Blog 4 History

He’s a Bears fan…

He’s a Bulls fan…

He drinks beer…

As a Chicago boy who also loves the Bears, the Bulls, and yes, beer, I enjoy seeing a President who actually resembles me other than my skin color!

Also, final note, there’s something I do not trust about a person who doesn’t enjoy the refreshing nature of a finely brewed beer.

I’d have a beer with Obama any day!

[Note: Photo is from last night's Bulls/Wizards game where the Bulls lost, darnit!]

This from the National Review Online website (picked up via CW Bookshelf) is a nice followup to my post from a week ago about Lincoln and Race. Eric Foner is a favorite of mine, not becuase I agree with everything he says, but as Guelzo writes he is a fair historian. I happen to agree more with the “progressive” view of Lincoln than Guelzo’s Conservative perspective, though his argument is interesting.

[Allen C. Guelzo]

The American Left has always had difficulty reconciling itself to Abraham Lincoln. As the Great Emancipator, Lincoln ought to be a winning candidate for the Great Progressive as well. But Lincoln was a tardy and cautious Emancipator. And the goal he looked for beyond emancipation was a nation of entrepreneurial strivers, operating under a government which kept itself strictly to the rule of doing only “for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities.”

It comes as a mildly pleasant surprise, then, to read the estimate of Lincoln written by one of the history paladins of the Left, Eric Foner, in the January 23rd issue the The Nation. Foner, despite his membership in one of the first families of American Marxism, has always been a scrupulously fair historian of Lincoln and the Republicans of the Civil War era, and his description of Lincoln in The Nation gives full credit to the “eloquence and power” with which Lincoln condemned slavery.

Still, Foner is acutely aware that this same Lincoln “did not share the abolitionist conviction that the moral issue of slavery overrode all others,” nor did he view “the struggles against slavery and racism as intimately connected.” Much as Lincoln “claimed for blacks the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence … he insisted these did not necessarily carry with them civil, political, or social equality.”

The unpleasant aroma of these ideas has been enough to sour many a progressive on Lincoln, emancipation notwithstanding. But not Foner, who very much wants him to be “our Lincoln.” To do that, Foner must resort to a well-worn progressive trope — growth. “The Lincoln we should remember is the politician whose greatness lay in his capacity for growth” — by which Foner means, Lincoln’s ability to shed his embarrassing conservative notions for an identity as “an enlightened leader” who can “produce progressive social change.”

The difficulty is that Lincoln himself never confessed any awareness of “growth,” nor did those who knew him best. “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong,” Lincoln said in 1864, “ I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” Far from needing growth, Lincoln (according to Illinois congressman Isaac Arnold) “had it in his mind for a long time to war upon slavery until its destruction was effected.” Lincoln did not end slavery by repentantly abandoning his conservative ideas; he ended it by tenaciously applying those ideas according to a blueprint of classical political prudence.

I suppose it is better that Foner wants to re-upholster Lincoln as “our Lincoln” rather than trashing Lincoln completely, as so many other Left historians do. But even Foner must recognize that this is an uphill task. In a collection of essays published last month under the title, Our Lincoln, Foner recruits a contingent of fellow Left historians to endorse the “growth” Lincoln. But only one of them is actually a Lincoln specialist, and the others show varying degrees of reluctance to embrace the growth thesis. (Bona fide Lincolnites — think of Michael Burlingame, Lucas Morel, Thomas Krannawitter, the great Harry Jaffa — were conspicuous by their exclusion). Foner’s Lincoln is not really Lincoln at all, but a wax-work progressive. The real Lincoln is the conservative, after all — our Lincoln, and not theirs.

— Allen Carl Guelzo, Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era and director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College, is a contributor to the Manhattan Institute’s MindingTheCampus.com.

I found out last week that I will be teaching A.P. United States History next year at my school, and hopefully will be doing so for the foreseeable future. Our current A.P. teacher is stepping down and the position opened up and I was luckily enough to get it.

I have mixed feelings. One the one hand, I am excited to be able to work with the very best of students in our public schools. I have to admit, that in my general U.S. History classes the wide range of learning ability handcuffs me. I have some students that struggle with the very basics, and others hungry for more. Differentiation nightmare. It has been very frustrating at times. I cannot wait to be in a classroom full of eager and intelligent minds. In the public school arena, A.P. is all we have for such interaction. No survey courses, limited electives, ect. We have a massive curriculum that we have to always be teaching to, so A.P. is our only chance at getting into in-depth discussions with students.

On the other hand, the goal of the student is to pass the A.P. test and get their college credit. Some students are there as they love history, but many because their parents make them. Students in A.P. classes can become fixated on simply gathering the facts, taking practice tests, and preparing for the written portion of the test. Fair enough. However, I think our school, which has had an excellent A.P. teacher who is going to mentor me, has a good approach to A.P. classes and I am excited to be an A.P. teacher.

Anyway, I will share my experiences as I go. I will also post samples of my curriculum, syllabus and other things this summer in hopes of getting feedback!

Chris

Well, I have no idea how this ranks on the book-o-meter, but I received my first royalty check from my publisher, McFarland. According to their statement, they have sold 121 copies of The 11th Wisconsin in the Civil War. My first check was far more substantial than I ever thought I would get. As I have said before, like most history authors I wrote this book out of passion for that regiment and my desire to see their story told. Never thought I’d sell more than a few copies. I know, far cry from the history books (authors) that sell thousands of copies, but I was still very pleased and surprised.

This was kinda fun…

To get yours, click here!

I was not aware of this.

From CNN (link):

WASHINGTON (CNN) — William Jackson was a slave in the home of Confederate president Jefferson Davis during the Civil War. It turns out he was also a spy for the Union Army, providing key secrets to the North about the Confederacy.

Jackson was Davis’ house servant and personal coachman. He learned high-level details about Confederate battle plans and movements because Davis saw him as a “piece of furniture” — not a human, according to Ken Dagler, author of “Black Dispatches,” which explores espionage by America’s slaves.

“Because of his role as a menial servant, he simply was ignored,” Dagler said. “So Jefferson Davis would hold conversations with military and Confederate civilian officials in his presence.”

Dagler has written extensively on the issue for the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence . »

In late 1861, Jackson fled across enemy lines and was immediately debriefed by Union soldiers. Dagler said Jackson provided information about supply routes and military strategy.

“In Jackson’s case, what he did was … present some of the current issues that were affecting the Confederacy that you could not read about in the local press that was being passed back and forth across local lines. He actually had some feel for the issues of supply problems,” Dagler said.

Jackson and other slaves’ heroic efforts have been a forgotten legacy of the war — lost amid the nation’s racially charged past and the heaps of information about the war’s historic battles. But historians over the last few decades have been taking an interest in the sacrifice of African-Americans during those war years.

Jackson’s espionage is mentioned in a letter from a general to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell refers to “Jeff Davis’ coachman” as the source of information about Confederate deployments. VideoWatch grandson of slaves: “They call me Little Man” »

Dagler said slaves who served as spies were able to collect incredibly detailed information, in large part because of their tradition of oral history. Because Southern laws prevented blacks from learning how to read and write, he said, the slave spies listened intently to minute details and memorized them.

“What the Union officers found very quickly with those who crossed the line … was that if you talked to them, they remembered a great more in the way of details and specifics than the average person … because again they relied totally on their memory as opposed to any written records,” he said.

Jackson wasn’t the only spy. There were hundreds of them. In some cases, the slaves made it to the North, only to return to the South to risk being hanged. One Union general wrote that he counted on black spies in Tennessee because “no white man had the pluck to do it.”

No one was better than Robert Smalls, a slave who guided vital supply ships in and out of Charleston Harbor in South Carolina. He eventually escaped and provided the Union with “a turning of the forces in Charleston Harbor,” according to an annual report of the Navy secretary to President Lincoln.

“A debriefing of him gave … the Union force there the entire fortification scheme for the interior harbor,” Dagler said.

One of the most iconic spies was Harriet Tubman, who ran the Underground Railroad, bringing slaves to the North. In 1863, she was asked by the Union to help with espionage in South Carolina. She picked former slaves from the region for an espionage ring and led many of the spy expeditions herself.

“The height of her intelligence involvement occurred late in 1863 when she actually led a raid into South Carolina,” Dagler said. “In addition to the destruction of millions of dollars of property, she brought out over 800 slaves back into freedom in the North.”

As the nation marks Black History Month in February, Dagler said that history should include the sacrifices of the African-Americans who risked their lives for their nation. Many paid the ultimate sacrifice.

“They were all over the place, and no one [in the South] considered them to be of any value. Consequently, they heard and saw virtually everything done by their masters, who were the decision-makers,” Dagler said.

Whatever happened to William Jackson, the spy in Jefferson Davis’s house?

Unfortunately, that remains a great unknown.

“He simply disappeared from history, as so many of them have.”

CNN’s Wayne Drash contributed to this report.

Taking Chance (HBO) is the true story of the experiences of Marine Lt. Col. Mike Strobl, who escorted Chance Phelps, a 19-year-old Marine killed during a 2004 firefight, home to Wyoming. Strobl volunteered to escort Chance because he thought the young man was from Clifton, Colorado and Strobl was from that part of the state. Chance went to school his senior year at Palisade High School, not 20 minutes from where I am writing this. He also played football for the Bulldogs. Palisade has one of the top 3-A football programs in the state and I have regularly taken my son to their games since the late 90s. Though I obviously had no idea who Chance was, I certainly would have seen him play there in Grand Junction where Palisade played their home games. Anyway, when I heard about this movie at the Sundance Film Festival, I knew I had to see it. It is stories like this that reaffirm how truly great out country is, and how strong our people are. We are not cowards in any shape or form. We do not require government to save us, we can overcome and help one another.

If you get a chance, watch it tonight, here’s the trailer:

Can’t embed the video, but for those who are interested this from the CNBC website:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

“Presidents Day” was assigned to February 22 by Congress in 1885 and declared a national holiday. It was intended to honor our nation’s first President, George Washington. But also, about this time, there was a movement to honor Lincoln on this same day as well.

So in honor of Presidents Day, C-SPAN surveyed historians to create a list ranking all the Presidents of these United States. Here’s their Top 10:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Harry S. Truman
6. John F. Kennedy
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Woodrow Wilson
10. Ronald Reagan

Can’t argue with the list, seems reasonable. Lincoln faced probably the most difficult crisis any of the President’s had. Washington, the closest thing we ever had to an Aristocrat as a leader, yet honorable and established our time honored tradition of peaceful transition of power. And FDR, his leadership during WW2 kept America together.

My Top Three, in no particular order:

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. T. Roosevelt