Politics in an impression

[lazarus]

While I don't post here much, I do read this forum quite a bit to get a better since of how I should do a first person impression and almost all of the discussions have been helpful. However, I haven't found a lot of discussion centering around how much politics (circa 1850 to 1860) should be involved in one's overall impression and demeanor. If you think about it, while today we attempt to be somewhat a-political as to not hurt spectator's feelings or we tend to give a blanket political stance of state rights or unionist jargon, how much of this reflects a true life statement? When reading diaries and 1st person accounts, apparently soldiers and civilians were political. They were very opinionated about the causes of the war and who and what should run the state and federal positions. In addition, most pointed out the election processes within regiments, companies, and detachments. Although I see all these things, I don't hear politics amongst my living history comrades unless they are civilians.
With that said, is it necessary to have a political stance when in first person. Moreover, can we really have a true 1860's political stance when we know the results of the war and are evidently shaped by our own political past (i.e., post two world wars, facism, civil rights, and industrialization)?
Yes, I know this is heady, but I think that in order to have a good first impression it is important to have all aspects covered from your life before the war (residence, work, family, etc.), during, and future prospects. We cannot exclude the sphere of politics because, just like religion during this time, it is a hot topic. Any thoughts?

[Jake Marley]

Re: Politics in an impression

Lazarus-

Your question is very important in my opinion. "First person" is not simply rattling off a litany of period slang. One thing you might consider is learning about the area of a state where your particular impression was organized. If you know what the soldiers' and civilians' livelihoods were, you may begin to understand what was most important to them. One resource for this is the county census and tax records of the region; these will most likely list the people, their work, their worth, and their debt. In other impressions, there are state and federal politicians who would have been well-known to soldiers. For example, any soldier recruited in Ohio, who had spent any appreciable amount of time there before the War would know the name Clement Valladigham; you can think of others in this vein. Additionally, at the very least, these men were posted up on the history of their home areas. So, a soldier from Massachusetts would certainly be familiar with the Adamses and their political legacy. There are other examples out there, of soldiers being tied to politics, whether it be by way of a commander, or a relative, or a regimental sobriquette. I've already go on long enough--if you've got the foresight to prepare a good impression, you've got the skills to dig up good period references to improve it in any way you want.

Nic Ellis

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Politics in an impression

Although I see all these things, I don't hear politics amongst my living history comrades unless they are civilians.

Well, there's something right there: quite a few military impressions stop at 1861, and go back no further. For a well-rounded military impression, one really needs to have a well-rounded NON-military impression, first. And that's an aspect that's been only very lightly touched by the majority of military participants, in my opinion.


Moreover, can we really have a true 1860's political stance when we know the results of the war and are evidently shaped by our own political past (i.e., post two world wars, facism, civil rights, and industrialization)?

Well, let's see: can the mid-century soldier really have valid political opinions, given that in the previous 80 years, there had been two world wars, facism, civil rights unrest, and the vast Industrial revolution?

We're really not in any different boat. We have electricity and the internet: they had steam power and the telegraph. We had WWI and II: they had a 10 year Revolution and continuing battles for sovereignty. We had political struggles, fascism and tyranny in the form of Hitler, Stalin, the Russian Cold War: they had Napoleon, Italy, anti-Catholicism, and a Cold War with Britain in the Pacific Northwest. The Civil Rights and social upheaval parallells are clear-cut; and increasing industrialization had been a way of life for some six decades by the time of the Civil War.

You're right on target: a good soldier is a citizen FIRST. Without that background, he has no idea why he's fighting, or for what good reason (or bad reason.)

Take on a challenge: go civilian for year, or for at least several events through a year. Your whole world will change.

[Jake Marley]

Re: Politics in an impression

Yes--I agree. To do the best soldier impression, you must "be" a good civilian, too. After all, the bulk of these men were citizen soldiers (the search engine will certainly turn up other threads on discussions regarding this topic). My experience is that it takes a bit more effort and dipping into what some might describe as "mundane" or "boring" or "unimportant" to get the background for the civilian side of a thorough impression. Ms. Clark, you have hit the nail right on the head. Further spirited replies to this thread might be very useful, as we sit astride the 2004 campaign season.

Nic Ellis

[Michael Comer]

Re: Politics in an impression

It is indeed possible to do the right mindset even though you know the outcome. One of the interpetive programs I do for other interpeters concerns interpreting slavery from the Southern point of view and I also point out that many Northerners were either not too keen or noncommittal concerning the idea of fighting to abolish slavery. I do three first person characters, all generic, in order to try to get people to think about the wide variety of attitudes toward slavery at the time. I do a Confederate soldier, who has no slaves yet still fights for the Confederacy, a Union soldier who is fighting for other reasons than freeing slaves, and a Southern gentlemen who owns slaves. There are so many more aspects of the subject that are not commonly heard that I use these characters to make people think and realize how complicated the subject actually is. What I do is cover what was basic ground for people in the 1860's but has been lost in the way slavery is usually presented in our history books and classes. My message is that if you are going to interpret slavery and want to do justice to the subject, you need to consider all sides to give a better understanding of the institution and what its roll was in our country.

To make a long story short, even though I know the historical outcome, I still can do a pretty good impression of a Southern slaveholder and how he thinks and what he feels about the current as well as previous state of affairs including politics. One fellow asked me if it made me uncomfortable slipping into that character so easily. From that remark, I figure I must have done my job the way it was intended.

I for one would rather hear some spirited political debates in camp instead of modern banter and old, tired high-school type humor. It just takes people wanting to do it and doing the prep work. Go ahead and try it - you might start a fad in your unit.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Politics in an impression

Two of the best resources I've found for political thoughts:

Personal diaries/letters and published lectures/articles.

I recently taught a class on historic research for some home-educators, and one of the things we talked a lot about was bias--and that bias is not necessarily a bad thing. Every opinion has within it a bias: a filter through which the world and philosophies are interpreted. When a person can identify the bias present in the resource (or possible bias), and then read a lot of different biased accounts of a similar event or circumstance--that's when a person is much more able to synthesize the attitudes of the past, and really start to understand them, to the point that they can be successfully interpreted or presented.

One thing I encourage people to do is to so thoroughly immerse themselves in the opinion that they don't get overly theatrical with it. A few years back, we attended a small "tractor pull and town fest" sort of event up in Montana, and one of the big draws for me was the proposed Women's Suffrage debate between "period" characters.

Well, the "characters" hadn't prepared synthesized quotes and snippets of the actual speeches and lectures--they didn't even take them all from the same time period, but stretched out over a nearly 90 year span of time! And then they lapsed into 1970s ERA-era "stumps" rather than the actual arguements used in the 19th century both for and against female suffrage.

What could have been extremely enlightening and entertaining was theatrical trash.

Now--had those characters been so well versed in their persona that they could deliver memorized quotes with naturalness, that they could respond to their fellow debators with appropriate fervor and sincerity--had they really KNOWN their political topic, it could have been wonderful.

Same thing goes with individual historic political thought... it's not enough to know one side, as you may not always be that side. A good historian examines as many sides as possible, knowing that the reality lies somewhere in that web of filters.

[Jake Marley]

Re: Politics in an impression

I'm glad we've opened this topic further. This thread is giving me an outlet for an aspect of reenacting that I find the most challenging of all. and it's definitely an area where every person can improve without spending a lot of money...

I thought of some questions that I might use for an "exercise" in thinking about an impression, or doing research:

1. General McClellan was beloved by a vast majority of the men in the Army of the Potomac when he was finally relieved in 1862. But, he was also a hard-core Democrat who represented the Peace Democrats' platform [although he was not a "Peace Democrat"] (McPherson 2001) and opposed emancipation, and Lincoln, in 1864. How would a soldier, having been one of the volunteers of '62, and loyal to McClellan, but a believer in emancipation, reconcile his differences? I ask this rhetorically, of course.

2. Growing up in southcentral Pennsylvania, I've ben told that Lincoln's first secretary of war, Simon Cameron, was a horse thief and a crook. This may or may not be true. But, I did read some time ago, that Cameron provided jobs building railroads to men in Harrisburg in the late 1850's. This would have probably alleviated some of the financial stresses incurred by the "Panic of '57". So, a soldier in a Penn'a volunteer regiment, recruited in southcentral PA may well have been a benefactor of Cameron's entrepeneurship.

I'm sure one could formulate several such questions, based on one's interests, and event-needs.

Nic Ellis

[KarinTimour]

Re: Politics in an impression

Dear Sir:

I think politics can add a lot to an impression -- again, you need to go back to who you're portraying. Some people then as now, see very little connection between politics and their daily lives.

But I have long held a theory about about why most present day Americans are less involved in politics and tend to see government as something that happens in Washington or their state capital, but has little impact on their lives except for taxes. The Civil War/WBTS was the last domestic conflict -- at least in the East. Westerners had the Indian wars for a couple of decades longer. When someone is likely to shoot you or the people you care about, it does tend to focus your attention on what they are up to, and whether or not there is going to be any response from your elected leaders. My experience of Europeans is that they are much more likely to follow daily news and have opinions about sometimes relatively obscure political issues, because they see a connection between what is discussed in their state houses and whether tanks are going to roll or not.

In the 1850s and 1860s, while certainly there were people who had no political beliefs or interest, I suspect that they were a smaller proportion of the population. If you lived in Kansas or Nebraska, the question of "which side are you on" had direct bearing on your daily life.

I have been reading accounts of the impact of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and the impact it had on Northern public opinion. Apparently, there were a fair number of people who didn't really have an opinion, one way or the other about abolition, slavery, etc. But with the passage of the Fugitive Slave law, anyone who was black could be identified as a runaway, seized and "returned to his master." Local law enforcement officials (your sheriff, your local cop on the block), could be requested by a slave catcher to help with the aprehension of said "slave" and couldn't refuse to do so. And apparently lots more people actually witnessed ordinary black people being seized in public and dragged off. Apparently, this had a galvanizing effect on public opinion, at least for some of the Northern populace.

Certainly, when you read women's memoirs/diaries/etc. of the war years, there is just no question of where their allegiances lay. And the really tough part was if you were living in an area where it wasn't ok to voice how you truly felt.

If you're male, who did you vote for in the election of 1860? Who was on the ballot where you lived? Who was your governor? Senators? what do you think of the job they are doing?

Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Camp Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[JimConley]

Re: Politics in an impression

How much political discussion do you find in your readings of first hand accounts? If you read the war from the perspective of an infantry soldier, that should answer your question.

P.S. Not to mention, how strongly do you think that a common volunteer soldier would harp on such topics outside of his reason for fighting?

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Politics in an impression

P.S. Not to mention, how strongly do you think that a common volunteer soldier would harp on such topics outside of his reason for fighting?

It really isn't unusual for people to hold opinions, and voice them... beyond "what they're fighting for." That's a pretty one-dimensional view of historic life. As Karin mentioned, in many cases, politics held a great deal of immediacy for the everyday person, and the nature of American politics allowed for quite a lot of individual involvement--far more than that of other political structures.

Certainly some people didn't follow politics at all... and others did. Letters and diaries alone won't give a full picture--no one source will. But a discussion of "current" political ideas is far preferable during "down time" than a discussion of the internet, for example.

The everyday soldier isn't likely to be stumping in front of his comrades, but why assume they discussed the drill manual instead? There's a huge, wide world beyond soldiering, and it's ripe for discussion. Politics has its effects on other prospects: for instance, the volunteer infantryman is planning to take up land out West after the war--how will the outcome of various elections affect its availability? What about mining and other development? If Senator X gets in and pushes hard for completing the transcontinental railroad, will that soldier's future land prices along that route be affected? It's such a huge, interrelated web; there's no way any one person can cover it all, but branching out a bit is good!

[lazarus]

Re: Politics in an impression

Wow, some good dialogue here! I apprepriate everyone's input on the subject and I am beginning to formulate some ways to improve this part of my impression. I find it hard not to be political, especially concerning the "what are we fighting for?" and "why am I here?" While many scream the generic causes, I believe it has to be deeper than that. Yes, I believe I can be apolitical in most situations, but there has to be some things that always get a person's goat. I also have to remind myself not only do soldiers discuss state, local, and country politics, but they also has their personal politicing to do around camp. In, Life in the Confederate Army, the author spends some time discussing outside political influences on daily decisions to march and fight, to cook or clean, or even to co-exist with fellow soldiers. It was better to talk about politics than to talk about meaningless events that occured during the day. Let's face it, a newspaper was an infectious read at the time and still can be today. However, this particular author spent most of his war years as an immigrant commissioned officer, which gave him a way to discuss everything from an outsider's perspective.
Karin, I agree with the point that women's accounts seem to give me more indications of home state politics and conditions. (By the way, we have met before, I am one of Bruce Rollin's good friends. - red hair, fair skin, and beard) While some soldier's accounts have been excellent in giving tenor, women's accounts fill in the blanks for me and encourage me to suggest that men were getting fired up based on women's letters about homefront conditions and politics.
Overall, I know that it is important to know general political knowledge (names of important people and important events), however, I find my somewhat liberal contemporary stance influencing 1st person politics. Abolitionist, Secessionist, or am I sitting on the fence watching the world go by? Wow, method acting and drama 101!

[Jake Marley]

Harping on a topic

Ms. Clark--

Once again, I agree with you. But as we know, getting people to improve impressions is often like pulling teeth.

But, then again, I suppose we could assume that every diary, journal, letter, and memoir is the absolute last word on anything the soldiers felt, said, and did. Yes, it makes perfect sense to me, that the small snapshots we get of their lives through their first-hand accounts represent all of each of their 24 hours of life, every day of every year they were in the service. We shouldn't think that they were anything like we are; or that they might have been like the people we know at work in the 21st century, who have opinions outside of what their jobs entail.

Let's face it--it should be obvious from the colorless photographs of the period that 19th century Americans were equally colorless, and devoid of any sort of personality or capacity to think beyond their motivations for taking up the sword.

So much for all of our enlightening discussion on this thread. It's such a relief that I can move on to something more conducive to "first-person", like the number of words in the orders for changing sentinels on picket, or the merits of pegged vs. stitched soles on museum artifacts.

Nic Ellis

[Millie Fillmore]

Re: Politics in an impression

I understand the difficulty with having modern perceptions intrude on our nineteenth century impressions. To get into the right mindset, we have to get rid of a lot of baggage -- this not only includes political views, but also modern conveniences and technological advances.

To help with this, I am convinced (like others on this thread) that you gotta do the research. You can read diaries and personal accounts, but why not try some other sources you may have overlooked at your local historical library? There's a wealth of information there.

Now, for those that think the mid-nineteenth century soldier was not interested in politics......Why on earth did they name local papers like "Centre Democrat", "Democratic Watchman", "Democratic Whig", and the "Bellefonte Republican"?!?! (Some examples from my local library.) Hmmmmm. I don't see many local papers from the 21st century with such names.

Like Jake Marley (Nic Ellis) stated previously, go look in old census records and tax records. These provide a lot of information you wouldn't expect, like family arrangements, professions, incomes, taxes, etc. Read the original newspaper articles leading up to the war (many are available on microfilm, or you may even be allowed to leaf through originals). Most counties have a "Commemorative Biographical Record" with tons of great information. I just was reading one of these last night, from a county in southern Wisconsin. In it was a WONDERFUL description of furniture arrangements in original log cabins (which were asserted to be the most common housing arrangement pre-war). There was also a description of an incident when the war started: Someone in the county was suspected of furnishing weapons to the Confederate Army, so one of the townships felt it was necessary to draft an oath that all citizens would have to take. Well, a mob took the southern symapathizer down to the town center to make him take the oath. He refused, so the mob rode him out of town on a rail!

I can guarantee you that a bunch of men in that mob joined the Federal Army. Did they have strong political views? I should say so!!!

Every single soldier left a home somewhere. All of these homes and communities shaped who they were. All of their backgrounds contributed to WHY they left their families to face disease and danger. All of their experiences and stories from "back home" were shared with comrades in camp or on the march. This is what they shared, and it was WHO THEY WERE.

We're doing a strong disservice to them if we don't try to find out as much as we can about everything they were.

Katie Guslick

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Politics in an impression

We do have 21st century baggage, of course, but I firmly believe it's a similar sort of baggage, and shouldn't necessarily be cast entirely aside, as it provides our own bias/filter for viewing the world (then and now.)

We have very different lives, with different expectations--but it's not that hard to research and discover what their lives and their expectations involved, and try them on for size. Just another aspect of "experiential archaeology." :)

The more I study, on all manner of topics, the more I see the vast parallells between our experience and theirs. I can't use my own "ideas" as "fact" for interpretation (my modern ones, that is), but those parallells help bridge the gap. Reading a biography of Morse (who invented the American telegraph, after a spotty career at other things), I came to appreciate just how astonishing and important the telegraph was for the 1840s... a level of technological revolution on par with our Internet access expansion in the 1990s. I can get very excited about telegraph stuff now... and when I'm doing a bit of interpretive work where this topic comes up, I have parallells to draw for the modern spectator, to help them catch the excitement as well... and that makes for a successful interpretation. For my own personal gain, I have an easier time getting into the excitement I would have felt as a young girl, when the miracle of the telegraph arrived in my town, bringing instant news from far away... and I can lament, perhaps, arriving in a frontier town that doesn't yet have the basics of human civilization: gaslight, sewers, and the telegraph.

[Millie Fillmore]

Re: Politics in an impression

I suppose it is unwise to completely disregard all modern bias we have. My mother and I have had long discussions about this; she firmly believes that even if she lived in the 1850's, she would never have supported slavery, ever. I have struggled with what my "alter ego" would have felt -- I'm a young woman originally from southeastern Wisconsin, so what would a young lady from a newly formed northern state have felt? Of course, the Milwaukee area is much different now than it was back then.

However, in essentials, I think Elizatbeth is right -- people haven't changed that much.