A People's Contest: Comments

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:23:58 -0500

I'm a re-enactor, and i'm 15 and show great love for all things history. There will always be critics and some you will never be able to change their minds. Honestly...to hell with them ( Yes I said hell and i'm 15). But seriouslly people that much rage? So much criticism over everything now, my ancestors were in the war and i'd rather act like I fought it than stare at a statue and TRY to remember what it was like. With re-enacting I can actually for once see what it was like (or a close rendition of it). And about re-enactors being 'uneducated' about the war is totally absurd, i've met many men who can out teach any High-class University teacher out there. We try as close as we can but try buying a 900$ Uniform that's perfect! We can't have everything that they have down to the last stich but at least we try.If I died in the war and a ghost i'd rather be seeing our grandchildren honor our war by seeing it through our eyes rather than looking at a piece of concretes eyes.

- Devin Adams

Comment on "North Carolina gets it right: more Civil War license plates news"

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:25:57 -0500

Good for North Carolina. If the SCV in my state had wanted a plate that actually commemorated something -- as opposed to being just a state-endorsed advertisement for the organization -- they could easily have done something this.

- Andy Hall

Comment on "North Carolina gets it right: more Civil War license plates news"

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:34:46 -0500

Appropriate for this state of "divided loyalties".

Bedford Forrest would be most appropriate for Mississippi and other Confederate states of the deep South. He is still highly revered amongst our heroes!

- Ed Merrell

Comment on "So you want to put together a conference panel - advice and tips"

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:52:55 -0500

Don't be afraid to approach people in your field, even if you've never met them, to ask if they'd be interested in participating in a panel. Many scholars, whether they are just starting out or are well-established, welcome the opportunity to participate in a panel, especially if someone else offers to do all the planning. Look for scholars whose research relates to yours, and don't be afraid to contact them out of the blue to introduce yourself and briefly describe your research interests and current project. You might be surprised by the welcoming responses you get.

- MATTHEW ROBERT ISHAM

Comment on "So you want to put together a conference panel - advice and tips"

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:27:36 -0500

I have experience presenting papers, but I've never participated in a panel before. Do you have any advice for a first-time panelist?

- Car

Comment on "From revise and resubmit to your name in print"

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:04:10 -0500

Extraordinarily good thank you, I think your trusty subscribers might want a great deal more reviews along these lines continue the excellent work.

- Andrew Anderson

Comment on "A hands-on approach to history"

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 07:00:04 -0500

Yes, this is the best approach. As having been a history teacher myself, making the theory tangible is absolutely the best way to have the students 'feel' what happened and its causalities.
Keep up the good work!

- Thomas Magnusson

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Tue, 24 May 2011 13:17:48 -0500

Matt,
I think you made a good parallel by saying that bloggers are the re-enactors of the academic history world—or perhaps you were saying that re-enactors are the bloggers of living history world. Either way, it made sense to me.
Your comments dovetail into a point that some re-enactors have also called me out on, that I expect too much of them when it comes to educating the public. Certainly, I should not expect re-enactors to interpret at the level of a professional historian. I agree with you that re-enactors are fine in doing what they do—focusing their attentions on the details of a soldier’s life and on buttons, seams, canteen straps, etc.—that is, not focusing on broad issues of the war. But, in some ways, re-enactors do, in fact, resemble a professional institution. They evaluate each other’s performance. These “evaluations” tend to focus on the re-enactor’s apparel. There is no formalized method of regulation, but please trust me, if a re-enactor slips below the minimum standards of what it takes to look the part, his more experienced comrades will let him know what he needs to do to improve his impression. The reason that some re-enactors appear so authentic is that they regulate each other’s impressions with eagle-eyed ferocity. For instance, at one re-enactment, I served as brigade inspector general. My task: to police the camp for “contraband,” historically inaccurate materials (coolers, Gatorade bottles, cell phones, etc.).
Anyway, what I ask is this: why can’t re-enactors do the same thing—and commit the same amount of energy—with improving their educational techniques? If we re-enactors can regulate appearance so well why can’t we regulate the teaching of history to a modest degree? Casual Civil War enthusiasts are probably more likely to experience Civil War history by going to a re-enactment than they will by reading a book. I think re-enactors would agree with me that we have a responsibility to get it right, in both our appearance and in what we say to the public.
You also questioned whether or not some re-enactors really want to play-act and pretend they are living the real thing. I assure you, this is a common motivation. Some of them get into the hobby for the rush of feeling they get by getting as close as they possibly can to the grim realities of war. Yes, they know they cannot duplicate the Civil War in its awful entirety and they don’t expect to, but many of them wait their whole re-enacting career to experience that one moment—it may last but a minute—when the experience of the re-enactment has completely fooled them and they think that they are really on a Civil War battlefield. This is a “high” for which re-enactors strive, and I’ve heard my re-enactor friends describe it in awe countless times. You should come out to an event with me and I will take care to introduce you to those who are motivated by this desire.
You also think I’m overplaying my hand when I discuss how historians dislike re-enactors. All right, it is important not to generalize. The re-enactors who have posted on this blog have made it clear that not all re-enactors (and not all re-enactments) are equal. Many re-enactment units take especial care to treat the Civil War soberly and intellectually, meeting the four self-imposed goals to the best of their abilities. But there are a great many re-enactments units (perhaps a majority) who make no effort to think historically. Quite possibly, we might excuse Glenn LaFantasie if he wrote his essay after seeing some of these—the worst class of re-enactors in the hobby—in action. Now, perhaps I have done the same thing as LaFantasie in assessing the opinions of academics. Maybe I have judged them by basing my assumptions from a few of the close-minded examples I’ve met in my travels. I’m even willing to admit that most academics are not at all like LaFantasie or the unnamed professor who wanted to shoot re-enactors. (I think she just meant Confederate re-enactors, but I cannot be sure.) But the important part here is not to assess the degree to which disdain for re-enactors exists but to eradicate this strain of thought entirely. Re-enactors are liable to judge academics based on the few bad eggs in the profession just as academics appear to judge re-enactors based on the “farby” class they see at events. I think it is important for both parties—re-enactors and academics—to strive and make corrections if they are to pool their talent, communicate, and make the sesquicentennial a meaningful experience. I think your instance of using re-enactors in the classroom is an excellent example of what can be done and how it can be done right. Historians who do not use re-enactors in this way and would like to know how should shoot you an email.
Now, tell me more about these secret handshakes.

- Timothy Orr

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Fri, 20 May 2011 12:34:56 -0500

At the start, let me just say that I am a reenactor, but I am not a Civil War reenactor, so I am at least a half-step removed from having a dog in this hunt. However, that having been said, I found Dr. LaFantasie's original article overly dismissive of the inherent pedagogical value of reenactment, totally lacking in understanding of the motivations that lie behind the reenactment avocation, and lacking in knowledge of the breadth and depth of reenacting. In the end, I felt that his article resorted more to uninformed ad hominem attacks than to reasoned criticism based on well-considered facts.

Now, unlike LaFantasie's commentary, I take Dr. Orr's commentary here as being made in good faith. To be certain, when looking at the entire spectrum of reenactment, improvements can certainly be made. I also agree that reenactment provides a useful open door through which the public at large can walk in order to discover more about the Civil War. However, I think that Dr. Orr misses at least two salient points. First, and perhaps most importantly, he apparently believes that it is the reenactor's duty to fully inform spectators on every aspect of the Civil War. I would strenuously disagree with this. The point of reenactment (or "living history" as I think this is actually a more accurate term in that it brings a version of "history" to "life") is to animate a necessarily discrete moment of life from the past. If it is a military camp scenario, the point is to show the public the sorts of things they would see if they entered a military camp during the specific time frame being portrayed. Nothing more. The politics behind why they are there may have contextual relevance, but they bear no functional relevance to the scenario. A question about the legacy of the war bears even less relevance, as in the context of the scenario this is something that has not even happened yet. If the public asks about these things, this is the point at which I would hope that the reenactor would push them the rest of the way through the open door towards books on the subject.

Second, both LaFantasie and Orr denigrate the notion that reenactors tend to focus on the material minutia of their impressions. While I myself would colloquially be called a "stitch-Nazi", I think it is a mistake to dismiss this simply as "pointless minutiae". Even within the academic realm, there are people who are "material culture" specialists, "textile historians", or catalogers of "fashion history". The point of reenacting, at least as I understand it, is that on the personal level, material culture matters. What materials were available, and why were certain available materials used while others were not? What physical effect does the choice of fabric have on the wearer? How do certain choices made by quartermasters affect the range of movement possible to soldiers on the march or in combat? How do certain tools or implements affect an individual's ability to provide himself with shelter or protection? While these questions are no doubt pointless minutiae to those whose interest lies in macro political issues, they are of immediate and essential importance to those who want to achieve a better understanding of life at the individual level.

I applaud Dr. Orr's attempt at moderating Dr. LaFantasie's original article. However, despite knowing many excellent educators who are also reenactors, I also realize that the hobby is reviled by a significant proportion of academia. While normally I would not particularly care one way or the other, articles like LaFantasie's and to a much more limited extent even this one, demonstrate that this revulsion is based on an incomplete picture of what is really occurring across the hobby, and is further colored by preexisting prejudices.

- Peter Geyer

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 19 May 2011 15:15:15 -0500

Tim

Not sure you did any of us (and especially Glenn) any favors by linking us to this piece! Not his best piece of work. But you do raise some interesting questions.

Seems to me that this topic dovetails with previous discussions here (and elsewhere) about the relationship between bloggers, academic historians and "the public."

And it seems to me that re-enactors are just fine (as are bloggers). Folks do what they wish to do, and other folks can choose to watch/read them as they choose. Seems to me that many (not all) re-enactors "educate" through performance. Members of the public who watch them learn interesting and useful things I think. In fact, the details that the hardcores would be upset about (are the buttons correct? the seams? the materials?) are not really doing a disservice to the viewing public if they are a bit off.

If a visitor goes to an encampment and chats with a re-enactor about what the infantryman ate, what he wore, how long he marched, how he loaded his weapon, I think that in most cases that visitor is going to learn interesting things. If the visitor asks him about the causes of the Civil War, he is moving onto different terrain and might not get a good answer. [The re-enactor also won't know who Anna Dickinson was. Go figure.] I don't see this as a failing of the re-enactor. If the visitor comes away with lots of information that is untrue, that is unfortunate. But he could have stayed home and gone on the internet and discovered all sorts of falsehoods without getting any fresh air.

As for folks play-acting life's horrors and pretending like they are living the real thing. I have never known a re-enactor who believed that is what he was doing. Most I've known don't read widely in history, but they do often read deeply in the lives of soldiers and their letters. I think they know what they are not doing. If the visitor thinks that he/she is seeing an actual battle, well that is just silly. But is it any more silly than believing that the guys in Glory really got shot? Do folks believe that?

Final point. Tim gets a few of the familiar shots about "academic historians". [He must take care, lest we refuse to teach him the secret handshakes.] Sure, there are academics who mock re-enactors. But here is the dirty little secret, many academics look down their noses at academic military historians as well. I don't think that the hostility towards re-enactors among Civil War historians (military or not) is nearly as pervasive as Tim is suggesting. Many probably find the way re-enactors spend their weekends rather odd. And no doubt there is a feeling that re-enactors have a narrow area of expertise in many cases. But I have never heard one call for having them all gunned down! [Was that a CW historian you quoted?]

Here is some of my own experience. I have been teaching the CW for 25 years. I have invited re-enactors to come to my classroom nearly every year to give a guest lecture (on equipment and the daily life of the soldier). Off the top of my head I can think of about 8 people who have done that for my classes. Most recently at UF we have gone outside and drilled. All of which I found pedagogically very successful. I know lots of CW historians who do similar things. I have had at least four graduate students who were re-enactors and several undergrads who have gone on to be professional historians (including Tim). On the other side of that coin: I have attended a few re-enactments and encampments, and I once served as the "orator" (emcee) for a two hour re-enactment. And I know many academics who have seen a re-enactment, although I would agree that that isn't universal

Of course the "living history" label also applies to many many professionals who portray historic characters in museums or on battlefields. They should be highly trained - as historians and teachers - and in my experience they usually are (and Tim fails to mention that he was in that cohort as well). {In a sense there is an analogy between the relationship b/w the blogger and the academic historian, and the relationship b/w the re-enactor and the trained ranger at Gettysburg NMP. All of the above might be very knowledgeable and reliable, but somebody hired the ranger and the professor and somebody evaluates the work he or she does.}

- Matt Gallman

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 19 May 2011 13:43:30 -0500

While I agree with much that was written, as a re-enactor I would like to think that some of what we do is good. www.138thpa.com

- James Aronhalt

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 19 May 2011 13:16:34 -0500

Dr. Orr,

Thanks for reading and responding. I do understand how the academic world views reenacting. I myself view certain areas of the hobby in much the same light.

But, there are more and more events taking place that address the very subjects you list. I have attended an event that dealt with a Missouri town stuggling with the decision of who to support in a state that was very divided. I have been to a multi-day event that centered around a Georgia town during the middle part of the war, suffering from lower farm prices, less employment and less food while having the political arena come to them as candidates vied for state office ( I was an incumbent trying to get reelected to the state house - I lost). I will be attending another one next weekend that centers around a small working class Illinois town on the eve of the war. People will be going about their everyday business (I will be serving as sheriff) and discussing the events of the day along with the worries they bring.
I think this side of reenacting continues to develop more and more, especially as some of us age and no longer have the desire to do the military impression as much. I have learned much from these events which are often done in first person with reenactors that are incredibly knowledgeable about the time period and issues of the day. And it has allowed me to use my knowledge in interesting and entertaining ways.

Unfortunately, I can't give you a list of all of these events but they are out there and are often listed on one or more of the reenactor forums that exist. But I do think that something like this discussion does assist in getting the conversation started.

I fully agree that there is much to be learned from both sides. Academics have provided myriads of research in articles and books that are very valuable to reenactors. But, you know, some of the most amazing research I have seen presented has come from people who are truck drivers, city workers, retired physicians, lawyers, paramedics, businessmen, active duty soldiers and retired Marines. They are intelligent, know how to research and know how to share that knowledge with others. If the two sides are brought together, I think the amount of knowledge shared about the Civil War period would be astounding.

There is a great deal of respect among reenactors for those in academe and what they have provided. Many reenactors, not all of course, deserve the same respect given to them. Collaboration and cooperation would be a very good thing indeed.

- Michael Comer

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 19 May 2011 11:30:55 -0500

Michael, thank you for this post. I read it with enjoyment. Please let me address a few things, so that my intent is clear. First, I am pro-re-enactor; I always have been. I see great value in the hobby; that is why I remain in it. I am critical of it, as you can see, but this criticism comes from my desire to improve its goals and methods. If it sounded like I was “looking down my nose” at re-enactors, that was not my intent. Of course, I realize that not all re-enactor groups are equal and many of them consciously try to depart from the overdone sham battles. But please keep in mind, for a short blog post I had to generalize more than I preferred. I’m sure you agree with my main point: most re-enactor units need help, and need it desperately. As far as saying that only PhD’s can teach history, please note that I never said that.
Your last comment is the most critical: “Still going to the wrong events?” I’m glad you said this. There are new, innovative events out there that will interest academic historians. The trick is making them aware so historians will attend them. What will historians learn at these events? What pedagogical techniques will they acquire by attending re-enactments? What events integrate Civil War re-enacting with the broader history of the war? What events would interest non-military historians of the Civil War? (Are there any events that highlight slavery issues? Gender issues of the Civil War? Political issues of the Civil War? Social issues of the Civil War? Or all they all just strictly military-related? If the military component of re-enacting is central to an event, why would a historian of, say, Civil War political history want to come to it?) I’m hoping fellow re-enactors will post responses to this, making clear to academics who read this blog why they should attend re-enactor events. Moreover, I hope that re-enactors will open up a conversation with historians so as to agree to the goals and methods of the sesquicentennial commemoration, which, if I had to guess, are probably dissimilar. As I said in my response to LaFantasie, I truly believe that academic historians can learn from re-enactors just as much as re-enactors can learn from professional historians.
It is critical, I think, that both sides start a conversation with each other and perhaps the blog-world is the place to get it started. You have to understand that in the academic profession there is an unspoken belief that re-enactors are just a bunch of yahoos. It is sad fact, but that’s how it is. (Like I said, I heard one professor declare her intention to shoot them. That revealed to me a great disconnect between professional historians and living historians) Likewise, I think many re-enactors see academics as elitists who are out of touch with reality. This mutual distrust needs to stop. So, please, please, let the historians who read this blog know what needs to be done to get this conversation started. I fear if both parties keep to their own islands and refuse to integrate their ideas or cooperate, Allen Guelzo’s assumption that the sesquicentennial should be “called off” may be confirmed.

- Timothy Orr

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 19 May 2011 10:14:57 -0500

Much to ponder here, but it's clear Orr has, intentionally or inadvertently, set up a straw man to tear down. He does that through intentional or inadvertent ignorance, ignorance born of his own limited experiences. If you only go to events where the focus is the battle and people paying money to see the battle, then condemn everyone who puts on wool as an entertainer who only does battles, well then, you just proved you lack necessary information and suffer from self-induced tunnel vision. I've spent the better part of the last 12 years engaged with people who live on the part of the iceberg Orr missed. Haven't seen him around. There are reenactors who seek what academics seek. (No, not tenure.) They seek understanding of history. Many regard recreating slices of history as merely one more tool to gain it. When you make history come to life, even a little bit, you get what closeted academics and dilettante reenactors, and any combination of those two, often miss: Passion. Even obsession.
We would be happy to remedy Orr's unfortunate condition any time he wants to start going to the right events. It will require a higher degree of engagement than what he's used to, but perhaps with a little bit of work all that mental flab can be shed and the scales will drop from his eyes.

- Bill Watson

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Thu, 19 May 2011 03:38:39 -0500

This is a well-reasoned and tactful response, perhaps more tactful than the vitriolic Dr. Lafantasie deserves. However, all reenactors are not equal, and I'm rather surprised that Dr. Orr implies that they are. Having reenacted as a teenager with a group that took pride in being "campaigners," I can tell you that while some "living historians" are every bit as expert in teaching about the material and military culture aspects of Civil War history as Dr. Orr describes, there are plenty of beer-swilling clods with huge feathers in their hats who care nothing for history and make little to no effort to be authentic. Unfortunately, many members of the public--and probably some historians--will not know the difference. Many reenactors cannot be trusted to teach us anything. The small groups employed at National Parks are some of the best and most knowledgable out there, and it's their job to educate. I suggest that historians who want to gain something from reenactors stick with these fellows, as well as the more authentic groups that are often invited to give informative programs at historic sites.

- Will Hickox

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Wed, 18 May 2011 23:54:54 -0500

Well, for those who don't participate in reenactments or living history for 'entertainment', LaFantasie's premise is inaccurate and insulting.

Most of what passes as 'reenactments' really do cheapen and fetishize the War Between the States. In the past year, I particpated in events that recreated the mustering of volunteers in Minnesota in April, the military movements in Charleston Harbor in January that set the stage for the war and a wagon train moving through the Tennessee woods last August. None of those events were done for 'entertainment' and each was focused on recreating history and remembering the men and women who lived it.

There is something more, something greater and I am glad to participate in it.

your obedient servant,

Peter M. Berezuk

- Peter Berezuk

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Wed, 18 May 2011 22:51:06 -0500

A very interesting post, Tim, that sparks many ideas. I basically sympathize with your perspective, but just wanted to add something to complicate your thoughts on #3.

Civil War reenacting as we know it really began with the Civil War veterans themselves. (I'd have to do more research to ascertain geographical and temporal diffusion, as well as connections to the Centennial.)

In particular, GAR Day in my hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, during the 1890s seems to have been defined by a large-scale pretend battle that included cadets from college militias, other civic groups (including African-Americans), and even Civil War veterans with nontrivial service records. Huge crowds of spectators showed up. I recall one year's event featuring a melodramatic scenario in which Mosby's Rangers seized a turnpike going out of Lancaster only to be beaten back at the last minute by a surprise Union counterattack from the flank. The rebel chief of artillery was even a veteran and officer in the 1st PA Reserves during the actual war.

So, I'm not sure where to go with this but it would seem there's something more to sociology of pretend battles.

- Vince Slaugh

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Wed, 18 May 2011 22:06:59 -0500

Interesting, you write--"I've been a re-enactor for over twenty years now. I have never seen such a divergence from the standard "shoot-'em-up" re-enactments. Why is that? Quite simply, re-enactors do not know how to re-enact anything other than battles"

Hmmmm.......In the past ten months I have (1) Participated in an 1861 period mustering-in held in an original fort, complete with men showing up in civilian clothing, and women running period sewing machines to make items for the troops---depicting the Rise of the First Volunteers as troops from Minnesota were the first to be tendered for Federal service, (2)Was one of three organizers of a 1862 period wagon train pioneering a road through mountain terrain for six days, as teamsters and troops portrayed a wagon train Trailing Kirby Smith, (3) Portrayed a textile producer in 1863 Georgia, complete with working spinning wheels and wartime ersatz dye pots, in a period village in Georgia, part of a larger event called Struggles of Secession (4) Portrayed an Army hospital worker/military dependant crossing cold choppy Charleston Harbor as Major Anderson evacuated his troops from Moultrie to Sumter, as he hoped To Prevent the Effusion of Blood (5) And, yes, I've been to one bang-bang shoot em up battle--I spent most of my time harassing the Federal Provost about paying me for crops requisitioned during the Twin Rivers Campaign.

If all you've seen in twenty years in the hobby is battle reenactments---its time to look deeper.

And if you are dissatisfied with your choices in events, then I have a question for you:

Still Going to the Wrong Events?

- T H Lawson

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Wed, 18 May 2011 21:58:03 -0500

"Cannot Civil War re-enactors re-enact other events? Consider this: for 2011, the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the war, could not re-enactors recreate the moment of enlistment? Re-enactors, dressed as civilians, could sign their name to a roster, take the oath of allegiance, and "muster in" to a re-enactment unit. Such a recreation would bring to life to spectators the importance of this life-altering decision and no doubt, would highlight the political issues of 1861. I've been a re-enactor for over twenty years now. I have never seen such a divergence from the standard "shoot-'em-up" re-enactments. Why is that? Quite simply, re-enactors do not know how to re-enact anything other than battles. They need historians to lead them."

I don't know where you have been or what type of events you do sir, but this sort of event has happened over and over at many places. Perhaps you haven't looked beyond whatever your reenacting microcosm is.

I am an academic and a reenactor. How many battles do I 'reenact' a year? Sometimes none and yet I attend perhaps a dozen different events during that time.

Some of those events have lasted 5 days completely devoid of modern intrusion and have had such things as rations issued from horse drawn wagons, marching through mud, sleeping in the rain and standing guard for lonely hours during the night.

These things are happening and most of these events are not run by academics that you think are so vital to anyone understanding history. These are run by people who love the subject, who have devoted years to study and can teach about many aspects of the war as effectively or more effectively than many of our peers. No historians were leading anyone anywhere and these events were excellent looks into the privations and everyday life of the common Civil War soldier.

Are there reenactors that can do nothing but battles? Yes. Are there some that are an embarrasment to the hobby and to education? Yes, but please don't look down your nose at all reenactors and don't stereotype. And please don't think that only an academic with a PhD is capable of teaching anything about history. That is completely wrong.

But if you are convinced that it takes academics stepping in to help the hobby, then please do so. I haven't seen any approaches by universities pursuing such a course. But, there has been denigration. Doesn't it need to be a two way street?

I would just have to ask you: "Still going to the wrong events?"

- Michael Comer

Comment on "Reconsidering Civil War re-enactors in the sesquicentennial, or, the insight and foolishness of Glenn LaFantasie"

Wed, 18 May 2011 20:47:07 -0500

Great post Tim! I completely agree with you that his gap between academia and forms of Public History is one that must be mended for this commemoration. Kudos!
Jared

- Jared Frederick