Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Albion Tourgee: A Carpetbagger


            Albion Tourgee during his life was one of the most loved and most hated men, he was a judge, best-selling writer, outspoken advocate for civil rights, educator, and United States Ambassador; however, he is much lesser known then contemporaries such as Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and W.E.B. DuBois.  Though much lesser known, Tourgee is worthy of study yet unlike George Washington Carver, DuBois, or Stowe, Tourgee appears nowhere in the history curriculum of Texas, Tourgee’s home state of Ohio, or the state of North Carolina where he spent a large portion of his adult life and where he served as a major political force.[1]  One might ask why a person of Tourgee’s stature is not a part of the history curriculum of these states.  The answer is that unlike the historic contemporaries mentioned earlier, Tourgee had the misfortune to be presented with the contemptuous label of “carpet-bagger”.  “Carpet-bagger” is a word familiar to most people.  It is a word that though mostly associated with the South, yet is it not exclusive to that region.  However, no matter what area you are in it has a negative connotation.  This was not always the case.
            The word originated in the mid-1800s and it described a traveler of little wealth that carried an inexpensive valise made of carpet material.[2]  This merely descriptive definition did not last and by 1872, The Atlanta Constitution published its own definition
“a carpetbagger—a penniless adventurer from the loyal [northern] states, where he was hardly tolerated, by reason of his worthlessness or evil ways, who roamed about the country seeking what he could steal or otherwise appropriate to his own use, usually through some official position, or any other way than honest industry, having at first appearance little baggage than a half empty carpet bag; hence the name.[3]
In thirty-odd years, the word went from a simple descriptive noun to an epitaph that political men would hurl at each other into the twentieth century.  To understand why this negative connotation was placed on “carpet-bagger”, one needs to understand the history of reconstruction.  But just as important as understanding the history is understanding the historiography, because without knowing both one cannot understand the reason for the hatred that the political rivals in the south shared or would it be clear how the vanquished seemed to rise as heroes in the history of reconstruction. 
            The period of time between the end of the Civil War and the reinstating of the confederate states to the union is often thought of as the reconstruction era.  Although it is generally thought of as being a single period, in reality it actually begins in 1863 and goes to the generally accepted end date of 1877.  During these fourteen years, three distinct periods occur.  The first, 1863 to 1865, is wartime reconstruction.  By 1863 large portions of the south was under union control.  Therefore, in December of 1863, President Lincoln proposed a plan in which a state could form a new state government and constitution when ten percent of a state’s voters swear loyalty to the union and abolish slavery.  Under this plan, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee formed state governments.[4] 
            Then in April of 1865, the Civil War ends and one week later Lincoln is assassinated, which leaves Andrew Johnson as president.  Johnson, a southern Democrat from Tennessee, favored Lincoln’s reconstruction plan.  The period known as Presidential Reconstruction was from 1865 to 1867.  In May of 1865, Congress was not in session.  Johnson took this chance to pardon many Confederates and appointed provisional governors.  During the summer and fall of 1865, many southern states formed governments.  These governments however did not meet with the approval of Congress.  Many contained high-ranking former Confederates.  These governments also enacted so called “Black Codes” which were a series of laws written to force the freed former slaves into quasi-slavery.[5]  When Congress convened in 1865, congressional leadership barred access to senators and representatives from the state governments formed under Johnson.[6]  Throughout 1866 and 1867, the relationship between Johnson and Congress continued to be stormy.  In 1866, Congress passed two pieces of legislation over Johnson’s veto.  One extended the Freedman’s Bureau and the second was the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which granted any person born in the United States citizenship.
            The years from 1867 to 1877 saw the Radical Republicans in Congress take over reconstruction.  It is this period that is generally thought of and referred to in most historiography as reconstruction.  It is during this period that Congress dissolved the government’s setup under Johnson’s presidency and placed the south under control of military governors each governing one of five military districts.  It was under this situation that new state governments were formed in which black citizens could vote but many whites (former confederates) could not participate in government.[7]  The result of this was republican dominated government made up of northern Republicans (carpetbaggers), indigenous Whigs/Republicans (scalawags), and African Americans (freedmen). 
            These governments expanded social services and developed public education systems.[8]  The southern Democrats barred from the political process fought back the only way at their disposal through violence and intimidation against “carpet-baggers” and freedmen.  By 1874, Democrats won control of the House of Representatives and by 1876; just three southern states had republican governments (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina).  By 1877, all the formers states had been fully re-admitted and reconstruction ended.[9]
Like a great, many things with negative connotations ‘carpetbaggers’ get theirs because of politics.[10]  Following the Civil War, American politics were at its most tumultuous and adversarial.  In less than one presidential term of office you had a president assassinated, another almost impeached, and a great number of Americans denied representation.  This was the time that became known as reconstruction.  Though reconstruction was a dark time in American history, especially in the South, it was not equally bad for all states.  For some, like Virginia, it was a relatively short and painless process but for other states, it was several years before they were again afforded the rights that we as Americans take for granted. 
            Though it is understandable that southerners would harbor a grudge and hence bestow on newcomers that they saw as the reason for their discomfort a moniker as full of venom as ‘carpet-bagger’ is; however, even to this day throughout the United States, the term ‘carpet-bagger’ has been used as a derogatory term.  In order for that to happen, we must look to a Northerner.  Dr. William A. Dunning (1857-1922)  a Professor of History at Columbia University and a founding member of the American Historical Association and he founded the Dunning School of Reconstruction Historiography at Columbia University.  Dunning, a Democrat, was very critical of the ‘carpet-baggers’ most of whom were Republicans.  Through his position in American Academia and the works of his graduate students, his became the predominant theory being taught in relation to reconstruction in the south until the 1960s.[11]  However though Dunning’s voice and the voice of his students were the loudest, his was not the only voice.  W.E.B DuBois took a sympathetic approach and although he did not see ‘carpet-baggers’ as the evil force that Dunning did, he did see them as pawns of rich northern industrialists.[12]  Another contemporary critic of Dunning was Albion W. Tourgee.  A ‘carpet-bagger’ himself said in an interview printed in the New York Tribune in 1879 shortly after his return from his attempt to settle in the south “defiantly states” that his return to the north was due to antagonism in the south of all things Northern.[13]  This sentiment is bared out in in the novel “A Fool’s Errand”.  Although it was a work of fiction, it does give a sense of at least one Northerner’s experience in the South.[14]  Despite the dissenting views, the academic status of Dunning and those influenced by his teaching such as E. Merton Coulter, Professor of History at the University of Georgia; Joseph G. De Roulhac Hamilton, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina; Thomas Staples, Professor of History at Hendrix College in Arkansas; and Charles W. Ramsdell, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin, just to name a few, predominated until the 1960s.
Then a movement of  revisionist historians, led ironically by another Professor of History  from Columbia University, Eric Foner, whose celebrity and prolific literary career has made him  the current expert on the ‘carpet-baggers’ among other things.[15]  He is not alone.  Some of the other revisionist historians are Richard N. Current, Historian and Fulbright lecturer; Ted Tunnell Professor of History at Virginia Commonwealth University; and Carl Moneyhand, Professor of History at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.  The common feature of the revisionist historians is that the ‘carpet-baggers’ are not the illiterate villains they were portrayed to be by the Dunning School.  For example Current in his  book,  Those Terrible Carpet Baggers, wrote  of ‘carpet-baggers’, “Probably they were less ignorant and more literate than the rank and file Democrats and conservatives, who opposed them in politics.”[16] This is in contrast to the treatment of ‘carpet-baggers’ by Staples in his book Reconstruction in Arkansas 1862-1874.  Conservatives were at great advantage when speaking to an honest and intelligent voter, for he could easily perceive the absurdity of delivering the state government into the hands of men who had not developed enterprise enough to establish business attachments in their own states.”[17]
The history of ‘carpet baggers’ is linked to that of the era of Reconstruction one of the, if not the most, tumultuous times in American history.  As bloody as Antietam was during that battle, the rank and file soldier did not harbor the hate that conservatives and republicans had for each other during  reconstruction.  That hate is not completely without reason in some areas.  Conservatives were stripped of suffrage and rights of local self-determination, this in addition to having to live with the fact that the North had emerged the victor of the Civil War.  It  is no wonder when  former  Union soldiers start taking over political offices, plantations, and other positions of  influence that are barred to former confederates, however; one of the most dangerous words in the English language is, all, because very seldom can all be used to describe any group and ‘carpet-baggers’ are no exception.      
Tourgee was born in 1838 and was the son of Valentine and Louisa Emma Winger Tourgee.  Valentine, the descendant of French Hugonuts, immigrated to Rhode Island seeking religious freedom.[18]  Valentine and Emma move to northeastern Ohio where soon after they settle, Tourgee is born.  Tourgee was the only child of this union.  By the time Tourgee was five, his mother had passed away.[19]  Within a year, Valentine remarried.  The relationship between Tourgee’s stepmother and himself was strained especially after Tourgee’s half-sister was born.[20]  By contrast, Valentine was a doting parent and overall the Tourgee family farm near Lake Erie, by all accounts, provided a relatively normal childhood where Tourgee displayed an enthusiasm for his chores and the written word.[21]
            A vigorous youth, he found himself on the short end of various mishaps, the one that had the most lasting impact occurred when Tourgee was fourteen.  An exploding percussion cap blew a piece of shrapnel into Tourgee’s eye, leaving him permanently blind in his right eye.[22]  Tourgee managed to hide this handicap from the Army years later.  Tourgee was a popular student at the Kingville Ohio Academy where he met Emma Kilbourne whom Tourgee would eventually marry.[23]  In 1859, Tourgee completed his education at Kingville and entered the University of Rochester as a sophomore.[24]  It is during his time at Rochester that Tourgee begins to take interest in politics when he joined a Republican political organization, The Wide Awake Club.[25]  Shortly after the fall of Fort Sumter, Tourgee joined the Twenty-Seventh New York Volunteer Infantry where he was elected sergeant.[26]  Tourgee’s military career however took an unfortunate turn.  Less than three months from the time Tourgee entered the army he was involved in the first battle of Bull Run where during the retreat Tourgee was struck by the wheel of a gun carriage causing a spinal injury.[27]  After the injury, Tourgee was discharged from the military because it was believed that Tourgee would not walk again.[28]  After his discharge, Tourgee returned to Ohio and while there, Emma did what she could to aid in his recovery.[29]  While recovering, Tourgee continued his studies and in the spring of 1862 began seeing a back specialist in Cleveland.  By June of 1862, he notified Emma he could walk.[30]  Shortly thereafter, Tourgee was awarded his A.B. degree from Rochester based on the merit of his military service.  He was then appointed Lieutenant in the 105th Ohio Volunteer Infantry.[31]  His first action with the 105th was at the Battle of Perryville, KY (October 7, 1862); during this battle, Tourgee was again injured.  This time shrapnel from an exploding shell struck him.[32]  Tourgee quickly returned to service with the 105th as they operated in Kentucky and Tennessee.[33] 
            Then in January of 1863, Lt. Tourgee and about 130 men were on a patrol looking for provisions when approximately 160 men under the command of Confederate General John Morgan ambushed them.  Tourgee and all but twenty men were captured and were held in a prisoner of war camp in various prisons for the next four months, during which Tourgee would later say, “[he had] but two enjoyments cursing the confederacy and smoking.”[34]  After Tourgee was exchanged for a confederate prisoner, Tourgee returned to Ohio where he and Emma were wed on May 14, 1863.[35] 
            For Tourgee, this did not mark the end of his military service.  Within two weeks, Tourgee had rejoined the 105th at Murfreesboro, Tennessee.  During this tour of duty, Tourgee saw action at Hoover’s Gap, Chattanooga, and Chickamauga.  During these battles, Tourgee made a name for himself as a “brave and efficient officer”.[36]  Despite his admirable war record Tourgee began finding himself being passed over for promotion.  Though he claimed that it did not bother him, Tourgee became more and more dissatisfied with military service.[37]  Then on December 6, 1863, Tourgee resigned his commission “for the good of the service”.[38] 
            During Tourgee’s military service, he became acutely aware of the plight of slaves in the south when he hired a runaway slave as a personal valet.[39]  This concern did not end with his military service.  After Tourgee’s discharge, he returned to Ohio and established a law practice where he made an effort to assist “negro contrabands”, escaped slaves as they entered Ohio.[40]  Tourgee soon became dissatisfied as an attorney and left to take a job as a reporter for a paper in Erie, Pennsylvania.[41]  Within months, this too failed to hold the interest of Tourgee.[42]  Tourgee soon found himself the principal and a teacher at the Erie Academy[43].  Tourgee also found this latest position lacking.[44]  Though Tourgee had once been very athletic, the war had taken its toll on his body.  His back injury, especially, seemed to flare up more during the long cold Pennsylvanian winters.  His doctor suggested a milder climate might be advisable.  So with that information, Tourgee sent a letter to the governor of North Carolina inquiring on the opportunities available.[45]  By June of 1865, Tourgee received a letter from Governor Holden stating, “That every favor [would] be shown to them.”[46]  Within a month, Tourgee was aboard a southbound ship bound for North Carolina on what amounted to a reconnaissance mission[47].  Tourgee was delighted with what he found.  He returned north and gathered Emma and their belongings and returned to North Carolina where they settled outside of Greensboro in Piedmont County.[48] 
            Tourgee’s in-laws joined Emma and Tourgee soon afterward, along with two business associates of Tourgee, Senneca Kuhn and R. T. Pettengill.  Together the three partners formed A. W. Tourgee and Company with the purpose of managing an orchard, to practice law, and engage in other speculative ventures.[49]  Through Tourgee’s business dealings, many contacts were made among both the southern unionists and African American community, both of which would later be sources of political allies.[50]  However, by 1866, Tourgee found himself increasingly involved in politics.  Under President Johnson’s Presidential Reconstruction, many ex-confederates were appointed which led to little to no change in relations amoung races[51].  This went contrary to Tourgee’s belief, as to the purpose of the war.  In a letter written in 1863 to a friend he stated, “I don’t care a rag for the union as it was.  I want and fought for the union better than it was.  Before this is accomplished we must have a fundamental and through and complete revolution and renovation.  This I expect and hope.”[52]  The treatment of freedmen was not acceptable to Tourgee and he often represented former slaves in disputes.  Tourgee’s more profit minded partners did not feel as strong about race relations, and this lead to arguments between the partners that hurt the business.[53]  This did nothing to stop Tourgee’s working for the rights of African Americans as well as poor whites that generally opposed secession.[54] 
            This feeling put Tourgee at odds with Governor Jonathan Worth who summed up the issues as such, “We who were born here will never get along with the free Negros, especially while the tools and demagogues of the north insist they must be our equals.  This will not be tolerated.”[55]  If Tourgee’s belief in equality for African Americans was not enough to alienate himself, his feelings toward white former confederates was enough to make him one of the most hated men in North Carolina.  The election of Worth and other prominent ex-confederates whom Tourgee considered traitors left Tourgee beside himself.[56]  Even the former Governor Holden, who had welcomed Tourgee to North Carolina, failed to get Tourgee’s endorsement for his Union Party because although he was against secession prior to the war, he “acquiesced to confederate authority”.[57]  This was enough for Tourgee to consider Holden and his party Confederates even though this caused a rift in the party that opposed the conservatives.[58] 
            By the time the 1866 constitutional convention was over, thirty-four of the delegates were numbered among Tourgee’s political allies and they considered Tourgee among their leaders.[59]  By 1867, unionists from North Carolina petitioned Congress to create a loyal government by giving former slaves the right to vote while barring former Confederates from voting.  The Congress responded by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867.  This law took the ten former confederate states that had not been readmitted to the union, Tennessee having been granted re-admittance in 1866, and created five military districts.  Each district was governed by a general whose duty it was to oversee the creation of new state constitutions and assure that African Americans had the opportunity to participate in government.  Once this was accomplished all that would stand in the way of a state reentering the Union would be to ratify the fourteenth amendment.[60]  The fourteenth amendment contained three sections.  The first created a national definition of citizenship.  The second stated that if a slave state did not have universal male suffrage the state could have its representation in Congress and the Electoral College appropriately reduced.  Lastly, the third section states that anyone that had “engaged in insurrection” could hold public office.[61]
In North Carolina, the Constitutional Convention was set to start on January 14, 1868.  There were 120 delegates and all but thirteen were Republican.  The twenty-nine year-old Tourgee was the youngest delegate.  This did not however keep him from being a prominent participant.  On January 15, he was elected Assistant Secretary Protem.  He was also a member of the committee to determine the best way to frame the constitution, to frame the judicial article, and chaired the committee that wrote the article for local government.[62]  Tourgee also contributed to many reforms, which Tourgee considered “the political key to northern progress”.[63]
After the convention, he returned home very satisfied with the results of the convention.[64]  Not long after his return, William Holden recommended Tourgee for a vacant state Superior Court Judgeship which drew Jonathon Worth’s wrath and prompted this response, “this vile wretch Tourgee, the meanest Yankee whoever settled among us”.[65]  Worth petitioned General Canby, the military Governor of the military district containing North Carolina.  General Canby sided with Worth and denied Tourgee the seat on the bench.[66]  This however just strengthened Tourgee’s dislike of Worth.[67]
Tourgee then tried to obtain the Republican nomination for the United States House of Representatives but that wound up going on to the native-born William Henderson.[68]  Tourgee did not have long to be disappointed as he quite unexpectedly found himself appointed one of three commissioners to prepare the new law codes for the state.[69]  Then Tourgee was asked to accept the Republican nomination for the Superior Court Judge of the Seventh Judicial District, the position denied him by Worth.  This response was written in the Raleigh Sentinel, “a more loathsome, scurvy low down Yankee cannot be found in the state”[70].  Tourgee returned to Greensboro buoyed by the judicial nomination after the setbacks of being passed over for the vacant judicial seat and not being nominated for Congress.  However, Tourgee now had a bright outlook; he wrote to a former military acquaintance that requested information on the opportunities for a new Republican Paper in North Carolina.  Tourgee replied, “I think we shall have a human country here sometime and when we do, it will be a good place for any human journalist…”[71] 
However, while Tourgee and his unionist allies were pleased with the way things were going, the conservatives fretted in private, “civilization consists in the possession of property.”[72]  This worry over the new government that was created by the unionist that put the power in the hands of the people threatened the conservative’s powerbase.  Though they privately worried about the loss of their property publicly, they made race the major issue.  At a meeting in Guilford County this statement was made, “do not surrendering the state to the Negro and his demagoging white office seeker.”[73]  When the returns of the April 21-23, 1868 election came back, the republican majority was somewhat smaller than the November 1867 election.  Although Tourgee did win his seat, as did Holden, who defeated Worth for the governorship and the constitution also carried.[74]  Though the election of 1868 was the high watermark for Republicans in not only North Carolina but also much of the South because though most republicans saw the impeachment of President Johnson as a forgone conclusion the failure to acquit marked a turning point in the course of reconstruction.[75]
Tourgee found this out first hand for after the election but before he was to take the bench he traveled north on a fundraising mission for southern relief, the mission took him through Pennsylvania and Ohio.  While on the mission, Tourgee wrote to Emma, “People who live in the north are sick of the words ‘south and give in conjunction”[76].  Tourgee returned to North Carolina where he was very active in the Republican Party and worked very hard to assure that Grant carried North Carolina and gain the White House, which he did.  However, by 1870 the Republicans lost control of the North Carolina legislature yet did retain control of the governor’s mansion and the judiciary[77]
As the 1870s began, the rest of the country began to take less of an interest in the south.  The Republicans governments’ setup just a couple years prior began to come under siege from conservatives across the south.  One example of this could be seen in the letters of Daniel Richards, a Republican from Illinois, that had settled in Florida to take a United States district tax collector position and was a leading Republican in the state.  He writes to fellow Republican from Illinois, Elihu Washburne on April 8, 1868, “A perfect reign of terror is most imminent.  The public journals nearly all justify the operation of the Ku Klux Klan and it seems to be not only very dangerous but a very extensive organization.”[78]  Another example of organized resistance to the Republican efforts could be found in northern Alabama where the Ku Klux Klan actively sought to suppress the freedman’s right to vote.[79]  In Arkansas, Democrats realized that the black suffrage issue was their strongest card and the Democratic leaders made repeated appeals for white racial solidarity.  The Arkansas Gazette summed up the Democratic philosophy, “We do not recognize that the Negro has any political rights whatever…” meanwhile the Ku Klux Klan was terrorizing blacks in rural precincts[80]
In North Carolina, 1868 found Tourgee and the two other commissioners working hard to establish North Carolina’s new legal codes and within a month, there was discernible progress.  Though the new code was criticized from both sides, when given a fair opportunity to use the system even conservative alternatives began to appreciate the system.  The well-known conservative lawyer, Samuel Phillips said, “All the lawyers in old North Carolina would never have framed as good a code-in a century”.[81]  By 1870, the commission’s work was drawing to an end, however, with conservatives regaining control of the legislature the commission’s work was rejected at every turn, and by 1873 the commission was abolished by constitutional amendment.[82]
During the same time, Tourgee was working on the commission he was also hearing court cases.  The seventh district encompassed eight counties which Tourgee rode circuit.  His first court was on September 6, 1868 in Guilford County.  However, the lampooning of the Republican judiciary by the conservative press began before the first case was heard.  The Raleigh Sentinel printed, “our judges are a disgrace to the bench, a mockery of dignity and decency a laughing stock for the legal profession and a curse and blight to the people…they have no legal learning or any other sort of learning what is worse, they have no capacity to learn.”[83]  Tourgee, being such a prominent figure, was singled out for abuse.  There were implications made that Tourgee was a wanted fugitive and that Tourgee’s effort to provide heat in local jail was encouraging crime.  Though several conservative attorneys felt obliged to apologize, the press ignored the apologies. 
After the completion of his first circuit the conservative paper, The Patriot, printed of Tourgee, “Fair, full and unbiased by party prejudice and that he was about as good a judge as the conservative press could be of more concern to members of the Republican party was the Ku Klux Klan.[84]  In May of 1870, Judge Tourgee wrote a letter to his friend General Joseph Abbott, describing the death of their mutual friend, John Stephens, who was a state senator from Caswell.  Though one could ascertain the original purpose of the letter was simply to inform Abbott of the death of a mutual friend; however, it appears that as Tourgee began describing the vile acts of the Ku Klux Klan.  Tourgee lastly vents his frustration not being able to end the problems caused by the Ku Klux Klan (1870).  The Klan furnished iron clad alibis members intimidated or killed hostile witnesses.  Klan members also infiltrated juries and police forces impeding investigations.[85]  To make matters worse the conservatives talked about the “negro” crime wave and praised the Klan for fighting Negro crime while Republicans were unable to protect people.  Though there was only one account, where Klan violence was in response to a crime and that was a barn burning while on the other side of the coin there appeared to be one instance of organized “negro” insurrection and that was in response to Klan activity.[86] 
However, the lack of proof was not an impediment to the Klan it was to the judiciary.  However, Tourgee’s letter to Joseph Abbott did make an impression on him and his colleague’s Senator John Pool shared the letter with other members of Congress and within ten days of the murder of state Senator Stephens the first federal law outlawing the Ku Klux Klan was passed.[87]  This however did not aid North Carolina in the prosecution of offenses already perpetrated by the Klan.  However, it did allow federal troops to be employed in order to combat the Klan.[88]  The pressure by republicans on Governor Holden was great to put an end to Klan activity and many even urged him to follow the examples of Arkansas Governor Clayton Powell, but the political situation was much different in North Carolina then Arkansas and Governor Holden was not Governor Powell.[89]
Arkansas in their constitution had given much more martial powers to the governor allowing for both a militia and a state guard that both answered directly to the governor.[90]  What Holden did do was to call for enlistments in the military, however; he did not call on local men he called on mountaineers that fought in the Union Army under Colonel George Kirk of the Third North Carolina United States volunteers.  The militia quickly rounded up leaders to the Klan and they were held without formal charges or a trial; however, the Klan members over Tourgee’s objections were able to get a writ of habeas corpus and Holden was forced to free the men. Then on August 6, 1870, the conservatives carried the state.[91]
Once the conservatives gained control of the legislature, the activists of the Ku Klux Klan declined.[92]  With this decline in Klan violence Tourgee began to fear less for his life.  However, the Klan did not stop being a thorn in Tourgee’s side.  Josiah Turner, the publisher of the Raleigh Sentinel and member of Guilford County Bar and reputedly the king of the Ku Klux Klan, petitioned Tourgee for a bench warrant for assault and false imprisonment during the incident with Colonel Kirk.[93]
            Though Tourgee failed to issue the warrant, with control of the legislature it was only a matter of time until Holden was impeached and stripped of his North Carolina citizenship.[94]  With all the turmoil and loss Tourgee endured in 1870, there was at least one bright part.  On November 19, 1870, Emma gave birth to Tourgee’s daughter Lodolska Tourgee, Lodie for short.[95]  The birth of Lodie seemed to energize Tourgee for as 1870 was winding down he was considering quitting the state; however, by the end of January of 1871 he was entering into a new business venture.  He and fellow carpetbagger, H. W. Snow, established the Greensboro Spoke and Handle factory.[96]  By fall of 1872, the company merged with another handle making company.  The resulting company became the North Carolina Handle Company.  The resulting company was initially very successful, but the depression of 1873 proved to be too much to overcome for the young company and Tourgee lost most of his money and property[97].  To literally add injury to insult, that same year Tourgee began experiencing discomfort that began in his blind eye but soon spread to his good eye.  Tourgee sought for the medical opinion of an eye specialist in Philadelphia who recommended that the blind eye be removed and replaced with a glass prosthetic.  Tourgee was soon joined by Emma and underwent the procedure, which soon proved beneficial to his “good” eye, although it took years for Tourgee to get used to it.
Like many other times in Tourgee’s life, he did not let the setback stop him.  Throughout his life, Tourgee had dabbled with writing by getting an odd short story or opinion piece published in various periodicals in both the north and the south.  Tourgee’s big literary break came in 1873 when he finished writing his first novel, Toinette.[98]  In Toinette, Tourgee tells the story of a North Carolina planter that falls in love with a slave of mixed heritage and his Toinette “cleaned up” and instructed in the ways of society.[99]  Then with the help of friends in Ohio had her in installed into Ohio society, where she refuses the planters proposal until he accepts her proposal as her equal.[100]  Tourgee publishes the book under the name, de Plume Henry Hurton, however it is not long before it becomes widely known that Tourgee is the author because of a writer from Lee, Massachusetts who published a literary review naming Tourgee as the author.[101]
Tourgee’s rivals however took advantage of Tourgee’s authorship of the scandalous novel by running a story in the Charlotte Observer that stated, “The real purpose of Tourgee was to popularize intermarriage between the races in North Carolina.”[102]  Sales of “Toinett” were not to rival the success of Tourgee’s later novels but it did garner some promising reviews.  Of the book one of Tourgee’s former professors said, “The style is so bright terse and clear that you prove by it your vocation for literature.”[103]
The year of 1874 also saw the end of Tourgee’s political career in North Carolina after he once again failed to secure the Republican nomination for Congress and his term as judge was ending without hope of re-election.  He was left without a political office for the first time in six years[104].  This left Tourgee in a dire financial situation.  Tourgee did enter into a short-lived law partnership with George Gregory that amounted to a total of $85 in legal fees being collected by Tourgee.[105]  Tourgee next sought to engage in the Lyceum lecture circuit, speaking on southern humor and interpretations of modern civilization.[106] 
In the spring of 1876, Tourgee was able to secure employment as a federal pension agent.[107]  The position necessitated for the Tourgee family to relocate to Raleigh.  A few months later, their Greensboro home went to auction.  Though not a candidate, Tourgee did work diligently to assure republican victory and to defend republican directives they gained during 1868.[108]   By 1877, Tourgee complained, “that is was all he could do to live among these people now”.[109]  Then in 1878, Tourgee lost his position as a pension agent due to downsizing of the agency.  In 1879, Tourgee and his family began arrangements to move to Denver, Colorado however; before he left he published his digest of cited cases in 1878.  On September 2nd, Tourgee and his family set out for Denver.[110] 
Tourgee then took a job as an editor of the evening edition of the Denver Times.  This was a short-lived position, because his publisher called him to New York because his novel (Figs and Thistle) had begun to sell quite well.[111]  Earlier that year, Tourgee wrote his crowning literary achievement “A Fool’s Errand” .  Though the novel was loosely based on Tourgee’s life he published it anonymously.  This caused quite a stir among the countries newspapers trying to discern the identity of the author.  One critic from Chicago felt the book was so comparable to Uncle Tom’s Cabin that he felt the same author wrote it.[112]  Although Tourgee’s friends and relatives were quick to recognize the character of Colonel Servosse, the romantic that was the protagonist in “Fool’s Errand”.  The “Fool’s Errand” became a best seller, as did his next novel “Bricks Without Straw”.  Tourgee’s books brought such fame to Tourgee that his alma matter, The University of Rochester, bestowed him an honorary LLD degree. 
The money and notoriety allowed Tourgee to gain some influence in national politics by getting a plank to aid education in the south.[113]  However, no longer of the south, Tourgee continued working for the betterment of his former home.  Tourgee never stopped working for the betterment of African Americans.  However, as had happened many times in Tourgee’s adult life he met with a “financial low ebb”.[114]  In 1884, he had to mortgage the revenue from  his new book “An Appeal to Caesar’s” but as always Tourgee persevered.[115]  
In 1891, Tourgee was a founding member of the National Citizen’s Rights Association (NCRA).  The group’s purpose was to publicize the facts of oppression and attack segregation.[116]  Many notable people joined Tourgee’s organization such as Ida Wells and Charlotte and Francis Grimke.[117]  Almost a year after the formation of the NCRA, the group had over 10,000 members in forty-two states.  In June of 1891, Tourgee was appointed an attorney in a case to test the constitutionality of the Louisiana law, separate but legal.[118]
On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy bought a ticket in New Orleans bound for Covington and took a seat in the white’s only car this however was against Louisiana’s segregation law, because Plessey was 1/8 African American.  Therefore, Plessey was arrested and charged with a violation of Louisiana’s Jim Crow laws.  Tourgee entered a plea before John H. Ferguson arguing that the law that Plessey “violated” was null because it went against the fourteenth amendment.  Ferguson ruled against him Plessey then applied to be heard by the state supreme court and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court (1892).  In each instance, Tourgee was defeated but the publicity was the greatest benefit of the case.
Tourgee never stopped fighting for African American civil rights and the NCRA was to evolve into the National Association for the Advancement of Color People (NAACP)[119].  In 1897, Tourgee and his family set sail for France where he was named Consul to Bordeaux where he worked until his death on May 21, 1905.[120]
Throughout Tourgee’s life, he worked to better the lot of African Americans.  He had wanted to make the United States a better place.  Tourgee did as much or more than other great Americans that are wildly studied yet because he was afflicted with the terrible condition of being a “carpetbagger”. He  is  largely unknown.  If Tourgee would have gone west, say to Idaho, and made the same contribution that he did in North Carolina he very likely would be considered a hero yet because he chose to go to the south after the Civil War and to rebuild a state  that was destroyed by war he was not. Thanks in large part to William Dunning and the Dunning School, which painted reconstruction in a very negative light while making the former confederate into heroes.  Like Eric Foner said in reference to why “carpetbaggers” were so vilified, “like a great many things the reason is politics.”[121]  However, we now have the opportunity to rectify this situation and historians today have started giving us a less biased look at events that occurred in the past.








Bibliography
“Albion Winegar Tourgee:  Radical Republican and Civil Rights Advocate,” North Carolina
State University, http://history.ncsu.edu/projects/cwnc/archive/files/e86c8255fdf8480a6819fdc569c7e099.pdf.
Current, Richard Nelson.  Those Terrible Carpetbaggers.  New York: Oxford University
Press, 1988.
Dibble, Roy F.  Albion W. Tourgee.  Princeton, NJ:  Lemcke & Buechner, 1921.
Dudley, William.  Reconstruction.  University Park, PA:  Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Foner, Eric.  “Eric Foner: American Historian.”  http://www.ericfoner.com (accessed October
11, 2012).
Foner, Eric.  “Reconstruction Revisited.” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 82-
83.
Fredrickson, George M.. Introduction to A Fool’s Errand: A Novel of the South During
Reconstruction, by Albion W. Tourgee.  Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1991.
Graves, JohnWilliam.  Race Relations in an Urban-Rural Context, Arkansas, 1865-1905
Fayetteville, TN:  The University of Arkansas Press, 1990.
“Judge Tourgee’s Troubles.” New York Times (New York, NY), November 26, 1884.
Olsen, Otto H.  Carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee.  Baltimore:  The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.
Osborn, George C..  Letters of a Carpetbagger in Florida, 1866-1869.  The Florida Historical
Quarterly.
 “Reconstruction Revisited.”  Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 
82-100.
Sloan, John Z.  The Ku Klux Clan and the Alabama Election of 1872.  The Alabama Review.
Staples PH.D, Thomas S.  1964.  Reconstruction in Arkansas 1862-1874.  Gloucester, Mass.: 
Peter Smith.



     [1] “Chapter 113. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies
Subchapter C. High School”, Texas Education Agency.
     [2] Richard Nelson Current, foreword  to Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 1.
     [3] Roy F Dibble,  Albion W. Tourgee.  Princeton, NJ:  Lemcke & Buechner, 1921.
     [4] William Dudley.  Reconstruction.  University Park, PA:  Greenhaven Press, 2003.
     [5] William Dudley.  Reconstruction.  University Park, PA:  Greenhaven Press, 2003.
     [6] Richard Nelson Current, foreword  to Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 56.
     [7] William Dudley.  Reconstruction.  University Park, PA:  Greenhaven Press, 2003.
     [8] William Dudley.  Reconstruction.  University Park, PA:  Greenhaven Press, 2003.
     [9] Ibid.
     [10] Eric Foner, “Reconstruction Revisited,” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 82
     [11] Eric Foner, “Reconstruction Revisited,” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 82
     [12] Eric Foner, “Reconstruction Revisited,” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 83
     [13] Roy Floyd Dibble, Albion W. Tourgee (Princeton, NJ: Lemcke & Buechner, 1921), 59-60.
     [14] George M. Fredrickson, introduction to A Fool’s Errand: A Novel of the South During Reconstruction, by Albion W. Tourgee (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1991), xiii.
     [15] Eric Foner, “Eric Foner: American Historian,” http://www.ericfoner.com (accessed October 11, 2012).
      [16] Richard Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 422.
     [17] Thomas Staples, Reconstruction in Arkansas 1862-1874 (Gloucester, Mass, 1964), 175.
      [18] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 1.
     [19] Ibid, 2.
     [20] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 3.
     [21] Ibid, 3.
     [22] Ibid, 4.
     [23] Ibid, 7.
     [24] Ibid, 7-8.
     [25] Ibid, 13.
     [26] Ibid, 14.
     [27] George M. Fredrickson, introduction to A Fool’s Errand: A Novel of the South During Reconstruction by Albion W. Tourgee (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc, 1991), ix.
     [28] Ibid., ix.  (George Fredrickson)
     [29] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 17.
     [30] Ibid, 17.
     [31] Ibid, 17.
     [32] Ibid, 18-19.
     [33] Ibid, 19.
     [34] Ibid, 20.
     [35] Ibid, 20.
     [36] Ibid, 21.
     [37] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 21.
     [38] Ibid, 23.
     [39] Ibid, 24.
     [40] George M. Fredrickson, introduction to A Fool’s Errand: A Novel of the South During Reconstruction by Albion W. Tourgee (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc, 1991), ix.
     [41] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [42] Ibid.
     [43] Ibid.
     [44] Ibid.
     [45] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 26-27.
     [46] Ibid, 27.
     [47] Ibid, 27.
     [48] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 27-28.
     [49] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [50] Ibid, 28.
     [51] George M. Fredrickson, introduction to A Fool’s Errand: A Novel of the South During Reconstruction by Albion W. Tourgee (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc, 1991), x.
     [52] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 24.
     [53] Ibid, 33.
     [54] Ibid, 33.
     [55] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 34.
     [56] Ibid, 41.
     [57] Ibid, 48.
    [58] Ibid, 48.
    [59] Ibid, 48.
     [60] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [61] William Dudley.  Reconstruction.  University Park, PA:  Greenhaven Press, 2003.
     [62] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 94.
     [63] Ibid, 97.
     [64] Ibid, 115.
     [65] Ibid, 116.
     [66] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 116-117.
     [67] Ibid, 116-117.
     [68] Ibid, 124.
     [69] Ibid, 130.
     [70] Ibid.
     [71] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [72] Ibid.
     [73] Ibid.
     [74] Ibid.
     [75] Ibid.
     [76] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [77] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [78] George C. Osborn, Letters of a Carpetbagger in Florida, 1866-1869.  The Florida Historical Quarterly.
     [79] John Z. Sloan, The Ku Klux Clan and the Alabama Election of 1872.  The Alabama Review.
     [80] John Williams Graves, Race Relations in an Urban-Rural Context, Arkansas, 1865-1905 (Fayetteville, TN:  The University of Arkansas Press, 1990), 25. 
     [81] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [82] Ibid.
     [83] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [84] Ibid.
     [85] Ibid.
     [86] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [87] Ibid.
     [88] Ibid.
     [89] Ibid.
     [90] Thomas S. Staples, PhD, Reconstruction in Arkansas 1862-1874.  Gloucester, MA:  Columbia University Press, 1964.
     [91] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [92] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [93] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [94] Ibid.
     [95] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [96] Ibid.
     [97] Ibid.
     [98] Ibid.
     [99] Ibid.
     [100] Ibid.
     [101] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [102] Ibid.
     [103] Ibid.
     [104] Ibid.
     [105] Otto H. Olsen, Carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [106] Ibid.
     [107] Ibid.
     [108] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [109] Ibid.
     [110] Ibid.
     [111] Ibid.
     [112] Ibid.
     [113] Ibid.
     [114] “Judge Tourgee’s Troubles,” New York Times (New York, NY), November 26, 1884.
     [115] Ibid.
     [116] Otto H. Olsen, carpetbagger’s Crusade:  The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee (Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
     [117] Ibid.
     [118] “Albion Winegar Tourgee:  Radical Republican and Civil Rights Advocate,” North Carolina State University, http://history.ncsu.edu/projects/cwnc/archive/files/e86c8255fdf8480a6819fdc569c7e099.pdf.
     [119] George M. Fredrickson, introduction to A Fool’s Errand: A Novel of the South During Reconstruction by Albion W. Tourgee (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc, 1991), xx.
     [120] Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
     [121] Eric Foner.  “Reconstruction Revisited.” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982).

Monday, January 28, 2013

A Rationale for Technology in History classrooms


Technology can be found everywhere in today’s society.  In just the last twenty years, the use of technology has grown faster than any other time in history.  Even McDonald’s are equipped with free wireless internet connections, and it is very easy to find internet capable devices (tablet PC’s) for less than $100 and netbook PC’s for less than $200 and not to mention smart phones than can be had for $50 or less.  The proliferation of technology is such even in schools that the majority of students are from low-income families at least a third can usually be found to have some access to technology.  The one place that seems to be exempt of the growing use of technology is in the study of history.  In contrast, to other core class’s history and other social studies classes seem to be lagging in the integration of technology in the day-to-day teaching of history.  Though it may seem an idiomatic combination, technology and history, but technology opens up many possibilities in the study by increasing student access to not only primary source documents but to media that can make history more relevant and real.  It is this ability to enrich and deepen historical instruction that perhaps is its greatest strength.  The use of technology in teaching history is not a replacement for sound teaching principles.  In fact, the use of technology without sound teaching principles will not be as effective as a class taught using sound teaching principles without the use of technological assistance; however, when sound teaching principles and technology are used in conjunction then one can achieve a better result than without the use of technology.  A teacher’s priority should be to provide the best possible education not just an adequate education.  American psychologist, Abraham Maslow said, “If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”  That is true in all areas of late, but nowhere more so than in the field of education, where teachers are responsible on a daily basis of connecting with over one hundred individuals.  The more “tools” in their repertoire the easier this is accomplished.

However, instruction is not the only job teachers are required to do.  They are responsible for record keeping, corresponding with parents, and managing discipline in the classroom.  All of these aspects arguably can enrich the learning experiences they however directly affect the amount of time teachers can spend on both instruction and lesson planning.  Technology can also aid in this aspect of teaching history by freeing up time in these areas.  Teachers are able to spend more time engaged with students that may need instruction above that which was given in class.  Also, the nature of historical instruction makes it hard for students to fully make up missed classes and this too causes added work for teachers.  However in this too, technology can be useful in that it can allow students to retrieve notes from a missed lecture, allows students to watch visual media on a topic covered on the day a student was not present, and/or to have access to materials handed out in class.  Technology can even allow students to directly ask questions of the teacher without the teacher divulging an email address.  All the functions listed above can be easily accomplished by the creation of a teacher website.  There are several websites that allow for the creation of websites that are free and allow for easy construction of websites.  A teacher website is just one “tool” available to teachers and can free up time that allows teachers to explore other aspects of technology to strengthen instruction. 

Saturday, December 22, 2012


Attitudes Toward History and the Way it is Taught

David Buie

University of Houston Downtown

 

 

 

 

 Abstract

This study examined the attitudes that the adult population at large has about history and history instruction.  There were a total of 58 respondents that completed a ten question survey on their attitudes on history in general and history instruction.  To that end, questions were asked about the source of historical knowledge; the subject taught by their favorite teacher; their favorite and least favorite class; and their opinion on why history is taught in schools and how to make it better.  The finding of the survey was not always consistent with the research on the topic in general.

 

  Attitudes Toward History and the Way it is Taught

            It all facets of society there seem to be apathy towards history.  Based on this, it seems that the majority of people do not grasp the fact that events that happen in the past affect the present and by understanding why those events happened, it could lead to solutions to modern problems.  It is a valid promise that if students were more engaged in the learning of history they would be more likely as adults to remain engaged in the active pursuit of historic knowledge.

            One theory that prompted this research is that in general the common approaches used to teach history in the United States for over a hundred years is largely lacking in adequately teaching history to our students (VanSledright, 2011).  One only has to look to examine past studies of historical instruction to see this proved.  A study that was conducted in 1997 by the United States Department of Education found on average students in grades one through four spent only 2.6 hours a week learning social studies of any kind (Perie, 1997).  Another study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut surveyed 556 college seniors on United States history, United States government, famous quotations, and popular culture.  The average score on the survey was 53% (Paxton, 2003).  Another survey conducted by the Luntz Research Company polled thirteen to seventeen year-olds and found only 41% of those surveyed could correctly identify the three branches of the United States Government (Murdock, 2011).  Yet another survey conducted by the United States Capitol Historical Society found that only 34% correctly identified George Washington as the command general at the battle of Yorktown while 37% erroneously answered Ulysses S. Grant (Capital History, n.d.).  This preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that there is an on-going problem with how history is taught.

            Unfortunately there is no panacea when it comes to fixing the problems with the teaching of history because ultimately like everything else dealing with education you are dealing with individuals.   However, this does not keep researchers and instructors from conducting research to find the best practices to teach history.  That leads to the question what are the best practices to teach history in our schools.  VanSledright (2011), in The Challenge of Rethinking History Education, looks at two very different high school United States history teachers within one high school.  One follows a heritage-infused approach of teaching United States history that focused on history as narrative building a “collective” memory in which students learn about national heroes that toiled to create strong and united nation.  While the other teacher takes quite a different approach.  This teacher approaches history as its own discipline.  This teacher uses primary sources and stresses critical thinking and project based learning.  Though these two approaches are being widely studied, they are not the only ways to increase engagement in history that is being studied.  Though they may be the most widely studied.  Even though teachers know the best practices to use based on research, they do not always follow those best practices. 

Literature Review

            The range of research on effective instruction of history is great and covers topics as diverse as the importance of subject knowledge, teaching history as a narrative, and the integration of historical fiction as a tool that enriches historical instruction.  Though the study of history as a narrative is perhaps the most studied instruction strategy, teaching history as a narrative is not just a phenomenon found in the United States.  In one study on teaching history as a narrative carried out in the United Kingdom it was found that “English schools should teach core British values, such as free speech, the rule of law, mutual tolerance, and respect for equal rights through the lends of history” (Andrews, McGlynn, & Mycock, 2010, p. 301).  This mirrors an American study that states, “Repetition of the American nation building story in United States history class in grade school function as a potentially productive vehicle to become an American…” (VanSledright, 2008, p. 110).  In another study, it was found when history is taught as a narrative it aids students in seeing an overview that is lacking when the focus is only on critical thinking skills (Hawkey, 2004).  In another study it was found that when used in conjunction with frameworks, it helps students make connections that they may not otherwise make (Davies, 2011).  Though there are numerous accounts of this approach being used successfully there are weaknesses to be found.  As VanSledright (2008) points out the American history narrative arc is mainly concerned with military, economic, and political events from British colonization on through to the modern day.  This Anglo-Centric “big picture” can be off-putting to someone who does not fit into that narrative (VanSledright, 2008, p. 114).  However, VanSledright (2008) also points out that one possible solution might be to replace a national arc with local ones though he agrees it would be hard to do for large and ethnically diverse states like Texas and California.  Another drawback that is pointed out by Hawkey (2004) is that “narratives are usually counterposed to analysis” (p.35).  So what can happen is students are taught a narrative and though they know that particular “story” they lack the higher level skills to investigate primary sources in order to their own answers.

            Sandwell (2005) points out that throughout North American history teachers overwhelmingly believe history constitutes a strong linear narrative.  In contrast professional historians have come to understand that history is a process of questioning evidence and drawing conclusions based on evidence from the past (Sandwell, 2005).  Sandwell (2005) found overwhelmingly that even after teaching students to “do history” that instead of investigating sources they move directly to tools like search engines to find a website they feel will give them the answer (p. 12).  It is this kind of thinking that reduces history to a series of indisputable facts (Sandwell, 2005).

            Wiersma (2008) points out in a study of the teaching methods of high school history teachers that the majority of history teachers follow the traditional model of teacher centered lecture and rote memorization.  Even though research suggests that this is not the best teaching practice, the author suggests that constructivist teaching methods where students actively seek out the answers on their own is the better pedagogical course of action (Wiersma, 2008).  Seghi writes, “In order to help our students understand the past they need to be engaged in learning about it” (Seghi, 2012, p. 1).  Seghi (2012) also stresses the importance of using primary sources in conjunction with problem based learning.  The goal of problem based learning is to help students think critically (Seghi, 2012).  The same can be said of other forms of constructivist learning; both stress the use of primary source material and engage students in higher levels of thinking. 

            Drake and Brown (2003) draw on experience and research to outline a systematic approach to utilizing primary sources as well as an examination on literature on the subject of historical thinking.  The approach discussed is designed around the concept of dividing documents into first order, second order, and third order (Drake & Brown, 2003).  A first order document is one that a teacher would use to design a lesson around or in other words is a document that communicates an important concept (Drake & Brown, 2003).  Second order documents are primary sources that support or challenge the first order document (Drake & Brown, 2003).  These may be made up of documents, photographs, and tables (Drake & Brown, 2003).  Lastly, third order documents are primary sources that relate to the original document (Drake & Brown, 2003).  The biggest difference between this approach and the other methods using primary sources is that in this approach it blends a skills approach with a narrative approach (Drake & Brown, 2003).  By using both primary sources and a narrative, this approach takes the best from both approaches in that it provides the framework of the narrative while building high-level processes.

            This leads to the question why do not more teachers engage students in interpretation.  Barton and Levstik points out that over the past fifteen years a lot of time and research have been devoted to reforming historical instruction.  The majority of the research points to the fact that students do not get a full historical education if they are just taught a story of past events.  Students must be taught how such stories are formed in order to get a full historical education.  In order to do that, students must be able to analyze and interpret primary sources.  However, many teachers remain unfazed by these concerns and require students to read textbooks and listen to lectures.  This seems to be because though they know the pedagogy they lack content knowledge or more precisely lack the knowledge of how to teach students to analyze history.  Though there are studies that show that this is not the case and that teachers with the knowledge in some cases are just apathetic.  The apathy does not seem to be confined to long-term teachers as shown in a survey of pre-service teachers who had engaged in a document based methods in class.  The main reason for this seems to be because of fear in teachers that they would lose control of their classrooms and not be able to cover the required curriculum.  So, in short, it is a curricular issue more than a pedagogical issue (Barton & Levstik, 2003).  Robert Bain agrees with Barton and Levstik.  Bain points out educational critics have singled out high school history teaching as the model of poor pedagogy (Bain, 2005).  Unprepared teachers turn history into the driest of school subjects (Bain, 2005).  The would-be reformers agree that teachers need to “move beyond lecture, recitation, and textbooks” (Bain, 2005, p. 179). However, there is no consensus among reformers.  Some reformers stress narrative approaches like Hawkey, while others propose a more problem based approach.  However, again like Barton and Levstik point out, Bain (2005) discusses “the challenges high school history teachers confront each day when facing large classes predefined course goals and required textbooks” (p. 180).  One way Bain (2005) suggests is to cast curricular objectives as historical problems.  By placing inquiry at the heart of the instruction, students become engaged and begin to think historically.  This, however, requires the teacher to work harder than just the dry lecture and rote memorization.  Bain (2005) suggests “That history teachers in the United States must play a form of instructional Jeopardy by inventing big questions to fit curricular answers” (p. 182).  To do this, teachers must first design problems that provide links across objectives.  Secondly, teachers must pay attention to the multifaceted of historical knowledge while carefully considering the hidden challenges that their students may face.  Lastly, the problems must be able to fit into the proper time frame, i.e. period, unit, etc.  By problematizing history it allows students to create their own narratives.  However, there are some ideas that must first be understood by students and according to Bain (2005) these are history-as-event and history-as-account.  By instilling these concepts into students it increases their ability to understand historical evidence which allows for better understanding of history.

            Yilmaz (2008-2009) discusses the nature of history and describes two distinct and contrasting perspectives.  The first is history as science or the assimilationist view and the other history as art, also called the idealistic view, though she states that though art and science are diametrically opposed one can take a more holistic approach anywhere along the continuum between purely art or purely science.  Yilmaz (2008-2009) also states the purpose for teaching history “is to promote social understanding and student efficacy” (p. 40).  Another tool that some school districts are looking to for help in improving its history instruction is the Teaching American History grant project.  Ragland (2007) examines a three year professional development program to improve teacher’s knowledge, understanding, and teaching strategies.  Ragland (2007) describes how each session was setup, first with teachers working with professional historians modeling the practices of doing history and then in the second session teachers were provided with not only pedagogical knowledge but pedagogical content knowledge, or in other words how to teach history effectively. 

            The results of the professional development program were striking.  Before participation in the program history teachers tended to think of history as nothing more than a bunch of dates, names, and places.  This is quite different than professional historians who see history as something to do, not something to be told.  This helped to address the lack of content knowledge among teachers, of which only seven of twenty teachers in the initial program had history degrees.  The program also demonstrated the need to add engaging activities that actually allowed students to do history.

            Another area of research on history education is finding out attitudes of pre-service history teachers.  Virta (2002) did this by analyzing the essays of eighteen pre-service teachers written during their education and interviews with five of the respondents.  She found that the majority of the respondents had in the past a teacher that they referred to as exceptional.  Of those students, most had a strong desire to emulate this teacher, even when the teacher’s methods are what would be considered out of date; while simultaneously chastising teachers for poor teaching methods even when the problem was not necessarily pedagogical.  The most telling is the tendency of pre-service teachers nostalgically wanting to teach class like they had been taught.  Couple this with issues of classroom management, then is it any wonder that an inexperienced teacher falls back on teaching history the way they had been taught (Virta, 2002).

            The idea of teaching students and inexperienced teachers falling back into what is comfortable is also discussed in the 2011 survey done by Bain and Harris.  In their study four pre-service and six in-service teachers were given a stack of seemingly random stack of cards listing eighteen historical events and asked to organize the cards into a big historical picture (Harris & Bain, 2011).  The differences among the ten teachers were stunning.  The teachers drew connections or organized along tempro-spatial scales; however, the more experienced teachers built connections among events that created a coherent narrative that related to real world concepts while inexperienced teachers were more likely to simply put cards in chronological order or simply in categories.  This seemed to point to the inexperienced teacher’s lack of content knowledge which seemed to hamper their ability to make meaningful connections for their students (Harris & Bain, 2011, p. 13). 

            Content knowledge is important in creating a framework and teaching higher order thinking.  However, one must first engage students.  This is the subject of the article by Turk, Klein, and Dickstein (2007) in which they advocate a creative way of engaging students by using fictional literature build on engagement by acting as giving an insight into a historical subject and to act as a metaphorical hook to get students interested in history by making it more real.  The ideal of fiction as history is also covered by Metzger who points out how invasive historical movies have become not only in the “popular history narrative” but also in history classrooms (p. 67).  Though he does not discount the engaging effect of these made for entertainment films.  He does, however, caution that a good resource used badly can be detrimental.  So in order to keep films from doing damage to the historical knowledge of students, Metzger (2007) points out that students should be taught to analyze films as they would any source by doing this it opens up a wide range of teaching possibilities.  The literature and research on teaching history is as varied as history and no single work can touch on it all.  Like a great many things related to educational research one kind find someone to agree they are doing the best thing that is why it is important that educators and instructors to read the research and evaluate the sources just as a historian would evaluate any primary source.  Though the research sighted in this study shows that there is a strong desire by students to be given the right answer.  When in reality it comes to the actual practice of history, asking the right question is far more important than the right answer.

Method

Participants

            The participants of the survey included a total of fifty-eight volunteers of undeterminable gender, age, and location.  The participants were required to be eighteen years of age and to have taken at least one history class.  The participants were asked to state their education level.  Of the fifty-eight responses, there was one participant with a doctoral degree which accounted for 1.8% of the participants.  There were also five participants with a master’s degree which accounted for 8.8% of the participants.  There were also twenty participants with a bachelor’s degree which accounted for 35.1% of the participants.  Another twenty-seven participants had a high school degree which accounted for 47.4% of the participants. And lastly, there were four participants without a high school degree which accounted for 7% of the participants and there was one participant that abstained from answering that question. 

Materials

            The questionnaire, Attitudes Concerning History Instruction and History in General, was measured through an online survey.  The participants were asked to complete a total of ten questions.  These questions consisted of three multiple choice close ended, two multiple choice, and five short answer.  The participants were asked about their favorite and least favorite class, the source of historical knowledge, the class their favorite teacher taught, along with their current education level, the industry they are currently employed in or about to go into, and if the instruction was relevant to that industry. 

Procedure

            A link with a request for participation in the survey was posted on a social media website along with a request that participants re-post the survey request in a method known as snowball sampling.  The survey was to be completed online and complied by a research website.  The survey was free of any identifiers and as such they were completely anonymous.  The participants were required to read an electronically accept the terms on an informed consent form prior to completing the survey.  Each survey could only be completed once from an individual computer.

Results

            The findings of the survey were interesting.  As a whole, the group of participants was more educated than the general public. The sample population was made up of 93% of at least a high school education which is more than the United States at large, which only has about a 75% graduation rate.

            The respondents were asked what their favorite class was and a total of 34.5% (20 participants) listed history as their favorite class.  This was followed by math at 20.7% (12 participants).  Next was science as the favorite class with 10.3% (6 participants) and then English with 6.9% (4 participants).  The last classification of classes fell into “other” which included such diverse classes as Spanish, psychology, and digital illustration.  This classification accounted for 31% (18 participants).  Conversely, respondents were also asked what their least favorite class was and a total of 41.4% (24 participants) listed some form of mathematics.  This was followed by history with 19% (11 participants).  Only three of these eleven participants said math was their favorite subject.  Next was English with 15.5% (9 participants).  Next was science which had 13.8% (8 participants).  The “other” classification came in last with a total of 10.3% (6 participants).  Some of the classes listed in the “other” category were business management, physical education, and games.  This illustrated an interesting finding that two classes were listed as both the favorite and least favorite.  These two classes were math and history, which lead one to think that these classes illicit diametrically opposed responses.

Another question asked the respondents what class their favorite teacher taught.  The “other” classification included subjects such as agriculture, political science, and inter-personal communions.  This classification accounted for 27.6% (16 of the participants). This was followed by history and English with 24.1% (14 of the participants each).  Next was science with 13.8% (8 of the participants) and math with 10.3% (6 of the participants).  There were four participants that reported that they had no favorite teacher, which accounted for 6.9%.  The respondents were also asked about their feeling about history in general.  There were 54.4% of the participants (31 of the participants) that stated they liked their history class while 24.6% (14 of the participants) stated they like history but did not like their history class.  Another 17.5% (10 of the participants) stated that they were apathetic towards history and 3.5% (2 of the participants) stated that they hated history. 

            Next, the respondents were asked what industry they were currently employed.  The largest section was manufacturing with 37.9% (22 of the participants) followed by education with 20.7% (12 of the participants).  The next type of industry was service at 17.2% (10 of the participants) and then there was medical with 13.8% (8 of the participants).  Last was the legal field with 5.2% (3 of the participants).

            Then the respondents were asked if they felt their current or past classes were relevant in their everyday life.  A total of 89.7% (52 of the participants) answered yes while only 8.6% (5 of the participants) responded with no.  Of the respondents that answered affirmatively, English had the most responses with 86.5% (45 participants).  This was followed by math with 78.8% (41 participants) with social studies being next at 80.8% (42 participants) and then there was science with 59.6% (31 participants).  There were also ten participants (19.2%) that said “other” which among those that listed other accounting, typing, and computers.  Then the respondents were asked which source they get their historical knowledge.  There were 65.5% (38 of the participants) that answered documentaries/history channel while 60.3% (35 of the participants) answered past or current history classes.  Another 43.1% (25 of the participants) answered self-study while 25.9% (15 of the participants) answered historical fiction/literature.  Lastly, historically based Hollywood movies were chosen by 20.7% (12 of the participants). 

            Respondents were also asked why they thought history was taught in school.  The responses to this question were varied as it was an open ended question; however, the responses were placed in four categories.  The first category was cultural identification which accounted for 44.8% (26 of the participants).  The second category was avoiding the mistakes of the past and this category received 20.7% (12 of the participants).  The third category was purely intellectual reasons and this category received 29.3% (17 of the participants).  The last category had three responses that were grouped into a category called “not applicable” and this accounted for 5.2% of the participants.  This last category is called “not applicable” because of responses like “too many notes/lectures” or “I think it is currently taught so that students can pass the STAAR exam” or “don’t know”.

            Lastly, respondents were asked what could be done to improve instruction in history classes.  As with the previous question this was an open-ended response.  Respondents offered many varied ideas on how to improve history instruction; however, the ideas were placed into six categories.  The categories getting the most responses were that the teacher should be a more engaging speaker and provide a more engaging narrative.  There were 22.4% (13 of the participants) that felt this way.  The same number felt that curriculums should allow for more creative lesson plans.  There were 15.5% (9 of the participants) that felt there should be more active/hands on study of history while 17.2% (10 of the participants) felt teachers should create more relevance/connections to today’s students.  The last category received 15.5% (9 of the participants also) that were either inappropriate to the question or did not have an opinion.

The survey also seemed to disprove the hypothesis that there would be a statistical correlation between respondent’s favorite class and the class that their favorite teacher taught; however after performing a Chi Square there proved to be no significant correlation (see figure 1). 

                                                                 Discussion

            This survey looks at the attitudes that the individual formed as a result of the historical instruction they received.  By understanding those attitudes, researchers can determine ways to improve instruction.  By determining where poor attitudes are formed, changes can be made to fix those issues.  Conversely, by determining where good attitudes are formed, researchers can develop teaching strategies to reinforce those behaviors.  The amount of research on the subject of history is great and there are some items that were lightly touched on in this survey.  One area is why history is taught in schools, such as the one, “In an effort to come to some reasonable terms with the firm hold a triumphal national narrative has over the way history education or heritage education if you will—is practiced in the United States.  I have labored to show it serves a powerful sociocultural purpose (VanSledright, 2008, p.137).  This is comparable to what I found in the survey when asked “why history is taught in schools”.  There were 44.9% of the participants that gave an answer that mirrored the reason given by VanSledright by a considerable margin.  The response with the next highest respondents for purely intellectual reasons was 29.3%.  Some 16.5% points lower, though the survey seems to confirm VanSledright.  The survey does not support Metzger (2007):

It must be clear to even the most academic of historians that the visual media have become (perhaps) the chief conveyor of public history, that for every person who reads a book on a historical topic about which a film has been made…many millions of people are likely to encounter that same past on the screen (p. 67).

In the results section above, the findings for the question “historical knowledge” confirm that historically themed movies are not the “chief conveyor of public history” as this category received the fewest responses.

            As noted, the survey was conducted using a snowball sampling and there are both advantages and disadvantages to this method.  The advantages are mainly in that a sample can be obtained quickly, particularly when it is done online.  However, the sample cannot generally be applied to the population at large because it is not a truly random sample.  The advantage of time needed to obtain a sample population made it the best choice for this survey and despite the drawback found in the sample method this survey is a good jumping off point for several points of research including the original research design of the survey.  In fact, it would be interesting to re-administer this survey with a random sample to test if there would be a significant difference and if so, would it be across the whole survey or only in certain aspects.  Because of time constraints, this survey and the responses could not be analyzed to the extent the subject matter deserved.  However, I think the answers to the survey do raise some thought provoking data and does have some merit.

            For instance, the answer to the question concerning the source of historical knowledge along with the answers given for the question on how to improve education, clearly show that the respondents to the questionnaire are most concerned with the history narrative.  They want to be told what they need to know and do not want to go through the “chore” of verifying sources or weighing the merit of conflicting accounts of an event.  Based on this, it appears the problem is not necessarily instruction but attitudes that need to be changed.  The emphasis should be shifted getting the right answer to how do you get the right answer.

 

 References

Andrews, R., McGlynn, C., & Mycock, A. (2010).  National pride and students’

attitudes towards history:  An exploratory study.  Educational Studies, 36(3), 299-309.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690903424782.

Bain, R. B. (2005).  “They thought the world was flat?”:  Applying the principles of how people

learn in teaching high school history.  In J. Bransford & S. Donovan (Eds.), How students learn:  History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 179-214).  Washington, DC:  The National Academies Press.  Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11100&page=179.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2003).  Why don’t more history teachers engage students in

interpretation?  Social Education, 67(6), 358-361.  Retrieved from http://worldroom.tamu.edu/Presentations/Making%20History%20Come%20Alive/Making%20History%20Come%20Alive%20CD/Articles/History%20in%20the%20Classroom/Why%20Don%27t%20More%20History%20Teachers%20Engage%20Students.pdf.

Capitol History.  (n.d.).  Retrieved from

http://uschscapitolhistory.uschs.org/articles/uschs_articles-08.htm.

Davies, I. (Ed.).  (2011).  Debates in history teaching.  New York, NY:  Routledge.

Drake, F. D., & Brown, S. D. (2003).  A systematic approach to improve students’ historical

thinking.  The History Teacher, 36(4), 465-489.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555575.

Harris, L. & Bain, R. B. (2011).  Pedagogical content knowledge for world history teachers: 

bridging the gap between knowing and teaching.  American Educator, 35(2), 13-16.  Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ931210.

Hawkey, K. (2004). Narrative in classroom history.  The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 35-44. 

http://10.1080/0958517042000189461.

Metzer, S. A. (2007).  Pedagogy and the historical feature film:  Toward historical literacy.  Film

& History:  An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies, 37(2), 67-75.  http://10.1353/flm.2007.0058

Murdock, D. (2011, December 17).  Civic ignorance threatens American liberty.  Retrieved from

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4667.

Paxton, R. (2003).  Don’t know much about history—never did (Telephone surveys reveal

college students’ lack of historical knowledge).  Phi Delta Kappan, 85(4), 264-273.

Perie, M., American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, W. C., & And, O.

(1997). Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools. Comparisons across Community, School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics. Statistical Analysis Report.

Ragland, R. G. (2007).  Changing secondary teachers’ views of teaching American history.  The

History Teacher, 40(2), 219-246.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036989.

Sandwell, R. (2005).  School history versus the historians.  International Journa of Social

Education, 20(1), 9-15.  Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ718741

Seghi, L. (2012).  Engagement in the history classroom:  Problem-based learning and primary

sources.  The Councilor:  A Journal of the Social Studies, 73(1), 1-4.  Retrieved from https://ojcs.siue.edu/ojs/index.php/jicss/article/view/2631/617.

Turk, D. B., Klein, E., & Dickstein, S. (2007). Mingling “Fact” with “fiction”:  Strategies for

integrating literature into history and social studies classrooms.  The History Teacher, 40(3), 397-406.  Retrieved from http://www.thehistoryteacher.org/main.html.

VanSledright, B. (2008).  Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, and school history

education.  Review of Research in Education, 32(109), 109-146. 

http://rre.sagepub.com/content/32/1/109.

VanSledright, B. (2011).  The challenge of rethinking history education:  On practices, theories,

and policy.  New York, NY:  Routledge.

Virta, A. (2002).  Becoming a history teacher:  Observations on the beliefs and growth of student

teachers.  Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 687-698.  Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X02000288.

Wiersma, A. (2008).  A study of the teaching methods of high school history teachers.  The

Social Studies, 99(3), 111-116.  Retrieved from http://heldref.metapress.com.ezproxy.uhd.edu/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3200/TSSS.99.3.111-116

Yilmaz, K.  (2008-2009). A vision of history teaching and learning: thoughts on history

education in secondary schools.  The High School Journal, 92(2), 37-46.