Game Design Theory in Instructional Design

Changing gears from Civil War Memory for a bit. Clearly, with only a week before graduate classes start again, I’m getting back into the academic mindset…

Though this post from another blog (EDUCAUSE CONNECT) is just over a year old, I couldn’t resist mentioning it here. I’m very interested in how game design theory can be incorporated into instructional design… and even more so in how this can be accomplished through an interactive website. In terms of the future of digital history, this just gives some food for thought (and maybe an idea for a project this coming semester).

Back from two weeks in New England

Just getting back from a two week run through New England (with lengthy stops in the Boston area, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and the area around Saratoga, NY). Had a great time… and a few chances here and there to think about the Memory of the American Revolution in comparison to Memory of the Civil War. One of the highlights of the vacation was the visit to Saratoga where at least two Hessian ancestors were captured. Will post more on this later.

Confederate headstones and the question of “willful” service

I’d be curious to see the V.A. headstone application stats. Specifically, I’d like to see how many Civil War headstones have been ordered within the last two decades. I’d also like to see how many of those were for Confederate soldiers. After all, the headstones almost seem to be popping up all over the place. I also wonder how many people are ordering headstones based on nothing more than the raw data in the service records. As I’ve pointed out before, Confederate service records are notoriously incomplete and, taken at face value, may be misleading. My specific concern is whether or not service was “willful.”

So, what’s the big deal? Let’s back-off from the topic of the Civil War for a minute and take a look at something else in order to allow room for comparison.
Whether or not someone enlisted or was drafted (let’s pick draftees from any of the war since WW2), as long as the service was honorable and it can be shown on record as such, the V.A. can grant a headstone. Willful service (most specifically regarding draftees) or not, they served the United States government, apparently with honor. There is nothing to show otherwise. That’s fine… unless that soldier, sailor, airman or Marine didn’t want that headstone because he/she specified that he did not and that he/she did not have a belief in what he/she was doing. The advantage, in the years since WW2 is that these stones have usually been requested within “real time.” Stones have been ordered by or at the request of people who knew the soldier best and probably understood better the motivation of the soldier, sailor, et al.

However, the rules made in the best interest of the veterans from the 20th century seem to inappropriately blanket-over and include soldiers in earlier American conflicts – the Civil War among them.

When considering the Civil War… the difference is… how many people today apply for headstones for soldiers they never knew… or better yet for soldiers who lived generations apart from the applicant? How can applicants today be so certain of motivations and the best interest of the dead so far removed? Ultimately, what is the motivation for ordering a stone – is it done to make themselves feel better or to really, I mean really, honor the dead?

The legislation works well for the V.A. as they really don’t have the resources or time to make sure that an application is legit. It is the responsibility of the person applying to handle the basic guidelines and it can only be hoped that the person applies for the headstone “intelligently” and “responsibly.” As I have posted before on my blog (one excellent example being the story of Washington John P. Cave and his headstone), this system of granting headstones to Civil War veterans has many flaws. Raw data from the military records reveal only part of the story (and sometimes misrepresent the facts – again, take the example of W.J.P. Cave). More importantly, historically, it opens the gate for leaving a legacy of misunderstanding for future generations as to the truth about people from the Civil War who rest under the stones. I’m not saying that all Confederate headstones ordered are out of whack, but I have identified some rather questionable ones out there. I think it parallels an earlier post that I wrote regarding “responsible Confederate flagging.

Reluctant Confederates? So what?

In the process of researching and writing my thesis, one of my friends couldn’t see the big deal about “reluctant Confederates.” He saw no difference between reluctance in WW2 soldiers and those from the South during the Civil War. His grandfather didn’t want to fight in WW2, but he was drafted, served, and came home. So, what’s the difference between him and someone from the South who didn’t want to fight for the Confederacy in the Civil War?

I saw it from the perspective of nationalistic identity. At the time of WW2, or even WW1, one may not necessarily agree with the war, but many were generations-in as Americans. There was a difference with Southerners at the at the time of the Civil War. The Confederacy was new, but that didn’t mean that all who lived in the South endorsed it and most especially, it did not mean that they wanted to fight for it. Southerners may have identified themselves as Southerners and even as, say, Virginians (or whatever the case according to their state of residence), but not all who identified themselves as one or both of those identified themselves as Confederate. Of course, this leads to another topic… that being the different levels of reluctance… and therefore, another another post.

Are the right motivations behind the search for Black Confederates?

What follows is one of my comments to some of the other comments on Peter Carmichael’s post on Black Confederates…

I’d like to add to/take another angle on Kevin’s comment about the SCV and what appears to be the SCV’s use/exploitation of black Confederates to promote the ideals of white Confederate ancestry.

Honoring blacks who served in the ranks of the army is a challenging thing. If it can be proved (and I think I’ve found proof that one African-American from my home county actually did, at least enlist, in the Confederate army), conclusively, that a black served in the ranks of the Confederate army and did so honorably, sure, this falls within the mission of the SCV. However, as Kevin points out, this does seem a bit awkward considering the very nature of the Confederate government.

I will also add that finding conclusive proof of honorable service is a difficult thing as Confederate military records pose a huge problem to researchers. The information on paper cannot be taken at face value. There is a need to look between the lines (in the case of white soldiers, I challenge many to look at the enlistment dates of soldiers and create a timeline, comparing dates of enlistment with the enforcement of the three - though I would argue that there was also an unwritten “fourth” - Confederate Conscription Acts… it makes one ponder why those men enlisted only at that time). After transcribing the records of twenty-seven Virginia artillery companies from the late 1980s through 2001, even I did not realize the need to read between the lines until the last few years (something, I think, that would have made me more critical of the way that I wrote the unit histories).

Furthermore, as many who have plowed through the Combined Service Records know, in 1864, most records end leaving a major question as to what happened to the soldier. Enlistment records are also vague, often not clarifying if an enlistment was actually a conscription (I’ve come upon this situation more frequently in the last couple of years where military records do not list conscription, yet the statements of other veterans make it clear that some soldiers were conscripts… and sometimes very unwilling at that).

All of this said, it concerns me a great deal that there are a number of people in the SCV who like to, as Pete mentions, play a “numbers game” and throw out large numbers, “guesstemations,” if you will, about the number of blacks in the ranks of the Confederate army. To me, this is an effort being made to justify the nature of the white Confederates’ reasons for fighting and de-vilify the darker side of the multi-tiered symbolism of the Confederate flag. After all, how could Confederate soldiers possibly be for slavery if the slave is fighting side by side with the white soldier? Furthermore, if blacks fought in the ranks of the Confederate army, how could it be that the Confederate flag would be found offensive to blacks? It’s all a part of the “make everybody feel-good effort about the Confederate flag” being made by the SCV. So, to me, the effort to find “thousands” of Black Confederates purely in the name of honoring those African-Americans is anything but pure… the motivation becomes more clear each time unverifiable numbers are thrown on the table by the speculators.

I think this is a sorry way to make a positive point about the nature of the Confederate soldier and the Confederate flag, especially when the spirit and quality of the soldiers can stand on their own merit. Though the effort to find the black Confederates is an interesting addition to discussion about the complexities of the Civil War/WBTS, the gross speculation deteriorates both intelligent discussion of the topic and does nothing for the new-era Confederate remembrance effort (except those who make themselves feel good/justified by touting numbers).

Bottom line, if blacks served in the Confederate army and did so honorably, and the white Confederates found that service so honorable, why wasn’t there are stronger effort made by those white Confederates (they were in many cases, after all, the “best of friends”) to support “thousands” of pensions for those Black Confederate soldiers and servants. Why wasn’t the effort made when the Confederates themselves were lobbying their state government officials to make the veteran pensions possible in the first place?

Lastly, Rick, no disrespect intended, but as for the Virginia Servants’ Pension Act of 1924, how many black servants have you actually found on the rolls of that pension? This is a sincere question as my own research, though limited to one county (so far), turned up nothing but white pensioners. There wasn’t an African-American among the number.

The flip-side to the search for Black Confederates

While the hoopla lingers around the stories about Weary Clyburn and discussion begins to grow around Peter Carmichael’s great article on Kevin Levin’s Civil War Memory Blog, I figured it a great opportunity to remember the other side of the search for Black Confederates.

John M. “Jack” Dogans was the only free black in Page County to leave a record of his wartime experience as a Unionist through his Southern Loyalist claim. As one who vocalized his interests in the Union and the hope that its success would result in the freedom for all slaves, Dogan’s life was regularly threatened. In one of the documented incidents, Dogans heard from “old Mr. John Smith” that a party of men said that they meant to “kill that damn nigger [Dogans] down at the furnace.” Following the First Battle of Manassas in July 1861, when local merchant David E. Almond assembled several “free negroes” to serve as teamsters with the Confederate army, Dogans was pressed into the service. When Dogans voiced his opinion over the matter, Sheriff Benjamin F. Grayson told him simply that “we’ll shoot you if you don’t go.” After driving a wagon for about sixty days, Dogans returned to Page County and continued to support the Union troops who occupied the county for the balance of the war.

Dogans is listed as Dugans in the 1860 Page County census as a forty-one year old mulatto with $45 in real estate. Dogans’ Southern Loyalist Claim was the only claim filed by a former free black in Page County, and was approved by the claims commission.

So, while the hunt continues for the elusive Black Confederates, let us not overlook both the other side of the story and those who endured the other side of the story. “Lest we forget,” indeed.

An excellent post by Peter Carmichael on Black Confederates

Available at Kevin Levin’s Civil War Memory blog .

If the shoe was on the other foot… Confederate troops in the North

When I read about the “horrors of war” inflicted upon Southerners (most especially civilians) by Union troops, I wonder what stories would have come out of the war if the Confederate army spent more time on “Northern soil.” But then, why wonder when what little time they spent there was documented… with atrocities.

Yes, I’m well aware of the orders issued by Gen. Robert E. Lee to his troops as they crossed into Maryland in September 1862 and Pennsylvania in June and July 1863. However, because Lee issued the orders doesn’t mean that all soldiers complied (and so it goes regarding Union troops in the South).

However, I think the one story that strikes me the most on this issue is the one about the burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Just as in the South, there are stories about atrocities inflicted upon the civilian population. Some bear merit and some are exagerated. As an example, there is the story about the burning as related by A.K. McClure (available on the Valley of the Shadow site). McClure relates some facts, but when writing the story he was clearly unaware of the facts regarding Gen. Bradley T. Johnson’s intent (or maybe McClure was simply expressing his anger, even years after the event, as a civilian having been witness to the destruction of his town). In fact, Johnson was not at all vindictive in carrying out the burning of Chambersburg, but was appalled at the conduct of the Confederate soldiers (despite the fact that the act was in retaliation for the burning of Lexington, Virginia, Johnson still saw the necessity of maintaining order and discipline; a professional military action as opposed to a disorderly mob).

In Johnson’s report of August 10, 1864 , he wrote, “It is due to myself and the cause I serve to remark on the outrageous conduct of the troops on this expedition. This duty I informed Gen. McCausland I should perform during the expedition itself. Every crime in the catalogue of infamy has been committed, I believe, except murder and rape. Highway robbery of watches and pocket-books was of ordinary occurrence; the taking of breast-pins, finger-rings, and earrings frequently happened. Pillage and sack of private dwellings took place hourly. A soldier of an advance guard robbed of his gold watch the Catholic clergyman of Hancock on his way from church on Sunday, July 31, in the publish steeds.”

You can read the rest of the report for more details about the “crimes” (remember, Johnson himself identified these actions in exactly this manner) comitted against civilians… to include atrocities against Northern women and children. I have to also note here that, while Johnson had a lot to say about the darker actions of Confederate soldiers in this event, not all soldiers were zealous in their actions. In fact, one Chambersburg resident (Jacob Hoke) recalled that while some Confederate soldiers “seemed to be as Demons from the infernal pit” other Confederate soldiers “were sorely distressed by what they had been ordered to do…” Indeed, the same could be said of Union soldiers operating in the South. Some carried-out crimes with zeal and passion fueled with hate, while others were reluctant to partner in said activities. Even more importantly, we have a substantial number of stories about the kindness of civilians, North and South, to soldiers from the other side… as well as kind acts from soldiers to civilians.

So, in short, if some Confederate soldiers, acting not in the “bummer-style” of some of Sherman’s men, but as a commanded body of men, were capable of atrocities such as this in a fraction of the war, what would have happened had the Confederate army acted for greater periods of time in the North? Really, it’s a rhetorical question, but worthy of academic discussion… examining the actions of soldiers with a sustained presence on “enemy soil.” The point of this is, however, to show once again that many continue to retain imbalanced “memories of the war.” There are those who remain incapable of believing that a Confederate soldier could, by his actions, be compared to a Union soldier.

The fate of Southern Unionists in the upcoming sesquicentennial

I’ve been thinking about this and I’m concerned. As we rapidly approach the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, will remembrance events once again ignore Southern Unionists? Why should I worry? Well, for starters, I have heard that with the Virginia Sesquicentennial Committee there is a reluctance in addressing the issue of slavery and that at least one member has stated that people would be much more interested in where or how Stonewall Jackson made his flank movement during the battle of Chancellorsville. While interesting, I think that this particular approach to the war is a bit shallow (and even insulting), especially in the wake of all that has been brought forward on the big screen and other media that has made folks more aware of the much more complex issues behind the war. But, before I digress…

If the issue of slavery is being skirted (for the standard reasons that go along with the Lost Cause mentality), then why would I think that Southern Unionists would be given any attention? Why would Southerners want to admit that other Southerners opposed the good old Stars and Bars and a “Solid South” of that timeframe? However, I have also heard that there was mention (on the Va. Committee) of remembering Union General George Henry Thomas (the Virginians who opted to stay with the Union). O.K., yes, Gen. Thomas made a name for himself and, for the fact that he didn’t do what Robert E. Lee did (retain his sword for his native state), he took a lot of flack from fellow Virginians. However, really now, should Thomas be the sole focus when it comes to Southern Unionists? I don’t think so, and honestly, I think it is as shallow a thought as that which was mentioned above (the desire to know about a flank movement and not about deeper issues).

Truly, among Southern Unionists, I think that those who stand as worth recognition and had more to lose for their stand on the Union than anyone else, were those who remained in the South and tried to move on, despite all that was going on. Whether it be silent resistance, outspoken resistance, and even the common Southern dirt farmer enlisting as a low private in the Union army, I think their stories stand as more interesting than that of even Gen. Thomas. Not only did these common people stand to lose more, many, in fact, did lose more, and sometimes that included their lives… even as civilians.

Because some want to focus on the “rock stars” of the Civil War, I’m really concerned that the most interesting stories will be ignored… those that address the issues faced by the common man… and woman. In short, I sincerely hope that this is not the path down which the Virginia Civil War Sesquicentennial folks are headed. Will the sesquicentennial yield meaningful education and remembrance or will it be the same old boring platform for those who continue to see the war with self-installed blinders and want to do the same old song and dance?

Southern Unionists as traitors to the Confederacy?

Recently, I read something about somebody portraying Gen. George H. Thomas at living histories and some people referring to him as a traitor to his own people. Really, I find that a very odd statement to make regarding people of the South who preferred to remain loyal to the United States. While it’s true that a sense of sectionalism grew rapidly over the course of the years leading up to 1860, even after South Carolina’s decision to secede, Unionism held rather well in the upper South (as an example, it was condemned by several newspapers in Virginia), at least up until Lincoln’s call for troops. However, even after the call for troops, for those who felt no ties with the lower South (even after the families having lived, say, in Virginia, for generations) and took no “insult” to the idea of Federal troops moving through Virginia to suppress the rebellion in the deep South, really, why should they have followed those who felt it best to take the leap toward secession? Rather, I agree with John C. Inscoe’s statement in Enemies of the Country that these people simply “found themselves living in a new nation to which they chose not to give allegiance.” They weren’t, by definition, “traitors,” but were stuck in a very awkward situation. The land on which many of them lived had probably been in the family for years, and, deep in their hearts, many probably thought (or held the strongest hopes) that the storm would pass. Why then, should they leave THEIR land? Why should they relocate simply because they were at the odds with (what appeared to be… at least on paper) the popular sentiment?

I personally think that David Hunter Strother (a native of the area of Berkeley and Morgan County, Virginia (now West Virginia) summarized the feelings of Southern Unionist best when he stated that he “felt like a sane man in a mad house.” In his article for Inscoe’s volume about Southern Unionists, Jonathan M. Berkey (”Fighting the Devil with Fire: David Hunter Strother’s Private Civil War”) wrote that Strother “associated disunion with passionate individuals” and that this passionate fanatacism [found in the "secesh"] was the result of a degradation of the Southern people into what Strother saw as “a howling democracy, as a gentlemanly drinker degrades into a bestial sot.” After Virginia troops seized Harpers Ferry (one of the finest examples of chaos and anarchy in Virginia’s history as a Confederate state and certainly worthy of another blog entry), and Strother observed the Virginia flag flying over the arsenal, Berkey noted that Strother “mused, ‘Yesterday I was a citizen of the great American republic… To-day, what am I? A citizen of Virginia… What could she ever hope to be bit a worthless fragment of the broken vase?’”

Where, therefore, in such a statement, as a Southern Unionist, is the treachery? Clearly, as Insoce points out, those who opposed the chaotic nature of secession were soon to be “made one part of a self-conscious minority viewed with suspicion and hostility” as they “threatened the new republic and its cause.” This I can understand. However, to call Southern Unionists “traitors” is more along the lines of nothing more than name-calling in order to make a stronger point.

It goes to show that some people don’t understand the defintion of traitor, let alone the true history behind the American Civil War.