A Record of Service: The logbook of the 28th Indiana Infantry

By Danielle Jones ‘18

This post comes from the exhibit catalog for “Right to Serve, Right to Lead:  Lives and Legacies of the USCT,” an exhibition in Special Collections and College Archives at Musselman Library, Gettysburg College. During the spring of 2017, we asked the CWI Fellows to select a item on exhibit and discuss its history and context. The resulting exhibit catalog is available at Special Collections, where the exhibit will run through December 18, 2017.

28th USCT. Descriptive logbook. Every regiment kept a descriptive log of the “special orders” issued by its colonel to the regiment, and “general orders” from higher up the command chain that affected the regiment in some way. Courtesy of Special Collections and College Archives, Gettysburg College.

The 28th Indiana Infantry Regiment—officially the 28th Regiment United States Colored Troops—was Indiana’s first and only all-black regiment during the Civil War. Mustered into service on January 12, 1864, the 28th formed in response to fears sparked by Confederate General John Hunt Morgan’s raid into Indiana in the summer of 1863. Morgan hoped to rouse Copperheads in the North and inspire them to rise up against the Union. The raiders ransacked Corydon, Salem, Dupont, Versailles, and other small towns in southern Indiana, burned and looted property, and stole over 4,000 horses. All told, the raid caused over one million dollars in damage. Thousands of Hoosiers enlisted in response to the raid, including the men of the 28th. The raid ultimately failed; Morgan was chased out of southern Indiana by state troops and kept out by the United States Navy. Although the 28th was recruited to help prevent future rebel violence, state officials feared that raising more than one African American regiment would provoke another Confederate raid.

Continue reading “A Record of Service: The logbook of the 28th Indiana Infantry”

The Legacy of the NEH

By Danielle Jones ’18

On March 16th, 2017, the Trump Administration released the first draft of their proposed 2018 Congressional budget. Many people were focused on the massive cuts to the EPA, but another troubling cut that the original budget proposed was the 12% cuts to the Interior Departments. Even more worrying for those of us in the Humanities, the budget also called for the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. After the government’s hiring freeze, a cut to programs like the NEH was the last thing that museums and historical sites wanted to hear.

The NEH was founded in 1965, and lauds itself as one of the largest funders of humanities programs in the United States. The grants given by the NEH typically go to museums, archives, colleges, public television and radio stations, libraries, and to individual scholars. Some famous NEH programs include Ken Burns’ The Civil War and the “Save Our American Treasures” program by the National Museum of African American History and Culture which collects and preserves artifacts from African American communities, including a set of child’s slave cuffs and Harriet Tubman’s bible. Museums as large as the Smithsonian receive NEH grants, as well as small museums and historical sites. The NEH also provides grants and awards to educators in order to strengthen education in schools and colleges, to facilitate research and scholarship, and to strengthen the humanities as a whole. Virtually every state and 6 territories have been touched by NEH grants. The money given helps further American education and to foster education and enlightened discussions about the humanities in the U.S.

The proposed budget cuts would have had lasting impacts across the humanities field. Many of the institutions who receive NEH funding would not be able to support all the programs they run without the NEH, and there are many other institutions who would cease to function without NEH and other federal funding. Thus, the potential loss of funds caused a massive outcry by many in the humanities. The loss of NEH funding could lead to a significant decrease in the available jobs in humanities industry, and many academics would not be able to continue to support original research necessary to furthering their respective fields.

On May 1st, the House Appropriations Committee released the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill to fund the federal government for the current fiscal year ending September 30, 2017. This bill provided some hope for those in the Humanities; the bill calls for $150 million each for both the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. This is a $2 million increase from the fiscal 2016 year. While this increase is of great benefit to the Endowments, it does not necessarily mean that the 2018 budget is going to keep the Endowments at the same level. As students, historians, and people who love the humanities, we must continue to work to show people the importance of programs like the National Endowment for the Humanities.


Sources:

About the NEH.” National Endowment for the Humanities. Accessed May 02, 2017.

Farrington, Dana. “Read President Trump’s Budget Blueprint.” NPR. March 16, 2017. Accessed May 02, 2017.

Tableau Public. March 20, 2017. Accessed May 02, 2017.

Cascone, Sarah. “Despite Trump, NEA Lives to See Another Day as Congress Finalizes 2017 Budget.” Artnet News. May 01, 2017. Accessed May 02, 2017.

Kaplan, Thomas, and Matt Flegenheimer. “Bipartisan Agreement Reached to Fund Government Through September.” New York Times. April 30, 2017. Accessed May 02, 2017.

U.S. Cong. House. Committee on Appropriations. Comprehensive Government Funding Bill. By Rodney Frelinghuysen. 115 Cong. 244.

Science, Signals, and Service: The Smithsonian Institution’s Role During the Civil War

By Danielle Jones ’18

Today, the Smithsonian is known for its world-famous exhibits, massive collections of American and natural history artifacts, and its contributions to research around the world. But many people don’t know the role the Smithsonian played during the Civil War. The Smithsonian Castle was finished in 1855 and would become the first home of the research center, the library, and the US Museum. The government recognized the importance of the Institution and, after war was declared, the US Secretary of War ordered Joseph Henry, the Smithsonian Secretary, be issued twelve muskets and 240 rounds of ammunition “for the protection of the Institute against lawless attacks.” The building was in a vulnerable position because it was situated in between the Capitol Building and the White House, and cut off from the rest of the city by the Washington Canal . The Institution was witness to soldiers on parade, as well as to the thousands of wounded soldiers sent back to the city after the First Battle of Bull Run. It suffered no war damage, but suffered from financial woes because Congress was more focused on paying for the war than paying the interest on the Smithson bequest. The inflation and currency devaluation of the era also affected finances.

Smithsonian
Image of the Smithsonian Castle in Washington DC, with the unfinished Capital Building in the Background. The hand-written caption, “Washington, D.C. April 1865” is incorrect because the castle was terribly damaged in a fire in January of 1865. Image courtesy of Smithsonian Institution Archives.

Continue reading “Science, Signals, and Service: The Smithsonian Institution’s Role During the Civil War”

The Conflicting Conflict: Memorialization and Memory of the Great War

2017 marks the hundred-year anniversary of the US joining the First World War. This post will be part of a series examining the Great War in scope and in memory.

By Danielle Jones ’18

July 1st through 3rd, 2013 marked the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 visitors to the national park, including as many as 10,000 reenactors. The Civil War sesquicentennial was commemorated from the very beginning, and ended with a reenactment in Appomattox that saw over 6,000 people visit to re-live the end of the American Civil War. On April 9th, bells across the nation, including at Gettysburg College, tolled for 4 minutes to honor the four years the war raged on. Plans were started for the anniversary almost a decade in advance and millions of Americans in commemorating of the war that cost 600,000 Americans their lives. A collective narrative of the war began forming  before the surrender was even signed, and while each side had a different memory directly after Appomattox, the settled upon collective narrative still exists today.

WWI ffed the fighter
While the Great War had a massive impact on the American home front, the war itself has largely faded from public memory. Image courtesy of Gettysburg College Special Collections.

As I write this, I think of a different time, a different war, and a different April. On April 6th, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany, joining France, Great Britain, and Russia to fight in the World War I. The United States’ entry into the war was controversial; President Woodrow Wilson had asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2nd, and after four days of debate the Senate passed the declaration 82-6 and the House of Representative passed it 373-50. During the war, 116,516 American Servicemen lost their lives to battle deaths and disease. The Great War, as it came to be known, had a significant impact on the United States domestically and internationally. Entrance to war marked a significant change in America’s traditionally isolationist policy. The end of the war brought an economic boom to the States and a role in international politics it had not seen before. A spot at the table at Versailles, the League of Nations, and an increasingly globalized economy illustrated that the United States was not just a nation across the Atlantic anymore. It had begun establishing itself as a world power whose presence continues to define international politics today. Continue reading “The Conflicting Conflict: Memorialization and Memory of the Great War”

Let’s Talk About Secession

By Danielle Jones ‘18

Texit and Calexit—catchy names that have been trending lately over states deciding they don’t want to be a part of the United States. Secession movements are not unique to today. The most famous act of secession involved the eleven states that would form the Confederate States of America, but even at the founding of the United States there were rumors that some states were going to secede and the country would become four different regional confederacies.

The legality of secession has been debated since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. When the United States was still under the Articles of Confederation, there were rumors that the United States would break up into multiple confederacies that could govern with more sovereignty than Congress could under the Articles. The move from the Articles to the Constitution was hotly debated. Some, like Judge St. George Tucker in 1803, argued that abandoning the Articles was the same as seceding from them. Therefore, according to Tucker, there was legal precedent for future secession.

“Secession Exploded,” an anti-secession political cartoon from a Unionist newspaper published in 1861. Via Library of Congress.
“Secession Exploded,” an anti-secession political cartoon from a Unionist newspaper published in 1861. Via Library of Congress.

Continue reading “Let’s Talk About Secession”

The Unknown Legacy of the 13th Amendment

By Danielle Jones ’18

On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the 13th Amendment, declaring slavery illegal in the United States. Or so it seemed. The second line of the Amendment, and the most oft unknown, states that slavery can still be used as a form of punishment for crimes, and this practice became widely used as a part of southern backlash to Reconstruction Era policies. After the end of the Civil War, many southern states struggled with rebuilding their infrastructures and government systems. In order to avoid falling into more debt, many of these states turned towards the convict lease system, which claimed that the state prison could lease out its convicts to local companies, usually in industries such as mining, lumbering, and railroad building, to not only house prisoners inexpensively but also regain the means of labor they had with slavery before the Civil War. By adopting the convict lease system, southern states were able to earn revenue and control the suddenly free black population of the South, and with the development of black codes, these states were able to legally disenfranchise African Americans up until the 1930s when Alabama became the last state to abolish the convict lease program.

Many historians and history textbooks will say that the 13th Amendment was passed to abolish slavery. While this sentiment is true, there is more behind the reasoning than traditionally taught. Many in Congress believed that slavery was detrimental to white laborers in the South because slaves were seen as a long term investment, and white laborers were unable to make advancements because slavery was less expensive in the long run. Therefore, by abolishing slavery, they would even out the playing field, and whites would have more opportunities. For southern elites, the abolition of slavery meant the loss of a major working force, and because racism had not ended with the end of the Civil War, southern states looked to create a system that would enable them to maintain a steady work force as they began rebuilding and industrializing their states. The states turned to convict leasing, an idea that was not unique to the period after the Civil War but grew exponentially in the Reconstruction Era.

Convicts leased to harvest timber, 1915, Florida. Photo credit: The Hampton Institute/Photographer Unknown
Convicts leased to harvest timber, 1915, Florida. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

Continue reading “The Unknown Legacy of the 13th Amendment”

A People’s Journey, A Nation’s Past: The National Museum of African American History and Culture

By Danielle Jones ’18

On September 24, 2016, the National Museum of African American History and Culture was opened to the public after almost two decades of planning and more than a century of fighting for a memorial for African Americans. Starting in 1915, when a group of United States Colored Troops sought a memorial for their fallen soldiers, African Americans have worked to have their history remembered on a national scale. A congressional commission for a museum dedicated to African Americans was signed in 1929 by Calvin Coolidge, but the stock market crash in October prevented the museum from being built. The memorial was pushed to the back burner until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s galvanized the need for a museum again. In 1986, a joint resolution proposed by Representatives Mickey Leland of Texas and John Lewis of Georgia as well as Senator Paul Simon of Illinois marked the beginning of the modern fight for a museum dedicated solely to African Americans.

The representatives faced strong opposition from Congress about the museum. Perhaps the strongest opposition came from Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) who argued in 1996 that “once Congress gives the go ahead for African Americans, how can Congress then say no to Hispanics, and the next group, and the group after that?” Helms even went as far as stating that as long as he was in the United States Congress, there would be no museum. Despite this uphill struggle, in 2001 President George W. Bush signed House Resolution 3442, establishing a commission to develop a plan of action for the creation of the museum. In 2006, the location of the museum was finalized, and in 2009 the architectural group Feelon Adjaye Bond/SmithGroup was announced as the winner of the design competition held in January of that year. On February 22, 2012 the ground breaking ceremony for NMAAHC was held.

A view of the museum's stunning architecture. Photo credit: Douglas Remley / Smithsonian.
A view of the museum’s stunning architecture. Photo credit: Douglas Remley / Smithsonian.

Continue reading “A People’s Journey, A Nation’s Past: The National Museum of African American History and Culture”

The Authenticity of Memory: Belle Boyd, Spying, and Skepticism

By Danielle Jones ’18

Hollywood’s Civil War narrative is one that transports its viewers back to the golden age of hoop skirts, mint juleps, and a group of people who just wanted to be left alone with their way of life. Many people trace this ideology of the Civil War  in literature and film to the 1930s, but the for-profit Civil War existed long before Scarlett O’Hara fled Atlanta. During the war, buying your way out of service, scamming your way into a government contract, and selling souvenirs of the aftermath of battles were just a few ways people could make a profit off of the war. In the immediate aftermath of the war, widows suddenly had to find new ways of supporting themselves and their children after the loss of their husbands, fathers, and sons. Belle Boyd was one of these women.

Belle’s story is unique; she had married a Union Naval officer, Lieutenant Sam Hardinge, in England in 1864. She returned to the United States in 1866 and began travelling across the country, telling the story of her experiences during the Civil War. She performed on the stage until her death in 1900 of a heart attack. Her story intrigued audiences across the country because she served as one of the most influential female spies of the Confederacy during the Civil War. But was she? While there is plenty of evidence that supports her claims of being a Confederate spy, including jail records and mentions of her service in letters from various Confederate soldiers and officers, the true extent of her influence has been put under scrutiny.

Belle Boyd was one of the most notable Confederate spies during the war, though the authenticity of her stories has been questioned. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.
Belle Boyd was one of the most notable Confederate spies during the war, though the authenticity of her stories has been questioned. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

Continue reading “The Authenticity of Memory: Belle Boyd, Spying, and Skepticism”