniversary. Hopefully (again) more states start soon, or have already started, but just not with websites yet.
Again, I give credit to the Ohio Historical Society for developing this website, as well as to other state societies. I look forward to watching them for updates, event schedules, ideas and other ways to promote the exciting Civil War sesquicentennial.
I just found this site a few days ago and think it's a very nice one. I am glad to see Ohio is at least preparing to acknowledge the sesquicentennial (it's not much easier to type that than it is to say it) of the war and to provide sources for information about the war. I think it will be a great resource to keep checking on for updates in the region and any events that are planned.
I know the 2011-2015 period seems a long time away, but it's really only 1 year from starting; with the 150th anniversary of Lincioln's nomination and election both occuring in 2010, the prelude to this bigger anniversary is even closer.
This period may be a great opportunity - the greatest of our liftime, at least for those of us who did not live through the centennial of the war in the early 1960s - to spark interest in our country's bloodiest and most terrible conflict.
Perhaps using words like "bloody" may seem a strange way to try to attract positive attention to something, but I feel it is appropriate, maybe even mandatory to do so, as the pain, suffering, and death that occurrred during these years greatly impacted this nation and its future. Americans were fighting and killing each other, and in many instances, the cliche of "brother against brother" or "neighbor against neighbor" were literally true. Why did this happen? How did this happen? What did such a terrible war do to change the United States and its future? These are just some of the questions that more people will soon have the chance to explore and ponder. At least I do firmly hope that is the kind of opportunity these few years will provide.
This year's bicentennial of Lincoln's birth has witnessed an outpouring of new books, articles and discussions of the 16th President, and even when I walked through grocery stores, Lincoln magazines had prominent places on the magazine racks. Who ever thought I'd buy an Abraham Lincoln publication at Remke's?
Something similar will - hopefully - take place starting in 2011, perhaps on an even grander scale. Time for planning events and coming up with ideas will pass by quickly, so I am glad to see this site from the state neighboring my home. I also am glad to see the list of states that also have similar sites, according to a link on Ohio's, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. (Here's a link to get to those pages: http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/links/ )
Unfortunately, my beloved native Kentucky is not on that list. Hopefully that changes soon. These four years can hopefully help people, especially children, develop and further interest in the Civil War and history overall.
At the James A Ramage Civil War Museum, I know that one of the key goals of 2010 will be to start developing plans for 2011 and beyond (especially 2012, the 150th anniversary of the Siege of Cincinnati.) Coming up with ideas, determining which ones to pursue and how to do them will all be important steps. Hopefully (I know I use that word a lot in describing this anniversary period) we may even be able to collaborate with other local history and Civil War groups in at least some events.
This will take a lot of planning and effort, and I'm glad to see several states have already started this process with these websites dedicated to the war's 150th anniversary. Hopefully (again) more states start soon, or have already started, but just not with websites yet.
Again, I give credit to the Ohio Historical Society for developing this website, as well as to other state societies. I look forward to watching them for updates, event schedules, ideas and other ways to promote the exciting Civil War sesquicentennial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)