Time for the Sheep to Come Home?

[Lightningslinger]

... As for the "central repository" (my term) of how-to info and event reports, of course no such thing exists. The best bet to find such documents is individual groups' websites. The group of which I am a member has numerous event reports online back to 2000, and will soon be adding a much-improved "how-to" section to the website. Of course, this merely documents the state of the state of the hobby as our particular group participates in it. Many other groups of various types do the same type of thing...

Kevin,

I wish to re-visit your reply (above) to mine, dated February 19th entitled: Ebbs, Flows and Floes - Re-enact’g on the Move where I said:

“One of the how-to publications once announced a spoof campaign saying that it had acquired a vacant lot and was ‘going’ to be soliciting funds in support of an old re-enactor soldier home [in a vacant lot at Marrietta] near the banks of the Ohio River. Why not create an actual location to house the written history of re-enacting history?”

For a very long time I too have contemplated establishing a "central repository". Might it be time for someone well connected, say with the National Civil War Museum (NCWM) in Harrisburg, Penna., to ask whether it ought to be proper and logical for originals or copies of documents pertaining to 1860’s re-enacting history be housed at their facility?

NCWM is a well-established institution. Public funding could be sought so as to catalogue and make such documents available for research purposes. It would also relieve much of the current strain now existing on my own attic floor joists. :rolleyes:

“Knowledge, by Time, advances slow and wise,
Turns ev’ry where its deep-discerning eyes;
Sees What befel, and What may yet befal;
Concludes from Both, & best provides for All.

E. Austin , scripsit, 1734

The materials of the participants and their emulators under one roof. Sound logical?

Yr Obt Svt,
Walt

[Kevin O'Beirne]

A nice endeavor, perhaps, but I find it somewhat dismaying that consideration would be given to funding and storing records from a modern hobby instead of devoting those funds and space to the Civil War.

[hanktrent]

A nice endeavor, perhaps, but I find it somewhat dismaying that consideration would be given to funding and storing records from a modern hobby instead of devoting those funds and space to the Civil War.

Somehow the conversation got spread out over two threads, but it seems you and I are in agreement. Here's my two cents on the topic:

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69159&postcount=18

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

For some reason I've always thought that the Civil War is reenacted for several reasons, of which most of those reasons involving either education (of the public and reenactors themselves) and to honor a part of our nations history. In the evolution of becoming a living historian, their is a progression for many (if not most) in their portrayals. For some, it is in the personal kit, clothing, etc. For some, it is the accumulation of knowledge and facts. For others it may be a more personal connection to the war or time period. There are of course many, many more facets of one's involvement in this hobby/lifestyle that we share. My own personal belief is that we do this to remember the citizens and soldiers of that era, not ourselves. It is quite painful to me to see what I looked like when I started this several years ago, without the knowledge I have accumulated through incredibly hard work and effort. Their are many more people that look exactly the same as when they started, which is nothing at all like the people they are meant to replicate and honor. That being said, I think it is much more important to devote the time, effort, and space in museum or academic setting to the actual period rather than the modern day. Leave the reminising of Exxon uniforms and M1 Garands at the centennial to the scrapbooks and spend more time preserving the actual artifacts, correspondance, and memories of the people who actually lived it. I myself would have little interest in visiting a museum archive to look at reenactors and their impression improvement/digression over a long timespan, but I'll go to the archives to look at a period manuscript, a piece of material culture, or a period image any day.

[Memphis]

To an ant, a dull spark from a half dead D-cell battery looks like lightning.

Just a thought about the squareness of wheels not turned. ;-)

[indguard]

I see little of worth to document reenacting in America and can't for the life of me understand what use it would be to posterity. I can see that a book here and there might be mildly amusing to someone, somewhere, but as a documentation of real, worthwhile history I see no practical use for such a project. (Like "Confederates in the Attic" it was more just an ego stroke for reenactors than it was consequential history.)

What light would reenacting shed on our times? What worth is there in connection with the era we love? What connection is there to anything really consequential?

It may be somewhat interesting that reenactors have helped bring to light tons of research on the material culture of the era. It may also be of some interest that reecators have often been at the forefront of raising funds to save battlefields. But, my just having said it pretty much exhausts the need for further research! In other words, it's incidental at best.

I guess that I would like to see someone make a sensible case for even bothering with such a project. Otherwise, I find the whole thing a rather silly idea.

WTH

[Lightningslinger]

I see little of worth to document reenacting in America and can't for the life of me understand what use it would be to posterity. I can see that a book here and there might be mildly amusing to someone, somewhere, but as a documentation of real, worthwhile history I see no practical use for such a project. (Like "Confederates in the Attic" it was more just an ego stroke for reenactors than it was consequential history.)

What light would reenacting shed on our times? What worth is there in connection with the era we love? What connection is there to anything really consequential?

It may be somewhat interesting that reenactors have helped bring to light tons of research on the material culture of the era. It may also be of some interest that reenactors have often been at the forefront of raising funds to save battlefields. But, my just having said it pretty much exhausts the need for further research! In other words, it's incidental at best.

I guess that I would like to see someone make a sensible case for even bothering with such a project. Otherwise, I find the whole thing a rather silly idea.

WTH


I'd like to respond to the above careful and modest thoughts, from the point of view of someone with a background in museum collections and interpretation. I fully pity the plight of any curator given the task of sorting through (accession/don't accession, i.e., keep/toss) the range of stuff likely to be offered to a nascent collection of reenactment history. However, I also see value in such a collection.

Reenactors are in a position to know at least as well as academic historians, that history is not static. It's meaning alters not only as new data comes to light, but also as new minds look at the same old data in different ways. Even during the comparatively few years (maybe twenty?) that some of you have been reenacting, deconstructionist history has offered very different views than those which formerly were considered reliable. I'm making no claim for the accuracy of deconstructionism, merely noting its presence in the field of battle, oops, interpretation.

Reenactors who carefully research their chosen topics tend to use research techniques that remain the exception rather than the rule in academic research, simply because material culture is still something of a side line as far as many history departments are concerned. This means that a collection of information gathered by you folks is very likely to follow paths that haven't been paved quite as clearly by others, at least not yet. Such paths are useful not only to yourselves but to other historians and to any potential students of history, who are seeking something to add interest (usually in the form of daily lives) to the names, dates, and battles that are the easiest data to find.

Another use of such a collection would be to make it more possible for reenactors themselves to see that they, too, have a history and that an overview of it can help them in their future pursuits. I am not referring to something like, "Confederates in the Attic", entertaining as it was. I mean that studying the developmental history of reenactment as an interpretive effort can have value not only to reenactors who might want or need to know why thus and such a view is so strongly held, or why group A does this while group B insists upon that. Knowing an overview of one's own past, whatever the context, enables one to more deftly handle the present and guide the future.

Finally, the above-mentioned overview can also help the academicians, museum, school, and otherwise, better understand what the reenactors are doing or trying to do. This can improve relations in some important ways, since the academicians are strongly inclined to take a dim view of reenactment as a too-inaccurate presentation to deserve support. For example, an honors history teacher of my acquaintance tells his students that if they feel they really must go to see a reenactment, to go in the spirit of carnival. Some, but certainly not all, of the denigration implied in that comment is deserved, and I think reenactors know it. However, some of those inaccuracies of presentation are there for some good reasons, such as the unavailability of reproductions, the absolute ignorance on anyone's part concerning some particular aspect of daily life or opinions of the past, or because the particular reenactor (bless him and her!) is adapting the presentation in order to easily teach the public. Dedicated as I am to accurate presentations, I am also aware that there are some questions we simply cannot answer, and some tools we at least cannot yet use. Wouldn't it be helpful to have a repository of thoughts, ways, and means, where reenactors could go to commune with the struggles and decisions of their fellow interpreters? Answers generally come more easily that way; it's one of the higher purposes of studying history.

By Valerie (Walt's wife)
(written) by request

[Pvt Schnapps]

I can see the value of a history of modern reenacting as a sociological study of the post-WWII American middle-class and the leisure activities of the baby boomers (with whom the hobby may die). Whether it's worth more than a graduate thesis or two is another question. So is the value of a museum that would attract probably no more than a subset of the membership of a declining hobby and, on the overall scale of things, have about as much academic value as a giant ball of twine.

That said, if you feel otherwise, perhaps you should go ahead and build it and see if they come. I'm kinda with the other respondents in thinking that I'd rather spend my time studying the real Civil War and leave the study of us to someone more qualified, like a psychiatrist :)

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Hopefully many of us understand these days that reenacting is much more than the materials of the era and how to reproduce them. Further, any Civil War collection I've visited, whether its privately owned, held by a small-town historical society, or in a major repository such as the Pittsburgh Soldiers' and Sailors' Museum, has folks in charge of it who recognize the important of the materials in the collection and the need for (and even methods of) concerving them. Often, if museums are lacking in areas that are of interest to reenactors, materials are the thing that such museums do best, and "Methods" (how the materials were used) and "The Man" (the soldiers themselves) are given secondary or tertiary status.

Further, I believe that many reenactors tend to over-emphasize their hobby's importance. Some people believe that their practicing of reenacting is essential to "the public" (define who that is as you want) understanding the Civil War era (to those, I suggest contrasting the number of folks who have ever attended a reenactment with the general population; the vast majority of non-reenators I know have never attended a reenactment).

While reenactors can and sometimes do serve a useful purpose in interpreting their particular era and portrayal for spectators or historic site visitors, let's be honest about why we reenact: we do it for ourselves--our own amusement, aggrandizement, education, and for the camaraderie of it. It's a hobby that in many ways just below its surface is similar to any other hobby: it has its own subculture, it's own lingo, and it's own strong adherents, but most reenactors are somewhat casual about their hobby and don't take it terribly seriously, like most folks who golf, ski, collect stamps, train dogs, or engage in home improvement, or any other hobby.

Reenacting is a hobby, nothing more. It's a cultural phenomenon that actually interests a pretty small proportion of the population (300 million Ameicans, and maybe 30,000 Civil War reenactors; that's 0.01% of the population).

Certainly the history of the Civil War (and other eras) is important to our country and the moral, racial, religious, and social issues that face us today. The history of reenacting, while perhaps fascinating to reenactors, is not important to our country, nor is it, I believe, particularly relevant to the Civil War. I say "not particularly important to the Civil War" because the way in which the vast majority of reenactors elect to interpret history is sigificantly different than the historical record, and what one sees at the vast majority of reenactor events nationwide (and in other countries) bears little resemblance to the materials, methods, or people of the 1860s.

Over the years, I've come across too many reenactors who believe they have expert or near-expert knowledge on the Civil War, while I privately believed them to be almost completely ignorant of the topic(s) of which they spoke. Buying a set of reproduction clothing and gear and sleeping outdoors a few weekends a year makes one an expert on this topic about as much as reading a few books makes one an expert; in other words, it doesn't. Most reenacting has little to do with history, and therefore I believe that a Civil War museum has no business stockpiling information related to reenacting, with the sole exception, perhaps, of the reenactments done in the later Nineteenth Century by the veterans of the Civil War themselves.

Our hobby is fun and we deem it worthwhile (or else we would not engage in it), but I believe it's a mistake to take our hobby too seriously in assuming that it is somehow a continuation of Civil War history. Compared with that argument, a cyinic could just as easily opine that all our hobby consists of are a bunch of grown-ups engaging in role-playing and "wargames".

[Lightningslinger]

... perhaps you should go ahead and build it and see if they come. I'm kinda with the other respondents in thinking that I'd rather spend my time studying the real Civil War and leave the study of us to someone more qualified, like a psychiatrist :)

Mike,

Noah and I were in attendance in 2005 during the 150th anniversary of Saint Elizabeths Hospital over atop Anacostia Heights. 'Twas sheer Bedlam to be sure - the entire event. If I recollect rightly, weren't you across the Potomac at Fort Ward that very weekend? :wink:

Walt

[Pvt Schnapps]

Mike,

Noah and I were in attendance in 2005 during the 150th anniversary of Saint Elizabeths Hospital over atop Anacostia Heights. 'Twas sheer Bedlam to be sure - the entire event. If I recollect rightly, weren't you across the Potomac at Fort Ward that very weekend? :wink:

Walt

This last weekend I was at Neshaminy. Further back than that I hardly remember.

[sbl]

Perhaps we should have a documentary made like "TREKKIES".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120370/

[ejazzyjeff]

There was something posted on the A/C site about the end of last year about a documentary on why people reenact the Civil War (can't locate the link right now).

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

I believe you are referring to a documentary titled "The Unfinished Civil War", which aired several years ago with much pomp and circumstance and finished with a fizzle. It was quite possibly one of the most biased, horrendous pieces of journalistic crapola since the Spanish American War. The History Channel decided to use the most fringe, extremist examples for each "side" to show the make-up of a reenactor, infuriating a very wide base of people whether they wear blue, gray, or both.

[ejazzyjeff]

Ross,

I know which one you are talking about and agree that it was a major piece of junk. I found the link to the website which I was referring:


http://www.markelsonpictures.com//currentProjects/index.html

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Ross,

I know which one you are talking about and agree that it was a major piece of junk. I found the link to the website which I was referring:


http://www.markelsonpictures.com//currentProjects/index.html
That one looks much better than the HC one thus far.

[Tarheel57]

Hopefully many of us understand these days that reenacting is much more than the materials of the era and how to reproduce them. Further, any Civil War collection I've visited, whether its privately owned, held by a small-town historical society, or in a major repository such as the Pittsburgh Soldiers' and Sailors' Museum, has folks in charge of it who recognize the important of the materials in the collection and the need for (and even methods of) concerving them. Often, if museums are lacking in areas that are of interest to reenactors, materials are the thing that such museums do best, and "Methods" (how the materials were used) and "The Man" (the soldiers themselves) are given secondary or tertiary status.

Further, I believe that many reenactors tend to over-emphasize their hobby's importance. Some people believe that their practicing of reenacting is essential to "the public" (define who that is as you want) understanding the Civil War era (to those, I suggest contrasting the number of folks who have ever attended a reenactment with the general population; the vast majority of non-reenators I know have never attended a reenactment).

While reenactors can and sometimes do serve a useful purpose in interpreting their particular era and portrayal for spectators or historic site visitors, let's be honest about why we reenact: we do it for ourselves--our own amusement, aggrandizement, education, and for the camaraderie of it. It's a hobby that in many ways just below its surface is similar to any other hobby: it has its own subculture, it's own lingo, and it's own strong adherents, but most reenactors are somewhat casual about their hobby and don't take it terribly seriously, like most folks who golf, ski, collect stamps, train dogs, or engage in home improvement, or any other hobby.

Reenacting is a hobby, nothing more. It's a cultural phenomenon that actually interests a pretty small proportion of the population (300 million Ameicans, and maybe 30,000 Civil War reenactors; that's 0.01% of the population).

Certainly the history of the Civil War (and other eras) is important to our country and the moral, racial, religious, and social issues that face us today. The history of reenacting, while perhaps fascinating to reenactors, is not important to our country, nor is it, I believe, particularly relevant to the Civil War. I say "not particularly important to the Civil War" because the way in which the vast majority of reenactors elect to interpret history is sigificantly different than the historical record, and what one sees at the vast majority of reenactor events nationwide (and in other countries) bears little resemblance to the materials, methods, or people of the 1860s.

Over the years, I've come across too many reenactors who believe they have expert or near-expert knowledge on the Civil War, while I privately believed them to be almost completely ignorant of the topic(s) of which they spoke. Buying a set of reproduction clothing and gear and sleeping outdoors a few weekends a year makes one an expert on this topic about as much as reading a few books makes one an expert; in other words, it doesn't. Most reenacting has little to do with history, and therefore I believe that a Civil War museum has no business stockpiling information related to reenacting, with the sole exception, perhaps, of the reenactments done in the later Nineteenth Century by the veterans of the Civil War themselves.

Our hobby is fun and we deem it worthwhile (or else we would not engage in it), but I believe it's a mistake to take our hobby too seriously in assuming that it is somehow a continuation of Civil War history. Compared with that argument, a cyinic could just as easily opine that all our hobby consists of are a bunch of grown-ups engaging in role-playing and "wargames".

Though I am a bit late on this one, I just wanted to say that IMHO this is a simply outstanding post. On the reenacting forums and lists I have been on over the past few years, I have gotten the impression from some people that they feel that if you are not a long-time reenactor, then you can obviously know nothing about history. But two are not neccessarily synonymous. While someone might indeed know very little about CW reenacting, they may be quite knowledgeable about CW history.

[Lightningslinger]

... I have gotten the impression from some people that they feel that if you are not a long-time reenactor, then you can obviously know nothing about history. But two are not necessarily synonymous. While someone might indeed know very little about CW reenacting, they may be quite knowledgeable about CW history.

Edward,

As to yours above... There are also many who believe that they ought be at least allowed, or have earned a majority, if not a lieutenant-colonelcy, after lasting 20 years or more in the re-enacting community. There's even one would-be adjutant who actually appointed every member of his general staff gaggle to at least a majority in the face of historical accuracy. His reason? Plainly put, he volunteered that "Sometimes the needs of re-enacting sometimes transcends historical accuracy." Almost sounds like re-enactors turned event staff co-ordinators, a.k.a. 1st Cav - radio rangers. 'Tis a dirty job but somebody has to do it. :(

I've come across signal flagmen for the first time in ages who were weaving and contorting their bodies and poking themselves in their gut with the butt end of a flag staff when they ought to have simply been crossing their arms, letting the flag and pole fall by gravity to their side and then fulcrum it back to the upright position. When I attempt to introduce them to what I have found to be historically correct (and actually easier) more than a few have insisted that they have been flagging (actually putting in the years and putting on the pounds too) for X amount of years and know perfectly well what they are doing and how to do it - thank you very much.

As to Kevin's post before in your most recent post I excerpt the following observation...


…Hopefully many of us understand these days that... contrasting the number of folks who have ever attended a reenactment with the general population; the vast majority of non-reenactors I know have never attended a reenactment)....

and if you add to that fact all of the medical students who eventually become practicing doctors, a flat fifty percent will be squarely shown to have graduated in the bottom half of their class - it all makes sense. No. Seriously...

I’m not necessarily asking that we conduct in-depth studies of ourselves. I’m only asking that we save our own generated material so that it may be passed on. In more than a few cases, Internet sites go away making the word ephemeral much more meaningful than ever. Let the museums decide if THEY think it a worthwhile endeavour to take our ephemera in and create a collection, an archive, a repository if you will. I hope you won’t make that decision for them. There's too much great ancillary data you all have amassed at stake. Save it. Share it.


... there is a faction or school of thought within NPS and perhaps academia as well that believes how we remember the past is worthy of not only study but preservation...

We're an extension of that, a phenomenon that at its heart tries to recreate some degree of the experience for our own and others edification. Our goal may be a mix ... but it relies on something other than monuments....

Its ephemeral nature is in itself interesting to some folks. And if we argue amongst ourselves about what the real purpose is and the best way of doing it, it's probably nothing more than the arguments in the 1880s and 1890s about what part of the regiment's fight should see the monument, how much should be spent on it, where the money should come from, etc....

Walt
3.3.3.

[indguard]

... or like the buffalo it will all be gone forever.

[Linda Trent]

Hi Valerie,

> Finally, the above-mentioned overview can also help the academicians,
> museum, school, and otherwise, better understand what the reenactors
> are doing or trying to do... improve relations in some important
> ways, since the academicians are strongly inclined to take a dim view of
> reenactment as a too-inaccurate presentation to deserve support.

Why do we need to persuade anyone that what we do is deserving of their respect? The problem with reenacting is it means something different to just about everyone. For me, and many who enjoy the more history heavy events, it's not about having accurate clothes and material culture, those are just the price we pay to have the privilege to enter an event. The event itself is about putting the research and material culture into context with action and interaction -- living history.

To gain the respect of the academicians they need to see what we do with the material items, and see how we put our research into action. They need to see everything in context. Something a display can't show.

Besides, I don't think anyone really wants to look back at where we were 20 years ago. I shudder to see the pictures of me looking like Prom night on Dr. Quinn, in 1991. :oops: What does that really say about the hobby?

Just my two cents worth.

Linda.

[tompritchett]

In more than a few cases, Internet sites go away making the word ephemeral much more meaningful than ever.

Or have to upgrade their software and lose access to years of posts.

[Lightningslinger]

Tom,

To my previous line saying:

"In more than a few cases, Internet sites go away making the word ephemeral much more meaningful than ever.", you replied with:


Or have to upgrade their software and lose access to years of posts.

Some here seem to either believe that it couldn't happen, won't happen or wouldn't be a great loss if it did happen. :(

Didn't it already happen? Was it at this forum?

Walt

[Memphis]

Didn't it already happen? Was it at this forum?


It happens on a regular basis.

[indguard]

See, this is the big problem with the world of electronic records.

I have often stated my claim that at least the first 50 years of the Internet revolution will be lost to history because all the information we deal with everyday will soon disappear.

Webpages will go away. Storage devices will so radically change that old storage media will not be readable and no paper record will exist.

It will be a black hole of info that future historians will not be able to see, context lost, culture vanished.

We are living in a lost time, I fear.

Warner Todd Huston

[Pvt Schnapps]

See, this is the big problem with the world of electronic records.

I have often stated my claim that at least the first 50 years of the Internet revolution will be lost to history because all the information we deal with everyday will soon disappear.

Webpages will go away. Storage devices will so radically change that old storage media will not be readable and no paper record will exist.

It will be a black hole of info that future historians will not be able to see, context lost, culture vanished.

We are living in a lost time, I fear.

Warner Todd Huston

There used to be a pretty good site on this: http://griffin.multimedia.edu/~deadmedia/frame.html

Unfortunately, most of the links no longer work. The irony is almost overwhelming.

Fortunately, there's still this site: http://www.conceptlab.com/deadmedia/

For a real treat, check out "Mayan Echo-Recording Stair-cases."

[Linda Trent]

Kevin, Why not create an actual location to house the written history of re-enacting history?”

Plain and simply put, is our goal to recreate another reenactment, or is it to try to recreate what happened a hundred and some odd years ago? If it's to recreate another reenactment of Podunk Holler than I suppose that a repository of reenacting would be a good idea.

If the goal of reenacting, however, is to reenact the Civil War, then those repositories are to be found in museums and archives throughout the U.S. and on the internet in the form of the original records, letters, diaries, and so forth.

As far as our hobby? Well, we also have such works as the CRRC, and old issues of hobby magazines and such. But looking back at some of the things I wrote for the periodicals before we got computer access, and thus obtained access to the Making of America, and many other wonderful repositories of original works, there's a lot of things I'd have said or done differently.

New original documents go up on the internet almost daily, and old research becomes outdated as more and more material becomes available. There's no definitive work on the hobby, and in my own opinion there never can be because there are so many hobbies within the hobby. I would just hate to see someone actually take a lot of old articles and save them thinking that they're the latest and the best in research, because even though what I've written in the past was based upon original sources, it was based upon the human limits of my own personal library, my county library, and my state archives, and a couple of local university libraries and special collections. But as more and more's been added to the internet I'm finding out that what I wrote isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't entirely right, either.

Just my two cents worth,

Linda.

[Tarheel57]

Edward,

As to yours above... There are also many who believe that they ought be at least allowed, or have earned a majority, if not a lieutenant-colonelcy, after lasting 20 years or more in the re-enacting community. There's even one would-be adjutant who actually appointed every member of his general staff gaggle to at least a majority in the face of historical accuracy. His reason? Plainly put, he volunteered that "Sometimes the needs of re-enacting sometimes transcends historical accuracy." Almost sounds like re-enactors turned event staff co-ordinators, a.k.a. 1st Cav - radio rangers. 'Tis a dirty job but somebody has to do it. :(....



Incredible. Most of the discussion on authenticity issues usually seems to center around uniforms/equipment and sleeping arangements, but I think things like this are pretty important too.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Ah... the hobby of reenacting the culture, lore, and traditions of reenacting.

Maybe we can build it on that land that Ted Turner was to have given "us" for participating as extras in "Gags and Generals?"
But not too the close to the statue of reenactors he was going to build though...

;) :)

CHS
Good thing that money went to preservation, eh? Mess

[MD_Independent26]

Well, I look on this idea like this...

I've read three of the books by Stephen Sears: Chancellorsville, Landscape Turned Red, and To the Gates of Richmond. I hope he continues writing about the CW era, because I've really enjoyed the three I've read so far.

Now, if Mr. Sears wrote an autobiography concerning his life as a CW author, would I buy it? Probably not. Nothing against the man, but actual CW history is more important and interesting to me. I would feel like Mr. Sears wasted his time, unless he proves to be a major contributor to the advancement of our society. To purchase and read a book which would not educate or even entertain me would be a waste of time and money.

To gather and interpret the history of reenacting would likewise be a major waste of time and money. Who cares? I certainly don't. Similarly, any ideas of gathering this information for future historians is absurd. What serious historian, mindful of his reputation, would want to study reenactors as reenactors or even as a minor social trend?

Concerning electronic files. In the end, the loss of electronic records originating within reenacting community wouldn't really be a terrible blow. The most important information is, thank God, stored in historical societies, museums, and such. A fire in a historical society or the closing of a museum would be far greater losses. On the internet, one must sift through ten thousand pounds of rubbish to get half an ounce of good info. And the good info is already safely recorded on paper or stored in display cases in most instances. Our hobby will eventually die out. So what? We're not changing history, we're not having a meaningful impact on society, we're not doing much of anything really. To believe otherwise is pretty egotistical and downright silly. So, reenacting is a hobby. We don't deserve so much as a footnote compared to those boys of '61 to '65, let alone a museum display...

Bill Birney

[ley74]

Bill & All:

"I had fun. How about you?"

[tompritchett]

I have been following this thread for a long time but remaining silent (moderators are the ultimate lurkers :D ), but now I think I might want to interject some thoughts. First, I agree with all that everything we do is about them and not about us. However, I can also see some advantages of archiving some of the more germane and historically correct articles written about reenacting. Why you might ask. First and foremost, the focus of our research as reenactors is often on the more historically mundane details of the soldiers lives and military matters that of little interest to anyone outside of the field of reenacting - even the vast majority of professional historians. Imagine a professional, PhD historian devoting the time and effort of researching the details of CW era administrative paperwork as Pvt Schnapps, the details of the preparation of CW era rations as Ron Myzie or Charles Heath, the details of the maneuvers of the battalions and positions of the officers and NCO's within as Silas or Scott Washburn. I can't, as these are not the type of subjects that get one publications in academic journals (yes, public or perish still very much exists in academia even at the private college level) or one book contracts. But these are the very subjects that we research, publish articles on in our "trade" magazines, and argue continuously about on the various fora (remember the one about which shoulder the rear file closer fires over during firing by the left oblique). Yes, this information will always exist in the primary literature, but, fortunately, we have summaries of collected information and research on these "mundane" subjects in sources as the CRRC-II, the AC School of Instruction, our various "trade" magazines (formerly the Watchdog, the CCG, the Civil War Historian, etc.), etc. On these subjects, there have been a few in the hobby who have devoted a great deal of serious research and effort; it is the fruits of such work that I would suggest might be suited for a central repository along the lines suggested by the original author.

[hoosiersojer]

Tom,

That's some very good food for thought.;)


Thank You...

[Tarheel57]

I have been following this thread for a long time but remaining silent (moderators are the ultimate lurkers :D ), but now I think I might want to interject some thoughts. First, I agree with all that everything we do is about them and not about us. However, I can also see some advantages of archiving some of the more germane and historically correct articles written about reenacting. Why you might ask. First and foremost, the focus of our research as reenactors is often on the more historically mundane details of the soldiers lives and military matters that of little interest to anyone outside of the field of reenacting - even the vast majority of professional historians. Imagine a professional, PhD historian devoting the time and effort of researching the details of CW era administrative paperwork as Pvt Schnapps, the details of the preparation of CW era rations as Ron Myzie or Charles Heath, the details of the maneuvers of the battalions and positions of the officers and NCO's within as Silas or Scott Washburn. I can't, as these are not the type of subjects that get one publications in academic journals (yes, public or perish still very much exists in academia even at the private college level) or one book contracts. But these are the very subjects that we research, publish articles on in our "trade" magazines, and argue continuously about on the various fora (remember the one about which shoulder the rear file closer fires over during firing by the left oblique). Yes, this information will always exist in the primary literature, but, fortunately, we have summaries of collected information and research on these "mundane" subjects in sources as the CRRC-II, the AC School of Instruction, our various "trade" magazines (formerly the Watchdog, the CCG, the Civil War Historian, etc.), etc. On these subjects, there have been a few in the hobby who have devoted a great deal of serious research and effort; it is the fruits of such work that I would suggest might be suited for a central repository along the lines suggested by the original author.

If this is the goal of the central repository, this would truly be outstanding! I may have mis-read the original post, because it seemed to me to be about the history of reenactment and the reenactment community, not about historical research done by reenactors on the ACW era.
I think that information about the development of CW reenactment and trends in the reenacting community may be of interest from a sociological perspective, but I see if as being of little use to those interested in ACW history.
A collection of Historical information gathered by the reenactment community might be the kind of thing that academic libraries like Western Carolina or UNC-Chapel Hill might be interested in hosting, with the right sort of approach. (There are probably others that you might be aware of, but these are the two that I am most familiar with after using some of their Civil War resources.)

[tompritchett]

If this is the goal of the central repository, this would truly be outstanding! I may have mis-read the original post, because it seemed to me to be about the history of reenactment and the reenactment community, not about historical research done by reenactors on the ACW era.

I am not necessarily suggesting that my vision of a central repository matched the original vision proposed by the author of the thread. It was just I thought we should not be throwing out the baby with the washwater.

[Duff]

This thread is depressing.

[Tarheel57]

I am not necessarily suggesting that my vision of a central repository matched the original vision proposed by the author of the thread. It was just I thought we should not be throwing out the baby with the washwater.

I can dig it! I used to occasionally speak with one of the librarians at WCU about their ACW collection. If she is still there, just out of curiosity I am going to run your concept past her.

[Dan Hadley]

I think I'll dig thru my old reenactment stuff from the eighties and start a new hobby- recreating the life of an early 'post-centennial' reenactor, circa 1985-1990. I plan to recreate the recreation of a battle, and show the public a rare behind the scenes glimpse into the mysteries of rolling blank cartridges, 'taking a hit', and so on.

I got the idea from watching this timely news story on The Onion. It put everything into perspective for me:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/historic_blockbuster_store_offers

Dan Hadley

[Bill_Cross]

While I love the hobby, I think all the "learning" and research in it could comfortably fit inside the case used to house one year's records for any small business.

Oh, yeah, it's already there: in The Watchdog.

When done right, all we're doing is re-creating what THEY did back then. So we don't have any insight, any more than teaching a monkey to type makes him an author.

This is one of the few times in a decade I'm in agreement with Kevin O: the amount of mis-information and simple ignorance in the hobby would require a legion of archivists to sift through all the sheer #$%& well-meaning folks would donate.

Spend that money and effort trying to save battlefields, flags or artifacts.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

While I love the hobby, I think all the "learning" and research in it could comfortably fit inside the case used to house one year's records for any small business.

Oh, yeah, it's already there: in The Watchdog.

When done right, all we're doing is re-creating what THEY did back then. So we don't have any insight, any more than teaching a monkey to type makes him an author.

This is one of the few times in a decade I'm in agreement with Kevin O: the amount of mis-information and simple ignorance in the hobby would require a legion of archivists to sift through all the sheer #$%& well-meaning folks would donate.

Spend that money and effort trying to save battlefields, flags or artifacts.
It can't be said any better than that, Mr. Cross.

[tompritchett]

This is one of the few times in a decade I'm in agreement with Kevin O: the amount of mis-information and simple ignorance in the hobby would require a legion of archivists to sift through all the sheer #$%& well-meaning folks would donate.

Bill, I will play a little Devil's Advocate here. Yes, there is a lot of garbage out there but there are also locations where there has been some degree of peer review to sort out some of the garbage (e.g., the Watchdog, AC Camp of Instruction, the Civil War Historian, etc.) In addition there are certain articles that have been read by many and have almost become legendary in the sense that references to them continue to pop up on the various fora. For sources such as the Watchdog, Civil War Historian, and the AC Camp of Instruction, the inclusion could be automatic. As far as other articles, I am sure that a committee of experienced and well-respected reenactors could be established as a Review Board for nominating and approving new additions to the repository thus leaving only the mechanics of archiving to the professional librarians. As I said earlier, I would hate to see us throw out the baby in a knee jerk reaction to throwing out the bathwater.

[indguard]

I have seen nothing here to change my mind that the project would be a monumental waste of time.

And, storing peer reviewed articles about what we have discovered as reenactors of civil war history is not a bad idea. But then, THAT isn't reenacting. It's historical research.

WTH

[Bill_Cross]

Bill, I will play a little Devil's Advocate here. Yes, there is a lot of garbage out there but there are also locations where there has been some degree of peer review to sort out some of the garbage (e.g., the Watchdog, AC Camp of Instruction, the Civil War Historian, etc.).
Exactly. The places you list contain whatever useful information exists about the hobby. Yet I'm sure Paul Calloway would be the first to admit that error occasionally crops up on his board, because, for the most part, we're amateurs when it comes to history.

In most cases, we're just reporting what others have already researched. In rare cases, a living historian has looked at the artifacts, read the research, combed the archives and can give us some original insight.

Ask yourself why more professional historians of the period don't participate on our boards (aside from the fact that they probably would be driven away by our frequent inability to have civil discourse)?

In addition there are certain articles that have been read by many and have almost become legendary in the sense that references to them continue to pop up on the various fora.
It would appear there already is a mechanism for this information to be disseminated.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

As far as other articles, I am sure that a committee of experienced and well-respected reenactors could be established as a Review Board for nominating and approving new additions to the repository thus leaving only the mechanics of archiving to the professional librarians.
LOL, reenactors can't agree on the weather, much less what qualifies as historical wheat and dross. My favorite example of perpetual ignorance in this hobby is the common prohibition of vests in the ranks at many events. For years this error not only had crept into the hobby, but was perpetuated by every set of uniform guidelines I read. Of course, any look at period photos will show lots of vests on the rank and file, but did that change anything?

Research into the material culture of the past is best left to those who are willing to do the time, then submit their work to peer review. Peer, as in other historians, not other reenactors. If I have something worth saying, I can submit it to The Watchdog. Since I don't, I keep quiet.

And who would serve on that board of review? Who would nominate them? What recourse would there be if someone was derelict in their performance, didn't keep up with the workload, etc.?

[Lightningslinger]

Why do we need to persuade anyone that what we do is deserving of their respect?...

To gain the respect of the academicians they need to see what we do with the material items, and see how we put our research into action. They need to see everything in context. Something a display can't show.

...What does that really say about the hobby?

Just my two cents worth. Linda.

Hi Linda,

Walt here. Might yours above be slightly modified to read:

To gain the respect of the academicians we need to present what we do with the material items, and see how we put our/their research into action. We need to see and offer everything in context.

I use the we approach above because I occasionally hear signal corps re-enactors say that over-all commanders and event organizers need to but don't understand what functional signal emulators can/could bring to the table to assist in managing scripted event scenarios. It has been my study that unless specifically asked by the would-be should-be needy, the need-to rests squarely on the shoulders of those who want to put our research into action = I mean us.

May your Sabbath-day be restful and reflective,
Walt