Politics in an impression

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Politics in an impression

Now we're on to one of my great loves of the antebellum and CW eras...Slavery. :-)

I've read a couple of really decent secondary source books recently that I wish to share with yall.

First, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and Causes of the Civil War by Charles B. Dew. Absolutely great, short read. He quotes a lot of Southerners including but not limited to Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens, Robert and Barnwell Rhett, Thomas Cobb, Robert Toombs, and a host of others.

Second, The Men of Secession and Civil War 1859-1861 by James L. Abrahamson. Does a lot of compare and contrast between issues and important men such as, Jefferson Davis & Abe Lincoln, Stephen Douglas & William Y. Yancey, Senator John Crittenden and John Bell, among other people and an array of issues including the hopeless Constitutional Union party, Crittenden Compromise, the issues that turned the South against Douglas by 1860, etc.

Last, The Shattering of the Union: America in the 1850s by Eric H. Walther.

As long as I've been doing this I've heard people nearly shout from the rafters "The war had nothing to do with slavery." Or only the rich men had gain from the war, etc. Well, let's face it do you know any poor Southerners or Northerners running the country then or now? I don't. The people who RAN the country say it's a war based upon this fundamental issue of slavery, after three decades they had had it with the attempt to balance or one side or the other have more power.

I think it's about time more living historians/reenactors got real about this issue. The single most devisive issue probably in American politics since the beginning of our country. Off and on battles and compromising and commentary from the late 18th century to the present.

Just the same, I really want to commend Karin Timour. Karin and I have been reenacting together since 2000 and she can really make dull moments into something more glorious. Pretty much everyone can rely on her to know everything about everyone in a particular situation creating an element we have all read about and that we all do in the 21st century yet seem to sleep on in the 19th...that is gossip. Karin reviews the biographies of everyone coming to a particular event and if there is anything she can use for chatter, she has it.

I've really been thinking, because most of us love/like our reenacting friends and acquaintances we near to never have any animosity towards their first person characters. Those young, old; male, female; rich and poor seem to move about in fair harmony. I think a little more dislike in various people's impressions would create a more realistic impression.

My few thoughts,

[flattop32355]

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.

Earlier this year I picked up a copy of "Brother vs. Brother", using letters from two New Jersey brothers, Joe and Ed Halsey (ancestors of Bull Halsey of WW2 fame). Raised in the North by an abolitionist-leaning father of some means, Joe married a Southern girl and went south to make his fortune. His father-in-law set him up on some land adjoining the Rapidan River, with a house and 10-12 slaves. In a fairly short time period, Joe became virulently pro-slavery, writing scathing letters back to his father, brother and sisters, denouncing their beliefs and basically telling them to "butt out" and leave the South alone. He served for the duration of the war with the ANV. The plantation was ravaged by both Northern and Southern troops seeking supplies. He never backed down from his opinions, even chastising his wife for sending their two teenaged daughters through the lines to New Jersey for safety against the increasing numbers of stragglers and bandits passing through their property.

As for which side any of us would have supported, it may well depend upon the place you found yourself plunked into: If you lived most places outside of the South, you most likely would have opposed slavery, and more strongly supported preservation of the union. If you resided in the South, it may have depended more on the circumstances of your family; whether you owned slaves, were urban or rural, had even seen a slave before, etc. You may have been more likely to accept the principle of states rights over the union. But none of it was clear-cut; southern Ohio was a hotbed of Copperhead activity, while western Virginia and eastern Tennessee leaned toward the Union.

Mr. Dabney makes some good points; we tend to dance around the issue of slavery due to present day PC fears, even while many people hold closely held beliefs that they would not dare expose to the public. I've heard statements made by Northern reenactors intimating that they wished that all Southerners and all slaves and both sets of decendants would have just disappeared from the face of the earth. I have a feeling that this was not an uncommon feeling among Northern troops of the day, and a goodly number fought purely for preservation of the union and/or to teach the secesh a lesson rather than to free the slaves.

But enough rambling. The end result is that we can only speculate on our sympathies if we were raised in that period, and it would be greatly influenced by where we got that raisin'.

[LindaTrent]

I believe that the more we know about 19th century life, the greater our understanding of the people we portray. In most cases companies were pretty much raised from the same general locale, so a lot of the boys in various companies may have actually grown up with each other and interacted all their lives with each other, and of course they had memories as well as hopes and dreams of the future. Here is a link to some thoughts I've had on creating a sustainable and believable first person impression for both civilians and military http://struggleforstatehood.homestead.com/SandBC.html

The everyday soldier isn't likely to be stumping in front of his comrades

But who's to say some didn't? In Ohio, for example, nearly 45,000 soldiers voted in the 1863 gubernatorial election. Okay, so perhaps there wasn't a lot of stumping since nearly 42,000 of them voted the Union party, while the other 3,000 voted for 'the other party' :tounge_sm

Although I am a lady, and ladies didn't have the vote, some of my characters are more interested in politics than others, though when I am an Ohioan my characters are always familiar with the most notorious of men, Clement Vallandigham :baring_te

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.

Yes, but remember that our 19th century counterparts were raised in a very racist world. Most of the states east of the Mississippi had slavery at one time or another in their history, even the Northern states. Many abolitionists would readily admit that, yes, they wanted the slaves freed, but they didn't want them to live around them! Send them to Liberia, or some other region of the world.

southern Ohio was a hotbed of Copperhead activity, while western Virginia and eastern Tennessee leaned toward the Union.

True, Southern Ohio had some Copperhead activity, but politically Southern Ohio leaned Union party in the elections. Ohio's main Democrat votes tended to come out of the more central and northern counties, i.e. Putnam, Mercer, Allen, Auglaize, Shelby, Seneca, Wyandot, Crawford, Franklin, Licking, Fairfield, Ashland and Holmes. While the Southern counties that went Democrat were Butler, Brown, Pike, Hocking, and Monroe (Actual returns from the Election for Governor, 1863.)

I've really been thinking, because most of us love/like our reenacting friends and acquaintances we near to never have any animosity towards their first person characters. Those young, old; male, female; rich and poor seem to move about in fair harmony. I think a little more dislike in various people's impressions would create a more realistic impression.

More realistic impression? I agree as long as *everyone* knows it's just a character and in no way reflects our modern life. At one event Hank portrayed a wife-abusing man. Since neither he nor I knew anything about how to really pull off this impression we turned to Karin Timour who had had experience, professionally, with these kind of couples. She did such a good job coaching us, that just recently Hank was accused of being a wife-abuser since he chose 'to portray a man who abuses his wife.'

People need to know how to tell the difference between the 21st century person and the 19th century character they choose to portray. Part of the problem, I believe, is that too often I hear people say about first person, "Just be yourself, only in the 19th century." And I think a lot of people think that's how everyone does it. The point is, people don't really believe that Martin Sheen owned slaves, despite the fact he portrayed R.E. Lee in Gettysburg, or that Tom Hanks killed a bunch of Nazis during WWII despite his appearance in Saving Private Ryan. The point is, Sheen and Hanks are actors just like us. Okay, they get paid just a little more, but... :cry_smile

Linda Trent
lindatrent@zoomnet.net

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Politics in an impression

Linda,

I totally agree that people must be willing to separate 19th and 21st century lives/lifestyles and back to my post in this thread, I believe it's why most people are smiley faced, no problem individuals. Yet reading these journals/letters, notes, etc. that we know are good sources of first hand information we find that not everyone was smiley faced, no problem individuals. They had people they didn't like, quarrels, long term stand offs with individuals or families, etc. While it may not be something in an impression that is voiced aloud, I'm not sure it's even felt for most who do first person.

I will say, though not in attendance at Recon 2, I have heard from Kathryn Coombs that there was a lot of in house animosity among several characters. Sounded really interesting and I hope to see some more of that.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Politics in an impression

Something I find interesting (as well as the fact that these good threads tend to morph!) is that far too many Union portrayals act like nowhere in the North ever had chattal slavery at all... and that's just not the case. While the importation of slaves was outlawed somewhere around 1808 (several years before the British got 'round to it, actually!), the last emancipations in Pennsylvania, for instance, happened around 1848--a tad over a decade before the war. That's not "distant memory".

Personally, I think it would be interesting scenario to have white abolitionists and some of the free-black colony supporters running a fundraising rally with lectures, in support of emancipation and emigration to Liberia! The speeches, lectures, and newspaper articles are all there to be used, and it's certainly out of "the mainstream."

[LindaTrent]

Re: Politics in an impression

They had people they didn't like, quarrels, long term stand offs with individuals or families, etc. While it may not be something in an impression that is voiced aloud, I'm not sure it's even felt for most who do first person.

Oh I agree entirely. It was fascinating organizing SFS, and requiring everyone to keep me in the loop about who their characters were... We had one group of male citizens who were in cahoots with an employee of the local store, a "gentleman" who was a former slave trader (along with his mastiff dog)/who was a debt collector that some of us saw as shady and others saw as helpful, a runaway slave, a former operator of the URR, a Baptist preacher, an outspoken woman. Each individual acted in different ways depending upon who they were around and the topic of discussion at the time. Even though the event sounds like it had the potential to be quite explosive, and ride over the top into melodrama; it really played out very smooth. There were rifts, and it was obvious how some people felt about the others. Topics were avoided, and if they weren't then sparks flew. It really was like having next door neighbors with various opinions. You try your best to stay on common ground, but if one strays, then well... :wink_smil

We had lots of quarrels, long term stand offs with individuals or families at both McDowell 2001, Burkittsville 2001. Not to mention the animosity we all had for each other at McDowell 2003 :baring_te But the point is, as you said, we all know each other and have a respect for one another, and we are all friends in the end.

But another thing is real life rifts weren't always obvious. Take for example Laurie Brown and myself, when I was required to attend church service at McDowell. When the choir began to sing Dixie, she turned around and gave me one of the most evil type grins. Then the choir switched to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and I waited for her to look back at me which she never did. It was subtle, but we both knew what the other was thinking. Our characters despised each other, we were the very epitome of what the other hated about the other side.

Abby, Hank and I are going to probably portray a "family group" at Shaker Village this fall. While we may have the smiley faced "we have no problem" type people to the public, we will have some different feelings altogether in private. :baring_te

Linda Trent
lindatrent@zoomnet.net

[jhuether]

Re: Politics in an impression

I don't want to seem like I am coming from the wrong angle with my opinion on this. I think it is a very sensible way of approaching a hard question. I have seen a few diaries/journals that go into politics, and James McPherson's (I hate to say it b/c I am not that big of a fan) For Cause and Comrades points out other documents. But from what I have read comes most all from the "intellectual" sect of the time. Now is where I will probably loss some people's opinion. I hate to relate it to modern times, but this is one time that we can see a lot from doing so. As Ms Clark pointed out now is not that much different in poli-social experience. It has been my experience (proudly fighting with the 2 of the 87th infantry regiment in Afghanistan for 10 monthes) that it is the intellectuals that fuel the political fire in camp. The lay man has nothing more than a passing, yet fierce, interest in politics and the political leaders. In combat all of that is removed from ones mind, the main concern is to try to figure out who is to blame for you being there and how you are going to get out of the situation (i.e. complaints about how the war is being ran and Jeff Davis, both I have seen in primary documents). To urther explain what I mean by passing, recently I was incharge of taking names of those who wanted to vote on the absentee ballot, not even 20% (after all of the fierce opinion expressed by all) were even interested.

I hope that none are affended my meager opinion, and i am very eager to find how others in the world look at it. It as been my experience that the best first person impressions are built off of one's personal experiences. I am a perfessional soldier and love it. War is war, in the end.

Jason Huether
Lazy Skinner's Society

[lazarus]

Re: Politics in an impression

Jason, appreciate and your pards for what you are doing (or did) over there. I hope that this contemporary conflict will be over soon (Ah, wars!) I would think that you have some context being in action and applying it to the past. However, I don't think that the common soldier is completely absent in the political scene or think about politics. As you state and other resources suggest, the common soldier did refer to broad political affairs and its affect on them (i.e., how long is this going to last, why am I here, who supports me, who doesn't). Also, is it possible that most people, including individuals in service, don't vote as much because of present-day apathy for politics. Could this be different or the same in the 19th century? Based on Census polls that began in 1790, many individuals reported that they voted more oftern during local and state elections than federal elections and referendums, around 70% of the population state and local, almost 50% federal elections. However, again we have to remember that the hanging chads and stuffing the ballot box was a serious issue since public elections were created. Of course, not everyone during Civil War politically cared or voted, but I would agree we all still have a general opinion.
Anyway, here is another stone to throw in the water. What do you do when you are a living historian that changes units and impressions two or three times at an event? Darn, this gets more complex!

[flattop32355]

Re: Politics in an impression

Could this be different or the same in the 19th century?

If I remember correctly, the soldiers in the Union armys were responsible for giving Lincoln a whopping majority of their votes in the 1864 election, much to the surprise of one Mr. McClellan. Many were furloughed with the idea that they would be home to vote.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Politics in an impression

What do you do when you are a living historian that changes units and impressions two or three times at an event? Darn, this gets more complex!

When an event is organized in such a way as to interfere with, rather than support, participants who want to try for an accurate impression, it may just be better to find a different event. Sometimes it's necessary to compromise accuracy for the overall mission of the event such as interpreting to the public, and I've been to one "compressed time" event that actually worked as a semi-immersion reenactment--Immortal 600. But in general, I've found that events which are deliberately organized with gaps in time, illogically connected activities, or scenarios where the consequences don't remain consistent, are events that cater to those who don't care about doing a really accurate impression, and just want to get in a little reenacting in between hanging out in a modern way.

The best events for doing an accurate impression have no "down time" so you can always expect others to behave consistently as 19th century people from start to finish. They're set up so consequences follow through logically, so you can refer back to what happened Friday night and it will still make sense Sunday morning. Each person does the same portrayal in real time from start to finish. And most importantly, all those attending, or at least those in your sub-set of people attending, actually follow those guidelines. Unfortunately, events like that are few and far between, but even with some of those things in place, it's easier to do an accurate impression than at events where there's very little interest in logical consistency.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[LindaTrent]

Re: Politics in an impression

If I remember correctly, the soldiers in the Union armys were responsible for giving Lincoln a whopping majority of their votes in the 1864 election, much to the surprise of one Mr. McClellan. Many were furloughed with the idea that they would be home to vote.

Perhaps you're looking for this link, http://www.civilwarhome.com/vote.htm I found this link last night. Another thing to keep in mind, which I found interesting was that the ballots are in different colors. In Ohio, at least, the Democrats had a white ticket, while the Union party had yellow, and all the residents stood around to see what color tickets were taken by the people voting. I bet that swayed a number of votes right there. :baring_te

Anyway, here is another stone to throw in the water. What do you do when you are a living historian that changes units and impressions two or three times at an event? Darn, this gets more complex!

The best thing to do is attend events where you don't change units or impressions two to three times during the same event! :wink_smil As civilians Hank and I attend about 3-4 events a year between MD-VA-KY-TN-GA, and we change characters, political sentiments, economic status, farm crops, etc. for each one, so we just study up on each new situation.

I suppose if you know that you're going to be with Co. X 665th Ohio and then switch to Co. Y 556th Georgia in the same event, one could either be real politically minded as one, and not so as the other, or study up both sides :tounge_sm

A few years back I was extremely active in politics being a county chairman for several state and federal candidates. It drives me crazy to portray someone who isn't interested in politics, but sometimes I just grin and bear it, and listen to the gents :tounge_sm

Linda Trent
lindatrent@zoomnet.net

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Politics in an impression

This is my contribution to "First Person"...

When (as Federal) marching or about to go into a mock battle, I always say to the person next to me..." I am sick and tired of fighting for these damn Republicans"....know what I mean?