Are "Civil War Military Historians Freaking Out"?

The comment of Brooks Simpson on Megan Kate Nelson's blog:

I don’t think this is about one subfield versus another subfield, or that it fits very well into the recent debate about military history. Stauffer used Douglass’s remark as not only political speech but as accurate reporting, and in the process made other errors, some of which have nothing to do with fields or subfields but simply remind us of the need to follow sound research practices (see Andy Hall’s http://deadconfederates.com/2015/01/20/frederick-douglass-time-traveler/). Stauffer offers other assertions without support, and he managed to mangle the state of the discussion in the first place: nothing he said is new (unless it was also wrong).


I don’t think this is a question of gatekeepers and boundaries, especially when we are trying for cross-fertilization and the need to bring to bear many perspectives in an effort to understand something better. But (for example) it would have been easy to check an order of battle listing participating regiments or any standard account of First Manassas to understand that there were no such thing as three black regiments at the battle. That’s simply good research practice. I’m sure that if I were to venture into cultural or literary studies that someone would remind me that there are some basic things to understand as well. As for the rest of the squabble about Civil War military history, I’m sorry, but I don’t really get it, at least as it has been presented to me. I don’t care about Stauffer’s field: what I cared about was that he misrepresented the current discussion, bungled the handling of evidence, and offered unsupported assertions as if they were explanations. I’ve seen nothing so far challenging any of those objections.
 
I think it is just that you went to Virginia Tech and I went to SUNY Buffalo.

I would never think to denigrate that excellent institute of higher learning. It could be that it's a bit colder where you are and therefore the electrons around you are just a little bit slower due to the temperature. :D
 
I would never think to denigrate that excellent institute of higher learning. It could be that it's a bit colder where you are and therefore the electrons around you are just a little bit slower due to the temperature. :D
I went there during the Great Blizzard of 1977. Weren't nothin movin.
 
I went there during the Great Blizzard of 1977. Weren't nothin movin.

Dang what a coincidence, I was in Florida in 1977 and they had a blizzard that year too! At least that is what they called it when they had snowflurries that almost lasted long enough to reach the ground.
 
Dang what a coincidence, I was in Florida in 1977 and they had a blizzard that year too! At least that is what they called it when they had snowflurries that almost lasted long enough to reach the ground.
You Florida guys got the real snow.
 
The comment of Brooks Simpson on Megan Kate Nelson's blog:

I don’t think this is about one subfield versus another subfield, or that it fits very well into the recent debate about military history. Stauffer used Douglass’s remark as not only political speech but as accurate reporting, and in the process made other errors, some of which have nothing to do with fields or subfields but simply remind us of the need to follow sound research practices (see Andy Hall’s http://deadconfederates.com/2015/01/20/frederick-douglass-time-traveler/). Stauffer offers other assertions without support, and he managed to mangle the state of the discussion in the first place: nothing he said is new (unless it was also wrong).


I don’t think this is a question of gatekeepers and boundaries, especially when we are trying for cross-fertilization and the need to bring to bear many perspectives in an effort to understand something better. But (for example) it would have been easy to check an order of battle listing participating regiments or any standard account of First Manassas to understand that there were no such thing as three black regiments at the battle. That’s simply good research practice. I’m sure that if I were to venture into cultural or literary studies that someone would remind me that there are some basic things to understand as well. As for the rest of the squabble about Civil War military history, I’m sorry, but I don’t really get it, at least as it has been presented to me. I don’t care about Stauffer’s field: what I cared about was that he misrepresented the current discussion, bungled the handling of evidence, and offered unsupported assertions as if they were explanations. I’ve seen nothing so far challenging any of those objections.


Look at Nelson's diplomatic response to Brooks. And looking at the non-Brooks comments to Downs' Huffpost piece, I think Prof. Downs is going to be surprised by the whole new group of fans he going to collect for slamming Kevin and supporting the BCM.
 
Last edited:
The comment of Brooks Simpson on Megan Kate Nelson's blog:

I don’t think this is about one subfield versus another subfield, or that it fits very well into the recent debate about military history. Stauffer used Douglass’s remark as not only political speech but as accurate reporting, and in the process made other errors, some of which have nothing to do with fields or subfields but simply remind us of the need to follow sound research practices (see Andy Hall’s http://deadconfederates.com/2015/01/20/frederick-douglass-time-traveler/). Stauffer offers other assertions without support, and he managed to mangle the state of the discussion in the first place: nothing he said is new (unless it was also wrong).


I don’t think this is a question of gatekeepers and boundaries, especially when we are trying for cross-fertilization and the need to bring to bear many perspectives in an effort to understand something better. But (for example) it would have been easy to check an order of battle listing participating regiments or any standard account of First Manassas to understand that there were no such thing as three black regiments at the battle. That’s simply good research practice. I’m sure that if I were to venture into cultural or literary studies that someone would remind me that there are some basic things to understand as well. As for the rest of the squabble about Civil War military history, I’m sorry, but I don’t really get it, at least as it has been presented to me. I don’t care about Stauffer’s field: what I cared about was that he misrepresented the current discussion, bungled the handling of evidence, and offered unsupported assertions as if they were explanations. I’ve seen nothing so far challenging any of those objections.
Here is Megan Kate Nelson's reply:

Thanks for your comment, Brooks. As I note in my post, I am all for responsible research practices and that you and Kevin (and Andy Hall) do a great job dismantling Stauffer’s arguments and methodology. But I also think that part of the debate about the future of military history — and about the future of Civil War history more generally — is rooted in debates about method: which sources we use and privilege, and how we use them. And I think it’s a good thing that we’re talking about this, and debating methodology in open forums. These conversations can really help people think about history and how it is produced.
 
Here is the centerpiece of Jim Downs's post:

The problem of Levin's criticism lies in its formulation. He is asking Stauffer to retrieve archival evidence from the 19th century that fits a 21st century definition of soldiers. He is asking Stauffer to practice historical research that privileges white, Confederate record-keeping over the ways that black people observed, wrote, and remembered the war. He is asking Stauffer to play according to the rules in which traditional historiography, often the purveyors of epistemic violence, define evidence and engage in archival collecting.

In short, Levin's criticism fails to even acknowledge that the very construction of the archive, the collection of sources, and the writing of history reflect the same racist dynamics and oppression of black people that caused the war in the first place. The archive is not like the Wizard of OZ; historians are not Dorothy who get to ask an omnipotent force a question and get the answer. The archive is a political construction, the result of a power dynamic, which has historically failed to capture the experience of black people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DRW
In plain speak, what does Downs mean? Is he suggesting that there is an alternative, untapped line of source material retained by African Americans that recalls details of their ancestors' Confederate military service?
 
In plain speak, what does Downs mean? Is he suggesting that there is an alternative, untapped line of source material retained by African Americans that recalls details of their ancestors' Confederate military service?

I think he's theorizing that there could be such a source... without actually having found it, that is. Which I don't see as very useful in a practical sense.
 
In plain speak, what does Downs mean? Is he suggesting that there is an alternative, untapped line of source material retained by African Americans that recalls details of their ancestors' Confederate military service?
There are many possible alternative sources. Do any of them point to regiments of black Confederates?
 
I grew up being told that my Southern ancestors on my fathers side were confederates and my mothers side were union.

The truth was just the opposite. My fathers side were union soldiers and my mothers side were confederates.

So much for family "memory"
 
Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know there is no known documentation on the union side referencing black confederates is there? You would think something like that would be mentioned either in official reports or soldiers diaries.

And since Union practice was to take in blacks coming to their lines does anyone think it odd that if there were black confederates there wouldn't be some documentation/ warnings that some "escaping blacks" could in fact be confederatea seeking to infiltrate union linea?
 
Check out Brooks Simpson's responses in the comments section of the article.
Here is one of Simpson's replies to Downs:

Jim, could you identify the three "black regiments" Stauffer cites in his piece in quoting someone who offered those observations in 1862, although Stauffer manages to mangle that as well?
 
You Florida guys got the real snow.

The first time I ever visited Florida and was supposed to stay outdoors at a camp for kids, it snowed. A terrifying drive back to Louisiana on roads covered with a small amount of snow amidst drivers who had no clue how to navigate in it!

What an interesting back and forth between the academics!
 
Here is the centerpiece of Jim Downs's post:

The problem of Levin's criticism lies in its formulation. He is asking Stauffer to retrieve archival evidence from the 19th century that fits a 21st century definition of soldiers. He is asking Stauffer to practice historical research that privileges white, Confederate record-keeping over the ways that black people observed, wrote, and remembered the war. He is asking Stauffer to play according to the rules in which traditional historiography, often the purveyors of epistemic violence, define evidence and engage in archival collecting.

In short, Levin's criticism fails to even acknowledge that the very construction of the archive, the collection of sources, and the writing of history reflect the same racist dynamics and oppression of black people that caused the war in the first place. The archive is not like the Wizard of OZ; historians are not Dorothy who get to ask an omnipotent force a question and get the answer. The archive is a political construction, the result of a power dynamic, which has historically failed to capture the experience of black people.

Seems to me that one can't have it both ways. If the goal is to find Confederate evidence of black regiments like Frederick Douglas et al were talking about, the heirarchy of the army is going to require that they fit in with that racist, white-controlled record-keeping. It's not like a black regiment could organize itself and just wander onto the field and join the battle line beside white regiments, unoticed by those white regiments. The racism is the whole point. Black regiments were not permitted, no matter how some might wish the Confederacy had them, and that's why one can't find a record of them.

The argument works very well, though, if the goal is to find individual southern blacks who "fought" for the Confederacy--cooks or servants or musicians who picked up weapons when the going got tough, or blacks who passed for white either perfectly or with a wink and a nod from their recruiters and wound up in regimental records. Those can only be found by looking for individuals and combining civilian antebellum records, letters, reminiscences, newspaper accounts, and all the usual "social history" stuff with much scanter military records. But the reason one needs to hunt around in those sources is because the Confederacy did have a "racist dynamic." Isn't that the elephant in the room behind the black Confederate issue?
 
The first time I ever visited Florida and was supposed to stay outdoors at a camp for kids, it snowed. A terrifying drive back to Louisiana on roads covered with a small amount of snow amidst drivers who had no clue how to navigate in it!

What an interesting back and forth between the academics!

Everytime it got cold enough to have patches of ice on the bridges in fl they had to shut down the bridges. Florida drivers could not drive across patches of ice without causing multi car pile ups.
 
Seems to me that one can't have it both ways. If the goal is to find Confederate evidence of black regiments like Frederick Douglas et al were talking about, the heirarchy of the army is going to require that they fit in with that racist, white-controlled record-keeping. It's not like a black regiment could organize itself and just wander onto the field and join the battle line beside white regiments, unoticed by those white regiments. The racism is the whole point. Black regiments were not permitted, no matter how some might wish the Confederacy had them, and that's why one can't find a record of them.

The argument works very well, though, if the goal is to find individual southern blacks who "fought" for the Confederacy--cooks or servants or musicians who picked up weapons when the going got tough, or blacks who passed for white either perfectly or with a wink and a nod from their recruiters and wound up in regimental records. Those can only be found by looking for individuals and combining civilian antebellum records, letters, reminiscences, newspaper accounts, and all the usual "social history" stuff with much scanter military records. But the reason one needs to hunt around in those sources is because the Confederacy did have a "racist dynamic." Isn't that the elephant in the room behind the black Confederate issue?


There are obvious reasons to explain why you can't find records for the black Confederate thousands. You forget that Southern blacks were so enthusiastic in their support for the Confederacy that they couldn't be bothered with such trivial details as enlistment or mustering in as their self-organized regiments rushed to the front lines. To further demonstrate their patriotism, they refused all pay, universally fought to the death rather than get captured, then rejected any suggestion that they should muster out at the war's close and wouldn't even consider taking oaths of loyalty or later applying for pensions (except those darn cooks and musicians). You just don't recognize devotion to the cause when it stares you in the face! :smile:
 
Back
Top