A New Gettysburg

As I discussed in my previous post, this week has been of particular significance to Civil War scholars and “fans” alike. This is because of the one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. From what I saw on Facebook and on the news, there was quite a celebration at the site itself. Re-enactors, preeminent historians, government representatives, and many civilians partook in the festivities.

What was not as well documented, though, were the changes that are being done to Gettysburg’s battlefield. Later that day, there was an event that celebrated those changes. Interestingly enough, the site is now in the process of being restored to how it appeared in 1863. From the battle to the modern era, the apple trees were cleared, and the forest began encroaching on what was previously the battlefield. This became confusing for historians and citizens alike that visited the site. (When I went to Gettysburg this previous spring, I encountered the same problem.) So, this restoration effort marks a new era in Gettysburg’s interpretation. As author Adrian Higgins states, “…the reclamation of the Bliss Orchard caps an effort to replant 3,263 fruit trees in a total of 39 orchards on 112 acres of the park since 2005. This endeavor, in turn, is part of a broader, 14-year plan by the Park Service, Pennsylvania state agencies and nonprofit allies to peel back decades of accumulated natural and man-made clutter…” (Higgins, 1) in order to restore the battlefield and to obtain a better understanding of the events at Gettysburg.

Although this has proven problematic to some residents’ homes, roads, and chain businesses, I personally support this process! When I visited Antietam, I preferred the “purer” state of the battlefield much more in comparison to Gettysburg. I look forward to hearing more about the ongoing changes at Gettysburg in the future.

Link to the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gettysburg-battlefield-is-restored-to-a-landscape-civil-war-soldiers-would-recognize/2013/11/18/5adfb2b2-4ef0-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html

The 150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address

                  In honor of the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's presentation of the Gettysburg Address, I decided to do my own reading of it! I worked a lot over this weekend to memorize the rest of the address (I had known approximately half of it previously) in order to recite it for this video. Forgive my nervousness and quite somber attitude! I believe knowing it will come in handy one way or another this upcoming week. 

Reconciliation at the Cost of Reconstruction

               Without a connection to the modern era, many people find that there is no reason to study the past. Out of this idea comes a new CD project being marketed for this year, called “Divided and United”. Previously a music collection published during the twentieth century that has been long forgotten by most, it is being revamped for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Civil War. Apparently, it is intended to bring back to the public eye famous Civil War songs as well as offer commentary on the recent political polarization that plagues the country. In order to have this album come to life, there will be a plethora of musical artists; “most of the artists on this two-CD set are country, bluegrass and folk musicians, with a few from other genres, notablyJohn Doe of L.A. punk band X, veteran blues musician Taj Mahal and Jefferson Airplane founding member Jorma Kaukonen. The participants also include veterans Loretta Lynn, Dolly Parton, Ralph Stanley and Del McCoury as well as young Turks Jamey Johnson and Shovels & Rope” (L.A. Times, 1).

            While I am normally one of the first people that would support bringing Civil War subjects into modern “mainstream” social culture, I find the development of this album problematic. The use of these songs, it appears, are intended to bring the nation together in a way that mirrors Civil War reconciliation. (This term was first mentioned on Monday in class.) The idea of reconciliation became increasingly popular after the Civil War, commonly romanticized in the concept of white brothers from both North and South coming together to promise peace. This may paint a pretty picture that was believed for quite some time, but it is hardly what we should choose to emphasize in today’s society. Reconciliation came at the cost of neglecting the plight of the African American and of actually addressing the changing nature of the Union during Reconstruction. This album almost reflects the exact same attitude, with its use of pro-Confederate and, in some cases, outwardly racist material. (For instance, if you read the article, they mention that several of the songs on the album were originally sung by black-face minstrels.) Characterizing and marginalizing racial minorities in a time when they are the fastest growing voting class is not wise nor practical. In my opinion, we do not want to use this form of “reconciliation” to solve our current political crisis.

Link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-ca-civil-war-music,0,5384766.story#axzz2k5cW0RwE

A New Civil War Rebellion?

           In class, Dr. Simpson has discussed prior that some historians prefer to discuss the Civil War in terms of military history, whereas others have greater inclinations towards emphasizing the cultural context of the Civil War. This disagreement apparently came to a breaking point at a conference in St. Louis on the topic of "Should Military History Be Central to the Study of the Civil War?". The previously civil and pleasant conference turned into a riot. Large amounts of yelling, pacing, and other aggressive behavior were displayed. For those that are acquainted with the Civil War sphere, this is certainly odd (but not totally surprising) situation. According to the author that covered the event, Thomas E. Ricks, the reason behind the outburst was due to changes in academic research. As he states, “The funny thing is that part of the emotion supposedly comes from fears of academic Civil War historians that they are being ‘marginalized.’ Yet the Civil War, along with World War II, actually dominates the military history book market” (Ricks, 1).

            The strange circumstances of this conference truly brings this issue to the forefront: Is Military History vital when discussing the Civil War? Seeing as the defining event of those four years was the ongoing war itself, I find that in some way or another it is always necessary. However, among some sources I have read, I find that too much focus is put upon military history at the expense of cultural context. If large amounts of effort are only placed upon this topic, then I feel that the narrative loses sight of the greater meaning of the war. In a way, I agree with Ricks, in that “…I would fault some non-academics, who in delving into brass buttons trivia sometimes lose sight of the larger issues. Real military history, I think, should endeavor to combine the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war” (Ricks, 1). Essentially, military history is definitely worth something, just not everything.

Link to the article: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/08/civil_war_historians_riot_in_st_louis_over_the_question_of_the_centrality_of_milita