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.
No comments:
Post a Comment