I watched part of the PBS documentary series, “Civil Warriors: 1- Families at War”. It was an astonishing look at the way the Civil War effected average citizens of the time. Ancestors of those involved in the war, Union or Confederate,  took the time to dig deeper and rediscover the truths and secrets of the war that lay within letters, diaries, and historical evidence.
       Roger Fisk, ancestor of Union soldier Wilbur Fisk, traveled to his family’s farmhouse to discover more writings of his great, great grandfather.  He found that Wilbur Fisk was a young, vibrant Union soldier who was raised in a family that full-heartily opposed slavery and thought of all men as equal, non-exclusive by race. In many of our class discussions this semester, we spoke about how the civil war is often thought of as a war fought to end slavery, and Wilbur Fisk’s ideals support that. But in Wilbur’s writing, one can see that this is not usually the case. Fisk’s letters reveal that a majority of the Union soldiers were incredibly racist and were a part of the war effort solely to preserve the Union.  As far as the idea of soldiers fighting to abolish slavery, Wilbur states in one of his letters, “I verily believe if such a declaration was made today, majority would be inclined to lay down their arms and quit the service in disgust” (PBS). I found this interesting
because it shows that history remolds true historical events, and the Civil War was not about slavery for most of the civilians involved.
       Another personal story I found interesting was the journey of Cornelia Grandberry to find out more about the life of her southern, aristocratic great, great grandmother, Cornelia McDonald. Cornelia McDonald kept extensive diaries throughout the start of the war in which her husband, Angus, and two stepsons fought. McDonald was strongly supportive of the confederacy, owning a large number of slaves and believing Virginia to be it’s own bountiful entity separate from the Union. When writing about the North in one journal entry she says, “we would not have peace with them if we had our slaves” (PBS). This notion confused me slightly, as Wilbur Fisk had made it clear that the Union men were not fighting against slavery, but fighting only for the preservation of the Union. This began to make me think that slavery was a component of what caused the Civil War, but the Confederacy felt more sensitive towards the issue because they had property at stake. In this way, the depiction of
the Civil War being a war fought over slavery rings partially true, especially to those in the South. The issue of freeing slaves may have been glorified in the time proceeding the war, but the freedom of slaves was a very real threat to many aristocrats in the South.
       Cornelia McDonald also gives a very realistic depiction of how the Civil War effected citizens other than the soldiers, which is very relevant to the books we have read in class. Her diary gives many snapshots of life during the war, similar to those in Hospital Sketches and Memoranda During the War, but from a fresh perspective.  After the first major battle of the war and the first major victory on the Confederate side, McDonald writes, “we did not begin to understand the horrors of our victory until Tuesday evening,” as she describes the slow arrival of 2,000 confederate casualties to be buried at home (PBS). She also describes other changes in a civilians life throughout the war, such as soldiers pillaging her home and making camp in her yard, and the escape of many of her slaves. I also thought it was interesting when Cornelia Grandberry met with the great, great, grandson of David Hunter Strother’s, who had been a “traitor” of sorts to the McDonald family. Strothers
turned to the Union side in the heat of the war, betraying his close friends, the Mcdonalds, and all others who were proud Confederates in Virginia. The decedents seemed to have some bad blood toward each other, although it’s hard to tell how much of that was forced to add “dramatic effect” to the documentary.
       This documentary uncovered many details about life during the civil war from a multitude of lifestyles. I think this documentary brings up the point of whether or not it is our civil duty to learn about the past, and how far one should journey to discover their ancestry. This documentary proved that a wealth of knowledge can be uncovered by tracking one’s roots and digging to find secrets left behind. First hand documentation from the war, such as letters and diaries, serve as one of the only ways to experience the events of the civil war without filter. We have discussed in class numerous times that history can be distorted over time to serve an agenda to current society, but if people retrace their ancestry, they have the power to discover pure, undistorted truths about the past.

Works Cited:

Public Broadcasting System. Civil Warriors: 1- Families at War. DocumentariesTV. History Documentaries, 2011. 25 April 2011. Web.

A prominent anthropologist Ashley Montagu said, “With the exception of the instinctoid reactions infants to sudden withdrawals of support and to sudden loud noised, the human being is entirely instinct less. Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned from his culture, from the man-made part of the environment, from other human beings” (Pinker 8). The natures of human beings are the genetics of a person and the nurture is the environment one is surrounded by. The result of a child is influenced by not only the family members, but also the environment as in school, friends, and the area one lives in. Genetics do contribute to the future of a person like disease or disorders that can be pasted down by generations. However, “environmental effects occur over development and physiological time scale” (Robinson 397). Surroundings effect not only the present but also the future of the body and the mind. Family members and the environment around a person can influence the outcome of a child as Albert Samples’ life and Emma’s life changed due to outside influences in Racehoss Big Emma’s Boy and in past research.

“Environments can be considered as extended phenotypes, reflecting genetic differences between individuals as they select, modify, and construct their own experience of the world” (Plomin and Asbury 92). The environment can change how a child acts and how they grow into the person they become. Albert Sample’s living arrangements were not the healthiest. He lived his with his mother, Emma and did not get to live the normal life of a child. He went to school when it was convenient for him and Emma until he dropped out due to all the fighting during class and his feelings towards school. He was being whipped till he cried, but Sample, also known as Racehoss, refused to cry and stabbed his teacher in the thigh and fled (Sample 100). He dropped out of school and never received proper education and Emma did not care at all and just said, “If you wanna grow up wit no schoolin lak me, thas yo bizness” (Sample 100). Emma did not encourage him to go back to school to lead a better life than hers but just told him if he wants to be like her that is fine with her. Education is not inheritable as well as religion, culture, political beliefs, and language (Pinker 15). Education could have made a difference in his life as he could have gotten a proper job after school, but deciding to drop out decreased his chance of living a better life than his mother, Emma. Emma did not care about the decisions Racehoss made and let him choose whatever lifestyle he desired at such a young age. Emma, as his mother should have supported him and helped him make his choices about life, but instead lived life that was most convenient for her.

Family members also influence the outcome of a child. “Family characteristics as the level of intellectual stimulation in a home, parents’ emotional expressiveness, their disciplining styles, parental beliefs about politics and religion, family structure, parental use of legal and illegal drugs, and many other rearing variables all generally operate on children as shared influences” (Rowe 4). Racehoss did not grow up in the most functional household. “Two things our house was never without, dice and men” (Sample 53). He grew up with only his mother being the constant person in his life, as men came in and out of his life. Throughout Racehoss Big Emma’s Boy, there would be a different man that stayed over all the time. Albert never had a stable father like figure throughout his life. The only thing he ever knew was how to throw dice and cheat in life at a young age. He went to the store to buy alcohol for Emma and had to watch the window for cops coming while still a child. Emma abused him constantly, whipping him, telling lies to the police about him stealing, going to his school and abusing him in front of his classmates and teacher, as well as even making Albert ask for permission to go to the bathroom. Racehoss grew up in an abusive environment as did Emma. Emma witnessed her mother being killed by her father (Sample 6) as well as Racehoss witnessed the violence between Emma and Salvador (Sample 87). Violence seemed to be consistent factor as Albert grew up just like how Emma grew up. Emma ran off once, leaving him behind. She eventually came back, but he left after being fed up with the abuse from Emma. When he returned to Longview, he was in the army. However, his future still consisted of gambling and running away. Albert grew up only learning about gambling and drinking from Emma. Therefore, even when he was in the army, he continued to set up crap tables and take money from other members of the army by cheating (Sample 136). His life is not much different than Emma’s exemplifying how family members influence the outcome of one’s child as he only saw a certain perspective of life as he grew up.

Not only does the environment of a human being influence their future, but also the people surrounding an individual can make a difference. A consistently positive atmosphere can result in a different perspective of life as one who grew up in conflicting environment. The proper education can result in an appropriate job for one’s self. A person can choose to change one’s life and not follow in the footsteps of parents. Without the correct nurturing, a human being’s future can change for better or worst. Due to having a negative atmosphere growing up because of Albert’s unpleasant environment and cruel mother, Emma, it resulted in his poor and difficult life in the future.

Works Cited

Pinker, Steven. “Why Nature & Nurture Won’t Go Away.” Daedalus. Vol. 133. MIT. 5-17. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027940.

Robinson, Gene E. “Beyond Nature and Nurture.” Science. Vol. 304. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 397-99. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. JSTOR. http:///www.jstor.org/stable/3836657.

Sample, Albert Race. Racehoss: Big Emma’s Boy. New York: Ballantine, 1986. Print.

Plomin, Robert, and Kathryn Asbury. “Nature and Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Behavior.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 600. Sage Publications. 86-98. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. JSTOR. http:///www.jstor.org/stable/25046112.

Rowe, David C. The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior. New York: Division of Guilford Publications, 1994. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. http://books.google.com/books?id=xcB8R9DVOUwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=he            limits+of+family+influence:+genes,+experience,+and+behavior&hl=en&ei=FN2sT            OUBoOx0QGR3u2wCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC            Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Unlike the soldiers of the Civil War, Walt Whitman served our country through philanthropy. He was without a doubt a helpful man, actively doing good deeds to help people far and wide. However, as a healthy man of the time, his absence on the battlefield did not settle well with some. The question we are left with is whether or not Whitman’s altruism overpowered his cowardice. Opposing views have clashed—seeing his work in the hospitals as either worthy of praise and pension like the soldiers or unworthy of praise and pension like the nurses.

During the Civil War the idea of a woman nurse gaining a pension was preposterous. So why should Whitman deserve one? This view of Whitman exploits him as unworthy of praise and pension. Although, according to Thomas Wentworth Higginson in “Women and Men: War Pensions for Women,” Whitman was a man of “particularly fine physique,” he did not serve on the battlefield. By not serving the army in the war, Higginson views the poet as selfish and cowardly; keeping his potential to help the war struggle on the battlefield confined to the hospitals helping nurse the fallen soldiers back to health. With some women yearning to go to war but not being able to because of their gender, men like Whitman were viewed by a number of people as ungrateful when they let the opportunity pass them by. Whitman was viewed by some on the level of a woman, which at the time would have been disgraceful to the poet due to the white man’s superiority at the time. The morality of the case proposing a pension for Whitman is questioned because despite his unmanly job in the war, other people focus only on his helpful actions in the hospital.

The stories of Whitman’s travels have captivated audiences since the Civil War because of his selflessness. William Douglas O’Connor, author of “The Good Gray Poet: a Vindication” would be the first to fight for a pension for the poet claiming that he was “in the spirit of Christ.” Mesmerized by Whitman’s good deeds, O’Connor not only compares him to this religious savior but also describes him as “soothing, healing, restoring… never tiring, constant, vigilant, [and] faithful.” This array of compliments extols Whitman for his actions every day from daybreak to bed time, traveling from hospital to hospital, bed to bed helping the hopeless and consoling the people soldiers left behind as they passed away. This perspective commends Whitman’s selflessness and generosity with praise, respect, and with that, a proposition for a pension.

The question of whether or not Whitman deserves a pension is debatable because of the perspectives taken on his different actions. While the people who believe Whitman was cowardly and doesn’t deserve a pension focus on the war as a whole and his absence on the battlefield, those who believe Whitman deserves the praise and pension look past the fact that he did not fight and focus solely on his actions within the hospitals. There is no doubt that he helped the masses and touched the hearts of thousands of citizens; there is only question of whether or not what he did do to help was worthy of what the soldiers deserved after the war.
Works Cited:
Higginson, Thomas W. “Women and Men: War Pensions for Women.” 1887. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.
O’Connor, William D. “The Good Gray Poet: A Vindication.” [Washington D.C.] 2 Sept. 1865. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.
Whitman, Walt, and Peter Coviello. Memoranda during the War. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.

*Research controversial topics from the Civil War and make an argument for your side of the disputable issue.

*Research the connections between traumatic childhood experiences and the consequences it has on one’s adulthood using Racehoss Big Emma’s Boy as an example.

“It is strange that history has linked so closely the names of Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln who, so far as is known, were never introduced and never exchanged a word,” (qt. in Brown).

As this quote suggests, Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln have always been seen as close to society; a closeness that has been explored through many of Walt Whitman’s writings. But after careful inspection of these writings, however, one may start to doubt the actual bond between the two men based merely upon this. Instead of the normal relationship that exists between acquaintances, consisting of conversation and true personal knowledge, their “friendship” seemed to have consisted more of mere glances and exaggerated poetry. Therefore, Whitman and Lincoln may have been seen as close through Whitman’s writings, but because the way Whitman describes Lincoln differs from each account, it is probable to question how the bond between them really formed.

First, a project of comparing Whitman’s newspaper articles, which were partly concerned with his view of Lincoln, shed some light on some of the differences between Whitman’s encounters. On August 12, 1863, in the Washington Hot Season New York Times, Walt Whitman writes, “The sight is a significant one. He always has a company of twenty-five or thirty cavalry, with sabres drawn, and held up right over their shoulders,” (Washington). With this quote, Whitman seems to portray the president’s ride as an entrance to be more celebrated, or a big thing to see. He also describes Lincoln as always being surrounded by soldiers, with a humble look and a pretty easy-going personality. But while that may seem like a valid observation of the President, his later articles give a different characterization.

The next selection, written on March 16, 1865, called the Last Hours of Congress New York Times, exemplifies a major difference from Whitman’s first description of Lincoln. He starts the excerpt with,

The President very quietly rode down to the Capital in his own carriage, by himself, on a sharp trot…” then later, “He was in his plain two-horse barouche, and looked very much worn and tired; the lines indeed, of vast responsibilities, intricate questions, and demands of life and death, cut deeper than ever upon his dark brown face; yet all the old goodness, tenderness, sadness, and canny shrewdness, underneath the furrows (The Last).

This second selection shows a completely different side to Lincoln. Instead of the great scene he once was described as being in, he is now portrayed as a plain, worn out man, who spends all his time concerned with the problems of the nation.

After reading these two quotes, it’s hard to believe that Whitman and Lincoln had more of a relationship than quick glances. I believe that this is significant, because within these two excerpts, Walt Whitman paints a completely different portrait of his sights of Abraham Lincoln. How can he ride in always with soldiers and sabers and greatness, when he is also depicted as riding alone and later with civilians in a plain way? It makes one wonder if he ever really truly had these experiences, or whether he just wrote what he thought they would be like.

In addition, Whitman wrote a compelling view of Lincoln’s assassination in his book Memoranda. But in reality, Whitman was never there, and instead heard the story from his friend Doyle (Loving). In the passage he states,

Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time–and yet a moment’s hush–somehow, surely, a vague startled thrill–and then, through the ornamented, draperied, starr’d and striped spaceway of the President’s box, a sudden figure, a man, raises himself with hands and feet, stands a moment on the railing, leaps below to the stage, (a distance of perhaps fourteen or fifteen feet,) falls out of position, catching his boot-heel in the copious drapery, (the American flag,) falls on one knee, quickly recovers himself, rises as if nothing had happen’d… (Whitman 85-86).

As one can see, this passage shows tremendous amounts of detail and implied observation. But how can his description be dense with imagery if he himself was never there?

In the end, Whitman and Lincoln did have a strong bond, but it was not through the ways in which Whitman wrote about. Instead, I believe that Whitman greatly admired Lincoln, and whenever he wrote about him, his most poetical descriptions were used. This can be a reason as to why the descriptions of Lincoln were always different, due to the fact that Whitman wanted to describe every aspect of Lincoln in the best way that he could. In conclusion, Whitman and Lincoln seemed to have a strong bond due to Whitman’s admiration, rather than first-hand encounters.

Works Cited

Brown, Clarence A. “Walt Whitman and Lincoln.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908-1984) 47.2 (1954): 176-184. Print.

Loving, Jerome. Walt Whitman: The Song of Himself. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Whitman, Walt. Memoranda During the War. Ed. Peter Coviello. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Print. 85-86.

Whitman, Walt. “The Last Hours at Congress.” New York Times. 6 Mar. 1865. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.

Whitman, Walt. “Washington in the Hot Season,” New York Times, 16 Aug.1863. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States embarked on a new relationship with death, entering into a civil war that proved bloodier than any other conflict in American history, a war that would presage the slaughter of World War I’s Western Front and the global carnage of the twentieth century. The number of soldiers who died between  1861 and 1865, an estimated 620,000, is approximately equal to the total American fatalities in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War combined (Faust xi).

As one can see through this quote, the amount of death and dying in the Civil War completely surpassed the other wars America has fought in. But why did Civil War have such high death rates? Due to the surgical and medical aspects, the elements to which the soldiers were exposed, and the more technologically advanced weapons, the Civil War will always be remembered as our most deadly war.

First, many soldiers died due to the lack of surgical and medical knowledge and sanitation. With the heavy rate of soldiers coming into the hospitals wounded, the surgeons and nurses had to think fast and try to fix the problem as quickly as possible. Because of this reason, one of the first responses to fixing a wound was cutting it off, or amputation. When this type of surgery occurred, it was without antiseptic, sanitation (on both the soldier and doctor’s part) and done as hastily as possible, in order to “give the patient the best chance of survival,” (Thompson). In addition, the tools used on a soldier to cut off his limbs were not even cleaned from patient to patient. This not only caused the soldier to lose his limb, but it also led to a multitude of diseases and a bleak future of recovery (National). In addition, depending on the amount of wounded soldiers coming into the hospital that day, a soldier may not even be operated on for days. All of these factors of medicine, or lack of, contributed to the death rates of the Civil War, as many could not recover from their diseases (National).

Second, the outside elements also had a contributing factor on the health of the soldiers. In The Outlook, published in 1919, Bellamy reflects on the Civil War by saying,

Because of lack of army supplies or because they were tied up with red tape, more poor fellows were brought wounded and helpless back from the front than there were tents to cover them. On the grassy floor they were laid close together, with an orderly to care for them as best he could. When the tents were filled to the upmost, other men from the battle and rifle pits were left outside on the grass (Bellamy).

This shows that because of the number of soldiers wounded and in need of medical attention, there was not enough room for everyone in the hospitals. Therefore, the remaining soldiers who could not fit inside were laid outside on the grass with few nurses to look over everyone. Because of this, the already wounded soldiers were exposed to whatever the weather conditions were outside, like heat (which could cause further dehydration) and rain (which can cause further illness like a cold or pneumonia). Therefore, the elements also had a major part in the health of the soldiers, and may have helped the number of deaths increase.

Finally, advances in ammunition and weaponry also led to an increasing number of deaths. It is said that,

The introduction of these rifled pieces compelled a radical change in infantry tactics, which had been based on the use of the shorter range, less accurate smoothbore musket until the Civil War. Using smoothbore muskets, firing lines even 100 yards apart could not inflict much damage upon each other. For an attack to be successful, then, soldiers were forced to mass together and run directly into their enemies. The Civil War rifled musket, with its greater accuracy and longer range, was able to kill at a distance of over a half-mile, making a direct, frontal assault a particularly deadly affair (Shotgun).

This means that the guns were made to shoot longer distances, yet the fighting took place in close proximity to each soldier. Therefore, this shows that because advances were made on the weapons used by the common soldier and not on the warfare tactics, more soldiers were killed in the close range fighting of the Civil War.

In conclusion, many issues like surgery, sanitation, weather elements, and advanced weaponry led to the high death rates of the Civil War. Therefore, it is situations like these that made the Civil War the most horrific and deadly war ever known to America.

Works Cited

Bellamy, Francis Rufus. The Outlook. Outlook Co., 1919. Print.

Faust, Drew Gilpin. This Republic of Suffering. New York: Knopf, 2009. Print

National Museum of Health and Medicine. “To Bind Up the Nation’s Wounds: Medicine During the Civil War.” National Museum of Health and Medicine. n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2011.

Shotgun. “Weapons of the Civil War: Small Arms.” Shotgun’s Home of the Civil War. 16 Feb. 2002. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.

Thompson, Kevin. “Amputations In Military Surgery During The Civil War.” Civil War Medical Books. n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2011.

Watch the documentary for free at:  http://www.documentariestv.net/search.php?keywords=ken+burns+the+civil+war&btn=Search

PBS website for more topic ideas:  http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/

Curious about what exactly producing a film entails, I asked Dr. Endres of the Kent State journalism department if I could attend a couple of his Civil War documentary meetings, and maybe even assist in the information-gathering aspect of the process.

I was immediately overwhelmed by how much time and effort each member of the “team” devotes every week to seeking out more sources. They might spend five hours scouring an almanac they recently stumbled upon at a Hiram College library related to Northeast Ohio in the 1800s, only to find a paragraph’s worth of useable information. I was astounded; their work required an incredible amount of patience and diligence I didn’t think I had.

The team was mainly in search of stories of Portage County individuals or families related to the Civil War. Dr. Endres might get a lead on a soldier born in Brimfield who received a unique award for his service during the war and probably had the last name of “Harris”… With this little bit of information, the treasure hunt began.

I was delegated to investigate John and Sarah Cross—both citizens of Portage Country in the 1800s and volunteer medical practitioners during the war. Finding nothing on the couple on Google, I got a bit more creative and signed up for a one-month free trial to Ancestry.com, a massive database used by individuals who want to search for long-lost relatives and build their knowledge of their family trees. Knowing so little background information about Mr. and Mrs. Cross, the website was virtually unhelpful. I was able to locate John Cross in a Portage County census, which helped me find the names of his children, but this was the extent of my success. Thus, I had to go further.

In the world of the typical Kent State student, doing non-Internet research is seemingly unthinkable. But for Endres’ team, compiled mainly of undergraduate and graduate students (and now me), this “creative,” non-Internet research was the only option.

Luckily, Dr. Endres gave me a lead on some local newspaper headlines regarding the Cross’; after some extensive detective work at the library looking through microfilm (newspapers that have been converted to film negatives). Kent State University’s library contains tens of thousands of full newspapers, both local and national and ranging from the mid-1800s to present. Utilizing this very valuable, tangible database,  and after an hour or two of squinting at the tiny print, I was victorious (as you can see by the images below of the “Kent Courier,” the original “Record Courier”). As it turns out, Sarah Cross was a notable and distinguished nurse during the Civil War—and she was a native of Kent!

What this experience proved to me is the vitality of maintaining an organized record of history as it passes. It is our responsibility in the present to do so, for once the past becomes too past, it is all of sudden practically impossible to bring it back—as was illustrated by the aggravating struggle of Endres and his documentary team to uncover information that at one point was common knowledge to the general public.

If we have any hope to restore history, to remember it, we must keep up with recording the present.

As we have all been made aware, the Kent State history and journalism departments have teamed up to produce a historical documentary depicting what was going on in Portage Country during the Civil War era, in commemoration of the war’s 200^th anniversary.

As an aspiring video producer/social documentarian, this project-in-the-making was of great interest to me. I am deeply intrigued by the power film can have on a person: the music, the angle of the shot, the colors, the timing, the movements, the spoken word and the written word, all synchronize to form an exactly perfect combination of stimuli—a masterpiece, that so naturally and profoundly effects the audience members in ways they are often not even aware of.

Driven by this passion, I e-mailed Dr. Endres, the head honcho of the documentary, to ask how I could get involved.

In hindsight, I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

Creating a movie isn’t all fun and games, like people might think while happily watching their favorite movies. The stages that precede the actual production and shooting of a film (the fun part, in my opinion), I realized, require A LOT of intense, grueling and diligent research if the videographer has any hope that his or her production will contain any sort of valuable content.

What’s more, documentaries require a larger breadth of factual and informational content than do narrative films. Furthermore, a historical documentary is going to be even more demanding, for it is unlikely that anything of relevancy will be happening at present that is of relevancy to the era of the documentary’s topic. Thus, the director/producer must seek out alternative images to use as the B-Roll (what the audience will see) for the documentary. For Endres’ Civil War documentary, this alternative comes in the form of photographs, paintings or artifacts from the 1800s in Portage County that can be recorded on a video camera and therein reproduced as digital film.

What the audience will hear is also a challenge to produce for any team behind a historical documentary. Even identifying what the general attitude or lifestyle any historical era is not an easy undertaking. Direct quotes from individuals during the Civil War era, just as in any time-frame, must come from some place—usually letters, diaries, or newspapers. But the questions then start streaming in—where are these letters and diaries and newspapers? And once we track down these hidden treasures, how do we go about filtering through them? Is it worth reading through hundreds of documents if all we’re looking for is one particular name or story?

Because the technological age was still a century off when the Civil War ensued, information regarding the war—let alone information regarding the war in Portage County, specifically—was lost or at least unintentionally hidden from the public. Thus, the information required to weave together the stories of life in Northeast Ohio in the mid 1800s is undeniably extremely difficult to locate. While there are some helpful databases and websites online related to Civil War history, few have information specifically geared toward individual counties.

And so, Dr. Endres’ team was forced to search elsewhere. And the investigation began.

The rather tedious process of creating a historical documentary upfront seems daunting and perhaps superfluous to the modern human being, but we must be patient and contemplative… How else are we to remember, recognize, comprehend, and appreciate, etc. the past without creating means and methods of doing so? A documentary, by definition, is an exact combination of entertainment and information—I couldn’t think of a better way to gain knowledge, especially when it regards our own local history.

During the Civil War, the United States passed the emancipation proclamation which set the slaves “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free (McPherson 557).” Emancipation was not an exclusive Union measure. The Confederacy also contemplated emancipating the slaves. Confederate Emancipation is seen as a paradox to Southern principles and would not overcome the strong, pro-slavery sentiments.

Slaves were central to both the Confederate and Union war efforts. Originally, the Confederacy had impressed slaves into service before white men were drafted into military service; furthermore, slaves were contribute to over 50% of labor towards the war effort (354 McPherson). The slaves would build and maintain forts, build fortifications, dig trenches, and maintain camps (McPherson 354). The slaves were exclusively laborers, not soldiers.

Before the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, slaves would flee from their plantations and seek shelter in Union encampments. The first prominent occurrence happened at Fortress Monroe in Virginia. Three slaves had fled from confederate fortifications and sought shelter in the Union fort. Benjamin Butler, the commanding officer, turned away a confederate colonel when he came for his lost property (McPherson 355). The slaves who made it to Union lines are referred to as contraband, they are property confiscated from the belligerent South. Contrabands were employed in the North similarly to Southern implementation of slaves. They were teamsters, hospital attendants, and company cooks (McPherson 502).
The thousands of slaves that deserted the south did not necessarily hurt Southern production. The devastating blow would not come until the aftermath of Antietam, when the Emancipation Proclamation set the slaves “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free (McPherson 557).” Thousands of blacks would abscond from the south and seek their freedom in the nearest Union line.

As the war progressed, the tide shifted towards the Union. After the fall of Vicksburg and the defeat at Gettysburg, the Confederacy was at its lowest point. The Army of Virginia lost one third of its fighting forces in the span of three days in Pennsylvania; General Robert E. Lee offered his resignation after the loss at Gettysburg, but President Davis declined his resignation (Levine 21).

In order to revitalize the army, General Patrick Cleburne proposed a controversial resolution to emancipate slaves in the South. The resolution would organize black regiments and in return for military service, the slaves would be granted freedom (Levine 2). In Cleburne’s unit, fifteen high-ranking officers endorsed his proposal by signature (Levine 1). A meeting of high ranking generals was held to discuss the resolution, with the consensus that emancipation would be ill-advised (Levine 1); however, General Robert E. Lee did support the armament of blacks. General Lee’s private opinion was, “we should employ them without delay [even] at the risk which may be produced upon our social institutions (McPherson 836).” General Lee also wrote to a congressman saying, “The negroes, under proper circumstances, will make efficient soldiers. I think we could at least do as well with them as the enemy… Those who are employed should be freed, It would be neither just or wise… to require them to serve as slaves (McPherson 836).”

By enlisting slaves into the army, the confederacy would have an army size that rivals the Union Army. The Confederates were almost always outnumbered by Union forces. At this time, there around 3.5 million slaves in the South (Levin 17). Any number, whether it be 100,000 or 1 million, of black soldiers would have given the South a must-needed edge in the war. Virginia would be successful in raising two companies of black soldiers, but they never saw action (McPherson 837).

Another reason to manumit the slaves would be for foreign recognition. The Confederacy was holding out hope that Britain and France would intervene in the war by either mediating between the belligerent nations or ending the Northern blockade of the Confederate Coast (Levine 18). It was well known that Europe’s population were hostile to slavery, so some believed that the Confederacy could purchase European intervention with a promise to emancipate its own slaves (Levine 18).
Slavery was too ingrained into Southern Society for emancipation to take root. Slavery was the South’s main economic institution as the United States became the leading exporter of cotton (Levin 20). Plantation owners believed “…one man can own property in his fellow man Levin 20), and owning slaves was protected by the constitution (Levin 20). General William B. Bate, who was present at the generals meeting concerning Cleburne’s proposal, believed the proposition to manumit the slaves would, “contravene principles upon which I have heretofore acted.” The proposal would “discard our received theory of government, destroy our legal institution and social relations (Levin 40).” General Bate demonstrated the common view disavowing emancipation. Furthermore, creoles could not serve in the Confederate Army. To be eligible to join, a person must prove that they are “disconnected from negroes” (Levin 19). If a person could not, he would only be able to serve as a laborer.
Ultimately, the Union was not alone in reaching out to slaves.

There was much support for Emancipation in the South ranging from lowest class to sanctified heroes such as General Lee. However, in the words of Jefferson Davis it was “stark madness” to arm the slaves and “would revolt and disgust the whole South (Levin 18).” Confederate Emancipation would not pass in the South, slavery was too vital to the economy and also the social institutions in the South.

Works Cited

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Levin, Bruce. Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves During the Civil War. New York: OUP USA, 2005. Print.

Bibliography

Carlisle, Rodney P., and J. Geoffrey Golson. A House Divided during the Civil War Era. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2007. Print.

Heidler, David S. “Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History.” 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000. Print.

Schroeder-Lein, Glenna R., and Richard Zuczek. Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion. ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2001. Print.