Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory. By John Cimprich. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005. Pp. ix, 193. Preface, maps, tables, appendices, notes, bibliography, index. $29.95.) River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War. By Andrew Ward. (New York: Viking, 2005. Pp. xxiii, 531. Preface, acknowledgments, maps, notes, bibliography, index. $29.95.) Few subjects will raise the ire of Lost Cause traditionalists as much as the April 12, 1864, battle at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. Nathan Bedford Forrest's Confederate cavalry overwhelmed an outpost on bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River that was manned by unionist Tennesseans and black artillerists, many of them former slaves. What followed is probably the Civil War's best-known atrocity, eclipsing similar incidents such as the killing of black troops at Poison Spring, Arkansas, six days later. Fort Pillow remains a bone of contention between those who consider it a massacre and others who deny that interpretation. Were surrendered troops killed on Forrest's orders? Those questions and others are answered in two recent books that explore the events surrounding the fighting at Fort Pillow and its bloody aftermath. John Cimprich's Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory is analytical in its approach, while Andrew Ward's passionate River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War is filled with small details, many of them culled from the statements of participants both immediately after the fight and years later when they were applying for veterans' pensions. While both books discuss the establishment of Fort Pillow, Cimprich's provides more details, including some that will be of particular interest to Arkansawyers. He notes, for instance, that the first garrison at Fort Pillow consisted of Arkansas troops commanded by Patrick Cleburne and that the buildings erected by the first Union garrison were constructed of wood taken from houses the soldiers had torn down in Osceola, Arkansas. Cimprich also devotes a chapter to the naval maneuvers that caused the Confederates to abandon the fort, which Ward does not cover at all. Cimprich, in a crisp, methodical style, scrutinizes the post-battle testimony of survivors of the garrison, the results of a congressional probe of the battle, and postwar southern efforts to portray the fighting at Fort Pillow in a softer light. He offers a detailed historiography that reaches into the 1980s, showing that both the massacre view and the apologist view still have often passionate proponents. …
枕头堡，内战大屠杀和公众记忆。约翰·辛普里希著。巴吞鲁日:路易斯安那州立大学出版社，2005。第9页，193。前言、地图、表格、附录、注释、参考书目、索引。29.95美元)。《红河奔流:美国内战中的枕头堡大屠杀》。安德鲁·沃德著。(纽约:维京出版社，2005年)第23页，第531页。前言、致谢、地图、注释、参考书目、索引。29.95美元)。没有什么事情能像1864年4月12日发生在田纳西州枕头堡的战役那样，让失败的传统主义者如此愤怒。内森·贝德福德·福雷斯特(Nathan Bedford Forrest)的邦联骑兵攻占了一个位于悬崖上俯瞰密西西比河的前哨站，该前哨站由田纳西州的联邦主义者和黑人炮兵控制，其中许多人以前是奴隶。接下来发生的可能是南北战争中最著名的暴行，使类似的事件黯然失色，比如六天后在阿肯色州毒泉(Poison Spring)杀害黑人士兵的事件。在认为这是一场大屠杀的人和否认这一解释的人之间，枕头堡仍然是争论的焦点。投降的士兵是按照福雷斯特的命令被杀的吗?这些问题和其他问题在最近出版的两本书中得到了解答，这两本书探讨了围绕在枕头堡的战斗及其血腥后果的事件。John Cimprich的《Pillow堡，内战大屠杀》和《公共记忆》在方法上是分析性的，而Andrew Ward充满激情的《River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre》则充满了小细节，其中许多细节都是从参与者在战斗结束后和几年后申请退伍军人养老金时的陈述中挑选出来的。虽然两本书都讨论了Fort Pillow的建立，但Cimprich提供了更多细节，包括阿肯色州律师特别感兴趣的一些细节。例如，他指出，在皮尤堡的第一批驻军是由帕特里克·克莱本(Patrick cleburn)指挥的阿肯色军队组成的，而第一批联邦驻军建造的房屋是用士兵们从阿肯色奥西奥拉(Osceola)拆除的房屋中取出的木材建造的。辛普里希还专门用了一章来描述导致邦联军放弃堡垒的海军演习，这一点沃德根本没有提到。辛普里希以一种简洁、有条理的风格，仔细研究了守军幸存者的战后证词、国会对这场战斗的调查结果，以及战后南方以更柔和的方式描绘枕头堡战斗的努力。他提供了一份深入到20世纪80年代的详细历史记录，表明大屠杀观点和辩护者观点仍然经常有热情的支持者。…
{"title":"Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory/River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War","authors":"Mark K. Christ","doi":"10.2307/40028100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40028100","url":null,"abstract":"Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory. By John Cimprich. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005. Pp. ix, 193. Preface, maps, tables, appendices, notes, bibliography, index. $29.95.) River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War. By Andrew Ward. (New York: Viking, 2005. Pp. xxiii, 531. Preface, acknowledgments, maps, notes, bibliography, index. $29.95.) Few subjects will raise the ire of Lost Cause traditionalists as much as the April 12, 1864, battle at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. Nathan Bedford Forrest's Confederate cavalry overwhelmed an outpost on bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River that was manned by unionist Tennesseans and black artillerists, many of them former slaves. What followed is probably the Civil War's best-known atrocity, eclipsing similar incidents such as the killing of black troops at Poison Spring, Arkansas, six days later. Fort Pillow remains a bone of contention between those who consider it a massacre and others who deny that interpretation. Were surrendered troops killed on Forrest's orders? Those questions and others are answered in two recent books that explore the events surrounding the fighting at Fort Pillow and its bloody aftermath. John Cimprich's Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory is analytical in its approach, while Andrew Ward's passionate River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War is filled with small details, many of them culled from the statements of participants both immediately after the fight and years later when they were applying for veterans' pensions. While both books discuss the establishment of Fort Pillow, Cimprich's provides more details, including some that will be of particular interest to Arkansawyers. He notes, for instance, that the first garrison at Fort Pillow consisted of Arkansas troops commanded by Patrick Cleburne and that the buildings erected by the first Union garrison were constructed of wood taken from houses the soldiers had torn down in Osceola, Arkansas. Cimprich also devotes a chapter to the naval maneuvers that caused the Confederates to abandon the fort, which Ward does not cover at all. Cimprich, in a crisp, methodical style, scrutinizes the post-battle testimony of survivors of the garrison, the results of a congressional probe of the battle, and postwar southern efforts to portray the fighting at Fort Pillow in a softer light. He offers a detailed historiography that reaches into the 1980s, showing that both the massacre view and the apologist view still have often passionate proponents. …","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"457"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40028100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68724900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
with its decision in brown v. board of education (1954), the United States Supreme Court demanded a complete overhaul of the public education system in the South and brought racial segregation to the forefront of the nation's consciousness and conscience. The American public, white and black, could no longer avoid the issue or simply dismiss school segregation as the inevitable product of culture or tradition. Many Americans, seeing the gains African Americans had already made (e.g., blacks voted in many places and both the military and professional sports were integrated), hoped school desegregation would meet with similar success. But, aided by the Court's passivity in Brown II, segregationists began a campaign to fight desegregation. Ten of the eleven former Confederate states passed legislation allowing or (in the case of Mississippi) forcing districts to maintain segregated schools. Seven states passed laws withholding funds from integrated schools. This resistance was fiercest in the Deep South, but states such as Florida and Arkansas were not immune.1 There is more to the story than massive resistance, however. While images of angry mobs in Little Rock and New Orleans cemented themselves in the American consciousness, desegregation had largely unnoticed pockets of success-even in the months immediately following Brown. Fayetteville, Arkansas, was one such place. Within a week following Brown, Fayetteville announced its intention to desegregate, and, three months later, white and black students were attending the same local high school together. Fayetteville's experience shows that historians must take a more comprehensive approach to southern school desegregation, recognizing the quiet dignity that sometimes marked the process. Fayetteville was no racial Utopia, but the town successfully dealt with the most explosive racial issue of the twentieth century. Its experience is instructive in suggesting important ingredients of successful school integration-namely a lack of excessive preexisting racial tension coupled with firm local leadership. At the time the Court handed down Brown, Arkansas, like the rest of the former Confederacy, had completely segregated elementary and secondary schools. But separate did not mean equal. The state spent $102.25 per capita on white students but just $67.75 on each black student. Yet Gov. Francis Cherry announced that the state would obey the Court, noting that Arkansas had better race relations than many other southern states. The Arkansas Democrat reported that public reaction to the decision "indicated concern but no alarm."2 The newspaper clearly disagreed with the Court's ruling ("Trying to alter a social pattern by law before custom makes way for change has always seemed unwise to us"), but also denounced defiance, stating, "Surely, we can reach a common understanding without friction in order to preserve all the education and social gains that have been made."3 The Arkansas Gazette editorialized that
在1954年的布朗诉教育委员会案(brown v. board of education)中，美国最高法院要求对南方的公共教育体系进行彻底改革，并使种族隔离成为全国意识和良心的首要问题。美国公众，无论白人还是黑人，都不能再回避这个问题，也不能简单地把学校种族隔离视为文化或传统的必然产物而不予理会。许多美国人看到非裔美国人已经取得的进步(例如，黑人在许多地方投票，军队和职业体育都被纳入种族隔离)，希望学校废除种族隔离也能取得类似的成功。但是，由于最高法院在布朗二世案中的消极态度，种族隔离主义者开始了一场反对废除种族隔离的运动。11个前邦联州中有10个州通过了立法，允许或(在密西西比的情况下)强迫地区维持种族隔离学校。七个州通过了法律，不给混合学校拨款。这种抵抗在南方腹地最为激烈，但像佛罗里达和阿肯色州这样的州也不能幸免然而，除了大规模的抵抗，还有更多的原因。当愤怒的暴民在小石城和新奥尔良的形象在美国人的意识中根深蒂固时，废除种族隔离在很大程度上取得了不为人知的成功——甚至在布朗案发生后的几个月里。阿肯色州的费耶特维尔就是这样一个地方。布朗案发生后的一周内，费耶特维尔宣布废除种族隔离制度，三个月后，白人和黑人学生在当地同一所高中就读。费耶特维尔的经历表明，历史学家必须对南方学校废除种族隔离采取更全面的态度，认识到这一过程中有时表现出的安静的尊严。费耶特维尔不是种族的乌托邦，但这个城镇成功地处理了20世纪最具爆炸性的种族问题。它的经验在指出成功的学校融合的重要因素方面具有指导意义——即缺乏过度的预先存在的种族紧张关系，加上坚定的地方领导。在最高法院判决布朗案的时候，阿肯色和其他前邦联州一样，在小学和中学实行完全的种族隔离。但是分开并不意味着平等。该州在白人学生身上的人均支出为102.25美元，而在黑人学生身上的人均支出仅为67.75美元。然而，州长弗朗西斯·切里(Francis Cherry)宣布，该州将服从最高法院的裁决，并指出阿肯色州的种族关系比南方许多其他州都要好。阿肯色州民主党人报告说，公众对这一决定的反应“表示担忧，但没有惊慌”。《纽约时报》显然不同意法院的裁决(“在习俗为变革让路之前，试图通过法律来改变一种社会模式，对我们来说总是不明智的”)，但也谴责了这种蔑视行为，称:“当然，为了保护所有已经取得的教育和社会成果，我们可以在没有摩擦的情况下达成共识。”《阿肯色公报》发表社论说，布朗案需要“冷静地重新评估我们履行为所有孩子提供充分教育机会这一长期公认的义务的方式....”我们再一次面临着严峻的考验，但我们相信，阿肯色州将以真诚和善意迎接未来。两个种族的领导人都谨慎乐观地认为，如果在当地逐步解决，废除种族隔离可能不会发生重大事件。1954年11月，该州向最高法院提交的摘要主张逐步实行种族融合，认为立即采取行动可能对阿肯色州的学校造成灾难性的影响然而，在提交意见书的时候，阿肯色州已经开始在学校废除种族隔离。在最高法院1954年5月宣布“布朗案”后的几天内，包括费耶特维尔在内的三个阿肯色州学校系统宣布了废除种族隔离的计划，第四所学校在没有公开意图的情况下继续推进。阿肯色聋哑学校只计划取消那些目前不面向黑人学生的课程的种族隔离，这一事实，再加上学校的非传统地位，平息了任何潜在的抗议。…
{"title":"Brown in Fayetteville: Peaceful Southern School Desegregation in 1954","authors":"A. Brill","doi":"10.2307/40028090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40028090","url":null,"abstract":"with its decision in brown v. board of education (1954), the United States Supreme Court demanded a complete overhaul of the public education system in the South and brought racial segregation to the forefront of the nation's consciousness and conscience. The American public, white and black, could no longer avoid the issue or simply dismiss school segregation as the inevitable product of culture or tradition. Many Americans, seeing the gains African Americans had already made (e.g., blacks voted in many places and both the military and professional sports were integrated), hoped school desegregation would meet with similar success. But, aided by the Court's passivity in Brown II, segregationists began a campaign to fight desegregation. Ten of the eleven former Confederate states passed legislation allowing or (in the case of Mississippi) forcing districts to maintain segregated schools. Seven states passed laws withholding funds from integrated schools. This resistance was fiercest in the Deep South, but states such as Florida and Arkansas were not immune.1 There is more to the story than massive resistance, however. While images of angry mobs in Little Rock and New Orleans cemented themselves in the American consciousness, desegregation had largely unnoticed pockets of success-even in the months immediately following Brown. Fayetteville, Arkansas, was one such place. Within a week following Brown, Fayetteville announced its intention to desegregate, and, three months later, white and black students were attending the same local high school together. Fayetteville's experience shows that historians must take a more comprehensive approach to southern school desegregation, recognizing the quiet dignity that sometimes marked the process. Fayetteville was no racial Utopia, but the town successfully dealt with the most explosive racial issue of the twentieth century. Its experience is instructive in suggesting important ingredients of successful school integration-namely a lack of excessive preexisting racial tension coupled with firm local leadership. At the time the Court handed down Brown, Arkansas, like the rest of the former Confederacy, had completely segregated elementary and secondary schools. But separate did not mean equal. The state spent $102.25 per capita on white students but just $67.75 on each black student. Yet Gov. Francis Cherry announced that the state would obey the Court, noting that Arkansas had better race relations than many other southern states. The Arkansas Democrat reported that public reaction to the decision \"indicated concern but no alarm.\"2 The newspaper clearly disagreed with the Court's ruling (\"Trying to alter a social pattern by law before custom makes way for change has always seemed unwise to us\"), but also denounced defiance, stating, \"Surely, we can reach a common understanding without friction in order to preserve all the education and social gains that have been made.\"3 The Arkansas Gazette editorialized that","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40028090","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68725081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Autobiography of Samuel S. Hildebrand: The Renowned Missouri Bushwhacker. Edited by Kirby Ross. (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2005. Pp. xvii, 276. Series editor's preface by Daniel Sutherland, acknowledgments, introduction, editor's preface [1870], map, illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $24.95.) One of the most controversial aspects of the American Civil War is the guerrilla conflict that raged in Missouri and Arkansas. While historians have recently given this struggle more scholarly attention, research is often hampered by a lack of sources. Fortunately, the most notorious Confederate guerrilla in southeast Missouri, Samuel S. Hildebrand, published an autobiography shortly before his death in 1871, while wartime events were still relatively fresh in his mind. An illiterate man, Hildebrand narrated his story to James W. Evans and A. Wendell Keith, M.D. Hildebrand grew up with these men, and they wrote the text after their extensive interviews with the famous guerrilla. Out of print for decades, Autobiography of Samuel S. Hildebrand: The Renowned Missouri Bushwhacker has been republished by the University of Arkansas Press fully annotated by Kirby Ross. Hildebrand lived in St. Francois County in 1861. Wanting no part in the war, Hildebrand declared that he would have remained neutral had it not been for a local vigilance committee. Headed by unionists, the committee accused Hildebrand of stealing a horse. Though innocent of the crime, he was hunted by Union troops and wounded when they burned his home. The committee also hanged his brother Frank. Sam and his family fled to Arkansas where they found safety in the camp of Capt. Nathan Bolin's guerrilla company. Later, two more of Hildebrand's brothers were killed by Union troops. Another brother served in the Union army. Operating from a base in Arkansas, Hildebrand conducted numerous raids into Missouri, where he preyed on Union civilians and soldiers. He claimed to have a major's commission from Confederate general M. Jeff Thompson, though this is doubtful. Regardless of his legal status, Hildebrand was adept at the hit-and-run tactics of guerrilla warfare. He and his comrades often wore captured Federal uniforms and operated successfully throughout southeast Missouri. Hildebrand vowed to kill as many of his enemies as possible and dozens of men suffered his wrath. Nevertheless, he did show mercy on a few captured Union soldiers. In one incident, he released two Federals on their promise to free two of Captain Bolin's men held at Ironton, Missouri. …
塞缪尔·希尔德布兰德自传:著名的密苏里丛林猎人。柯比·罗斯编辑。费耶特维尔:阿肯色大学出版社，2005。第17页，276页。系列编辑丹尼尔·萨瑟兰的序言，致谢，介绍，编辑的序言[1870]，地图，插图，注释，参考书目，索引。24.95美元)。美国内战中最具争议的方面之一是在密苏里州和阿肯色州肆虐的游击冲突。虽然历史学家最近给予了这一斗争更多的学术关注，但研究往往受到缺乏资料的阻碍。幸运的是，在密苏里州东南部最臭名昭著的南部邦联游击队员塞缪尔·希尔德布兰德(Samuel S. Hildebrand)在1871年去世前不久出版了一本自传，当时战争事件对他来说还相对新鲜。作为一个不识字的人，希尔德布兰德向詹姆斯·w·埃文斯和a·温德尔·基思讲述了他的故事，希尔德布兰德和这些人一起长大，他们在对这位著名的游击队员进行了广泛的采访后写下了这篇文章。绝版了几十年的《塞缪尔·希尔德布兰德自传:著名的密苏里丛林猎人》由阿肯色大学出版社重新出版，并由柯比·罗斯进行了全面注释。希尔德布兰德1861年住在圣弗朗索瓦县。希尔德布兰德不想参与战争，他宣称，如果没有当地的警戒委员会，他将保持中立。由工会成员领导的委员会指控希尔德布兰德偷了一匹马。虽然他是无辜的，但他被联邦军队追捕，并在他们烧毁他的家时受伤。委员会还绞死了他的兄弟弗兰克。萨姆和他的家人逃到阿肯色州，在那里他们在内森·博林上尉的游击队连的营地里找到了安全的地方。后来，希尔德布兰德的两个兄弟又被联邦军队杀害。他的另一个兄弟在联邦军服役。希尔德布兰德从阿肯色州的一个基地出发，对密苏里州进行了多次袭击，在那里他以联邦平民和士兵为目标。他声称自己从邦联将军杰夫·汤普森那里获得了少校的任命，尽管这一点值得怀疑。不管他的法律地位如何，希尔德布兰德在游击战中擅长打了就跑的战术。他和他的战友们经常穿着缴获的联邦军服，在密苏里州东南部成功作战。希尔德布兰德发誓要杀死尽可能多的敌人，数十人遭受了他的愤怒。尽管如此，他还是对一些被俘的联邦士兵表示了怜悯。在一次事件中，他释放了两名联邦士兵，因为他们承诺释放被关押在密苏里州艾尔顿的两名博林上尉的手下。…
{"title":"Autobiography of Samuel S. Hildebrand: The Renowned Missouri Bushwhacker","authors":"Kirby Ross, Daniel E. Sutherland","doi":"10.2307/J.CTT1FFJDSF","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/J.CTT1FFJDSF","url":null,"abstract":"Autobiography of Samuel S. Hildebrand: The Renowned Missouri Bushwhacker. Edited by Kirby Ross. (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2005. Pp. xvii, 276. Series editor's preface by Daniel Sutherland, acknowledgments, introduction, editor's preface [1870], map, illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $24.95.) One of the most controversial aspects of the American Civil War is the guerrilla conflict that raged in Missouri and Arkansas. While historians have recently given this struggle more scholarly attention, research is often hampered by a lack of sources. Fortunately, the most notorious Confederate guerrilla in southeast Missouri, Samuel S. Hildebrand, published an autobiography shortly before his death in 1871, while wartime events were still relatively fresh in his mind. An illiterate man, Hildebrand narrated his story to James W. Evans and A. Wendell Keith, M.D. Hildebrand grew up with these men, and they wrote the text after their extensive interviews with the famous guerrilla. Out of print for decades, Autobiography of Samuel S. Hildebrand: The Renowned Missouri Bushwhacker has been republished by the University of Arkansas Press fully annotated by Kirby Ross. Hildebrand lived in St. Francois County in 1861. Wanting no part in the war, Hildebrand declared that he would have remained neutral had it not been for a local vigilance committee. Headed by unionists, the committee accused Hildebrand of stealing a horse. Though innocent of the crime, he was hunted by Union troops and wounded when they burned his home. The committee also hanged his brother Frank. Sam and his family fled to Arkansas where they found safety in the camp of Capt. Nathan Bolin's guerrilla company. Later, two more of Hildebrand's brothers were killed by Union troops. Another brother served in the Union army. Operating from a base in Arkansas, Hildebrand conducted numerous raids into Missouri, where he preyed on Union civilians and soldiers. He claimed to have a major's commission from Confederate general M. Jeff Thompson, though this is doubtful. Regardless of his legal status, Hildebrand was adept at the hit-and-run tactics of guerrilla warfare. He and his comrades often wore captured Federal uniforms and operated successfully throughout southeast Missouri. Hildebrand vowed to kill as many of his enemies as possible and dozens of men suffered his wrath. Nevertheless, he did show mercy on a few captured Union soldiers. In one incident, he released two Federals on their promise to free two of Captain Bolin's men held at Ironton, Missouri. …","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"315"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68714984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ARKANSAS'S UNIVERSITIES at Jonesboro, Magnolia, Monticello, and Russellville owe their existence to the Farmers' Educational and Cooperative Union. It struggled a century ago to have the legislature establish four agricultural schools in the state. These schools took many decades to flower into universities, an evolution that occurred in several stages and was by no means assured. But without the union's uncompromising demand from 1906 to 1909 for four schools, at least two of these institutions of higher education-Arkansas State University, Arkansas Tech University, Southern Arkansas University, and the University of Arkansas at Monticello-would likely not exist today. Agricultural education reform during the Progressive Era was part of a broader national impulse-the County Life Movement. It aimed generally to reverse the decline of rural America. Several approaches to spreading modern farming practices in a countryside still using traditional methods competed within the movement, including various models for agricultural education. In Arkansas, the views of the Farmers' Union triumphed with respect to the number, type, and management of agricultural schools. The union prevailed even against its allies-Arkansas educators, the General Education Board, and Gov. George W. Donaghey-who wanted fewer schools and different kinds of schools. When the Arkansas legislature in 1909 passed Act 100 to establish a "State Agricultural School" in each of four districts, the state joined the front ranks of progressive reform. Such schools at the secondary level had captured the imagination and won the support of many who worried about the widening economic and social gap between urban-industrial America and the agrarian countryside. It was made worse, they believed, by the drain of able, ambitious young people from farm to city. President Theodore Roosevelt declared in 1907: I am firmly convinced that most farmers' boys and girls should be educated through agricultural high schools and through the teaching of practical elementary agriculture in the rural common schools, so that when grown up they shall become farmers and farmers' wives. Education should be toward and not away from the farm. There must be an organized effort to restore or create the highest social condition in the country districts.1 Roosevelt favored legislation that Georgia congressmen introduced to provide federal funding for "instruction and home economics in secondary agricultural schools."2 Roosevelt's assistant secretary of agriculture, WiIlet M. Hays, confidently predicted in 1908 that soon there would be some "300 to 400 agricultural finishing schools-practically one in each country congressional district."3 The Commission on Country Life that Roosevelt established declared in 1909 that "redirected education" was of "paramount importance" and advocated three approaches: 1) the study of agriculture in "regular public school work;" 2) "specialized agricultural schools;" and 3) "extension t
阿肯色州的琼斯博罗、Magnolia、Monticello和Russellville大学的存在要归功于农民教育与合作联盟。一个世纪前，为了让立法机构在该州建立四所农业学校，该州曾经历过一番挣扎。这些学校花了几十年的时间才发展成为大学，这一演变经历了几个阶段，而且绝不是确定的。但是，如果不是工会在1906年到1909年间毫不妥协地要求建立四所学校，这些高等教育机构中至少有两所——阿肯色州立大学、阿肯色理工大学、南阿肯色大学和阿肯色大学蒙蒂塞洛分校——今天可能就不存在了。进步时代的农业教育改革是一场更广泛的全国性运动——乡村生活运动的一部分。它的总体目标是扭转美国农村的衰落。在仍在使用传统方法的农村传播现代农业实践的几种方法在运动中相互竞争，包括各种农业教育模式。在阿肯色州，农民联盟的观点在农业学校的数量、类型和管理方面取得了胜利。工会甚至战胜了它的盟友——阿肯色州教育工作者、普通教育委员会和州长乔治·w·多纳希——他们希望减少学校数量，改变学校种类。当阿肯色州立法机关于1909年通过第100号法案，在四个区各建立一所“州立农业学校”时，该州加入了进步改革的前沿。这种中等水平的学校激发了人们的想象力，赢得了许多人的支持，他们担心美国城市工业和农业农村之间的经济和社会差距正在扩大。他们认为，有能力、有抱负的年轻人从农村流入城市，使情况变得更糟。西奥多·罗斯福总统在1907年宣布:我坚定地相信，大多数农民的男孩和女孩应该通过农业高中和农村普通学校的实用初级农业教学来接受教育，这样他们长大后就会成为农民和农民的妻子。教育应该朝着农场而不是远离农场。必须有组织地努力在乡村地区恢复或创造最高的社会条件罗斯福赞成乔治亚州国会议员提出的立法，为“中等农业学校的教学和家政学”提供联邦资金。罗斯福的农业助理部长海斯(wililet M. Hays)在1908年自信地预测，很快就会有“300至400所农业精加工学校——实际上每个国家的国会选区都有一所”。罗斯福成立的乡村生活委员会在1909年宣布，“重新定向教育”是“至关重要的”，并提倡三种方法:1)在“正规公立学校工作”中学习农业;2） “农业专业学校”;及农业院校采用纸页、面授、示范等方式进行推广教学。在许多州，建立农业学校的运动已经开始。在慈善事业的大力支持下，19世纪建立了一些农业和工业学校。到1900年，阿拉巴马州、明尼苏达州和内布拉斯加州这三个州已经建立了公立农业学校;十年之内，又有14个州这样做了。南方最早的农业学校以黑人为对象进行“实用”教育，而白人更喜欢的教育途径仍然是传统的文科课程阿拉巴马州除了资助塔斯基吉非裔美国人学院外，从1889年开始，在每个国会选区建立了白人专用的“农业”学校，但这些学校的课程主要是文学，直到1908年才强调农业培训，直到1912年才强调家政学。…
{"title":"The Farmers' Schools of 1909: The Origins of Arkansas's Four Regional Universities","authors":"James F. Willis","doi":"10.2307/40031077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40031077","url":null,"abstract":"ARKANSAS'S UNIVERSITIES at Jonesboro, Magnolia, Monticello, and Russellville owe their existence to the Farmers' Educational and Cooperative Union. It struggled a century ago to have the legislature establish four agricultural schools in the state. These schools took many decades to flower into universities, an evolution that occurred in several stages and was by no means assured. But without the union's uncompromising demand from 1906 to 1909 for four schools, at least two of these institutions of higher education-Arkansas State University, Arkansas Tech University, Southern Arkansas University, and the University of Arkansas at Monticello-would likely not exist today. Agricultural education reform during the Progressive Era was part of a broader national impulse-the County Life Movement. It aimed generally to reverse the decline of rural America. Several approaches to spreading modern farming practices in a countryside still using traditional methods competed within the movement, including various models for agricultural education. In Arkansas, the views of the Farmers' Union triumphed with respect to the number, type, and management of agricultural schools. The union prevailed even against its allies-Arkansas educators, the General Education Board, and Gov. George W. Donaghey-who wanted fewer schools and different kinds of schools. When the Arkansas legislature in 1909 passed Act 100 to establish a \"State Agricultural School\" in each of four districts, the state joined the front ranks of progressive reform. Such schools at the secondary level had captured the imagination and won the support of many who worried about the widening economic and social gap between urban-industrial America and the agrarian countryside. It was made worse, they believed, by the drain of able, ambitious young people from farm to city. President Theodore Roosevelt declared in 1907: I am firmly convinced that most farmers' boys and girls should be educated through agricultural high schools and through the teaching of practical elementary agriculture in the rural common schools, so that when grown up they shall become farmers and farmers' wives. Education should be toward and not away from the farm. There must be an organized effort to restore or create the highest social condition in the country districts.1 Roosevelt favored legislation that Georgia congressmen introduced to provide federal funding for \"instruction and home economics in secondary agricultural schools.\"2 Roosevelt's assistant secretary of agriculture, WiIlet M. Hays, confidently predicted in 1908 that soon there would be some \"300 to 400 agricultural finishing schools-practically one in each country congressional district.\"3 The Commission on Country Life that Roosevelt established declared in 1909 that \"redirected education\" was of \"paramount importance\" and advocated three approaches: 1) the study of agriculture in \"regular public school work;\" 2) \"specialized agricultural schools;\" and 3) \"extension t","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40031077","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68735715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Life and Times of W. H. Arnold of Arkansas: Reconstructing the Southern Ideal. By Mari Serebrov. (West Conshocken, PA: InfinityPublishing.com, 2005. Pp. xxx, 433. Preface, note about sources, foreword, illustrations, appendices, notes, index of place names, index of people, general index. $20.95, paper.) W. H. Arnold founded both a Texarkana law firm and a dynasty of distinguished attorneys. This book chronicles the story of W. H. Arnold, who lived from 1861 to 1946, and his family in Arkansas. The author contends that Arnold's life epitomized the elite "Southern ideal," comprising a commitment to family, community, and religion, as described by historians such as C. Vann Woodward, Wilbur J. Cash and Bertram Wyatt-Brown (p. xxv). The author convincingly makes her case that Arnold believed in the ideal and made his choices in life accordingly. The chronicle begins in the early 1800s with the Arnold ancestor who moved from Alabama to Arkansas and follows his family's migration to what was then Hempstead County. His daughter Temperance married David Arnold (a distant cousin), who had himself migrated from South Carolina to settle near Lisbon. The couple's children included W. H., who was born at the onset of the Civil War. The fortunes of David, Temperance, and their family are followed through prosperous antebellum times, the disastrous Civil War, and the upheavals of Reconstruction. Roughly the last half of the text traces W. H. Arnold's life. Arnold read for the bar, the most common means of professional training for a lawyer in the nineteenth century. In addition to practicing law, he held various public offices, such as Texarkana city recorder, mayor from 1892 to 1894, and county chair of the Democratic Party. He was an influential member of the Arkansas bar, serving as vice president of the Arkansas Bar Association and a delegate to the 1917 state constitutional convention. He was also one of the founding members of the prestigious American Law Institute, established to reform the common law of the United States. The appendices include a genealogy of the family, selected military and slave records, endnotes, a bibliography, and indexes by place, name, and subject. The book is well researched. The approximately 150 sources include books, articles, censuses, and newspapers. But it has several weaknesses. First, the antebellum chapters of the book contain numerous passages that verge on historical fiction. We are told that "there were moments, long ones, in which [William Bideston Arnold's] eyes settled musingly on the distant horizon" (p. 1). William is said to have "ignored the sounds of bears ravaging the cornfields and the wolves howling in the woods" while he listened to a preacher at a service in Alabama in 1821 (p. 2). However the endnote to this paragraph tells us that "[tjhere is no record of William's conversion or of his attendance at this meeting. …
阿肯色w·h·阿诺德的生平与时代:重建南方理想。作者:Mari Serebrov。(West Conshocken, PA: InfinityPublishing.com, 2005)第xxx页，433页。前言、资料注释、前言、插图、附录、注释、地名索引、人名索引、总索引。20.95美元,纸上。)w·h·阿诺德(W. H. Arnold)在特克萨卡纳州创立了一家律师事务所，并造就了一批杰出的律师。这本书记录了1861年到1946年生活在阿肯色州的w·h·阿诺德和他的家人的故事。作者认为阿诺德的一生是精英“南方理想”的缩影，包括对家庭、社区和宗教的承诺，如C. Vann Woodward、Wilbur J. Cash和Bertram Wyatt-Brown等历史学家所描述的那样(第25页)。作者令人信服地证明阿诺德相信这种理想，并据此做出人生选择。这部编年史开始于19世纪初，阿诺德的祖先从阿拉巴马州搬到阿肯色州，并跟随他的家人迁移到当时的亨普斯特德县。他的女儿坦普瑞斯嫁给了大卫·阿诺德(他的远房堂兄)，他自己也从南卡罗来纳移民到里斯本附近定居。这对夫妇的孩子包括W. H.，他出生在内战开始的时候。大卫、坦普瑞和他们的家庭经历了繁荣的战前时期、灾难性的内战和重建时期的动荡。正文的后半部分大致追溯了w·h·阿诺德的一生。阿诺德为获得律师资格而读书，这是19世纪律师最常见的专业训练方式。除了执业律师，他还担任过各种公职，如特克萨卡纳市记录员，1892年至1894年的市长，以及民主党的县主席。他是阿肯色州律师协会中很有影响力的成员，曾担任阿肯色州律师协会副主席，并作为代表参加了1917年的州制宪会议。他也是著名的美国法律研究所的创始成员之一，该研究所旨在改革美国的普通法。附录包括家庭的家谱，精选的军事和奴隶记录，尾注，参考书目，以及按地点，姓名和主题的索引。这本书研究得很透彻。大约150个资料来源包括书籍、文章、人口普查和报纸。但它有几个弱点。首先，书中战前的章节包含了许多接近历史小说的段落。我们被告知,“有时刻,长句子,威廉Bideston阿诺德的眼睛沉思地定居在遥远的地平线”(p . 1)。据说威廉”忽略了熊蹂躏玉米地和狼咆哮的声音在树林里”,他听了一个传教士在阿拉巴马州的一个服务在1821年(p。2)。然而,尾注,这一段告诉我们,“(威廉tjhere没有记录的转换或他的出席这次会议。…
{"title":"The Life and Times of W. H. Arnold of Arkansas: Reconstructing the Southern Ideal","authors":"Lynn Foster, M. Serebrov","doi":"10.2307/40031084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40031084","url":null,"abstract":"The Life and Times of W. H. Arnold of Arkansas: Reconstructing the Southern Ideal. By Mari Serebrov. (West Conshocken, PA: InfinityPublishing.com, 2005. Pp. xxx, 433. Preface, note about sources, foreword, illustrations, appendices, notes, index of place names, index of people, general index. $20.95, paper.) W. H. Arnold founded both a Texarkana law firm and a dynasty of distinguished attorneys. This book chronicles the story of W. H. Arnold, who lived from 1861 to 1946, and his family in Arkansas. The author contends that Arnold's life epitomized the elite \"Southern ideal,\" comprising a commitment to family, community, and religion, as described by historians such as C. Vann Woodward, Wilbur J. Cash and Bertram Wyatt-Brown (p. xxv). The author convincingly makes her case that Arnold believed in the ideal and made his choices in life accordingly. The chronicle begins in the early 1800s with the Arnold ancestor who moved from Alabama to Arkansas and follows his family's migration to what was then Hempstead County. His daughter Temperance married David Arnold (a distant cousin), who had himself migrated from South Carolina to settle near Lisbon. The couple's children included W. H., who was born at the onset of the Civil War. The fortunes of David, Temperance, and their family are followed through prosperous antebellum times, the disastrous Civil War, and the upheavals of Reconstruction. Roughly the last half of the text traces W. H. Arnold's life. Arnold read for the bar, the most common means of professional training for a lawyer in the nineteenth century. In addition to practicing law, he held various public offices, such as Texarkana city recorder, mayor from 1892 to 1894, and county chair of the Democratic Party. He was an influential member of the Arkansas bar, serving as vice president of the Arkansas Bar Association and a delegate to the 1917 state constitutional convention. He was also one of the founding members of the prestigious American Law Institute, established to reform the common law of the United States. The appendices include a genealogy of the family, selected military and slave records, endnotes, a bibliography, and indexes by place, name, and subject. The book is well researched. The approximately 150 sources include books, articles, censuses, and newspapers. But it has several weaknesses. First, the antebellum chapters of the book contain numerous passages that verge on historical fiction. We are told that \"there were moments, long ones, in which [William Bideston Arnold's] eyes settled musingly on the distant horizon\" (p. 1). William is said to have \"ignored the sounds of bears ravaging the cornfields and the wolves howling in the woods\" while he listened to a preacher at a service in Alabama in 1821 (p. 2). However the endnote to this paragraph tells us that \"[tjhere is no record of William's conversion or of his attendance at this meeting. …","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40031084","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68736151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
RECENT STUDIES OF KINSHIP have demonstrated that understanding family connections can broaden insights into migratory patterns, political and economic opportunities, and class standing in southern society. Carolyn Earle Billingsley, in Communities of Kinship: Antebellum Families and the Settlement of the Cotton Frontier, makes a strong case for employing kinship in addition to race, class, and gender as an analytical tool. She notes that kinship alliances were the "major determinant in social, political, and economic power." In the case of women, kinship studies allow scholars to accumulate revealing information about lives and relationships that would otherwise be lost due to their less public nature.1 When biographers focus too narrowly on the achievements of an individual without considering the person's family context, the full truth of the life can be missed. The life of Simon T. Sanders, a prominent citizen in nineteenth-century Washington, Arkansas, offers a case study in the utility of kinship as an analytical tool. In 1980, an essay titled "Simon T. Sanders: Public Servant" won the Arkansas Historical Association's Lucille Westbrook Local History Award. Written by Donald Montgomery, then park historian at Old Washington Historic State Park, it subsequently appeared in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly. Montgomery based his article largely on an obituary of Sanders published shortly after his death.2 In the quarter-century since its publication, additional sources have come to light, especially with the availability of materials on the internet. These additional sources provide a new perspective on Sanders by illuminating his kinship relations with other Hempstead County residents.3 Simon Sanders was not a man alone in Hempstead County. Through his wife-a member of the Meredith family-and her sisters, he was connected to a large extended family that included a number of the important early settlers of this antebellum community. Simon T. Sanders was born in Wake County, North Carolina, on April 16,1797, to Hardy Sanders, Jr. and Edith Turner. While the Sanders family can be traced back to Virginia in the 160Os, Simon Sanders' great grandparents moved to North Carolina in the 170Os. Simon was the oldest of the known children, followed by William, Cynthia, Elizabeth, and Hardy T.4 Sanders received a common school education and early on showed an aptitude for business and record keeping. He went to work at the age of seventeen, in 1814, in North Carolina secretary of state William Hill's office in Raleigh. It is not known how long Sanders worked for Hill, but the name Simon Sanders appeared as clerk of the North Carolina legislature in 1815 and as secretary of the same body in 1817.5 Apparently, Sanders quickly acquired a reputation for personal integrity, punctuality, and attention to detail. His work was so well respected that he was soon offered a position as personal secretary to Montfort Stokes. Although A. B. Williams, in writing Sander
最近对亲属关系的研究表明，了解家庭关系可以拓宽对南方社会迁移模式、政治和经济机会以及阶级地位的见解。Carolyn Earle Billingsley在《亲属关系社区:战前家庭和棉花边境的定居》一书中，有力地证明了除了种族、阶级和性别之外，还使用亲属关系作为分析工具。她指出，亲属联盟是“社会、政治和经济力量的主要决定因素”。就女性而言，亲属关系研究使学者们能够积累关于生活和关系的揭示性信息，否则这些信息将因其不太公开的性质而丢失当传记作者过于狭隘地关注一个人的成就，而不考虑这个人的家庭背景时，就会错过生活的全部真相。西蒙·t·桑德斯(Simon T. Sanders)是19世纪阿肯色州华盛顿的一位杰出公民，他的生活提供了一个案例研究，说明亲属关系作为一种分析工具的效用。1980年，一篇题为《西蒙·t·桑德斯:公仆》的文章获得了阿肯色州历史协会的露西尔·韦斯特布鲁克地方历史奖。这本书的作者是唐纳德·蒙哥马利，他当时是老华盛顿州立历史公园的公园历史学家，后来发表在《阿肯色历史季刊》上。蒙哥马利的文章主要取材于桑德斯死后不久发表的一篇讣告在这本书出版后的四分之一个世纪里，更多的资料来源浮出水面，尤其是在互联网上的资料。这些额外的来源通过阐明桑德斯与其他亨普斯特德县居民的亲属关系，为桑德斯提供了一个新的视角在亨普斯特德县，西蒙·桑德斯并不是孤身一人。通过他的妻子——梅雷迪思家族的一员——和她的姐妹们，他与一个大家族有了联系，这个大家族包括了这个内战前社区的许多重要的早期定居者。西蒙·桑德斯于1797年4月16日出生在北卡罗来纳州的威克县，父母是哈迪·桑德斯和伊迪丝·特纳。虽然桑德斯家族可以追溯到20世纪60年代的弗吉尼亚州，但西蒙·桑德斯的曾祖父母在20世纪70年代搬到了北卡罗来纳州。西蒙是已知的孩子中年龄最大的，其次是威廉、辛西娅、伊丽莎白和哈代。桑德斯接受的是普通学校教育，很早就显示出做生意和记账的天赋。1814年，17岁的他开始在北卡罗来纳州罗利的国务卿威廉·希尔办公室工作。我们不知道桑德斯为希尔工作了多久，但是西蒙·桑德斯这个名字在1815年和1817年分别以北卡罗莱纳州立法机关书记和秘书的身份出现。很明显，桑德斯很快获得了正直、守时和注重细节的名声。他的作品很受尊敬，很快就得到了蒙福特·斯托克斯私人秘书的职位。尽管a·b·威廉姆斯在为桑德斯撰写讣告时表示，西蒙在他担任州长期间为斯托克斯工作，但桑德斯在斯托克斯上任前一年多就离开了北卡罗来纳州。相反，桑德斯可能是在1823年斯托克斯离开美国参议院到1826年他被选为北卡罗来纳州参议员之间的某个时间为斯托克斯工作的。6桑德斯的政府服务使他接触到北卡罗来纳州的权力人士，为他提供了有趣的轶事，他后来与阿肯色州的朋友分享，但也提醒他注意经济机会在18世纪80年代早期，北卡罗来纳向独立战争中的士兵授予了西部领土(后来成为西田纳西州)的土地出售权证。1820年，州政府给了北卡罗莱纳大学无人认领的特许状，加速了白人在西田纳西州的定居。桑德斯在州政府的工作无疑引起了他对这一事态发展的注意，并把他的思想集中在西部边疆的机会上。…
{"title":"Simon T. Sanders and the Meredith Clan: The Case for Kinship Studies","authors":"M. Kwas","doi":"10.2307/40031078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40031078","url":null,"abstract":"RECENT STUDIES OF KINSHIP have demonstrated that understanding family connections can broaden insights into migratory patterns, political and economic opportunities, and class standing in southern society. Carolyn Earle Billingsley, in Communities of Kinship: Antebellum Families and the Settlement of the Cotton Frontier, makes a strong case for employing kinship in addition to race, class, and gender as an analytical tool. She notes that kinship alliances were the \"major determinant in social, political, and economic power.\" In the case of women, kinship studies allow scholars to accumulate revealing information about lives and relationships that would otherwise be lost due to their less public nature.1 When biographers focus too narrowly on the achievements of an individual without considering the person's family context, the full truth of the life can be missed. The life of Simon T. Sanders, a prominent citizen in nineteenth-century Washington, Arkansas, offers a case study in the utility of kinship as an analytical tool. In 1980, an essay titled \"Simon T. Sanders: Public Servant\" won the Arkansas Historical Association's Lucille Westbrook Local History Award. Written by Donald Montgomery, then park historian at Old Washington Historic State Park, it subsequently appeared in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly. Montgomery based his article largely on an obituary of Sanders published shortly after his death.2 In the quarter-century since its publication, additional sources have come to light, especially with the availability of materials on the internet. These additional sources provide a new perspective on Sanders by illuminating his kinship relations with other Hempstead County residents.3 Simon Sanders was not a man alone in Hempstead County. Through his wife-a member of the Meredith family-and her sisters, he was connected to a large extended family that included a number of the important early settlers of this antebellum community. Simon T. Sanders was born in Wake County, North Carolina, on April 16,1797, to Hardy Sanders, Jr. and Edith Turner. While the Sanders family can be traced back to Virginia in the 160Os, Simon Sanders' great grandparents moved to North Carolina in the 170Os. Simon was the oldest of the known children, followed by William, Cynthia, Elizabeth, and Hardy T.4 Sanders received a common school education and early on showed an aptitude for business and record keeping. He went to work at the age of seventeen, in 1814, in North Carolina secretary of state William Hill's office in Raleigh. It is not known how long Sanders worked for Hill, but the name Simon Sanders appeared as clerk of the North Carolina legislature in 1815 and as secretary of the same body in 1817.5 Apparently, Sanders quickly acquired a reputation for personal integrity, punctuality, and attention to detail. His work was so well respected that he was soon offered a position as personal secretary to Montfort Stokes. Although A. B. Williams, in writing Sander","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"39 1","pages":"250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40031078","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68735342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
MARK TWAIN'S SEMI-AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTER in Life on the Mississippi had heard a tale of murder, revenge, and buried treasure. A dying man told him of an unscrupulous Union soldier who had stowed ten thousand dollars in gold in Napoleon, Arkansas, during the closing days of the war. Twain sought the treasure and was on his way to Napoleon with directions to the loot: "Brick livery stable, stone foundation, middle of town, corner of Orleans and Market. Corner toward Court-house. Third stone, fourth row." As the riverboat approached Napoleon, Twain told the captain to go ashore, but the captain explained: "Why, hang it, don't you know? There is n't any Napoleon any more. Has n't been for years and years. The Arkansas River burst through it, tore it all to rags, and emptied it into the Mississippi!" Any hope that the treasure might remain in the ruins was dashed as the captain described the destruction of the town: "Just a fifteen minute job, or such a matter. Did n't leave hide nor hair, shred nor shingle of it, except the fag-end of a shanty and one brick chimney,-all that's left of Napoleon." Twain fondly recalled that Napoleon had been a "good big self-complacent town twenty years ago. Town that was county-seat of a great and important county; town with a big United States marine hospital; town of innumerable fights-an inquest every day; town where I had used to know the prettiest girl... and the most accomplished in the whole Mississippi Valley."1 Napoleon had been washed away by the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers in the years following the Civil War. Twain's 1883 account of its destruction-"swallowed up, vanished, gone to feed the fishes"-was more dramatic than the actual process, but the town's ruin demonstrated the Mississippi's power and the futility of efforts to control it. Yet the river had also brought the town into being. The ambitious residents of Napoleon, who had made their town into a well-known stopover for those traveling the Mississippi between the 184Os and 186Os, had paid more attention to the commercial possibilities than to the dangers of the river, which often flooded the town.2 The town of Napoleon existed at the confluence of the Mississippi and Arkansas for fewer than fifty years. But many notable events took place at that site even before the town was founded. Some suggest that the Jesuit missionary Marquette may have celebrated Arkansas's first Catholic mass there. It might have been the burial site for Pierre Laclede, who founded St. Louis in 1764 and died on a return trip from New Orleans.3 Napoleon was founded in the 182Os or 183Os by the planter, land speculator, and former French soldier Frederick Notrebe, who named it for "his old commander," though he had been forced to flee Napoleonic France.4 Scholars have disagreed as to the exact year of Napoleon's establishment, some placing it as late as 1840. But Napoleon's first primary school was founded on December 10, 1838. Earlier that year, Bishop Joseph Rosati
{"title":"Arkansas Atlantis: The Lost Town of Napoleon","authors":"Michael D. Hammond","doi":"10.2307/40031076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40031076","url":null,"abstract":"MARK TWAIN'S SEMI-AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTER in Life on the Mississippi had heard a tale of murder, revenge, and buried treasure. A dying man told him of an unscrupulous Union soldier who had stowed ten thousand dollars in gold in Napoleon, Arkansas, during the closing days of the war. Twain sought the treasure and was on his way to Napoleon with directions to the loot: \"Brick livery stable, stone foundation, middle of town, corner of Orleans and Market. Corner toward Court-house. Third stone, fourth row.\" As the riverboat approached Napoleon, Twain told the captain to go ashore, but the captain explained: \"Why, hang it, don't you know? There is n't any Napoleon any more. Has n't been for years and years. The Arkansas River burst through it, tore it all to rags, and emptied it into the Mississippi!\" Any hope that the treasure might remain in the ruins was dashed as the captain described the destruction of the town: \"Just a fifteen minute job, or such a matter. Did n't leave hide nor hair, shred nor shingle of it, except the fag-end of a shanty and one brick chimney,-all that's left of Napoleon.\" Twain fondly recalled that Napoleon had been a \"good big self-complacent town twenty years ago. Town that was county-seat of a great and important county; town with a big United States marine hospital; town of innumerable fights-an inquest every day; town where I had used to know the prettiest girl... and the most accomplished in the whole Mississippi Valley.\"1 Napoleon had been washed away by the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers in the years following the Civil War. Twain's 1883 account of its destruction-\"swallowed up, vanished, gone to feed the fishes\"-was more dramatic than the actual process, but the town's ruin demonstrated the Mississippi's power and the futility of efforts to control it. Yet the river had also brought the town into being. The ambitious residents of Napoleon, who had made their town into a well-known stopover for those traveling the Mississippi between the 184Os and 186Os, had paid more attention to the commercial possibilities than to the dangers of the river, which often flooded the town.2 The town of Napoleon existed at the confluence of the Mississippi and Arkansas for fewer than fifty years. But many notable events took place at that site even before the town was founded. Some suggest that the Jesuit missionary Marquette may have celebrated Arkansas's first Catholic mass there. It might have been the burial site for Pierre Laclede, who founded St. Louis in 1764 and died on a return trip from New Orleans.3 Napoleon was founded in the 182Os or 183Os by the planter, land speculator, and former French soldier Frederick Notrebe, who named it for \"his old commander,\" though he had been forced to flee Napoleonic France.4 Scholars have disagreed as to the exact year of Napoleon's establishment, some placing it as late as 1840. But Napoleon's first primary school was founded on December 10, 1838. Earlier that year, Bishop Joseph Rosati ","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40031076","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68735639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. Edited by Nelson Lichtenstein. (New York: New Press, 2006. Pp. xv, 349. Acknowledgments, preface, illustrations, tables, maps, notes, contributors, index. $21.95, paper.) The well-written, accessible, and highly informative essays collected by Nelson Lichtenstein in Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism ask two interrelated questions: What is new about this entity called Wal-Mart? And where did the beast come from? These are not easy questions. Could it be that Wal-Mart is simply the latest company to figure out how best to make a profit off America's consumer culture? Is it just an enlarged version of early twentieth-century predecessors such as Woolworth, Sears, and A & P? Is Wal-Mart's impact on workers, communities, and businesses fundamentally different from past corporate giants such as GM and IBM? How did the world's largest corporation get its start in (of all places) Arkansas? The book provides no easy or simplistic answers. In this respect, it is a refreshing and much-needed corrective to the hyperbole surrounding the company. Wal-Mart is often seen either as the source of all evil or as the poster child for a globalized economy. To its credit, this collection, although critical of many of Wal-Mart's practices, policies, and impacts, is not ready to reduce the ills or virtues of modern capitalism to one corporation. Nelson Lichtenstein starts with a fabulous introductory chapter that highlights all that is old and new about Wal-Mart. As he writes, "Wal-Mart is now the template for world capitalism because it takes the most potent technological and logistic innovations . . . and puts them at the service of an organization whose competitive success depends upon the destruction of all that remains of New Deal social regulation and replaces it, in the U.S. and abroad, with a global system that relentlessly squeezes labor." It has made "the retailer king and the manufacturer his vassal" (pp. 4-5). The second chapter, by Susan Strasser, historicizes Wal-Mart by situating its rise within the context of the dominant retailing firms that came before it. It is a fascinating story that takes us through the first department stores, mail-order houses, and supermarkets. Strasser concludes that WalMart learned well from its forerunners by serving the neglected rural market once targeted by mail-order houses while putting the department store and supermarket under a single roof. …
{"title":"Wal-Mart : the face of twenty-first-century capitalism","authors":"Steve Striffler, N. Lichtenstein","doi":"10.2307/40031092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40031092","url":null,"abstract":"Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. Edited by Nelson Lichtenstein. (New York: New Press, 2006. Pp. xv, 349. Acknowledgments, preface, illustrations, tables, maps, notes, contributors, index. $21.95, paper.) The well-written, accessible, and highly informative essays collected by Nelson Lichtenstein in Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism ask two interrelated questions: What is new about this entity called Wal-Mart? And where did the beast come from? These are not easy questions. Could it be that Wal-Mart is simply the latest company to figure out how best to make a profit off America's consumer culture? Is it just an enlarged version of early twentieth-century predecessors such as Woolworth, Sears, and A & P? Is Wal-Mart's impact on workers, communities, and businesses fundamentally different from past corporate giants such as GM and IBM? How did the world's largest corporation get its start in (of all places) Arkansas? The book provides no easy or simplistic answers. In this respect, it is a refreshing and much-needed corrective to the hyperbole surrounding the company. Wal-Mart is often seen either as the source of all evil or as the poster child for a globalized economy. To its credit, this collection, although critical of many of Wal-Mart's practices, policies, and impacts, is not ready to reduce the ills or virtues of modern capitalism to one corporation. Nelson Lichtenstein starts with a fabulous introductory chapter that highlights all that is old and new about Wal-Mart. As he writes, \"Wal-Mart is now the template for world capitalism because it takes the most potent technological and logistic innovations . . . and puts them at the service of an organization whose competitive success depends upon the destruction of all that remains of New Deal social regulation and replaces it, in the U.S. and abroad, with a global system that relentlessly squeezes labor.\" It has made \"the retailer king and the manufacturer his vassal\" (pp. 4-5). The second chapter, by Susan Strasser, historicizes Wal-Mart by situating its rise within the context of the dominant retailing firms that came before it. It is a fascinating story that takes us through the first department stores, mail-order houses, and supermarkets. Strasser concludes that WalMart learned well from its forerunners by serving the neglected rural market once targeted by mail-order houses while putting the department store and supermarket under a single roof. …","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40031092","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68735925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IN NOVEMBER 1965, the red lights of a Gould, Arkansas, police car pulled over a vehicle driven by Dwight Williams, a black activist accompanied by a white female. The constable charged Williams with "crossing the white line." Although describing a driving infraction, the phrase could also have referred to the repeated violations of racial etiquette that occurred in Arkansas in the 1960s. In that decade, black and white Arkansans witnessed the dismantling of Jim Crow-a system of laws, customs, mores, and values that had encrusted the South since the Civil War. "The Negro population has been waiting for years for this movement and it has finally arrived. It's a rather incredible experience," noted one black in the Arkansas delta. Another African American insisted that it was not so much that dreams had suddenly come alive, but rather that life finally approximated "the ways things should have been."^sup 1^ Some Arkansas whites, on the other hand, dreaded change. Congressman E. C. (Took) Gathings of West Memphis told the House Rules Committee in 1964 that the "lot of the southern Negro isn't as bad as it is sometimes painted. He understands the members of the white race and they understand him." "We know our niggers a little better than you," a West Helena realtor assured an "outside agitator." But John Bradford, one such "agitator" who came to Helena, did not see the same delta as Gathings and the realtor. "The housing is so bad that when you're inside, you're still outside. We were renting a room and every time it rained, we got wet. There were no bathroom facilities. They [delta blacks] aren't living. They're just existing. They have nothing to be happy about." A black activist in Gould agreed: "We were being oppressed, depressed, held back, kept down.... When you got out of school, you had to migrate to the North or just be stuck in a rut here." A white former resident of Helena returned for a visit in 1963 and sensed the conflict brewing: "The Negro is bearing more on the mind of southerners today than at any time in history. The white southerner is worried. He knows the Negro is seeking his rights but does not know where the next move will be."^sup 2^ The black and white activists of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were among those plotting these moves. SNCC was founded at an April 1960 conference at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, after students used sit-ins to integrate Woolworth lunch counters in nearby Greensboro and Nashville, Tennessee. Although no Arkansan attended the April meetings, SNCC leaders immediately recruited students from Philander Smith College, an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church institution founded in 1877 in Little Rock. These new recruits joined veteran Little Rock civil rights activists and began sitins at downtown Woolworths in March 1960. Intra-group rivalries, poor planning, and fear of police reprisals resulted in failure; seating at Woolworth remained segregated.^sup 3^ For
1965年11月，阿肯色州古尔德市的一辆警车在红灯下拦下了一辆由白人女性陪同的黑人活动家德怀特·威廉姆斯驾驶的汽车。警察指控威廉姆斯“越过了白线”。虽然这个短语描述的是驾驶违规，但它也可以指20世纪60年代发生在阿肯色州的多次违反种族礼仪的行为。在那十年里，阿肯色州的黑人和白人见证了吉姆·克劳制度的瓦解，这是一套自南北战争以来一直笼罩在南方的法律、习俗、道德和价值观体系。“黑人为这场运动等待了多年，现在终于到来了。这是一个相当难以置信的经历，”阿肯色州三角洲的一名黑人说。另一位非裔美国人坚持认为，与其说是梦想突然活了起来，不如说是生活终于接近了“事情本来的样子”。另一方面，阿肯色州的一些白人害怕变化。1964年，西孟菲斯的国会议员E. C. (Took) Gathings告诉众议院规则委员会，“南方黑人的命运并不像人们有时描绘的那样糟糕。”他理解白人，白人也理解他。”“我们比你们更了解我们的黑人，”西海伦娜的一位房地产经纪人向一位“外部煽动者”保证。但约翰·布拉德福德(John Bradford)，一位来到海伦娜的“煽动者”，却没有看到与加廷斯和房地产经纪人相同的三角洲。“住房太糟糕了，当你在里面的时候，你仍然在外面。我们租了一个房间，每次下雨，我们都被淋湿了。那里没有浴室设施。他们(三角洲黑人)没有活着。它们只是存在。他们没有什么值得高兴的。”古尔德的一名黑人活动家对此表示赞同:“我们受到压迫、压抑、阻碍、压制....当你从学校毕业后，你要么移民到北方，要么就在这里一成不变。”1963年，一位曾住在海伦娜的白人居民回来拜访，他感觉到了冲突的酝酿:“今天黑人在南方人心中的分量比历史上任何时候都要大。南方白人很担心。他知道黑人在争取自己的权利，但不知道下一步该怎么做。学生非暴力协调委员会(SNCC)的黑人和白人积极分子也参与了这些行动的策划。SNCC成立于1960年4月在北卡罗莱纳州罗利的肖大学举行的一次会议上，当时学生们利用静坐来整合附近格林斯博罗和田纳西州纳什维尔的伍尔沃斯午餐柜台。尽管没有阿肯色人参加四月的会议，SNCC的领导人立即从菲兰德·史密斯学院招募了学生，这是一所1877年在小石城成立的非洲卫理公会教会机构。1960年3月，这些新兵加入了小石城资深民权活动家的行列，开始在伍尔沃斯市中心静坐。集团内部的竞争、糟糕的计划和对警察报复的恐惧导致了失败;伍尔沃斯的座位仍然是隔离的。在接下来的两年半里，阿肯色州发生的抗议活动相对较少。1962年9月，阿肯色州人际关系委员会的露丝·阿诺德写信给全国委员会总部，要求派人在该州重振该运动。SNCC的一名秘书承诺，该组织的执行秘书詹姆斯·福尔曼(James Forman)或主席查尔斯·麦克杜(Charles McDew)已经在路上了。“它们是不可预测的，”她警告说，“但它们似乎正朝着你的方向移动。它们像上帝的旨意降临，你我都无法控制。”1962年10月24日，一位来自北方的年轻白人激进分子威廉·汉森来到了菲兰德·史密斯的校园，而不是福尔曼或麦克杜。被阿肯色州州长奥瓦尔·福伯斯称为“专业鼓动者”的汉森，用《阿肯色州公报》的话说，是一个“精瘦、热情的年轻人”。汉森立即联系了SNCC在菲兰德史密斯和肖特初级学院的领导，组织了一个由七名学生参加的战略会议。…
{"title":"Crossing the White Line: SNCC in Three Delta Towns, 1963-1967","authors":"R. Finley","doi":"10.2307/40038293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40038293","url":null,"abstract":"IN NOVEMBER 1965, the red lights of a Gould, Arkansas, police car pulled over a vehicle driven by Dwight Williams, a black activist accompanied by a white female. The constable charged Williams with \"crossing the white line.\" Although describing a driving infraction, the phrase could also have referred to the repeated violations of racial etiquette that occurred in Arkansas in the 1960s. In that decade, black and white Arkansans witnessed the dismantling of Jim Crow-a system of laws, customs, mores, and values that had encrusted the South since the Civil War. \"The Negro population has been waiting for years for this movement and it has finally arrived. It's a rather incredible experience,\" noted one black in the Arkansas delta. Another African American insisted that it was not so much that dreams had suddenly come alive, but rather that life finally approximated \"the ways things should have been.\"^sup 1^ Some Arkansas whites, on the other hand, dreaded change. Congressman E. C. (Took) Gathings of West Memphis told the House Rules Committee in 1964 that the \"lot of the southern Negro isn't as bad as it is sometimes painted. He understands the members of the white race and they understand him.\" \"We know our niggers a little better than you,\" a West Helena realtor assured an \"outside agitator.\" But John Bradford, one such \"agitator\" who came to Helena, did not see the same delta as Gathings and the realtor. \"The housing is so bad that when you're inside, you're still outside. We were renting a room and every time it rained, we got wet. There were no bathroom facilities. They [delta blacks] aren't living. They're just existing. They have nothing to be happy about.\" A black activist in Gould agreed: \"We were being oppressed, depressed, held back, kept down.... When you got out of school, you had to migrate to the North or just be stuck in a rut here.\" A white former resident of Helena returned for a visit in 1963 and sensed the conflict brewing: \"The Negro is bearing more on the mind of southerners today than at any time in history. The white southerner is worried. He knows the Negro is seeking his rights but does not know where the next move will be.\"^sup 2^ The black and white activists of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were among those plotting these moves. SNCC was founded at an April 1960 conference at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, after students used sit-ins to integrate Woolworth lunch counters in nearby Greensboro and Nashville, Tennessee. Although no Arkansan attended the April meetings, SNCC leaders immediately recruited students from Philander Smith College, an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church institution founded in 1877 in Little Rock. These new recruits joined veteran Little Rock civil rights activists and began sitins at downtown Woolworths in March 1960. Intra-group rivalries, poor planning, and fear of police reprisals resulted in failure; seating at Woolworth remained segregated.^sup 3^ For ","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40038293","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68755093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Railroad and the State: War, Politics, and Technology in Nine-teenth-Century America","authors":"D. Hofsommer, R. G. Angevine","doi":"10.2307/40038300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40038300","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40038300","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68755547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：