Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

Civil War Blockade Running on the Texas Coast

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 7, 2014

BlockadeRunningCoverSmallMy new book, Civil War Blockade Running on the Texas Coast, will be released by the History Press on June 10. It’s available now for pre-order at the History Press, on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. An e-book version should follow this summer. This short volume discusses blockade-running in the western Gulf of Mexico, with particular emphasis on the last year of the war, when Galveston became the last remaining port in Confederate hands in the region. Running the blockade under sail, life aboard the Union ships of the blockade, and the lure of prize money are also discussed. The book includes an epilogue that discusses some of the archaeological work done on runners over the last 40 years.

Blockade-running in this area has been an active interest of mine for nearly 20 years, and I’ve been privileged to contribute to the documentation of four different ships involved — the famous runners Denbigh and Will o’ the Wisp, as well as Union vessels U.S.S. Arkansas and U.S.S. Hatteras. Lots of folks have helped me along the way, and I’m grateful to all of them.

____________

Update, May 8: My first book event is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, June 12, at 7 p.m. at the Brazos Bookstore in Houston, 2421 Bissonnet Street. (Just in time for Father’s Day, y’all!) Brazos Bookstore is a real gem, and even if you can’t come out on June 12, you owe yourself a treat.

____________

GeneralStarsGray

 

 

U.S.S. Westfield Presentation, Houston, May 13

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 6, 2014

Blank

Folks in the Houston area will want to mark their calendars for next Tuesday, May 13 at 7 p.m., when Justin Parkoff and Jessica Stika speak about the USS Westfield preservation project. The Westfield wreckage lay in the murky waters of the Texas City ship channel until 2009, when the dis-articulated artifact debris field was recovered in Texas’ largest marine archaeology rescue project to date. Although the hull itself was not preserved, learn how the experts at Texas A & M University’s Conservation Research Laboratory have used modern technology to glean clues from this scant archaeological evidence. Admission is free and refreshments will be served.

Blank

Houston Maritime Museum
2204 Dorrington Street (near the Medical Center)
Houston, Texas 77030
(713) 666-1910

Blank

__________

GeneralStarsGray

Is Cinco de Mayo an American Civil War Holiday?

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 5, 2014

Blank

I can’t let May 5 slip past entirely without flagging an article from CNN, asking whether Cinco de Mayo, the anniversary of the Battle of Puebla (above, in reenactment) in 1862, is fundamentally an American Civil War holiday. David Hayes-Bautista, Director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at the UCLA School of Medicine, believes it is:

Blank

Conventional thinking has held that the holiday — now a commercial juggernaut — may have grown out of the mass migrations from the bloody Mexican Revolution of the 1910s or even during Chicano Power activism of the 1960s, University of California at Los Angeles Professor David Hayes-Bautista said. . . .
 
Cinco de Mayo does indeed mark a Mexican military victory over the invading French army on May 5, 1862, but it’s celebrated more in the United States because in 1862, U.S. Latinos of Mexican heritage parlayed the victory as a rallying cry that the Union could also win the Civil War.
 
That’s because the French sympathized with the Confederacy, and Hispanics sided with the Union in its fight against slavery and elitism, Hayes-Bautista said. France sought to impose a monarchy over democratic Mexico while U.S. foreign power weakened during the War Between the States. . . .
 
Hayes-Bautista was culling Spanish-language newspapers in California and Oregon for vital statistics from the 1800s when he noticed how the Civil War and Cinco de Mayo battle were intertwined. He researches the epidemiology and demography of Latinos in California because he’s director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture.
 
“I’m seeing how in the minds of the Spanish-reading public in California that they were basically looking at one war with two fronts, one against the Confederacy in the east and the other against the French in the south,” Hayes-Bautista said in an interview with CNN.
 
“In Mexico today, Cinco de Mayo means the Mexican army defeated the French army,” he continued. “In California and Oregon, the news was interpreted as finally that the army of freedom and democracy won a big one against the army of slavery and elitism. And the fact that those two armies had to meet in Mexico was immaterial because they were fighting for the same issues — defending freedom and democracy. Latinos were joining the Union army, Union cavalry, Union navy.
 
“The French goal was to eliminate democracy, and remember that Mexico had democracy only for 30 or 40 years at that point,” he added. “Remember, Europe was ruled mostly by monarchs.”
 
French emperor Napoleon III “was no friend of the Union and was definitely a friend of the Confederacy and flirted with the Confederacy constantly with the possible recognition of the Confederate government,” Hayes-Bautista said. President Abraham Lincoln never referred to the Confederacy as a separate government: they were states in rebellion,” the professor said.

Blank

I’ll have to cogitate some on this idea that Puebla was viewed by Hispanics in the Far West as, in effect, a proxy Union victory. It’s certainly true that a good many Hispanics served the Confederacy, as well. We do sometimes forget, these days, how fluid borders and cultures were in the Southwest 150 years ago. The hero of the Battle of Puebla, Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín, for example, was born at Presidio la Bahía, near present-day Goliad, Texas in 1829.

In the meantime, I think I’ll fire up Netflix streaming and revisit that period with Cinco de Mayo, La Batalla (2013). Here’s Zaragoza’s address to his troops before the battle from that film:

Blank

Blank

__________

(h/t Civil War Talk user KansasFreestater)

GeneralStarsGray

Tom Liljenquist Continues to Amaze

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 5, 2014

Nval Officer Full Small

Blank

As many of you know, Tom Liljenquist is a longtime collector of Civil War-era images, particularly ambrotype portraits of soldiers, sailors and civilians. Starting with an initial gift of almost 700 images in 2010, Liljenquist has donated these images to the Library of Congress, where they’ve been indexed, scanned and put online in high-res format for the general public to use and download. Liljenquist’s perseverance in collecting these images is surpassed only by his commitment to sharing them with the rest of us.

One thing I didn’t realize until recently is that Liljenquist’s donation was not a one-time event, but continues as he acquires new material. I was initially surprised to find this image of an unidentified Confederate naval officer, sure I would have seen it before. But it turns out that Liljenquist only acquired the image last year, and it was cataloged and scanned by LoC as recently as last month, April 2014.

Blank

Naval Officer Cropped 720

Blank

This particular image is interesting. Portraits of C.S. naval personnel are uncommon. This officer seems particularly well-accoutered, dressed in a standard naval uniform under the regulations adopted in 1861.

Blank

Naval Officer Cropped Closeup

Blank

If you reverse the image left-to-right, and look closely under the hand-applied gilt paint, his cap appears to carry an Old English letter E within the wreath, which would be the badge of a Second- or Third Assistant Engineer (right). I wonder who he is.

____________

GeneralStarsGray

 

Canister!

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 2, 2014

Fajardo720

Blank

I’d like to extend my thanks to the Laffite Society of Galveston, that invited me to give a short talk last Saturday at their annual research seminar on David Porter’s campaign against pirates in the Caribbean. (Above, Marines storm a shore battery at Fajardo, Puerto Rico in 1824, in a painting by the late Col. Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR, Ret.)  They’re a great bunch of folks, who have done solid work in sorting out fact, maybe-fact and total BS when it comes to documenting the lives of Jean and Pierre Laffite. If you’re interested in a good biography of those two, I’d recommend Jack Davis’ book.

More assorted items:

Blank

Blank

Finally, in honor of Willie Nelson’s 81st birthday this week, here are two of his songs. The first is Willie singing “Hello, Walls,” on the Porter Waggoner Show in about 1962, and the second is a favorite of mine, “Uncloudy Day.” Have a great weekend, y’all.

Blank

Blank

Blank

_________

GeneralStarsGray

“What will you do, Mr. & Mrs. White Southerner. . . ?”

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on April 24, 2014

Gary Adams is sorry.

Really, really sorry.

It seems that on Tuesday someone posted a nasty little screed over at SHPG urging white southerners to band together against the “blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc.” who are set on “‘get[ing] even’ with the White Devils.” It was up for a couple of hours before it was removed and the person who posted it got booted from group’s membership. Gary assumed responsibility for the post, and apologized for it. And I am certain that he is sincere about that.

Nonetheless, Gary left out one really important fact about that post. It wasn’t some random new member who posted those paragraphs, but arguably the most prominent southern nationalist today, League of the South President J. Michael Hill:

Blank

MichaelHillRaceTrolling22Apr2014

Blank

I know Gary and other folks at SHPG are embarrassed by this, but they should also be embarrassed that some of their members obviously agree with Hill. If Gary and the rest of the leadership at SHPG were serious about calling out such vile people, they would do so by name. Hill’s post is only surprising for its location; his views, and the those of the League of the South, have been very clear for a while now. Whether they saw that particular posting or not, I’m sure nearly everyone on SHPG knows who Hill (right) and his group are; why protect them by giving them anonymity in their bad behavior?  Is it because many prominent members at SHPG — John Stones, Robert Mestas, Valerie Protopapas, Carl Roden, Susan Frise Hathaway, David Tatum, Jimmy Shirley and Karen Cooper — are (as of this writing) social network friends of Hill’s?

While you’re at it, Gary, you might want to ask yourself why a smart, calculating man like Hill would think his message would have a receptive audience at SHPG — which, for at least some folks, it absolutely did.

I know that Gary and the other folks at SHPG won’t ask those questions. But one can hope.

If Confederate Heritage™ means covering up for reprehensible characters like Michael Hill, it damn well deserves to whither and die.

__________

GeneralStarsGray

Canister!

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on April 19, 2014

StMarys2

Small items that don’t warrant full posts on their own:

Got any more? Put ’em n the comments.

_____________

St. Mary’s restoration photo by Kevin M. Cox, Galveston County Daily News.

GeneralStarsGray

 

Understanding Fort Pillow: “Full and Ample Retaliation”

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on April 15, 2014
Note: I started this post in January, got busy with other things, and forgot about it. Apologies for overlooking it until the sesqui of Fort Pillow is past, but it remains relevant to the background of that event — AH

Bar

On another forum folks have been discussing the Battle of Fort Pillow in April 1864, and some of the factors that led to the “slaughter”  — Nathan Bedford Forrest’s own term, from his report immediately after the action (“The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards.” AOR 57, 610) — of Pillow’s defenders. While there will always be room for historians to debate Forrests’ direct role in what happened there, one must also recall how black Federal troops and their white officers were viewed by Confederates, both as a matter of personal views and as a matter of official, governmental policy. Almost a year before Fort Pillow, the Confederate Congress had explicitly defined the Emancipation Proclamation and recruitment of African American troops as a form of inciting “servile insurrection” — think Nat Turner — and formally declared such practice as being “inconsistent” with the rules of warfare “among civilized nations.” Such cases, the Confederate Congress declared, should therefore be met with “full and ample retaliation,” without recourse to traditional military due process or the niceties usually afforded prisoners of war:

Blank

May 1, 1863 [No. 5.] – Joint Resolution on the Subject of Retaliation.
 
Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, in response to a message of the President, transmitted to Congress at the commencement of the present session, that, in the opinion of Congress, the commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the authorities of the respective States as suggested in the said message, but all captives taken by Confederate forces ought to be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.
 
Sec. 2. That, in the judgment of Congress, the proclamations of the President of the United States dated respectively September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and other measures of the Government of the United States and of its authorities, commanders and forces, designed or intending to emancipate slaves in the Confederate States, or to abduct such slaves, or to incite them to insurrection, or to employ negroes [sic.] in war against the Confederate States, or to overthrow the institution of African slavery, and bring on a servile war in these States, would, if successful, produced atrocious consequences, and they are inconsistent with the spirit of those usage which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations; they may, therefore, be properly and lawfully repressed by retaliation.
 
Sec. 3. That in every case, wherein, during the present war, any violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations shall be, or has been, done and perpetrated by those acting under the authority of the Government of the United States, on the persons or property of citizens of the Confederate States, or of those under the protection or in the land or naval service of the Confederate States, or of any State of the Confederacy, the President of the Confederate States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made for every such violation, in such manner and to such extent as he may think proper.
Sec. 4. That every white person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such, who, during the present war, shall command nergroes or mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States, or who shall arm, train, organize or prepare negroes or mulattoes for military service against the Confederate States, or who shall voluntarily aid negroes or mulattoes in any military enterprize, attack or conflict in such service, shall be deemed as inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, by put to death, or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the court.
 
Sec. 5. Every person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such in the service of the enemy, who shall, during the present war, excite, attempt to excite, or cause to be excited, a servile insurrection, or who shall incite, or cause to be incited, a slave to rebel, shall, if captured, be put to death, or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the court.
 
Sec. 6. Every person charged with an office punishable under the preceding resolutions shall, during the present war, br tried before the military court attached to the army or corps by the troops of which he shall have been captured, or by such other military court as the President may direct, and in such manner and under such regulations as the President shall prescribe, and, after conviction, the President may commutate the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem proper.
 
Sec. 7. All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war, or be taken in arms against the Confederate States, or shall give aid or comfort to the enemies of the Confederate States, shall, when captured in the Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or States in which they shall be captured, and dealt with according to the present or future laws of such State or States.
 
Approved May 1, 1863.​

Blank

“Full and ample” retaliation against black Union troops and their white officers was an official policy, written into Confederate law.

This policy found its force in numerous ways across the South, through the remainder of the war. Just weeks after its passage, Lee’s army crossed again into Maryland, in what would come to be known as the Gettysburg Campaign. During their brief sojourn in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Confederate troops seized and brought with them hundreds of African Americans, some of whom were born free and had never set foot in slave territory, under the guise of capturing runaway slaves. Hundreds of people, perhaps as many as a thousand, were kidnapped this way, with the knowledge (if not explicit endorsement) of officers at the highest levels of Lee’s command. It’s a policy that reflects, codifies, the widely-held view of African American Union troops and their white officers as being not opposing soldiers, but something much worse — insurrectionists — who were an existential threat to the Confederacy and to southerners’ own homes and families.

Just to be clear — I’m not arguing that what happened at Fort Pillow is a result of the resolution passed in Richmond almost a year before, but rather that they both reflect the same attitudes when it comes to African American soldiers — that they and their white officers are beneath contempt, and undeserving of recognition as soldiers. Confederates like Howell Cobb understood this intuitively. In retrospect, right question to ask isn’t “why Fort Pillow?”, but why there weren’t more Fort Pillows?

What They Saw at Fort Pillow

Posted in African Americans, Leadership, Memory by Andy Hall on April 13, 2014

While doing research on something else, I came across a couple of accounts of the aftermath of the Confederate assault on Fort Pillow, written by naval officers of U.S.S Silver Cloud (above), the Union “tinclad” gunboat that was the first on the scene. I don’t recall encountering these descriptions before, and they really do strike a nerve with their raw descriptions of what these men witnessed, at first hand.

These accounts are particularly important because historians are always looking for “proximity” in historical accounts of major events. The description of an event by someone who was physically present is to be more valued than one by someone who simply heard about it from another person. The narrative committed to paper immediately is, generally, more to be valued than one written months or years after the events described, when memories have started to fade or become shaded by others’ differing recollections. Hopefully, too, the historian can find those things in a description of the event by someone who doesn’t have any particular axe to grind, who’s writing for his own purposes without the intention that his account will be widely and publicly known. These are all factors — somewhat subjective, to be sure — that the historian considers when deciding what historical accounts to rely on when trying to reconstruct historical events, and to understand how one or another document fits within the context of all the rest.

Which brings us back to the eyewitness accounts of Acting Master William Ferguson, commanding officer of U.S.S. Silver Cloud, and Acting Master’s Mate Robert S. Critchell of that same vessel.

Ferguson’s report was written April 14, 1864, the day after he was at the site. It was addressed to Major General Stephen A. Hurlbut, commanding officer of the Union’s XVI Corps of the Army of the Tennessee, then headquartered at Memphis. It appears in the Army OR, vol. 57, and the Navy OR, vol. 26.

 
U.S. STEAMER SILVER CLOUD,
Off Memphis, Tenn., April 14, 1864.
 
SIR: In compliance with your request that I would forward to you a written statement of what I witnessed and learned concerning the treatment of our troops by the rebels at the capture of Fort Pillow by their forces under General Forrest, I have the honor to submit the following report:
 
Our garrison at Fort Pillow, consisting of some 350 colored troops and 200 of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, refusing to surrender, the place was carried by assault about 3 p.m. of 12th instant.
 
I arrived off the fort at 6 a.m. on the morning of the 13th instant. Parties of rebel cavalry were picketing on the hills around the fort, and shelling those away I made a landing and took on-board some 20 of our troops (some of them badly wounded), who had concealed themselves along the bank and came out when they saw my vessel. While doing so I was fired upon by rebel sharpshooters posted on the hills, and 1 wounded man limping down to the vessel was shot.
 
About 8 a.m. the enemy sent in a flag of truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p.m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the terms proposed, and hailing the steamer Platte Valley, which vessel I had convoyed up from Memphis, I brought her alongside and had the wounded brought down from the fort and battle-field and placed on board of her. Details of rebel soldiers assisted us in this duty, and some soldiers and citizens on board the Platte Valley volunteered for the same purpose.
 
We found about 70 wounded men in the fort and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. All the buildings around the fort and the tents and huts in the fort had been burned by the rebels, and among the embers the charred remains of numbers of our soldiers who had suffered a terrible death in the flames could be seen.
 
All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops.
 
Of course, when a work is carried by assault there will always be more or less bloodshed, even when all resistance has ceased; but here there were unmistakable evidences of a massacre carried on long after any resistance could have been offered, with a cold-blooded barbarity and perseverance which nothing can palliate.
 
As near as I can learn, there were about 500 men in the fort when it was stormed. I received about 100 men, including the wounded and those I took on board before the flag of truce was sent in. The rebels, I learned, had few prisoners; so that at least 300 of our troops must have been killed in this affair.
 
I have the honor to forward a list(*) of the wounded officers and men received from the enemy under flag of truce.
 
I am, general, your obedient servant,
 
W. FERGUSON,
Acting Master, U.S. Navy, Comdg. U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud.
 

Ferguson’s report is valuable because it is detailed, proximate in time to the event, and was written specifically for reference within the military chain of command. It seems likely that Ferguson’s description is the first written description of the aftermath of the engagement within the Federal’s command structure. Certainly it was written before news of Fort Pillow became widely known across the country, and the event became a rallying cry for retribution and revenge. Ferguson’s account was, I believe, ultimately included in the evidence published by the subsequent congressional investigation of the incident, but he had no way of anticipating that when he sat down to write out his report just 24 hours after witnessing such horrors.

The second account is that of Acting Master’s Mate Robert S. Critchell (right), a 20-year-old junior officer aboard the gunboat. Critchell’s letter, addressed to U.S. Rep. Henry T. Blow of Missouri, was written a week after Ferguson’s report, after the enormity of events at the fort had begun to take hold. If Ferguson’s report reflected the shock of what he’d seen, Critchell’s gives voice to a growing anger about it.  Critchell’s revulsion comes through in this letter, along with his disdain for the explanations of the brutality offered by the Confederate officers he’d met, that they’d simply lost control of their men, which the Union naval officer calls “a flimsy excuse.” Crittchell admits to being “personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels,” but also stands by the accuracy of his description, offering to swear out an affidavit attesting to it.

 
UNITED STATES STEAMER “SILVER CLOUD.”
Mississippi River, April 22nd, 1864.
 
SIR :-Since you did me the favor of recommending my appointment last year, I have been on duty aboard this boat. I now write you with reference to the Fort Pillow massacre, because some of our crew are colored and I feel personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels, when the fact of the merciless butchery is fully established.
 
Our boat arrived at the fort about 7½ A. M. on Wednesday, the 13th, the day after the rebels captured the fort. After shelling them, whenever we could see them, for two hours, a flag of truce from the rebel General Chalmers, was received by us, and Captain Ferguson of this boat, made an arrangement with General Chalmers for the paroling of our wounded and the burial of our dead; the arrangement to last until 5 P. M.
 
We then landed at the fort, and I was sent out with a burial party to bury our dead. I found many of the dead lying close along by the water’s edge, where they had evidently sought safety; they could not offer any resistance from the places where they were, in holes and cavities along the banks; most of them had two wounds. I saw several colored soldiers of the Sixth United States Artillery, with their eyes punched out with bayonets; many of them were shot twice and bayonetted also. All those along the bank of the river were colored. The number of the colored near the river was about seventy. Going up into the fort, I saw there bodies partially consumed by fire. Whether burned before or after death I cannot say, anyway, there were several companies of rebels in the fort while these bodies were burning, and they could have pulled them out of the fire had they chosen to do so. One of the wounded negroes told me that “he hadn’t done a thing,” and when the rebels drove our men out of the fort, they (our men) threw away their guns and cried out that they surrendered, but they kept on shooting them down until they had shot all but a few. This is what they all say.
 
I had some conversation with rebel officers and they claim that our men would not surrender and in some few cases they “could not control their men,” who seemed determined to shoot down every negro soldier, whether he surrendered or not. This is a flimsy excuse, for after our colored troops had been driven from the fort, and they were surrounded by the rebels on all sides, it is apparent that they would do what all say they did,throw down their arms and beg for mercy.
 
I buried very few white men, the whole number buried by my party and the party from the gunboat “New Era” was about one hundred.
 
I can make affidavit to the above if necessary.
 
Hoping that the above may be of some service and that a desire to be of service will be considered sufficient excuse for writing to you, I remain very respectfully your obedient servant,
 
ROBERT S. CRITCHELL,
Acting Master’s Mate, U. S. N.

Critchell’s note about the explanation offered by Confederate officers, who argued that the black soldiers “would not surrender and in some few cases [the Confederate officers] ‘could not control their men,’ who seemed determined to shoot down every negro soldier, whether he surrendered or not,” is worth noting. That was the excuse offered at the time, and it remains so almost 150 years later, for those Fort Pillow apologists who acknowledge that unnecessary bloodshed took place at all. Critchell observed at the time that “this is a flimsy excuse,” and so it remains today.

Critchell’s letter also seems to endorse retaliation-in-kind, “because some of our crew are colored and I feel personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels, when the fact of the merciless butchery is fully established.” This urge is, unfortunately, entirely understandable, and we’ve seen that within weeks the atrocity at Fort Pillow was being used as a rallying cry to spur Union soldiers on to commit their own acts of wanton violence. Vengrance begets retaliation begets vengeance begets retaliation. It never ends, and it’s always rationalized by pointing to the other side having done it before.

It never ends, but it often does have identifiable beginnings. Bill Ferguson and Bob Critchell saw one of those beginnings first-hand.

_____________
Critchell letter and images from Robert S. Critchell, Recollections of a Fire Insurance Man (Chicago: McClurg & Co., 1909).

Ryan Budget Would Axe National Endowment for the Humanities

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on April 5, 2014

Over at Past in the Present, Michael Lynch flags the new budget proposal of Representative Paul Ryan, that would eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities. “Not cutting it, mind you,” Michael says, “but doing away with it entirely.”

Blank

It’s hard to overstate how important the National Endowment for the Humanities is to historical education and preservation in this country. It provides critical help to small museums, historical societies, archives, researchers, and documentary filmmakers.
 
If you’ve ever visited a history exhibit, used an archive or historical society to research your family background, or watched a historical documentary, there’s a good chance you’ve benefited from NEH support.
 
And the NEH budget accounts for barely a drop in the ocean of federal expenditures. Cutting it would have very little impact on overall government spending, but would drastically affect those institutions that benefit from it. In short, it’s a terrible idea.

Blank

 

It is a terrible idea, particularly since it gains virtually nothing in terms of reducing spending. The NEH budget of $146M represents about 0.004% of federal spending. Need a visual representation? Here you go:

NEH Cuts

See that blue slice of the pie chart, right up at the top? That’s NEH funding as a share of the whole. Don’t see it? Well, good, you get the idea. NEH funding isn’t a drop in the bucket; it’s a drop in the damn lake.

Most Washington-watchers will argue that Ryan’s budget has little chance of becoming law. That’s true, but having now been part of his original bill, NEH funding inevitably becomes a bargaining chip in the sausage-grinding budget-writing process. It’s on the table, as they say. We saw this happen in Texas a few years ago when Governor Perry’s proposed state budget completely eliminated the Texas Historical Commission — not an agency that was exactly swimming in cash to begin with. The THC survived, largely because a good bit of what they do is mandated by both state and federal law, but it devastated the agency, resulting in a roughly 40% cut in its budget and multiple layoffs. It was a bad business, and damaging to the agency’s ability to continue its mission. The THC’s County Historical Commission services, Texas Historical Marker Program, Museum Services, Historic Texas Cemeteries, Military History services, and field archeological services all were cut back to reduced levels of both funding and staff support.

Please contact your U.S. Representative, and urge him or her to support continued funding of the National Endowment for the Humanities at current — or better yet, pre-sequester — levels. One hundred forty-six million dollars doesn’t buy very much out of government normally — it’s about one-third the cost of an F-22 Raptor, an aircraft that was such a dog that even the Pentagon wanted to cut its losses and abandon it — but it goes a long way when it comes to supporting museums, cultural heritage and education programs.

_____________

GeneralStarsGray