TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

If you're new To TOCWOC, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

What exactly happened to the CSS Hunley?

Its fate has been the subject of almost 150 years of conjecture and almost a decade of scientific research since the Hunley was raised back in 2000. But the submarine has been agonizingly slow surrendering her secrets.

“She was a mystery when she was built. She was a mystery as to how she looked and how she was constructed for many years and she is still a mystery as to why she didn’t come home,” said state Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston and chairman of the South Carolina Hunley Commission, which raised the sub and is charged with conserving and displaying it.

Was it sunk by a Union ship?

The crew’s bodies were found at their duty stations, suggesting there was no emergency resulting in a scramble to get out of the sub. And the controls on the bilge pump were not set to pump water from the crew compartment, suggesting there was no water flooding in.

The current theory is that the attack was successful but that the crew died of anoxia while waiting for the tide to turn.

Meanwhile things are looking bad for books and magazines. Magazine ad revenues are plummeting:

Wired, which is usually thick with consumer electronics ads, was the worst hit, down 47 percent from a year ago to 43.6 ad pages. Architectural Digest fell 46 percent, to 63.2, from 116.8. Vogue and Lucky were both down about 44 percent.

The book market is doing much better, but not by much. In “Puttin’ Off the Ritz” Times writer Motoko Rich looks at the “new austerity” in publishing.

Book sales have deteriorated since the beginning of October, falling about 7 percent compared with the same period the previous year, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks about 70 percent of sales. That slide is driving much of the immediate cutbacks, but the publishing industry is also being convulsed by longer-term trends, including a shift toward digital reading and competition from an array of entertainment options like video games and online social networking.

So don’t expect to be wined and dined for the contract on that new Civil War novel you’re writing, then handed a big advance. You’ll be lucky to get a Bud light, a Big Mac, and gas money home.

Still, publishing houses continue to pursue the “blockbuster” strategy i.e. putting a huge amount of time and effort in an attempt to create a bestseller at the expense of everything else. The reason for this is grounded in the economics of publishing. The vast majority of expenses (promotion, printing, etc.) are up front, so there is a huge potential return if you can get past the breakeven point. Unfortunately this means that publishers now ignore any book that does not have that potential. If you’d like a more detailed look read Anita Elberse’s article in the Wall Street Journal.

For micropublishers like myself this is both good and bad. Bad because books are considered a luxury item and, with magazines, are one of the first things people cut back on in a recession. Bad that it’s hard to get distribution of small books because distributors would rather handle big sellers, but good that that we have less “downmarket” competition.

And finally, a look at Google Books.

Ever since Google began scanning printed books four years ago, scholars and others with specialized interests have been able to tap a trove of information that had been locked away on the dusty shelves of libraries and in antiquarian bookstores.

According to Dan Clancy, the engineering director for Google book search, every month users view at least 10 pages of more than half of the one million out-of-copyright books that Google has scanned into its servers.

Google’s book search “allows you to look for things that would be very difficult to search for otherwise,” said Zimmer, whose site is visualthesaurus.com.

I’m one of them. Google has a huge trove of 19th century military-related books that would be difficult if not impossible to find elsewhere. The really neat thing about it, though, is that you can search across thousands of books for a phrase or a name. Now that Microsoft has dropped out, they’re the only game in town.

Still, there are reasons for unease. Google has also scanned a great many copyrighted works (generally speaking, anything older than about 1920 is public domain) and was thus the subject of a copyright suit.

A settlement in October with authors and publishers who had brought two copyright lawsuits against Google will make it possible for users to read a far greater collection of books, including many still under copyright protection.

The agreement, pending approval by a judge this year, also paved the way for both sides to make profits from digital versions of books. Just what kind of commercial opportunity the settlement represents is unknown, but few expect it to generate significant profits for any individual author. Even Google does not necessarily expect the book program to contribute significantly to its bottom line.

Unfortunately, it won’t contribute much to the author’s bottom line either.

For the average author, “this is not a game changer” in an economic sense, said Richard Sarnoff, chairman of the Association of American Publishers and president of the digital media investments group at Bertelsmann, the parent company of Random House, the world’s largest publisher of consumer books.

“They will get paid for the use of their book, but whether they will get paid so much that they can start living large — I think that’s just a fantasy,” Sarnoff said. “I think there will be a few authors who do see significant dollars out of this, but there will be a vast number of authors who see insignificant dollars out of this.”

But, he added, “a few hundred dollars for an individual author can equate to a considerable sum for a publisher with rights to 10,000 books.”

Antietam, South Mountain, and Harpers Ferry: A Battlefield Guide (This Hallowed Ground: Guides to Civil War)
by Ethan S. Rafuse

Product Details

• Paperback: 282 pages
• Publisher: Bison Books (December 1, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 080323970X
• ISBN-13: 978-0803239708

I am a battlefield walker!  I love to stand in the spot where … happened.  At these times, history becomes reality.  To get the most from visiting a battlefield you need knowledge of the battle or a companion that has this knowledge or a good guidebook.

Knowledge of the battle comes from study and discussion.  It is almost impossible for the average person to gain enough in-depth knowledge to make visiting multiple battlefields a vivid experience.  A companion paid or otherwise, is usually a good option.  The problem is they may not be available or able to communicate their knowledge.  Paid guides are expensive and money is not something we usually have in abundance.  This makes the guidebook option one of the best for battlefield walkers.  The book is always available, ready to go when you are and inexpensive.  Most of the books vary from very good to excellent.  Much of the difference depends on what you need from the guidebook.

Brooks D. Simpson, Mark Grimsley and Steven E. Woodworth are the editors of “The Hallowed Ground: Guides to Civil War Battlefields”.  This series has always been excellent and this addition meets and exceeds that standard.  Ethan S. Rafuse is an inspired choice as author for the Antietam guide.  He has in-depth knowledge of the battle, studied under Joseph Harsh and is an expert on McClellan.  Dr. Rafuse acknowledges “an enormous debt” to Thomas G. Clemens, Steve Stotelmyer, Mark Snell and Ted Alexander.  Any student of the battle recognizes these names as subject matter expert this guide is put together by the A Team.

What a guidebook it is!  In addition to Antietam, we have South Mountain and Harpers Ferry.  Antietam is 14 main stops with several have two to four stops.  In addition to the main tour, there are three optional excursions, Bloody Lane, Burnside Bridge and Boteler’s Ford.  South Mountain has five main stops, each having one to three stops.  The Siege of Harpers Ferry is two main stops each having three secondary stops.  These detailed tours will take hours to complete.  The amount of time needed for each of the tours is listed.  The “How to use this guidebook” contains all the information needed to make the tour an enjoyable experience.

Directions are detailed and complete.  I wish this were the book I had my last time on South Mountain!  I would have found the Reno Monument instead of driving up n down farm roads.  Once at the stop, Orientation places and faces you.  What Happened gives you a couple of paragraphs on why this is a stop placing you in the overall battle.  Vignette is a personal human-interest story from the battle, told by the men that were fighting at this stop.  Analysis brings the historical aspects into play.  Here the selection of Ethan S. Rafuse is inspired.  He presents a balanced picture of Lee and McClellan at Antietam.  This is very important after so much McClellan the fool school of history.  Another strong point are the Burnside Bridge tours, again the book avoids much of the now discredited history of that action.  A good four-page essay “After Antietam” places the battle in historical perspective.  An order of battle with an essay on “Organization, Weapons and Tactics” completes the book.

This book works on several levels: it is an outstanding battlefield guide and a good general overview of the Maryland Campaign of 1862.  In either case, it is a necessary addition to any Antietam library.  See you at South Mountain, with this book we can find the Reno Monument.

In the mail today was a copy of James W. Parrish’s Wiregrass to Appomattox, a history of the 50th Georgia. I blurbed the book after looking at a draft and will see how it all comes together, then write a review. It’s published by Angle Valley Press, which also did a very well-received history of the 35th Georgia.

$39.95, 6 x 9 hardback, 420 pages, 28 maps, 100+ photos, soldiers’ roster, end notes, bibliography and index.

Amazon.com has sent out a notification that Gary Gallagher’s Chancellorsville: The Battle and Its Aftermath, is due to be released on January 8 and can be pre-ordered for $13.57, a savings of $6.38 on the list price.

On a slightly different note, I ordered a copy of Matthew Spring’s With Zeal and Bayonets Only: The British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783. It promises to be “a new analysis of the British Army during the “American rebellion” at both operational and tactical levels.” I did a recent post looking into something similar, so it’ll be interesting to see what Spring says. It’s 20% off for the rest of the year.

A very cool site using flash animation to illustrate Civil War battles and campaigns, such as Stonewall Jackson’s ‘62 Valley campaign. I’ve always thought that the static battle maps that we see in books do not really tell the story. Battles are interactive processes—moves are met by counter-moves in real time. You really need an animation to see what was going on. Drop by for a look and slip ‘em a buck or two to keep things going.

Stonewall of the West: Patrick Cleburne and the Civil War
by Craig L. Symonds

Product Details

• Paperback: 328 pages
• Publisher: University Press of Kansas (October 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0700609342
• ISBN-13: 978-0700609345

Patrick Cleburne established a record as an outstanding division commander with the Army of Tennessee during the war.  From Shiloh until his death at Franklin, he was entrusted with difficult tasks, performing each with diligence.  Frequently, his division was the rear guard fending off an advancing victorious army during a retreat.  As one of the few immigrant officers in the Confederacy, with family on both sides, Cleburne attracts attention for his war record and as a person.  Craig L Symonds’ biography is one of the best available.  While not the most detailed, it conveys both the man and the general at a level that will satisfy most of us.

The book needs to spend more time on the political battle that tore the Army of Tennessee apart and on the relationship between Cleburne and General Hardee.  Hardee is Cleburne’s mentor, protector and a key player in the anti-Bragg faction within the army.  I feel this area is poorly developed, as is Cleburne’s proposal to make slaves into solders.  These two items are what kept him at divisional command, possibly leading to his death at Franklin.  The second area that needs work is the Atlanta and Nashville Campaigns.  Again, the author skirts major issues that affected Cleburne and contributed to his death.

Overall, this is a well-written book, very readable and informative.  This is a worshipful picture of an odd and somewhat limited individual.   It is an excellent choice for someone that wants a good background on Cleburne without having to plow through hundreds of pages of details.

Every war produces heroes, but also a number of blowhards, who somehow always seem to outnumber the heroes. Sometimes it’s hard to tell who’s who.

One such case is John West, who claimed to be a “noted sharpshooter” in Virginia armed with a Whitworth rifle. I first ran across West’s account in John Morrow’s The Confederate Whitworth Sharpshoooters. Although Morrow quoted West extensively, he did not footnote him, which made it difficult to evaluate the story.

“Kildee”—West’s nickname—claimed that:

In ‘62 General Lee received thirteen fine English Whitworth rifles that were warranted to kill at 1,800 yards. These were the best guns in the service on either side. Thirteen of the best marksmen in the army were detailed for this special service, and I was the only Georgian that was selected. We were placed under the command of a General Brown, who had no other duty than to command us. We were practiced three months before going into service. A score of every shot was kept during these three months, and at the end I was 176 shots in the bull’s eye ahead of the rest. The last day of the practice our marksmanship was tested by our superior officers. A white board, two feet square with black diamond about the size of a hat in the center, was placed 1,500 yards away. The wind was blowing stiffly and it was very unfavorable for good shooting, but I put three bullets in the diamond and seven in the white of the board. I beat the record and won the choice of horse, bridle, saddle, spurs, gun, revolvers, and saber. Our accouterments were the best the army could afford.

West, who was in the Fourth Georgia, also claimed to have killed generals Banks and Shields and to have been within ten steps of General George Doles when he was killed by a Union sharpshooter at Cold Harbor. This always sounded too much like a tall tale, so I never used it. Yet over time, to my surprise, I’ve been able to verify many of the details of West’s account, and have come to the conclusion that much of it is true in substance if not in all the details.

West’s CSR (Compiled Service Record) is unexceptional and says nothing about his service as a sharpshooter. He enlisted in 1861 in Co. C, 4th Georgia, was severely wounded and furloughed home in late 1864, but returned in time to be present for the surrender at Appomattox. There’s no mention of any service as a sharpshooter, but that’s not uncommon since it was a detailed position and few rosters have survived. I know that my own ancestor was a sharpshooter from other sources, but his CSR is silent on the matter.

Thanks to Google Book Search I was able to run down a copy of West’s account in Camp-Fire Sketches and Battlefield Echoes, an 1886 book of anecdotes and reminiscences. Books like this, however, are often unreliable. How much of West’s account is true?

For one thing, it seems unusual, to say the least, that a general officer would be assigned to supervise 13 sharpshooters. West is inconsistent, calling Brown first a general and then a colonel. Who could this be? Strange to say a real person, Col. Hamilton A. Brown, fits this description. Brown’s regiment, the First North Carolina, was almost all killed or captured on May 12, 1864, at the Mule Shoe at Spotsylvania. Brown himself was badly wounded but escaped. The remnants of the First NC were consolidated into the Third NC (which together totaled no more than 100 men), leaving Brown without a job. When he returned to the army in August he was given command of the Rodes’ Division Sharpshooters. This outfit was made up of four sharpshooter battalions and numbered 5-600 men, of which John West would have been one. So “general” Brown can be identified, and he indeed had no other duty than to command the sharpshooters, although there were considerably more than 13 of them.

What about the number of Whitworth rifles? These were normally apportioned 2 per sharpshooter battalion, so Rodes’ division would have had at least 8, but perhaps as many as 13. The number is too low for the whole army but that’s not something that Private West would have known about. We know from other sources that these rifles started coming into the army in mid-1863, not 1862. Thus when West talks about practicing for three months he is most likely referring to the winter of 1863-64, when Rodes’ sharpshooters conducted extensive marksmanship training, and he may well have been the best shot. We know that competitions were held and that some sort of prizes were awarded. Whether the target was actually 1500 yards away, however, is doubtful. A Whitworth might shoot that far, but not the service Enfields that most men carried. The longest distance I’ve read of these men shooting is 800 yards, although it’s possible that there might have been an exhibition match for the Whitworths. So once again I think the substance is correct while the details are garbled after 20 years. West, like many others, consistently exaggerates both the range of the Whitworth (“warranted to kill at 1,800 yards”) and combat ranges.

West also has a story of himself and Colonel Brown being captured at Cold Harbor, then escaping. He stashed his rifle, he says, and came back for it later. This may seem unlikely, but I’ve seen a similar story from another Whitworth sharpshooter. It is hard to fit this incident with his story of being “within ten steps” of General George Doles when he was killed by a Yankee sharpshooter on June 2nd, but it is possible.

What about his claim to have killed generals Banks and Shields? Gen. James Shields was wounded, but not killed, at Kernstown on March 22, 1862, but the Fourth Georgia was not present. He lived until 1879. Gen. Nathaniel Banks was never wounded and died in 1894. “Kildee” makes no direct claim of doing it, but uses the process of elimination instead.

I’m currently doing a free trial of Footnote.com, which has a number of digitized newspapers, and found two articles in the Atlanta Constitution that mention West, both in 1885. The article is about a reunion of the Fourth Georgia that year and mentions his nickname as Kildee and his service as a Whitworth sharpshooter. There are some differences, such the number of rifles being 15 instead of 13, and the statement that the rifles were presented by one of General Lee’s classmates and that the brigade commanders drew them by lot, and that Gen. Doles got only one. This prompted another article from another former soldier, who identified Charles Grace as the battalion’s other Whitworth sharpshooter, and stated that Doles had “drawn” two rifles. Grace is mentioned in the brigade history and is a claimant for the honor of shooting General Sedgwick at Spotsylvania.

Given the constraints of a old soldier’s fading memory, I am satisfied that West was who he said he was and did pretty much what he said he did. Like many veterans he exaggerated things somewhat, and it’s not always easy to sort this out, but within these constraints I feel comfortable using West’s account, especially when the describes things he saw and did. In spite of his exaggerations, I’d call him more hero than blowhard.

The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth

Earl J. Hess
University Press of Kansas
September 2008
288 pages, 8 illustrations, 6 x 9
Modern War Studies
Cloth ISBN 978-0-7006-1607-7, $29.95

How do the tools of war affect its outcome? Earl Hess, a history professor at Lincoln Memorial University and author of ten previous books on the Civil War, has written an entire book on effects of the top casualty-producer of the Civil War, the rifle musket. It promises to be a “convincing assessment of the rifle musket’s actual performance on the battlefield and its impact on the course of the Civil War,” as well as “the most complete discussion to date of the development of skirmishing and sniping.” Unfortunately, although it is in many ways an interesting study, the book misses this ambitious target by a considerable margin.

The book generally follows the thesis first articulated by British military historian Paddy Griffith in his revisionist 1988 book Battle Tactics of the Civil War, in which he argued that:

· While the rifle did have a much longer range than the smoothbore musket (500+ yards vs. 100 yards), this advantage was for several reasons more theoretical than real, and in fact engagement ranges in Civil War battles differed little from those of the Napoleonic era fifty years earlier.
· Casualties in Civil War battles were roughly comparable to those in European ones during the period 1800-1859.
· Given the above, Napoleonic warfare was still possible. Tactically there was no revolution.
· The American Civil War was not the first modern war, as is often asserted, but the last Napoleonic war (and a “badly fought” one at that). The first modern war was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.

Hess comes down firmly on Griffith’s side, marshaling a vast array of data to show that engagement ranges remained much closer than prewar advocates of the Minié rifle (or its latter-day defenders) would have predicted. In this he joins tactical historians like Brent Nosworthy and Joe Bilby, who have also done detailed studies of engagement ranges in various battles and have come to similar conclusions. Personally I don’t have a dog in this fight, having come late to the controversy. I read Griffith’s book shortly after it came out but was not particularly interested in the topic at the time. Hess and I have had some very cordial email exchanges—he quotes my sharpshooter book extensively and was one of the first to order it, and has been very generous with sharing his sources. While on that subject, let me say that he found some sources, like the order book for Rodes’—Battle’s brigade in the National Archives, that I had overlooked.

There were, says Hess, three main reasons why the rifle musket failed to live up to its long-range promise—a low muzzle velocity, which caused a looping bullet trajectory that made misses easy and range estimation critical; the almost total lack of marksmanship training in both armies; and the wooded battlefield terrain that restricted long range target acquisition.

At this point I’d have to say that Hess, Griffith, and their adherents have the better of the argument—that engagement ranges did remain fairly close, at least for the line of battle; that there was no real tactical “rifle revolution,” at least on the line of battle; and that casualties for Civil War battles were comparable to those in European battles fought primarily with the smoothbore musket.

[Read more →]

Amazon determines who is a fan, are you?

Unless you do numerous reviews on amazon.com, there is no reason to follow how the ranking system works. The simplest explanation is you accumulate points for reviewing and helpful votes, while losing points of not helpful votes. Nothing is that simple and the system contains a number of “yes but” statements or “Catch 22” areas. For a number of years, the top 100 reviewer ranks were very stable which seems to have been the source of complaints. In October, Amazon reworked the calculations to determine rankings. They introduced a number of new features and changed the point system. This produced a huge change in the rankings, reviewers jumped or fell hundreds of positions. Some flew to unexpected heights while others fell into the abyss.

Many reviewers feel the worst feature is the creation of fans. Amazon says the following about this: “Fans are only people that like your reviews. People who vote negatively are not considered fans. As we hope the name implies, having fans is a good thing.” What Amazon does not say would fill a large book and has caused considerable comment among the reviewing community. When you vote that a review is helpful Amazon starts a counter. This counter records your ID as casting one helpful vote for the person who wrote the review. After you have voted that this person has written a helpful review six different times, you are a fan. No helpful votes you cast for that reviewer, today and forever, will count. You will see them but Amazon comes by later and wipes them out. Amazon does not intend to tell you that you can no longer vote for this person, they are just doing it. People that work in well-defined areas are accumulating fans at a rapid rate. As this happens, the number of votes on their reviews is dropping.

We are asking you to take the time to add a comment when you vote. It can be nothing more that “YES” or a couple of words but it will tell us how many votes the fan system is taking away. It is the only way you can be sure your vote is being recorded and kept. Thank you.

NOTE: Amazon’s new system moved me up from 1,383 to 589 in the rankings. I opened with 70 fans and now have 95, a 36% increase in about 10 weeks.

I came across some letters from a Georgia sharpshooter, Milton Barrett, in The Confederacy Is on Her Way Up the Spout, published in 1992 by University of Georgia Press. This is how I’ve gotten a lot of my information, by going through the letters and diaries of men like Barrett. Since most sharpshooters were detailed and not part of a permanent unit, it’s often difficult to tell who served as such. Barrett (who was actually from Pickens Country, SC) enlisted in the Eighteenth Georgia (part of Wofford’s brigade) but transferred to the Third Battalion Georgia Sharpshooters when that unit was formed in May, 1863. Unlike most sharpshooter battalions, the 3rd Georgia Battalion was a regularly constituted unit with its own roster, and its men did not go back to their parent regiments in between battles.

Corporal Milton Barrett

Barrett served with the unit at Gettysburg and went West with Longstreet’s First Corps to Tennessee, where he fought a Chickamauga and the assault on Fort Sanders. In August 1864 he was captured by Union cavalry at Guard Hill, just outside Front Royal and sent to Elmira prison, where he died of smallpox in February, 1865, just weeks before the end of the war. He never returned home and lies today in Grave #2108, just outside where the prison stood.

Guard Hill was a confused action where Wofford tried to throw his sharpshooters across a stream to cut off a Union retreat, but was surprised by the arrival of Custer’s cavalry. Twenty-four officers 176 men were captured, many of them from the Georgia sharpshooters. I should mention here that sharpshooters or indeed any infantry who operated in open order were especially vulnerable to being ridden down by cavalry, and that’s exactly what happened here.

Barret’s letters do not throw much light on his training or service as a sharpshooter, but there was a photo of him, which I’ve added to the Post of Honor section on my web site. I’ve tried to put as many of these brave men on there as possible, so if you have photos of sharpshooters from either side that you’d like posted let me know.

“The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”

Who said it?

Yep, that ol’ unreconstructed Neo-Confederate, Karl Marx himself!

That and many other period quotes are in Ian C. Martin’s The Quotable American Civil War.

Do we have Confederate cars? Very interesting article on the “Little Eight” and the rise of car manufacturing in the South. I drive a Honda Odyssey made in Alabama and it’s the best car I’ve ever owned (which, I should say, might make up for my ‘73 Honda Civic, which was by far and away the worst car I’ve ever owned). Alabama produced no cars in 1995, last year it produced over 800,000. The Civil War continues in the automotive field, with the Southerners unenthusiastic about bailing out Yankee car companies.

The Southerners seem to have chosen an especially precipitous time to pick their fight with the Detroit Yankees: Without the money, General Motors and Chrysler have warned that they might be forced to file for bankruptcy protection. Harley Shaiken, a labor economist at the University of California-Berkeley, says a Detroit meltdown, on the eve of Christmas and in the midst of the worst job market in modern memory, “would be a devastating anti-stimulus package.”

The anti-bailout lawmakers are all Republicans possessed of a deep-seated antipathy to organized labor, and angry at the way the government has bungled the financial bailout. But they and many of their counterparts in the Senate have become experts on the labor practices of foreign manufacturers because they’ve seen them up close. The tussle over the bailout has evinced what at first blush may seem a new kind of provincialism that pits Democrats and a few Republicans (like Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio) from heavy union and Big Three states against Republicans from right-to-work states in the old Confederacy. While McConnell & Co. oppose federal subsidies for the Big Three at the federal level, the states from which they hail have generously extended billions of dollars in subsidies to foreign automakers.

But there’s a deeper cleavage at work here. Today’s Southern solons have watched their local economies blossom thanks to a younger, more-vibrant auto industry unencumbered by the Big Three’s legacy costs and union work rules-a sort of anti-Detroit that has the flexibility and ability to turn profits by making the types of cars that Americans actually want to buy.

And another article by Andrew Ferguson on why “The Past Isn’t What It Used To Be.” Although Ferguson deals mainly with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, his criticisms ring true for a lot of places I’ve been to lately, and affects Civil War historiography as well.

by the time the museum opened, a decade later, it was a museum of social history, “history from the bottom up.” The new historians were more interested in broad concepts than in discrete events, in the vast movements of peoples rather than the doings of statesmen, reformers, explorers, diplomats, and generals. They found more relevance in econometric models and statistical tables than in treaties or constitutions. They also, as you’ll notice from the quotation above, began putting ironic quote marks around phrases like the “American way of life.”

Social history dug up mother lodes of valuable material, and enriched the historical understanding of anyone who bothered to pay attention. Yet instead of supplementing traditional narrative history with fresh information, social history supplanted it altogether, driving traditional historians from their usual professional perches in the universities and museums.

For the public, the consequences were profound. Quite apart from its merits as a historical method, social history had an undeniable defect: It was deeply boring. This was made especially clear when it was pressed into service as a working philosophy for museum curators, who found license to discount artifacts and displays tied to individual historical personages in favor of homely artifacts of everyday life, arranged under broad abstractions like “Time” or “Difference” or “Community.” Chronology in particular was dismissed as a contrivance–a “coercive category,” as one new historian famously explained, “that by its normative inclusive character denies its own fictionality and instability and thereby distorts the creative possibilities of the present and future.”

These historians were heavily influenced by the Marxist and radical political currents of the sixties, but also by the French Annales school, which emphasized the longue duree and discounted discrete events, even major wars and battles, as more or less irrelevant to the long march of social history. Political and military history, the mainstay of the traditional historian, was of decidedly secondary importance. And as Ferguson says, it was boooring.

The other major problem he notes is that even though the emphasis is now supposedly on the common man, too many museums now reflect the tastes and politics of the curators and their intellectual soulmates, not those of the people who go there, and there’s a marked tendency to shake a bony finger at the commoners for their lack of political awareness. One sees this with Civil War historiography as well, with too many new historical works being written by academics and intellectuals for their peers and not for any sort of general audience. As I’ve noted before, much of the best and most readable work is being done by outsiders i.e. people who are not professional historians.

I haven’t seen the new Visitor’s Center at Gettysburg, but from the sound of things something of the sort is going on there as well. Outside influence was what it ultimately took to shake up the Smithsonian, and that may well be the case with the Civil War.

Read it see what you think.