The 2013 Civil War Institute Conference was held at Gettysburg College from June 21-25 (Schedule here). Once again, I can’t say enough about the conference, its faculty, and especially the CWI staff. When three major speakers had to drop out at the last minute for reasons beyond their control, the staff scrambled and was able to recover from this and still put on a great conference.
Glenn LaFantasie, the first speaker, was the first speaker who had to cancel. Keith Bohannon of the University of West Georgia flexed and gave his talk on The Western Theater in 1863. He gave an excellent overview of the campaigns for Vicksburg, Port Hudson, and Chattanooga. His reading recommendations included Brooks Simpson’s essay on the attack on Missionary Ridge in Steven Woodworth’s The Chattanooga Campaign; Steven Woodworth’s Six Armies in Tennessee; Wiley Sword’s Mountains Touched With Fire; and David Powell’s The Maps of Chickamauga.
Next, Peter Carmichael gave a presentation on Cowardice at Gettysburg. This was an excellent talk covering malingerers, what they did, and how they were treated. His recommended reading included Gerald Linderman’s Embattled Courage and Eric Dean Jr.’s Shook Over Hell.
The first day was capped by an ice cream social catered by Mr. G’s, which is a terrific ice cream vendor in Gettysburg serving homemade ice cream.
Day Two started with a masterful lecture from Dr. Richard Sommers of the Army Heritage and Education Center on Strategic Imperatives and Tactical Realities: Lee and Confederate Generalship in the Gettysburg Campaign. He outlined the reasons for Lee’s campaign and why it was best for Lee to take the offensive rather than to have the ANV go on the defensive while transferring troops to the west. He told us Lee couldn’t go on the defensive and await an attack, and an equally bad choice was to search for what he called, “Mount Longstreet,” the mythical perfect terrain that was thought to exist somewhere between Gettysburg and either Washington or Baltimore.
The next speaker was Prof. Carol Reardon of Penn State, whose talk was, “A Much Fuller Plate: General George G. Meade’s Transition to Army Command.” She talked about the orders assigning Meade to command the Army of the Potomac and about the problems and challenges he faced on taking command.
After that, Jeffry Wert spoke on James Longstreet. He gave us a very balanced view of Longstreet, showing where Longstreet made misstatements and also how Longstreet did well on his march on July 2 and during the attack that day.
After lunch we had concurrent sessions where we were able to choose which session to attend. Jennifer Murray was another speaker who could not attend at the last minute, so my first choice wasn’t available. I then decided to attend James Trulock’s presentation on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Trulock is very enamored with Chamberlain and to tell you the truth, I didn’t find much useful in his talk. This was one of the lower points of the conference.
After the concurrent sessions there was a panel on “Why Can’t We Agree About Pickett’s Charge?” with Scott Hartwig, Troy Harman, Carol Reardon, Jeffry Wert, Richard Sommers, and Peter Carmichael. In my opinion, Scott Hartwig is great, Carol Reardon is terrific, Jeffry Wert is really good, Richard Sommers has an encyclopedic knowledge of the war and has probably forgotten more about the war than most of us will ever learn, and Pete Carmichael was excellent as well. I think Troy Harman is outstanding on the battlefield, but I cringe when he’s on a panel. I don’t know if it’s nervousness or some other reason, but he’s just not his normal self on a stage. He’s really knowledgeable and when he’s on the battlefield he’s second to none. On stage, though, it’s a different story. Here it seemed as though he tried to use as many metaphors as he could think of and just was not the same, but he did make some good points during the discussion.
That evening we had an evening walk of Pickett’s Charge. I was with Carol Reardon’s group, and she was, as usual, impressive. Following that, we had a tour of the George Spangler Farm, which is where Lewis Armistead was taken after being wounded on July 3 and where he subsequently died.
Day Three of the Conference saw Pete Carmichael filling in for Gary Gallagher, who couldn’t attend. Pete spoke about deserters at Gettysburg. He gave us the story of John Futch and his letters. This was a very enlightening presentation touching on a subject we students don’t normally get into.
Next up was Stephen Cushman of the University of Virginia, who talked about Ambrose Bierce, Chickamauga, and Ways to Write History. We learned a little of Ambrose Bierce’s Civil War service and about his postwar consultation on writing a history of the Battle of Chickamauga. The basic question asked here was, “Is it enough to have been there?” This is, I think, an important question because many folks take the word of people who were there as the last word on what happened when that testimony, like any other, must be corroborated and evaluated.
After lunch we had another round of concurrent sessions. I chose a panel on “Is The Killer Angels Necessary to Understand Gettysburg?” This was disappointing as well. Perhaps it’s because of the question itself, which was, in my opinion, kind of silly. The panel seemed to stretch mightily to actually seriously consider the affirmative answer as being the correct one.
After a break we had another set of concurrent sessions. I chose the presentation by Jaime Martinez of the University of North Carolina at Pembroke on “An Ample Supply of Food for Our Families: Slave Labor and Lee’s 1863 Raid Into Pennsylvania.” This was really excellent and filled with information. A shortage of labor in the confederacy was a possible motivating factor for kidnapping African-Americans from Maryland and Pennsylvania during the Gettysburg Campaign, and we saw a 35% decrease in requests for impressing Virginia slaves for labor after the Gettysburg Campaign, indicating African-Americans brought south into slavery in Virginia were used in place of Virginia slaves who would have been impressed into labor service.
At dinner we had some dine-in discussions. My group was with Kevin Levin and it dealt with the kidnapping of African-Americans in the Gettysburg Campaign. We had assigned readings for the discussion, which consisted of two chapters from Margaret Creighton’s book, The Colors of Courage. Unfortunately, I think the discussion got off track quickly, as some members of the group seemed determined to discuss other things than the assigned topic. This was a great idea by the CWI staff. Unfortunately it’s a bit difficult to hear because of the noise of eating in the dining hall and the sound of other groups. Unfortunately there’s really no other way to do this because there aren’t any enclosed dining areas where small groups can hold discussions in relative quiet. Even with that shortcoming, I hope the CWI continues to have this feature because it has great possibilities.
After dinner, Aaron Sheehan-Dean of West Virginia University gave a really good presentation on Civil War Soldiers’ Experiences in 1863. He talked about the increase in lethality that took place in 1863 and reasons for that increase, including rifled weapons, better management of troops, and tenacity in fighting on both sides. He also talked about use of guerrillas and black troops, leading to retaliations.
On Day Four I attended the lecture by Scott Hartwig on Decisive Moments of July 1st, which was fantastic. He broke down the various events of July 1, 1863 and identified the key moments of the day, and this included June 30 because, as he explained, to understand July 1 you have to go back to see what happened prior.
Next, Allen Guelzo talked about How the Town of Gettysburg Shaped Military Decisions During the Battle. The town itself was a major player in the battle. Its road network determined a battle would be fought there, and the town itself acted as an obstacle first for the retreating Union troops and then for the confederates. Dr. Guelzo’s presentation was, as always, outstanding.
After Dr. Guelzo we heard from A. Wilson Greene of Pamplin Historical Park on the Decisive Moments of July 2. He did the same for July 2 as Scott Hartwig did for July 1, and did it just as well.
After lunch we had our tours. I was on the Meade at Gettysburg I tour with Ed Bearss and Mark Snell of Shepherd University. It was really terrific. We followed Meade’s movement from Taneytown to Gettysburg and included George Washington Sandoe, the first Union soldier killed in the battle.
That evening there was a panel discussion on the conference book, William Frassanito’s Gettysburg: A Journey in Time, a ground-breaking book that changed the way we view some aspects of the battle and the way we view historical photographs. Each member of the panel selected a photograph and spoke about what the photograph told us, how Frassanito helped us understand it, and what the photograph meant to them. One of the many points made was by Ranger John Heiser, who said that for years people have been using Gettysburg photos only to illustrate something about Gettysburg. For example, Glenn Tucker had the photo that was identified as the 24th Michigan dead, and this was carried on for years. Frassanito not only showed how this identification wasn’t correct, but he also gave us a way to use the photos beyond simply illustrating something but rather as a historical document.
Day Five began with a tour of a special exhibit in the Special Collections Department of Gettysburg College’s Musselman Library. The exhibit was titled, “Slaves, Soldiers, Citizens: African American Artifacts of the Civil War Era.” The artifacts came from the collection of a local Gettysburg man and were selected and interpreted by a Gettysburg College student.
Next we had our Breakout Sessions. These sessions were assigned to us, and each person had three breakout sessions assigned. My first session was with Brian Luskey of West Virginia University and was called, “Vampires, Politics, and Resistance: Hollywood Portrays the End of Slavery.” This was an excellent session that could have lasted a couple hours instead of the assigned 45 minutes. We first started with some clips from the movies, “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter,” “Lincoln,” and “Django Unchained.” We talked about what each film said about emancipation and about how slaves were emancipated. ALVH portrayed emancipation by war; “Lincoln” portrayed emancipation as a result of a political process; and “Django Unchained” showed emancipation through direct action by African-Americans themselves in resisting, sometimes violently, the institution of slavery. One may at first think ALVH may have nothing to tell us regarding history, but let’s think of the vampires as a metaphor for slavery sucking the life blood out of a people. Where does this metaphor come from? In the December 29, 1832 issue of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison wrote, “People of New-England, and of the free States! is it true that slavery is no concern of yours? Have you no right even to protest against it, or to seek its removal? Are you not the main pillars of its support? How long do you mean to be answerable to God and the world, for spilling the blood of the poor innocents? Be not afraid to look the monster Slavery boldly in the face. He is your implacable foe—the vampyre who is sucking your life-blood—the ravager of a large portion of your country, and the enemy of God and man. Never hope to be a united, or happy, or prosperous people while he exists. He has an appetite like the grave—a spirit as malignant as that of the bottomless pit—and an influence as dreadful a the corruption of death. Awake to your danger! the struggle is a mighty one—it cannot be avoided—it should not be, if it could.” When we look at it that way, the movie becomes less pure escapist fantasy and more metaphoric commentary on the institution of slavery, on its supporters, and on what it takes to defeat it. In “Django Unchained, director Quentin Tarantino, in an interview on NPR, intimated the movie was a slave narrative: “There haven’t been that many slave narratives in the last 40 years of cinema, and usually when there are, they’re usually done on television, and for the most part … they’re historical movies, like history with a capital H. Basically, ‘This happened, then this happened, then that happened, then this happened.’ And that can be fine, well enough, but for the most part they keep you at arm’s length dramatically. Because also there is this kind of level of good taste that they’re trying to deal with … and frankly oftentimes they just feel like dusty textbooks just barely dramatized.”
The next breakout session was with Robert Sandow of Lock Haven University and was called, “The Debate Over Loyalty in the Union.” This was another excellent discussion that could have lasted for hours. We talked about how loyalty, in the form of patriotism, was used as propaganda. Not everyone agreed about what it meant to be patriotic during the war. They had disagreements over the significance and meaning of Union and what it meant to be loyal to the Union. We talked about the role of Union Leagues and the use of literature, such as “No Party Now But All For Our Country” by Francis Lieber. Democrats, in their self-identified role of the “loyal opposition,” called for “The Union as it was, the Constitution as it is.” We also spoke about criminalizing dissent in the form of military trials and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. As you can imagine, we couldn’t get too deep in only 45 minutes.
The final breakout session was with Peter Vermilyea of the Civil War Institute and was called, “African-Americans and the Gettysburg Campaign.” This was the best of the three and I really wished we could have gone much longer with this discussion. Peter told us the Pennsylvania newspapers contained quite a bit about the kidnapping of African-Americans during the campaign, especially in newspapers from further west. We talked about Gettysburg’s African-American community in 1863, talking about some prominent African-Americans of the time, such as Jack Hopkins, Mag Palm, Catherine Paine, and Basil Biggs. Gettysburg actually had a rather thriving African-American community. It was the first stop in free soil, there were plenty of opportunities for work, there was a powerful sense of community, there were no black codes in Gettysburg, and Pennsylvania provided free education for all children no matter what color they were. Some great sources include Margaret Creighton’s Colors of Courage and David Smith’s essay, “Race and Retaliation” in Peter Wallenstein’s Virginia’s Civil War.
After lunch we had more tours. These tours were called “Gettysburg Through the Eyes of a Soldier” and each tour followed a specific soldier. I was in Pete Carmichael’s tour, which followed William Wagner of the 57th North Carolina in the attack on East Cemetery Hill. This was a really great tour. We read some of Walker’s letters home during the tour and we got to see how it was that the Union line was broken by another unit in Walker’s brigade, the 6th North Carolina. It had to do with the terrain, which you can’t see from the road but must walk the route to understand.
After a barbeque dinner we had a preview of Jake Boritt’s new film, “The Gettysburg Story,” narrated by Stephen Lang. The final activity was a panel on The War in 1863. This panel was taped by C-SPAN, and you can watch it here. At the end of the panel I asked whether or not the historical community has dropped the ball regarding marketing the Civil War in 1863 to the African-American community. In my opinion, the panel punted. I believe the historical community, and what I mean by that is professional historians, both academic and public, and serious students of the war, including me, has dropped the ball big time regarding getting the message to African-Americans that Civil War History, especially in 1863, is a huge part of African American History.
All in all, the 2013 CWI was a great experience. The staff and faculty did an outstanding job, and I’m really looking forward to 2014’s CWI conference.
Student of the American Civil War 
Saw you on C-Span at the Pickett’s Charge panel.
I also appear in the War in 1863 panel when they air it. 🙂
Sounds like CWI did a better job with African Americans during 1863 than the Park did. Which, I suppose, again illustrates how the Public History lags behind Academic History. Sounds like academics are doing the work, just not the marketing.
They did, except they also didn’t market it. While it was great to give all of us white folks the exposure, marketing the topics to African-Americans might have given us more African-American faces at the conference.
It may be true that marketing towards African Americans may have brought a few in, out of curiosity. But, I feel, that many academics don’t feel the need to market. You’re either interested in their work or you’re not, outside of being enrolled in their courses or reading their writing, they aren’t going to go around grabbing people and say “hey, pay attention to what I have to say. it’s important to you.” Not to say that they don’t want more people, particularly the people whose history they write about, to read their work, discuss their work, or learn from their work. Academics, most of them, just aren’t in the marketing business. Now could the CWI have advertised the conference’s multiple discussions about race in 1863 in mailings to wherever it is they advertised (not sure how they got word out about the conference)? -perhaps. But at the same time, you may also think about how some, and i mean some, African Americans may be skeptical about white people telling their history. And, if I’m not mistaken (and I have not really done much of a search so I could be incorrect) there are very few African American Civil War historians. Aside from Ta-Nehisi Coates, I can’t come up with one off the top of my head, I’m sure they are out there, but few. There’s an essay he wrote in The Atlantic from Nov. 30, 2011: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/02/why-do-so-few-blacks-study-the-civil-war/308831/ that addresses this problem and his own struggle with the problem. These are the problems that historians, both public and academic must struggle with; the reunion story of the the Civil War and how it alienated blacks, and how they are hesitant to join now because of unsavory experiences in their youth. Perhaps there are a few younger African Americans, my age or there-abouts, trying to break into the Civil War history profession. Hopefully for the 175th anniversary we will have more scholarship and interpretation regarding the African American experience during the the Civil War.
Academics have been criticized in other venues, rightly or wrongly, for writing books geared toward other academics and not a wider audience. In fact, some academics have been criticized by their colleagues if their books sell too well, thus earning the pejorative, “popular.” So I think some of that may possibly spill over into this area. I read Ta-Nehisi’s essay when he first published it, and I was very impressed with it and saddened at the same time. I know African-American adults who have lived their lives in the Harrisburg area and have never once visited Gettysburg. Civil War History is also African-American History. I’m sure the question of how we get more African-Americans to Gettysburg has many of the same answers as the question, “How do we get more visitors to Gettysburg?” without any consideration of the race of the visitors. But there seems to be another element missing when we’re talking about African-Americans.
Thanks for the kind words Al! I’m glad you enjoyed the session.
You did a great job, Pete. In fact, all three sessions I attended were great. I could have stayed in all three of them for hours.
After seeing on social media the NPS 150th, including have people recreate Pickett’s Charge with Confederate battle flags, we can assume that no African American will feel that this was a commemoration for them. Moreover, I do not want to hear ONE MORE word on what was done at the 50th, 75th, 100th commemoration. That was the biggest sop to the lost cause I have ever seen, it never would have happened at the 50th, I guarantee it.
Thanks for the comment, Barb. I think the CBFs were appropriate during the recreation of the charge, but I think more could be done to send the message of “you’re welcome here.”
The idea that people come to museums or cultural activities doesn’t always hold up. All the marketing in the world won’t reach any group if it is not part of their learning and leisure experience at a formative period. How one markets African American topics to African Americans is very problematic and it might even come across as patronizing. The goal should always be to do good and complicated history. Diversity of audience is important but we should not ask of cultural institutions or under served groups to contort themselves into something so that we can have visual representation of integration. The challenge, as Al points out is an important one, but this is hardly an issue of marketing. And everyone is pitching in to bring different people to the table. I fear that it will take some time before all the empty seats will be filled.
Thanks for the comment, Pete. Your points are well taken, but I do think that sending a “You are welcome here” message when the past message has been one that said “You’re not welcome” is needed. Maybe also there should be more portions dealing specifically with the African-American experience. For example, my daughter and I went to the Brian House Ranger tour. As with the vast majority of the ranger programs it was very well done, but only half of it dealt with Abraham Brian and none of it dealt with the larger Gettysburg African-American community. The other half dealt with Lydia Leister, which really could have been done at the Leister House instead of the Brian House. I thought that would have been a perfect opportunity to engage visitors regarding African-Americans in Gettysburg, the struggles they faced, and what happened to them in the Gettysburg campaign and after.
I think we need to ask ourselves first of all, discounting diversity itself as a goal, is it important for all Americans to understand their history? If so, then it’s important for us to engage them and get them to learn about their history. Doing good history is quite obviously the first step, but we have to fill the seats to take advantage of that good history. I talk about marketing because marketing works. It gets people interested in learning more about something and it gets people to buy into something.
Thanks for your insightful comments Al. I saw Peter on C-Span from Gettysburg this week and agree with him that a lot of the cultural ambiance around the Civil War tourism industry, Confederate flags on the stores for example, turn off a lot of non-whites (and not just African Americans).
Most newborn American citizens are now non-white. This does not just result from increased immigration but from “miscegenation”, as love regardless of color was once called. The grandkids of the white people who stayed at Whites-Only hotels in Virginia during the Centennial are increasingly of mixed race. These kids, some of whom may have one ancestor who fought at Gettysburg and another who fought in Mexico against the French in the same era, are likely to be as turned off as African Americans by what they see and hear at our battlefields.
The Civil War story and the physical sites attached to it are vital components of a thorough understanding of our country as it exists today. It will take more than mere “marketing” to convince Korean immigrants in Flushing, or Latinos in Texas, or kids growing up in my village who have African, Native American, Jewish, Irish, and Latino roots all in the same person, that there is something worth experiencing at Gettysburg beyond the felt kepis.
All very good points, Pat. Though we can’t, and in my opinion should not, legislate about what merchandise store owners can display or what individuals can display, I think we can make Gettysburg a more welcoming place by having programs specifically geared to attracting a more diverse population of visitors. After all, for all human beings the first question we ask is, “What’s in it for me?”
I couldn’t edit my first post. The sentence should read that people don’t come to cultural institutions even if they see themselves in the exhibits