Reenactors: Educators or Entertainers?

Federal reenactors march into the melee at the 2008 Gettysburg Reenactment.

In the past weeks, many historians and columnists have added their say to the ongoing discussions regarding the pros and cons of historical, especially Civil War, battle reenactments.  Indeed, the proponents on both ends of the argument offer compelling points.

To preface some of my own thoughts on the issue, allow me to first share a story from the Pickett's Charge Commemorative March on July 3.  As the 40,000 participants of that afternoon gathered at the Union lines, a somber moment of contemplation was to take place as echo taps stretched down Cemetery Ridge.  I snapped to attention with a salute as the buglers emerged from the masses to trumpet their fitting tributes.  From the position I stood at, the moment was temporarily ruined by a small handful of Confederate reenactors who childishly insisted on storming the stonewall despite the pleas of park rangers who urged they stop.  Having none of it, the half-dozen or so men pushed through the crowd to the disgust and disappointment of all those in the immediate vicinity.  With this unfortunate incident being much smaller than the infamous "rogue reenactment" in the park in 1988, the event was nevertheless stupendous.  Tears streamed down the cheeks of many a visitor as taps played.  As the photo below suggests, many simply stood there to soak in the view surrounding them.

Visitors ponder at the Bloody Angle after the "rogue reenactor" charge of July 3.

The isolated reenactor incident at the stonewall, however, I feel correlates with the ongoing controversies and debates regarding the reenacting hobby.  Civil War Institute director Peter Carmichael was recently quoted in a Wall Street Journal article, which stated: he "calls re-enactments an 'unfortunate distraction' from a deeper understanding of the Civil War, including the motivations of those who fought and its legacy. He said he favored living history encampments, where people can hold a musket or eat hardtack, giving them a tangible experience of the past. But people can learn the most from National Park Service historians who rove the battlefield, he said: 'All you need to do is stay in the National Park and you'll come away with a very deep understanding of what happened here.'"  There is a strong degree of truth in these words.  Typically, more people pay to attend the Gettysburg battle reenactment than who go on free ranger programs on the actual field.  In some ways, I can see how many consider this a distraction.

As both a professional historian and a reenactor/living historian, I am all too aware of the decades-old tensions between academia and mainstream history.   The matter comes down to the question: who can and should speak for history?  At what point can professional historians let go of the reins of truth without compromising historical integrity?  How can they do so without reinforcing the negative "ivory tower" notion in that process?  There are no clear-cut answers to these trying questions.

An extending dilemma to this predicament centers on the role of the reenactor as an educator.  Let us take into consideration the caliber of living history organizations such as the Liberty Rifles.  Their authenticity standards are superb and they exhibited great professionalism as they contributed to the Gettysburg anniversary.  On the other hand, look at the small band of renegade, boisterous Confederate impressionists who charged into throngs of visitors with little tact or respect.  Through their actions, we can see how this playground mentality Carmichael speaks of certainly resonates within the trade.  But perhaps it is also important for us to recognize that most reenactments are only as good as those who are participating in them. Reenactments can be respectful; they rest solely in the responsibility of those participating.

Like Civil War history itself, Civil War reenacting stands at a crossroads.  It seems that a vast majority of the hobbyists are no longer the correct age or have the proper waistline to represent the average Civil War soldier.  Having gotten their start in the 1960s or 1970s, so too will many of them still tell you that the war was about tariffs and states' rights.  Younger reenactors now have the opportunity to stray away from the "stuff over substance" that plagues many a reenactor impression.  They also have the power and means to properly embrace the true causes and legacies of the war through their impressions, and yes, even reenactments.  The matter is in their hands.

WWII veterans watch the D-Day Ohio Reenactment in Conneaut in 2011.

Yes, some reenactments are distasteful--but not all of them.  If all reenactments were disrespectful, I somehow doubt the gentlemen above would come to watch them.  Just maybe there is room for reenactments in the realm of historical study.  Just as how academics can ensure the accuracy of their work through solid research and citations, reenactors could and should provide equal understandings to their living history impressions.  Reenacting can be more than fireworks or the showing and telling of "stuff."  It can be a golden opportunity to reflect upon the loudness, loss, and important themes of military history.  If historians of all branches, both formal and amateur, desire to make this goal a reality, they might be better off building bridges to facilitate such dialogue instead of burning them.