Pub Date : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a934381
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Contributors <!-- /html_title --></li> </ul> <p><strong><small>rosemary feurer</small></strong> is professor of history at Northern Illinois University. She is the author of <em>Radical Unionism in the Midwest, 1900–1950</em> (2006) and dozens of essays and engaged history projects. She is currently working on a monograph titled "The Illinois Mine Wars, 1860–1940." She is also at work on a new biography of Mother Jones, the renowned labor activist of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.</p> <p><strong><small>william horne</small></strong> is the Barbieri Postdoctoral Scholar in the Humanities at Villanova University. He writes about the relationship of race to labor, freedom, and capitalism during Reconstruction and Jim Crow. His book manuscript, "A Hate Hustle: Racial Capitalism and the Promise of an Egalitarian Revolution," identifies the ways Black radicals organized to overturn the racial state expressed in systems of incarceration, labor, relief, and consumption from slavery through Jim Crow. He is cofounder and editor of <em>The Activist History Review</em>.</p> <p><strong><small>brian kelly</small></strong> is reader in US history at Queen's University Belfast, formerly director of the Arts and Humanities Research Council–funded After Slavery Project and cocreator of the online teaching resources on Reconstruction available through the online Lowcountry Digital History Initiative. He has published extensively on labor abolition, wartime slave self-activity, and Black labor and political mobilization during Reconstruction.</p> <p><strong><small>matthew e. stanley</small></strong> is associate professor of history at the University of Arkansas, where he specializes in race, regionalism, and labor during the Civil War era, as well as Civil War memory. He is the author or editor of three books, including the recent <em>Grand Army of Labor: Workers, Veterans, and the Meaning of the Civil War</em> (2021). His first book, <em>The Loyal West: Civil War and Reunion in Middle America</em> (2017), won the 2018 Wiley-Silver Prize for best first book in Civil War history.</p> <p><strong><small>rebecca capobianco toy</small></strong> received her PhD from William and Mary. She specializes in Civil War memory, commemoration, and constructions of national identity. Becca currently works as an Interpretation and Engagement Coordinator for the Washington Office of the National Park Service. <strong>[End Page 5]</strong></p> <p><strong><small>chad e. pearson</small></strong> is assistant professor of history at the University of North Texas and is primarily interested in ruling class organizations and violence in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He has written two books—<em>Capital's Terrorists: Klansmen, Lawmen, and Employers in the Long Nineteenth Century</em> (2022) and <em>Reform or Repression: Organizing America's A
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a934381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a934381","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Contributors <!-- /html_title --></li> </ul> <p><strong><small>rosemary feurer</small></strong> is professor of history at Northern Illinois University. She is the author of <em>Radical Unionism in the Midwest, 1900–1950</em> (2006) and dozens of essays and engaged history projects. She is currently working on a monograph titled \"The Illinois Mine Wars, 1860–1940.\" She is also at work on a new biography of Mother Jones, the renowned labor activist of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.</p> <p><strong><small>william horne</small></strong> is the Barbieri Postdoctoral Scholar in the Humanities at Villanova University. He writes about the relationship of race to labor, freedom, and capitalism during Reconstruction and Jim Crow. His book manuscript, \"A Hate Hustle: Racial Capitalism and the Promise of an Egalitarian Revolution,\" identifies the ways Black radicals organized to overturn the racial state expressed in systems of incarceration, labor, relief, and consumption from slavery through Jim Crow. He is cofounder and editor of <em>The Activist History Review</em>.</p> <p><strong><small>brian kelly</small></strong> is reader in US history at Queen's University Belfast, formerly director of the Arts and Humanities Research Council–funded After Slavery Project and cocreator of the online teaching resources on Reconstruction available through the online Lowcountry Digital History Initiative. He has published extensively on labor abolition, wartime slave self-activity, and Black labor and political mobilization during Reconstruction.</p> <p><strong><small>matthew e. stanley</small></strong> is associate professor of history at the University of Arkansas, where he specializes in race, regionalism, and labor during the Civil War era, as well as Civil War memory. He is the author or editor of three books, including the recent <em>Grand Army of Labor: Workers, Veterans, and the Meaning of the Civil War</em> (2021). His first book, <em>The Loyal West: Civil War and Reunion in Middle America</em> (2017), won the 2018 Wiley-Silver Prize for best first book in Civil War history.</p> <p><strong><small>rebecca capobianco toy</small></strong> received her PhD from William and Mary. She specializes in Civil War memory, commemoration, and constructions of national identity. Becca currently works as an Interpretation and Engagement Coordinator for the Washington Office of the National Park Service. <strong>[End Page 5]</strong></p> <p><strong><small>chad e. pearson</small></strong> is assistant professor of history at the University of North Texas and is primarily interested in ruling class organizations and violence in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He has written two books—<em>Capital's Terrorists: Klansmen, Lawmen, and Employers in the Long Nineteenth Century</em> (2022) and <em>Reform or Repression: Organizing America's A","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"197 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141939671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a934383
Rosemary Feurer
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Contesting "the Insatiable Maw of Capital"<span>Mine Workers' Struggles in the Civil War Era</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Rosemary Feurer (bio) </li> </ul> <p>In 1861, immigrant Illinois coal miners organized a union and issued a manifesto that called for the emancipation of labor North and South. They simultaneously organized to send troops to the front. By 1863, they established the first national miners' union in the United States, the American Miners Association (AMA). Mine operators launched a countermovement to destroy the union and contested miners' capacious vision of free labor. For that, they organized the state as a legitimate use of force and ushered in the Pinkertons as a private police force. By profiling Illinois miners and operators organizing during the Civil War era, this article adds to understanding the Civil War as a crucial period in working-class history.<sup>1</sup> The history of the AMA, left out of accounts of labor and Civil War histories of this era, shows a robust contest over the boundaries of free labor. These collective campaigns entwined with state-based rights campaigns for full citizenship for freed people.<sup>2</sup> Miner and operator class formation unfolded in relation to the Civil War and set the stage for postwar battles.</p> <p>The miners' movement in this era started in the Belleville coalfield track, which comprised St. Clair and Madison Counties across from St. Louis, Missouri. This area produced two-thirds of the Illinois coal sold in the 1860s. Illinois <strong>[End Page 17]</strong> coal extraction started an uptick in the late 1850s, following the Illinois Central Railroad. Coal lay beneath almost two-thirds of Illinois, but in the American Bottom on the bluffs along the Mississippi, it was nearer to the surface. Laborers had dug and carted it since the 1840s. While Chicago's coal came from established fields in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 1860, Belleville track coal fueled the developing industries in St. Louis, and those on the east side of the Mississippi. This led to sinking shafts just before the war. For that, coal operators hired miners from Great Britain, though with its seven-to-nine–foot-tall and dry seams, coal required less skill to extract. Among those who sought jobs were workers with union experience and with politically expansive ideas about the meaning of the war for workers.<sup>3</sup></p> <p>Belleville was a cosmopolitan German immigrant community fifteen miles from the Mississippi River border with Missouri. It was known as a freethinker's haven, "ein kleines deutsches Athen in Amerika," in one scholar's description. German exiles from revolutions and others repulsed by slavery in Missouri found a refuge there. West Belleville, where the mines were located, included abolitionists. It is possible that the miners' union movement leaders traveled to th
{"title":"Contesting \"the Insatiable Maw of Capital\": Mine Workers' Struggles in the Civil War Era","authors":"Rosemary Feurer","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a934383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a934383","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Contesting \"the Insatiable Maw of Capital\"<span>Mine Workers' Struggles in the Civil War Era</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Rosemary Feurer (bio) </li> </ul> <p>In 1861, immigrant Illinois coal miners organized a union and issued a manifesto that called for the emancipation of labor North and South. They simultaneously organized to send troops to the front. By 1863, they established the first national miners' union in the United States, the American Miners Association (AMA). Mine operators launched a countermovement to destroy the union and contested miners' capacious vision of free labor. For that, they organized the state as a legitimate use of force and ushered in the Pinkertons as a private police force. By profiling Illinois miners and operators organizing during the Civil War era, this article adds to understanding the Civil War as a crucial period in working-class history.<sup>1</sup> The history of the AMA, left out of accounts of labor and Civil War histories of this era, shows a robust contest over the boundaries of free labor. These collective campaigns entwined with state-based rights campaigns for full citizenship for freed people.<sup>2</sup> Miner and operator class formation unfolded in relation to the Civil War and set the stage for postwar battles.</p> <p>The miners' movement in this era started in the Belleville coalfield track, which comprised St. Clair and Madison Counties across from St. Louis, Missouri. This area produced two-thirds of the Illinois coal sold in the 1860s. Illinois <strong>[End Page 17]</strong> coal extraction started an uptick in the late 1850s, following the Illinois Central Railroad. Coal lay beneath almost two-thirds of Illinois, but in the American Bottom on the bluffs along the Mississippi, it was nearer to the surface. Laborers had dug and carted it since the 1840s. While Chicago's coal came from established fields in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 1860, Belleville track coal fueled the developing industries in St. Louis, and those on the east side of the Mississippi. This led to sinking shafts just before the war. For that, coal operators hired miners from Great Britain, though with its seven-to-nine–foot-tall and dry seams, coal required less skill to extract. Among those who sought jobs were workers with union experience and with politically expansive ideas about the meaning of the war for workers.<sup>3</sup></p> <p>Belleville was a cosmopolitan German immigrant community fifteen miles from the Mississippi River border with Missouri. It was known as a freethinker's haven, \"ein kleines deutsches Athen in Amerika,\" in one scholar's description. German exiles from revolutions and others repulsed by slavery in Missouri found a refuge there. West Belleville, where the mines were located, included abolitionists. It is possible that the miners' union movement leaders traveled to th","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"311 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141939670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a934387
Brian Kelly
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Book Review Essay<span>After War and Emancipation, an Irrepressible Conflict</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Brian Kelly (bio) </li> </ul> <p>Professional historians who might benefit from a dose of humility about the earth-moving potential of our vocation need do no more than contemplate the gap between the outpouring of groundbreaking scholarship on war and emancipation over the past half century and its faint register in popular understanding. From the command bunkers of those directing the "war on woke," Americans face increasingly strident and well-resourced efforts to restore a neo-Confederate reading of the past that resurrects the worst of the Dunning school, albeit with more unconcealed malice and less scholarly credibility. Such attempts should serve as an important wakeup call, sounding the alarm against complacency. But the breach between scholarly discourse and popular understanding long predates this recent skirmishing, and a focus on maneuvering at the margins of the culture wars can obscure the extent to which the liberal sensibility dominating the American academy has itself contributed to confusion and disarray.</p> <p>How many undergraduates emerge at the far end of their American history surveys or advanced courses on Civil War and Reconstruction concluding that nothing had changed, or that the essence of slavery continued unabated into the late nineteenth century under an all-conquering white supremacy? In academic writing, the ardor and sense of open possibility that drove a surge of new scholarship inspired by social movements associated with the New Left and struggles for Black liberation dissipated some years back, overtaken by the more cynical sensibility animating the antiwar turn in Civil War scholarship.<sup>1</sup> Even popular, <strong>[End Page 117]</strong> ostensibly radical representations of the period aimed at excavating the connections between post-Reconstruction brutality and the modern-day carceral state for the Black Lives Matter generation—as in the hugely popular Netflix documentary <em>13th</em>—seem to posit a direct line between the outcome of the war and the practical reenslavement of Black Southerners, with a strong sense of the inevitability of Reconstruction's unraveling. The restoration of white home rule in the postwar South—with all its attendant violence and oppression—was the only likely settlement, it can often appear. If the neoliberalist mantra "There is no alternative" continues to underpin the paralysis of our present conjuncture, the academy in all its shades seems to have projected this back in time to insist that there <em>never was</em> any alternative.</p> <p>Remarkably, the retreat from any sense of alternative possibility is often executed with the presumed endorsement of W. E. B. Du Bois, whose <em>Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880</em> remains
以下是内容的简要摘录，以代替摘要： 书评论文《战争与解放之后，不可压抑的冲突》（After War and Emancipation, an Irrepressible Conflict 布赖恩-凯利（Brian Kelly）（简历） 专业历史学家可能会对我们的天职所具有的翻天覆地的潜力感到谦卑，他们只需思考一下过去半个世纪以来关于战争与解放的突破性学术成果的涌现与其在大众理解中的微弱记录之间的差距。在那些指挥 "唤醒战争 "的人的指挥碉堡里，美国人面临着越来越强烈和资源充足的努力，以恢复对过去的新联邦主义解读，这种解读复活了邓宁学派最糟糕的东西，尽管带有更多不加掩饰的恶意和更低的学术可信度。这些尝试应该成为重要的警钟，敲响防止自满情绪的警钟。但是，学术话语与大众理解之间的裂痕早在最近的小冲突之前就已存在，关注文化战争中的边缘操作可能会掩盖主导美国学术界的自由主义感性本身在多大程度上造成了混乱和混乱。有多少本科生在完成美国历史调查或内战与重建高级课程后得出结论，认为一切都没有改变，或者奴隶制的本质在全面征服的白人至上主义统治下有增无减地延续到了19世纪末？在学术著作中，受新左派相关社会运动和黑人解放斗争的启发，推动新学术研究激增的热情和开放的可能性意识在几年前消散了，被内战学术研究中的反战转向所激发的更为愤世嫉俗的情感所取代。即使是流行的、[第 117 页]表面上激进的、旨在为 "黑人生命至上 "一代挖掘重建后的暴行与现代囚禁国家之间联系的作品--比如大受欢迎的 Netflix 纪录片《第 13 次》--似乎也将战争结果与南方黑人的实际再奴役直接联系起来，并强烈地感觉到重建的解体是不可避免的。战后南方恢复白人自治--以及随之而来的暴力和压迫--似乎是唯一可能的解决办法。如果说 "别无选择 "这句新自由主义的口头禅继续支撑着我们当前的瘫痪状态，那么形形色色的学术界似乎已经将这句话投射到了过去，坚持认为从未有过任何替代方案。值得注意的是，从任何替代可能性的意义上的退却，往往是在假定得到杜波依斯（W. E. B. Du Bois）认可的情况下进行的，他的《1860-1880 年美国黑人重建》（Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 ）仍然是许多关于这一时期的著作的试金石。然而，学者们有选择性地吸收了他的论点，这些论点包含了一些附属元素--例如，杜博伊斯有力地驳斥了支撑邓宁的偏见，但却淡化了他的方法的创新核心，或将其视为多余。彼得-赫德森（Peter Hudson）指出，黑人重建 "被援引但未被阅读，被引用但未被挖掘，被关注但未被参与"--他在有关奴隶制与资本主义起源之间关系的新著中发现了这一悖论，但在有关内战和重建的学术研究中，这一悖论或许更为明显。杜波依斯在他对解放时间表的精辟阐述中写道："奴隶获得了自由；在阳光下站了一小会儿；然后又回到了奴隶制。关于奴隶如何获得自由的争论--他们在将争取联邦的战争转变为解放战争中所扮演的关键角色--在过去半个世纪中最多产的史学争论中占据了突出位置，有时甚至以重新评价林肯作为伟大解放者的地位的形式出现。在这一轨迹的另一端，关于南方白人在 1876 年后重新掌权的研究，以及关于莱昂-利特瓦克（Leon Litwack）认为的那个时代中前被奴役者及其后代对此做出的一系列策略性反应的研究层出不穷......。
{"title":"Book Review Essay: After War and Emancipation, an Irrepressible Conflict","authors":"Brian Kelly","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a934387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a934387","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Book Review Essay<span>After War and Emancipation, an Irrepressible Conflict</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Brian Kelly (bio) </li> </ul> <p>Professional historians who might benefit from a dose of humility about the earth-moving potential of our vocation need do no more than contemplate the gap between the outpouring of groundbreaking scholarship on war and emancipation over the past half century and its faint register in popular understanding. From the command bunkers of those directing the \"war on woke,\" Americans face increasingly strident and well-resourced efforts to restore a neo-Confederate reading of the past that resurrects the worst of the Dunning school, albeit with more unconcealed malice and less scholarly credibility. Such attempts should serve as an important wakeup call, sounding the alarm against complacency. But the breach between scholarly discourse and popular understanding long predates this recent skirmishing, and a focus on maneuvering at the margins of the culture wars can obscure the extent to which the liberal sensibility dominating the American academy has itself contributed to confusion and disarray.</p> <p>How many undergraduates emerge at the far end of their American history surveys or advanced courses on Civil War and Reconstruction concluding that nothing had changed, or that the essence of slavery continued unabated into the late nineteenth century under an all-conquering white supremacy? In academic writing, the ardor and sense of open possibility that drove a surge of new scholarship inspired by social movements associated with the New Left and struggles for Black liberation dissipated some years back, overtaken by the more cynical sensibility animating the antiwar turn in Civil War scholarship.<sup>1</sup> Even popular, <strong>[End Page 117]</strong> ostensibly radical representations of the period aimed at excavating the connections between post-Reconstruction brutality and the modern-day carceral state for the Black Lives Matter generation—as in the hugely popular Netflix documentary <em>13th</em>—seem to posit a direct line between the outcome of the war and the practical reenslavement of Black Southerners, with a strong sense of the inevitability of Reconstruction's unraveling. The restoration of white home rule in the postwar South—with all its attendant violence and oppression—was the only likely settlement, it can often appear. If the neoliberalist mantra \"There is no alternative\" continues to underpin the paralysis of our present conjuncture, the academy in all its shades seems to have projected this back in time to insist that there <em>never was</em> any alternative.</p> <p>Remarkably, the retreat from any sense of alternative possibility is often executed with the presumed endorsement of W. E. B. Du Bois, whose <em>Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880</em> remains","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141939673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a934385
William Horne
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> White Supremacy and Fraud<span>The "Abolitionist" Work of Henry Frisbie</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> William Horne (bio) </li> </ul> <p>On January 13, 1875, just four months after a White League coup toppled the Louisiana state government, Henry Frisbie warned Maj. Gen. Régis de Trobriand that the state was on the verge of another rebellion. "The same hatred of America, its name, its history, its traditions, [and] its glory," he observed, had inspired the September 1874 "Liberty Place" insurrection under the banner of white supremacy. If Americans were unwilling to punish those who orchestrated the coup or to prevent their paramilitary organizing in the future, they would lose the "right of American citizens to live wherever the flag floats, without danger of assassination for being loyal to American unity." The state that had led the way in Black military service, voting, and civil rights, and integrated education teetered on the brink of destruction at the hands of a violent white backlash. "Is liberty and republicanism," Frisbie challenged, "so poor [that] none will fight for them?"<sup>1</sup></p> <p>Frisbie began his letter to Trobriand with an allusion to his military service and a withering attack on white Southerners, whom he worried might "repeat history" in yet another insurrection. In his thinking, the Rebellion was ongoing <strong>[End Page 69]</strong> in the literal battles of Reconstruction, and only treating this insurrectionary violence with the seriousness it required would prevent the gains of the war from being overturned.</p> <blockquote> <p><small>new orleans</small>, <em>January</em> 13, 1875</p> <p><small>my dear general</small>: you are fighting the same battle we commenced at Pea Ridge. The spirit that drove the Third Louisiana from this city to the distant field of Elk Horn, to meet in battle face to face, and die under the fire of Illinois' Thirty-Seventh, is rampant here today, and would repeat history to-morrow, if not controlled by superior power.</p> <p>The Same Hatred of America, its name, its history, its traditions, its glory, its Yankees, and the glorying in the "South" and in being southrons, that marked and darkened their character in that epoch, are distinguishing characteristics of them to-day.</p> </blockquote> <p>White southerners were incapable and seemingly incapable, in Frisbie's estimation, of living in a free and equal society.</p> <p>During the Rebellion, Frisbie had gained a reputation as a steadfast defender of Black equality, often embracing explicitly abolitionist language. Yet while he trumpeted the cause of freedom in January 1875, he had by then also established himself as a well-known fraudster, and he would be removed from his post as a US commission agent by the end of the year. Indeed, his letter reads both as an indictment of white conservative "threats, ost
{"title":"White Supremacy and Fraud: The \"Abolitionist\" Work of Henry Frisbie","authors":"William Horne","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a934385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a934385","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> White Supremacy and Fraud<span>The \"Abolitionist\" Work of Henry Frisbie</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> William Horne (bio) </li> </ul> <p>On January 13, 1875, just four months after a White League coup toppled the Louisiana state government, Henry Frisbie warned Maj. Gen. Régis de Trobriand that the state was on the verge of another rebellion. \"The same hatred of America, its name, its history, its traditions, [and] its glory,\" he observed, had inspired the September 1874 \"Liberty Place\" insurrection under the banner of white supremacy. If Americans were unwilling to punish those who orchestrated the coup or to prevent their paramilitary organizing in the future, they would lose the \"right of American citizens to live wherever the flag floats, without danger of assassination for being loyal to American unity.\" The state that had led the way in Black military service, voting, and civil rights, and integrated education teetered on the brink of destruction at the hands of a violent white backlash. \"Is liberty and republicanism,\" Frisbie challenged, \"so poor [that] none will fight for them?\"<sup>1</sup></p> <p>Frisbie began his letter to Trobriand with an allusion to his military service and a withering attack on white Southerners, whom he worried might \"repeat history\" in yet another insurrection. In his thinking, the Rebellion was ongoing <strong>[End Page 69]</strong> in the literal battles of Reconstruction, and only treating this insurrectionary violence with the seriousness it required would prevent the gains of the war from being overturned.</p> <blockquote> <p><small>new orleans</small>, <em>January</em> 13, 1875</p> <p><small>my dear general</small>: you are fighting the same battle we commenced at Pea Ridge. The spirit that drove the Third Louisiana from this city to the distant field of Elk Horn, to meet in battle face to face, and die under the fire of Illinois' Thirty-Seventh, is rampant here today, and would repeat history to-morrow, if not controlled by superior power.</p> <p>The Same Hatred of America, its name, its history, its traditions, its glory, its Yankees, and the glorying in the \"South\" and in being southrons, that marked and darkened their character in that epoch, are distinguishing characteristics of them to-day.</p> </blockquote> <p>White southerners were incapable and seemingly incapable, in Frisbie's estimation, of living in a free and equal society.</p> <p>During the Rebellion, Frisbie had gained a reputation as a steadfast defender of Black equality, often embracing explicitly abolitionist language. Yet while he trumpeted the cause of freedom in January 1875, he had by then also established himself as a well-known fraudster, and he would be removed from his post as a US commission agent by the end of the year. Indeed, his letter reads both as an indictment of white conservative \"threats, ost","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141969211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a934384
Rebecca Capobianco Toy
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> "We Can Take Care of Ourselves Now"<span>Establishing Independent Black Labor and Industry in Postwar Yorktown, Virginia</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Rebecca Capobianco Toy (bio) </li> </ul> <p>In May 1866, Lt. F. J. Massey, the Freedman's Bureau agent in charge of York County, Virginia, wrote to his superior officer of a recent conversation between himself and a formerly enslaved man. "When asked if the new freed-people would be able to provide for themselves," the newly emancipated man had replied, "'We used to support ourselves and our masters, too, when we were slaves, and I reckon we can take care of ourselves now.'"<sup>1</sup> In this assertion, the interviewee highlighted the reality that white observers often missed: formerly enslaved people had always been the backbone of the Southern economy. They emerged from slavery with the skills necessary to support themselves and knew that they were capable of doing so. In their interactions with the Freedmen's Bureau and other white benevolent workers, Black residents of York County frequently expressed their desire to direct the course of their own labor and resisted the bureau's attempts to manage their freedom. While the efforts of the federal government and benevolent organizations to establish a wage labor economy in the postwar South are well documented, a reevaluation of ground-level sources reveals the ways Black Southerners worked to negotiate and direct that process for themselves through locally specific "personal economies" such as subsistence farming, fishing, oystering, and shipping. In <strong>[End Page 43]</strong> defining the terms of their own labor, Black York County residents sought to manifest their own visions of freedom rather than have the terms of their freedom determined for them.</p> <p>A Jim Crow South was not inevitable. During the years of slavery's demise, and as Virginians began to imagine the nation without its peculiar institution, opportunities remained to define what that Commonwealth would look like.<sup>2</sup> While postwar political debates between Republicans and Democrats are well documented, the vision of freedom that Black Americans brought to this period is less so. Told from the perspective of federal agents or white Northerners, as events of this period so often are, formerly enslaved people found themselves in desperate need of intervention and direction from white authorities. Yet, buried in the often mundane Freedmen's Bureau records and those of other benevolent organizations, are the clear articulations of what freedom meant to Black Virginians, what they expected of their postwar worlds, and their intentions to make those visions reality. Focusing on sources at the level at which most Black Americans negotiated their lives—within their local communities—reveals the strategies they used and the types of work they
{"title":"\"We Can Take Care of Ourselves Now\": Establishing Independent Black Labor and Industry in Postwar Yorktown, Virginia","authors":"Rebecca Capobianco Toy","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a934384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a934384","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> \"We Can Take Care of Ourselves Now\"<span>Establishing Independent Black Labor and Industry in Postwar Yorktown, Virginia</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Rebecca Capobianco Toy (bio) </li> </ul> <p>In May 1866, Lt. F. J. Massey, the Freedman's Bureau agent in charge of York County, Virginia, wrote to his superior officer of a recent conversation between himself and a formerly enslaved man. \"When asked if the new freed-people would be able to provide for themselves,\" the newly emancipated man had replied, \"'We used to support ourselves and our masters, too, when we were slaves, and I reckon we can take care of ourselves now.'\"<sup>1</sup> In this assertion, the interviewee highlighted the reality that white observers often missed: formerly enslaved people had always been the backbone of the Southern economy. They emerged from slavery with the skills necessary to support themselves and knew that they were capable of doing so. In their interactions with the Freedmen's Bureau and other white benevolent workers, Black residents of York County frequently expressed their desire to direct the course of their own labor and resisted the bureau's attempts to manage their freedom. While the efforts of the federal government and benevolent organizations to establish a wage labor economy in the postwar South are well documented, a reevaluation of ground-level sources reveals the ways Black Southerners worked to negotiate and direct that process for themselves through locally specific \"personal economies\" such as subsistence farming, fishing, oystering, and shipping. In <strong>[End Page 43]</strong> defining the terms of their own labor, Black York County residents sought to manifest their own visions of freedom rather than have the terms of their freedom determined for them.</p> <p>A Jim Crow South was not inevitable. During the years of slavery's demise, and as Virginians began to imagine the nation without its peculiar institution, opportunities remained to define what that Commonwealth would look like.<sup>2</sup> While postwar political debates between Republicans and Democrats are well documented, the vision of freedom that Black Americans brought to this period is less so. Told from the perspective of federal agents or white Northerners, as events of this period so often are, formerly enslaved people found themselves in desperate need of intervention and direction from white authorities. Yet, buried in the often mundane Freedmen's Bureau records and those of other benevolent organizations, are the clear articulations of what freedom meant to Black Virginians, what they expected of their postwar worlds, and their intentions to make those visions reality. Focusing on sources at the level at which most Black Americans negotiated their lives—within their local communities—reveals the strategies they used and the types of work they ","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141969159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a934386
Chad E. Pearson
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> The Open-Shop Movement and the Long Shadow of Slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Chad E. Pearson (bio) </li> </ul> <p>Readers of the <em>Open Shop</em>, a nationally circulated publication popular with mostly urban-based businessmen, were reminded in 1907 that "Abraham Lincoln freed the shackles from the limbs of 4,000,000 slaves." The nation's diverse set of employers used the memory of the Civil War and Reconstruction to contend with rebellious workers committed to building closed-shop worksites, or places that employed union members exclusively. In the face of these challenges, the socalled Great Emancipator served as a model of moral clarity and principled action, someone worthy of high praise and emulation. Like Lincoln, spokespersons for the powerful, multilocational open-shop movement were determined to battle pushy union leaders and working-class militants who threatened to introduce what union fighters labeled a new type of "slavery"—this time against owners and nonunion workers who refused to subordinate their individual rights to the labor movement's dictates. In their collective minds, Lincoln, had he lived in the early twentieth century, would have stood squarely with employers and nonunionists during these intense confrontations. After all, according to the <em>Open Shop</em>, he "gave up his life in the cause of perpetuating the institutions which organized labor, as represented by the American Federation of Labor, seeks to overthrow and destroy."<sup>1</sup> Indeed, movement leaders, representing thousands, regularly cited the <strong>[End Page 87]</strong> former president's iconic statements, insisting that, as the National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) James A. Emery put it in 1905, the nation "cannot endure half slave and half free."<sup>2</sup> According to Emery, a leader of the country's most powerful antiunion organizations, unions—their preponderance and influence—had revived and reanimated the practice of human bondage in the United States.</p> <p>Emery was one of countless Americans who raised the memory of Lincoln and the Civil War in the Progressive years. By this time, figures from multiple sides of labor controversies, as well a diverse set of individuals outside of industrial relations settings, found continuous value in the late president's words and actions.<sup>3</sup> This was, according to sociologist Barry Schwartz, a new development. As Schwartz maintained, Lincoln "did not became a national idol until the first two decades of the twentieth century." By this time, an assortment of historians, journalists, poets, and architects had produced books, articles, and attention-grabbing statues of the former president, reminding Americans of his unparalleled place in history.<sup>4</sup> Employers and their allies, enjoying large platforms to communic
以下是内容的简要摘录，以代替摘要： 开放式商店运动与奴隶制、南北战争和重建的长期阴影 Chad E. Pearson（简历 1907 年，《开放式商店》这本在全国发行、深受大多数城市商人欢迎的刊物提醒读者："亚伯拉罕-林肯解放了 400 万奴隶四肢上的枷锁"。全国不同的雇主利用南北战争和重建时期的记忆，与致力于建立封闭式工作场所或只雇用工会成员的叛逆工人进行斗争。面对这些挑战，这位所谓的 "伟大解放者 "堪称道德高尚、行动有原则的典范，值得高度赞扬和效仿。与林肯一样，强大的多地点开放式商店运动的发言人也决心与咄咄逼人的工会领袖和工人阶级激进分子作斗争，因为他们威胁要推行被工会斗士称为新型的 "奴役"--这次是针对那些拒绝将个人权利屈从于劳工运动指令的业主和非工会工人。在他们的集体心目中，如果林肯生活在二十世纪初，他一定会在这些激烈的对抗中坚定地站在雇主和非工会主义者一边。毕竟，根据《开放商店》（Open Shop）的说法，他 "为使以美国劳工联合会（American Federation of Labor）为代表的有组织劳工试图推翻和摧毁的制度永久化而献出了自己的生命"。2 作为美国最强大的反工会组织的领导人，埃默里认为，工会--它们的优势和影响力--在美国复活了奴役人的做法。埃默里是在进步年代唤起人们对林肯和南北战争记忆的无数美国人之一。此时，来自劳资争议多方的人物以及劳资关系之外的各类人士都发现了已故总统言行的持续价值。3 社会学家巴里-施瓦茨（Barry Schwartz）认为，这是一个新的发展。施瓦茨认为，林肯 "直到 20 世纪前 20 年才成为国民偶像"。4 雇主和他们的盟友享有传播其观点的巨大平台，他们加入了自己的声音，旨在以维持尖锐的阶级分化的方式塑造这个时代的经济和政治氛围。他们在演讲和出版物中强调了林肯对民族团结和自由劳工的呼吁。像埃默里这样的不结盟运动成员将他们争取开放式工作场所的斗争与林肯时代联系在一起。林肯在大多数北方运动参与者的心目中占据着重要地位，尽管他只是几个灵感来源之一。其他许多反对工会的人，尤其是邦联退伍军人及其后代，在他们寻求在工作场所和社区建立并维护至高无上的地位时，不愿意引用林肯的言论或纪念他的行为，这是可以预见的。南方商人试图建立和捍卫一个独特的、不欢迎有组织劳工和工人阶级骚乱表现的地区，他们从不同的意识形态和实践中汲取教训。他们利用了战时创伤、地理优势和种族主义传统。[在为促进和捍卫开放式商店条件而斗争时，发言人提出了该地区以种族为基础的政治经济及其内战后的挫折和胜利的重要性。在他们的心目中，奴隶主并不像他们曾经的北方敌人所标榜的那样具有压迫性、残酷性或剥削性；相反，他们是热心肠的家长式人物，无畏地保护被奴役的人口免受几种残酷的待遇："工资奴隶制 "以及傲慢自大的工会会员和 "地毯商人"。在他们看来，共和党，尤其是其激进派，是一股极具侵扰性的力量，在奴隶制崩溃后对该地区造成了伤害。正如支持开放式商店的刊物《制造商记录》在 1903 年发表的一篇文章所解释的那样："重建的恐怖......
{"title":"The Open-Shop Movement and the Long Shadow of Slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction","authors":"Chad E. Pearson","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a934386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a934386","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> The Open-Shop Movement and the Long Shadow of Slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Chad E. Pearson (bio) </li> </ul> <p>Readers of the <em>Open Shop</em>, a nationally circulated publication popular with mostly urban-based businessmen, were reminded in 1907 that \"Abraham Lincoln freed the shackles from the limbs of 4,000,000 slaves.\" The nation's diverse set of employers used the memory of the Civil War and Reconstruction to contend with rebellious workers committed to building closed-shop worksites, or places that employed union members exclusively. In the face of these challenges, the socalled Great Emancipator served as a model of moral clarity and principled action, someone worthy of high praise and emulation. Like Lincoln, spokespersons for the powerful, multilocational open-shop movement were determined to battle pushy union leaders and working-class militants who threatened to introduce what union fighters labeled a new type of \"slavery\"—this time against owners and nonunion workers who refused to subordinate their individual rights to the labor movement's dictates. In their collective minds, Lincoln, had he lived in the early twentieth century, would have stood squarely with employers and nonunionists during these intense confrontations. After all, according to the <em>Open Shop</em>, he \"gave up his life in the cause of perpetuating the institutions which organized labor, as represented by the American Federation of Labor, seeks to overthrow and destroy.\"<sup>1</sup> Indeed, movement leaders, representing thousands, regularly cited the <strong>[End Page 87]</strong> former president's iconic statements, insisting that, as the National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) James A. Emery put it in 1905, the nation \"cannot endure half slave and half free.\"<sup>2</sup> According to Emery, a leader of the country's most powerful antiunion organizations, unions—their preponderance and influence—had revived and reanimated the practice of human bondage in the United States.</p> <p>Emery was one of countless Americans who raised the memory of Lincoln and the Civil War in the Progressive years. By this time, figures from multiple sides of labor controversies, as well a diverse set of individuals outside of industrial relations settings, found continuous value in the late president's words and actions.<sup>3</sup> This was, according to sociologist Barry Schwartz, a new development. As Schwartz maintained, Lincoln \"did not became a national idol until the first two decades of the twentieth century.\" By this time, an assortment of historians, journalists, poets, and architects had produced books, articles, and attention-grabbing statues of the former president, reminding Americans of his unparalleled place in history.<sup>4</sup> Employers and their allies, enjoying large platforms to communic","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141939672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a918896
Jim Downs, Yoni Appelbaum, Drew Gilpin Faust, Kerri K. Greenidge, Stephanie McCurry, Megan Kate Nelson, Adam I. P. Smith
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> "Does the Civil War Matter?"<span>A Roundtable Discussion</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Jim Downs, ModeratorParticipants: Yoni Appelbaum, Drew Gilpin Faust, Kerri K. Greenidge, Stephanie McCurry, Megan Kate Nelson, and Adam I. P. Smith </li> </ul> <p>In 2004, <em>Civil War History</em> published Drew Gilpin Faust's "'We Should Grow Too Fond of It': Why We Love the Civil War."<sup>1</sup> In the article, Faust analyzed the proliferation of Civil War scholarship and interrogated why the Civil War attracted the attention of a generation of scholars. She connected how the rise of social history benefited from the preservation of Civil War records. The article has become a classic in the field and remains a major contribution. As the journal's current editor, I have wondered if the Civil War still matters to scholars, teachers, readers, and the public as it did twenty years ago. As such, I organized a roundtable bringing together a range of scholars and writers to answer the question "Does the Civil War Matter?"</p> <p>I am deeply grateful that Drew Faust agreed to participate in the conversation. While anyone publishing or teaching or thinking about Civil War history could have participated, I selected the other panelists based on their specialties. Yoni Appelbaum, a member of the journal's editorial board, is a trained historian and is also the deputy editor at the <em>Atlantic</em>. I wanted his perspective on the reading public's interest in the war and how scholars might frame their research to interest a broader audience. Kerri K. Greenidge is a prolific historian of the Black experience in US history and has written widely on topics related to the Civil War. Stephanie McCurry is a leading historian of the South, whose research <strong>[End Page 50]</strong> questions led her to the Civil War. I wanted her insights as a Southern historian. Since region matters to the study of the Civil War, I asked Megan Kate Nelson, who has written three excellent books about the Civil War and about the Civil War both in the South and in the West, particularly among Indigenous people. Nelson is also a prolific writer and presents her research widely to nonacademic audiences. Adam I. P. Smith has written about the North during the Civil War and is also the director of the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford. Given the great interest in the Civil War in the United Kingdom, especially among historians of the British American Nineteenth Century Historians organization, I was eager to add his perspective.</p> <small><strong>jim downs</strong>:</small> <p>Welcome! I'm really excited about this conversation, and I'm extraordinarily grateful for your time, especially in the last dog days of summer before classes start for many of you. One of the most generative aspects of editing the journal for me has been doing round
以下是内容的简要摘录，以代替摘要： "内战重要吗？"圆桌讨论 吉姆-唐斯（Jim Downs），主持人与会者：Yoni Appelbaum、Drew Gilpin Faust、Kerri K. Greenidge、Stephanie McCurry、Megan Kate Nelson 和 Adam I. P. Smith 2004 年，《内战史》发表了 Drew Gilpin Faust 的"'We Should Grow Too Fond of It'：1 在这篇文章中，浮士德分析了内战学术研究的激增，并探讨了内战吸引一代学者关注的原因。她将社会史的兴起与内战记录的保存联系在一起。这篇文章已成为该领域的经典之作，至今仍是一项重大贡献。作为该期刊的现任编辑，我一直在想，内战对于学者、教师、读者和公众是否还像二十年前那样重要。因此，我组织了一次圆桌会议，召集了众多学者和作家来回答 "内战重要吗？我非常感谢德鲁-浮士德同意参加这次对话。虽然任何出版、教学或思考内战历史的人都可以参加，但我还是根据他们的专长选择了其他小组成员。本刊编辑委员会成员约尼-阿贝尔鲍姆（Yoni Appelbaum）是一位训练有素的历史学家，同时也是《大西洋月刊》的副主编。我想从他的角度了解读者对战争的兴趣，以及学者如何构建自己的研究才能吸引更多读者。Kerri K. Greenidge 是研究美国历史上黑人经历的多产历史学家，在内战相关主题方面著述颇丰。斯蒂芬妮-麦科里是一位著名的南方历史学家，她的研究 [第 50 页完] 问题将她引向了南北战争。我想了解她作为南方历史学家的见解。由于地区对南北战争的研究很重要，我请梅根-凯特-尼尔森（Megan Kate Nelson）为我解答，她写了三本关于南北战争以及南北战争在南方和西部，特别是在原住民中的出色著作。纳尔逊还是一位多产作家，她向非学术界读者广泛介绍了自己的研究成果。亚当-史密斯（Adam I. P. Smith）撰写了关于南北战争期间北方的文章，他还是牛津大学罗瑟米尔美国研究所（Rothermere American Institute）的所长。鉴于英国对内战的浓厚兴趣，尤其是英美十九世纪历史学家组织的历史学家，我很想加入他的观点：欢迎！我对这次谈话感到非常兴奋，也非常感谢你们抽出时间，尤其是在你们许多人开学前的最后几天暑假。对我来说，编辑期刊最有启发性的方面之一就是圆桌讨论。我们的目标是捕捉会议问答环节中通常会出现的那种能量，并将这种对话正式化，希望它能成为更大范围历史学对话的一部分。为了不浪费时间，我只想问第一个问题："南北战争重要吗？我将首先简要回答这个问题，希望大家也能跟着我介绍一下自己，并对这个问题提出自己的看法。作为一名医学史学家，我关心南北战争，因为它是 19 世纪最大的流行病学危机。然而，许多医学史学家跳过了内战，许多内战史学家跳过了流行病危机：我是最近出版的《格雷姆克一家》（The Grimkés：一个美国家庭的奴隶制遗产》。我的第一本书是《黑人激进分子威廉-门罗-特罗特的生活与时代》。我非常肯定地认为南北战争很重要，因为我认为这是美国历史上的一个重要时刻；有一群人曾经被奴役，他们经历了解放和自由的过程。我还认为它意义重大，因为在这一时期，一直以政治方式行事的非裔美国人遭遇了暴力反击。我还认为，它与美国正在发生的所有对话都密切相关......
{"title":"\"Does the Civil War Matter?\": A Roundtable Discussion","authors":"Jim Downs, Yoni Appelbaum, Drew Gilpin Faust, Kerri K. Greenidge, Stephanie McCurry, Megan Kate Nelson, Adam I. P. Smith","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a918896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a918896","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> \"Does the Civil War Matter?\"<span>A Roundtable Discussion</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Jim Downs, ModeratorParticipants: Yoni Appelbaum, Drew Gilpin Faust, Kerri K. Greenidge, Stephanie McCurry, Megan Kate Nelson, and Adam I. P. Smith </li> </ul> <p>In 2004, <em>Civil War History</em> published Drew Gilpin Faust's \"'We Should Grow Too Fond of It': Why We Love the Civil War.\"<sup>1</sup> In the article, Faust analyzed the proliferation of Civil War scholarship and interrogated why the Civil War attracted the attention of a generation of scholars. She connected how the rise of social history benefited from the preservation of Civil War records. The article has become a classic in the field and remains a major contribution. As the journal's current editor, I have wondered if the Civil War still matters to scholars, teachers, readers, and the public as it did twenty years ago. As such, I organized a roundtable bringing together a range of scholars and writers to answer the question \"Does the Civil War Matter?\"</p> <p>I am deeply grateful that Drew Faust agreed to participate in the conversation. While anyone publishing or teaching or thinking about Civil War history could have participated, I selected the other panelists based on their specialties. Yoni Appelbaum, a member of the journal's editorial board, is a trained historian and is also the deputy editor at the <em>Atlantic</em>. I wanted his perspective on the reading public's interest in the war and how scholars might frame their research to interest a broader audience. Kerri K. Greenidge is a prolific historian of the Black experience in US history and has written widely on topics related to the Civil War. Stephanie McCurry is a leading historian of the South, whose research <strong>[End Page 50]</strong> questions led her to the Civil War. I wanted her insights as a Southern historian. Since region matters to the study of the Civil War, I asked Megan Kate Nelson, who has written three excellent books about the Civil War and about the Civil War both in the South and in the West, particularly among Indigenous people. Nelson is also a prolific writer and presents her research widely to nonacademic audiences. Adam I. P. Smith has written about the North during the Civil War and is also the director of the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford. Given the great interest in the Civil War in the United Kingdom, especially among historians of the British American Nineteenth Century Historians organization, I was eager to add his perspective.</p> <small><strong>jim downs</strong>:</small> <p>Welcome! I'm really excited about this conversation, and I'm extraordinarily grateful for your time, especially in the last dog days of summer before classes start for many of you. One of the most generative aspects of editing the journal for me has been doing round","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139768996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a918900
Sarah E. Chinn
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era</em> by Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Sarah E. Chinn (bio) </li> </ul> <em>Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era</em>. Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023. ISBN: 978-019601044. 448 pp., cloth, $34.95. <p>William T. Adams, who published under the pseudonym Oliver Optic (among others), was probably the best-selling children's writer of the mid-nineteenth century. Most of his more than one hundred books—filled with adventure and youthful slang—sold upward of a hundred thousand copies. By the mid-1860s, he was churning out two series featuring boy combatants, Tom Somers and his brother Jack, teenagers who enlisted in the army and navy. The "Soldier Boy" and "Sailor Boy" series were characterized by both bloody descriptions of battle and scenes of Christian virtue demonstrated by the young heroes, who never let military life seduce them into the sinful clutches of drink, gambling, and swearing.</p> <p>The Somers boys' admixture of heroism, self-sacrifice, and piety would have been a familiar characterological brew to both child and adult readers by the time <em>The Soldier Boy</em> was published in 1864. As Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant point out in <em>Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era</em>, their impressively comprehensive and deeply researched study of underage recruits both North and South, "whether underage boys featured as sacrificial young martyrs or precociously brave-hearted boys, the public found their stories irresistible" (10). From this imaginary narrative, however, they quickly plunge their readers into the realities of the lives of the youths who comprised a meaningful segment of both Union and Confederate armies.</p> <p>Clarke and Plant have several intersecting arguments within the book. The first is that if we are to talk meaningfully about the involvement of minors in the Civil War, we should both understand what <em>minority</em> as an age category signified in the 1860s and how many boys actually enlisted between 1861 and 1865. The second is that the presence of underage recruits in both Union and Confederate armies shaped military and government policy in important ways, which have not heretofore been fully understood and cannot be understood unless we take boy soldiers into account. And the third, and I think most original, is that the presence of large numbers of teenagers and younger boys on the battlefield was made possible by, and hastened, the centralization of power in a federalized army, displacing the previous dominance of local militias as the backbone of US military force.</p> <p>The authors establish a credible accounting of the number of underage soldiers, using regi
以下是内容的简要摘录，以代替摘要：评论者 Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era by Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant Sarah E. Chinn (bio) Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era.Frances M. Clarke 和 Rebecca Jo Plant 著。纽约：牛津大学出版社，2023 年。ISBN：978-019601044。448 页，布面，34.95 美元。威廉-T.-亚当斯（William T. Adams）以笔名奥利弗-奥普蒂克（Oliver Optic）（还有其他笔名）发表作品，可能是 19 世纪中期最畅销的儿童文学作家。他的一百多部充满冒险和青春俚语的作品大多销量超过十万册。到 19 世纪 60 年代中期，他出版了两套以汤姆-萨默斯和他的弟弟杰克为主角的系列丛书，描写的是应征入伍的少年汤姆-萨默斯和他的弟弟杰克。士兵男孩 "和 "水手男孩 "系列的特点是既有血腥的战斗场面描写，又有小英雄们展现基督教美德的场景，他们从未被军旅生活引诱，陷入酗酒、赌博和说脏话的罪恶魔掌。1864年《兵娃》出版时，萨默斯家的孩子们所表现出的英雄主义、自我牺牲精神和虔诚已成为儿童和成人读者所熟悉的性格特征。正如弗朗西斯-M-克拉克（Frances M. Clarke）和丽贝卡-乔-普兰特（Rebecca Jo Plant）在《年龄：南北战争时期的男孩士兵和军事力量》（Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era）一书中指出的那样，他们对南北方未成年新兵进行了全面深入的研究，"无论未成年男孩是作为牺牲的年轻烈士，还是作为早熟的勇敢男孩，公众都会发现他们的故事是不可抗拒的"（10）。然而，从这一想象的叙事中，他们很快将读者带入了现实中的青少年生活，而这些青少年正是联邦和邦联军队的重要组成部分。克拉克和普兰特在书中提出了几个相互交叉的论点。首先，如果我们要有意义地讨论未成年人参与南北战争的问题，我们就应该了解在 19 世纪 60 年代，少数族裔作为一个年龄类别意味着什么，以及在 1861 年至 1865 年期间，究竟有多少男孩应征入伍。其次，未成年新兵在联邦和邦联军队中的存在以重要的方式影响了军事和政府政策，而这些政策迄今为止尚未被完全理解，除非我们将男孩士兵考虑在内，否则就无法理解。第三点，也是我认为最具独创性的一点是，大量青少年和年轻男孩出现在战场上的原因是联邦军队的权力集中，取代了之前地方民兵作为美国军事力量中坚力量的主导地位。作者利用兵团记录、抚恤金申请、伤残[第 82 页完]津贴申请（如有）以及回忆录、信件和报纸故事等更多定性资料，对未成年士兵的人数进行了可靠的统计。他们在确定这一数字时遇到的一个主要障碍是，入伍者和征兵人员在年龄问题上 "大肆撒谎"，而这只有通过人口普查记录才能发现（5）。最终，他们得出结论，在联邦军队中，18 岁以下的应征者超过 20 万：约占战斗部队的 10%，这一比例似乎也反映在邦联军队中。同时，未成年的定义也不是一成不变的。1862 年初以前，21 岁以下的年轻人需要父母或监护人的允许才能应征入伍为联邦军作战。到了二月，这一规定降到了 18 岁，这表明紧急情况压倒了保护。年龄》一书中一个引人入胜的发现是美国和南方对男童兵截然不同的态度。北方人一致认为男童兵是国家项目的灵魂，不可摧残，充满对未来的希望。歌谱、儿童书籍和杂志、报纸、版画以及其他文化产品都将他们视为民主的英雄。与此相反，在南方邦联，民众和政府都抵制将男孩送上前线；对南方来说，他们代表着美利坚联盟国未来的公民，他们必须得到保护......
{"title":"Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era by Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant (review)","authors":"Sarah E. Chinn","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a918900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a918900","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era</em> by Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Sarah E. Chinn (bio) </li> </ul> <em>Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era</em>. Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023. ISBN: 978-019601044. 448 pp., cloth, $34.95. <p>William T. Adams, who published under the pseudonym Oliver Optic (among others), was probably the best-selling children's writer of the mid-nineteenth century. Most of his more than one hundred books—filled with adventure and youthful slang—sold upward of a hundred thousand copies. By the mid-1860s, he was churning out two series featuring boy combatants, Tom Somers and his brother Jack, teenagers who enlisted in the army and navy. The \"Soldier Boy\" and \"Sailor Boy\" series were characterized by both bloody descriptions of battle and scenes of Christian virtue demonstrated by the young heroes, who never let military life seduce them into the sinful clutches of drink, gambling, and swearing.</p> <p>The Somers boys' admixture of heroism, self-sacrifice, and piety would have been a familiar characterological brew to both child and adult readers by the time <em>The Soldier Boy</em> was published in 1864. As Frances M. Clarke and Rebecca Jo Plant point out in <em>Of Age: Boy Soldiers and Military Power in the Civil War Era</em>, their impressively comprehensive and deeply researched study of underage recruits both North and South, \"whether underage boys featured as sacrificial young martyrs or precociously brave-hearted boys, the public found their stories irresistible\" (10). From this imaginary narrative, however, they quickly plunge their readers into the realities of the lives of the youths who comprised a meaningful segment of both Union and Confederate armies.</p> <p>Clarke and Plant have several intersecting arguments within the book. The first is that if we are to talk meaningfully about the involvement of minors in the Civil War, we should both understand what <em>minority</em> as an age category signified in the 1860s and how many boys actually enlisted between 1861 and 1865. The second is that the presence of underage recruits in both Union and Confederate armies shaped military and government policy in important ways, which have not heretofore been fully understood and cannot be understood unless we take boy soldiers into account. And the third, and I think most original, is that the presence of large numbers of teenagers and younger boys on the battlefield was made possible by, and hastened, the centralization of power in a federalized army, displacing the previous dominance of local militias as the backbone of US military force.</p> <p>The authors establish a credible accounting of the number of underage soldiers, using regi","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139769012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a918894
Bennett Parten
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> The Refugee Crisis of Sherman's March<span>Savannah, Port Royal, and the Transformation of the Sea Islands</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Bennett Parten (bio) </li> </ul> <p>On Christmas 1864, Gen. Rufus Saxton spent his holiday pacing the docks along the wharf at Beaufort, South Carolina. The first "seven hundred" of the roughly twenty thousand freed refugees from slavery who had followed Sherman's army during its march from Atlanta to Savannah were set to arrive that afternoon. As military governor of the Department of the South, Saxton was tasked with integrating the refugees into the so-called Port Royal Experiment—an enterprise that had been ongoing since 1861, when the arrival of US gunboats prompted the region's white inhabitants to take flight, leaving behind nearly ten thousand enslaved people and a large supply of unsold cotton. Overwhelmed by only the first groups of refugees, many of whom suffered serious deprivations stemming from the long and difficult march, Saxton would later write to the freedmen's aid societies in the North for assistance. "So extreme and entire is the destitution of this people that nothing that you can afford to give will come amiss," he told his audience, hoping the right amount of Northern benevolence might be enough to stave off disaster.<sup>1</sup></p> <p>Saxton, however, was unable to forestall what he so desperately wanted to avoid. The arrival of Sherman's army in Savannah transformed the self-contained <strong>[End Page 9]</strong> freedmen's colony at Port Royal into the epicenter of a sprawling refugee crisis. The influx of such a large number of refugees into the area swelled the size of the original population of freedpeople living on the islands around Port Royal. So many new inhabitants destabilized a region already in the throes of social revolution. To Saxton, the man charged with overseeing the transition, finding basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter presented one problem; finding these items and resettling the refugees from Georgia as quasi-free laborers was another task entirely. While the refugees were eventually resettled on the islands, their arrival in the aftermath of Sherman's March set off a series of events that would ultimately reshape the nature of the project at Port Royal.</p> <p>Historians have long recognized Port Royal's central place in the history of American emancipation. It was arguably there on sandy soils of the South Carolina Sea Islands that freedom came first, making Port Royal and its environs a sort of staging ground for the trials of Reconstruction. Yet this impulse to see the islands as a laboratory for experimenting with freedom has led historians to see the region as an outpost or enclave set apart from the wider developments of the war. As such, the story of the Georgia refugees often gets folded into the larger story
{"title":"The Refugee Crisis of Sherman's March: Savannah, Port Royal, and the Transformation of the Sea Islands","authors":"Bennett Parten","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a918894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a918894","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> The Refugee Crisis of Sherman's March<span>Savannah, Port Royal, and the Transformation of the Sea Islands</span> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Bennett Parten (bio) </li> </ul> <p>On Christmas 1864, Gen. Rufus Saxton spent his holiday pacing the docks along the wharf at Beaufort, South Carolina. The first \"seven hundred\" of the roughly twenty thousand freed refugees from slavery who had followed Sherman's army during its march from Atlanta to Savannah were set to arrive that afternoon. As military governor of the Department of the South, Saxton was tasked with integrating the refugees into the so-called Port Royal Experiment—an enterprise that had been ongoing since 1861, when the arrival of US gunboats prompted the region's white inhabitants to take flight, leaving behind nearly ten thousand enslaved people and a large supply of unsold cotton. Overwhelmed by only the first groups of refugees, many of whom suffered serious deprivations stemming from the long and difficult march, Saxton would later write to the freedmen's aid societies in the North for assistance. \"So extreme and entire is the destitution of this people that nothing that you can afford to give will come amiss,\" he told his audience, hoping the right amount of Northern benevolence might be enough to stave off disaster.<sup>1</sup></p> <p>Saxton, however, was unable to forestall what he so desperately wanted to avoid. The arrival of Sherman's army in Savannah transformed the self-contained <strong>[End Page 9]</strong> freedmen's colony at Port Royal into the epicenter of a sprawling refugee crisis. The influx of such a large number of refugees into the area swelled the size of the original population of freedpeople living on the islands around Port Royal. So many new inhabitants destabilized a region already in the throes of social revolution. To Saxton, the man charged with overseeing the transition, finding basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter presented one problem; finding these items and resettling the refugees from Georgia as quasi-free laborers was another task entirely. While the refugees were eventually resettled on the islands, their arrival in the aftermath of Sherman's March set off a series of events that would ultimately reshape the nature of the project at Port Royal.</p> <p>Historians have long recognized Port Royal's central place in the history of American emancipation. It was arguably there on sandy soils of the South Carolina Sea Islands that freedom came first, making Port Royal and its environs a sort of staging ground for the trials of Reconstruction. Yet this impulse to see the islands as a laboratory for experimenting with freedom has led historians to see the region as an outpost or enclave set apart from the wider developments of the war. As such, the story of the Georgia refugees often gets folded into the larger story ","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139768989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-08DOI: 10.1353/cwh.2024.a918892
<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span> <p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Contributors <!-- /html_title --></li> </ul> <p><small><strong>yoni appelbaum</strong></small>, deputy editor at the <em>Atlantic</em>, is a social and cultural historian of the United States. Before joining the <em>Atlantic</em>, he was a lecturer on history and literature at Harvard University. He previously taught at Babson College and Brandeis University, where he received his PhD in American history.</p> <p><small><strong>brie swenson arnold</strong></small> is W. P. and Gayle S. Whipple Associate Professor of History at Coe College. Her research interests center on nineteenth-century race and gender with an emphasis on print and political culture.</p> <p><small><strong>brent m. s. campney</strong></small> is professor of history at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He is the author of <em>Hostile Heartland: Racism, Repression, and Resistance in the Midwest</em> (2019) and <em>This Is Not Dixie: Racist Violence in Kansas, 1861–1927</em> (2015).</p> <p><small><strong>sarah e. chinn</strong></small> teaches American literatures and cultures in the English Department at Hunter College–CUNY. She is currently completing a book project that explores representations of amputation during Reconstruction and its relationship to white radicalism and antiracism.</p> <p><small><strong>jim downs</strong></small> is the Gilder Lehrman-National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Civil War Era Studies and History at Gettysburg College. He is the author of <em>Maladies of Empire: How Colonialism, Slavery, and War Transformed Medicine</em> (2021). His other books include <em>Sick from Freedom: African American Sickness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction</em> (2012) and <em>Stand by Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation</em> (2016).</p> <p><small><strong>drew gilpin faust</strong></small> is Arthur Kingsley Porter University Research Professor at Harvard University, where she served as president from 2007 to 2018. Faust is the author of several books, including <em>Necessary Trouble: Growing Up at Midcentury</em> (2023) and <em>This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War</em> (2008).</p> <p><small><strong>kerri k. greenidge</strong></small> is Mellon Associate Professor in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora at Tufts University, where she also codirects the African American Trail Project. She is also codirector of Tufts's Slavery, Colonialism, and Their Legacies Project. Greenidge is the author of <em>Black Radical: The Life and Times of William Monroe Trotter</em> (2019). Her most recent book is the much-lauded <em>The Grimkés: The Legacy of Slavery in An American Family</em> (2022).</p> <p><small><strong>jonathan s. jones</strong></small> is assistant professor of history at James Madison University. His first book manuscript, "Opium Slavery: The Civil War,
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/cwh.2024.a918892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.2024.a918892","url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\u0000<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Contributors <!-- /html_title --></li> </ul> <p><small><strong>yoni appelbaum</strong></small>, deputy editor at the <em>Atlantic</em>, is a social and cultural historian of the United States. Before joining the <em>Atlantic</em>, he was a lecturer on history and literature at Harvard University. He previously taught at Babson College and Brandeis University, where he received his PhD in American history.</p> <p><small><strong>brie swenson arnold</strong></small> is W. P. and Gayle S. Whipple Associate Professor of History at Coe College. Her research interests center on nineteenth-century race and gender with an emphasis on print and political culture.</p> <p><small><strong>brent m. s. campney</strong></small> is professor of history at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He is the author of <em>Hostile Heartland: Racism, Repression, and Resistance in the Midwest</em> (2019) and <em>This Is Not Dixie: Racist Violence in Kansas, 1861–1927</em> (2015).</p> <p><small><strong>sarah e. chinn</strong></small> teaches American literatures and cultures in the English Department at Hunter College–CUNY. She is currently completing a book project that explores representations of amputation during Reconstruction and its relationship to white radicalism and antiracism.</p> <p><small><strong>jim downs</strong></small> is the Gilder Lehrman-National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Civil War Era Studies and History at Gettysburg College. He is the author of <em>Maladies of Empire: How Colonialism, Slavery, and War Transformed Medicine</em> (2021). His other books include <em>Sick from Freedom: African American Sickness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction</em> (2012) and <em>Stand by Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation</em> (2016).</p> <p><small><strong>drew gilpin faust</strong></small> is Arthur Kingsley Porter University Research Professor at Harvard University, where she served as president from 2007 to 2018. Faust is the author of several books, including <em>Necessary Trouble: Growing Up at Midcentury</em> (2023) and <em>This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War</em> (2008).</p> <p><small><strong>kerri k. greenidge</strong></small> is Mellon Associate Professor in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora at Tufts University, where she also codirects the African American Trail Project. She is also codirector of Tufts's Slavery, Colonialism, and Their Legacies Project. Greenidge is the author of <em>Black Radical: The Life and Times of William Monroe Trotter</em> (2019). Her most recent book is the much-lauded <em>The Grimkés: The Legacy of Slavery in An American Family</em> (2022).</p> <p><small><strong>jonathan s. jones</strong></small> is assistant professor of history at James Madison University. His first book manuscript, \"Opium Slavery: The Civil War,","PeriodicalId":43056,"journal":{"name":"CIVIL WAR HISTORY","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139768995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：