The Historian's World

[L Verge]

We had to diffuse a recent situation at Surratt House Museum where there was a misunderstanding related to the current issues surrounding the American Civil War and some of the effects that have lasted for generations. A visitor posted her hurt feelings (and anger) on social media, and that required careful thought in putting together a response.

I asked our new education specialist, Coby Treadway, to compose a reply to her online, while I contacted her directly. In my opinion, Coby posted a response that everyone who deals in the history field should study and take to heart, and I would like to share his thoughts with you:

"... I have been asked, as the Surratt House Education Specialist, to comment upon our approach to history here at the Surratt House.

"History, by its very nature, is a challenging topic to tackle with anyone. As someone that has been involved with public history and education for the past sixteen years, I can certainly attest to just how difficult it is to interpret a time period as crucial to the ongoing development of our nation as the American Civil War. This conflict changed the very fabric of this nation and the resulting passions are still keenly felt, regardless of what side of the issue one’s views fall on. As public historians and educators we feel that we have a duty to interpret the past as factually as possible while providing connections to the present and future in the hopes that history can be used as an informative tool by our guests throughout their lives. Yet, despite our best intent, and the sheer amount of research that we conduct, we are constantly faced with two crucial questions.

"First, how can we truly tell the story of other human beings who lived hundreds of years before our own life experiences began? Second, how do we convey social mores and ideas that are distasteful to our modern ideas of equality and civility—while still understanding that our modern ideas are probably not as all-encompassing and noble as we would like them to be—and please everyone? The answer is that we cannot. We can only interpret history as unbiased as we possibly can, which in itself is an impossibility.

"Knowing this, our approach has always been to tell history as accurately, and completely, as possible. History should challenge us. It should make us uncomfortable. History is hard and dirty. It is complex and people driven with very little black and white and lots of gray area, and we all bring our own baggage to the party. Our hope is that we can provide some kind of insight that will drive our guests to read and do their own research in an effort to develop their own narrative of the history that they are so passionate about, because as historians—professional or amateur—we can never afford to stop learning."

Personally, I urge all of us to memorize the sentences that I bolded.

P.S. Between this that Coby posted (which she replied to as BEAUTIFUL) and my email and follow-up phone call, I think the broken fences have been repaired -- until our political correctness of the 21st century intervenes again...

[RJNorton]

Laurie, your post made me think of Mary Lincoln, her views on women's suffrage, and how thinking has changed since the mid-19th century.

What if there were a poll which asked Americans this question: "Did Mary Lincoln think women should have the right to vote?" My guess is Americans would overwhelmingly say "yes."

According to Jean Baker, this would be wrong. In her Mary Lincoln biography she wrote:

"Female abolitionists and suffragists gained no respect from her (Mary Lincoln); she believed them unwomanly creatures. She had no interest in obtaining the vote, intending instead to influence her husband."

[L Verge]

(10-01-2019 08:29 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Laurie, your post made me think of Mary Lincoln, her views on women's suffrage, and how thinking has changed since the mid-19th century.

What if there were a poll which asked Americans this question: "Did Mary Lincoln think women should have the right to vote?" My guess is Americans would overwhelmingly say "yes."

According to Jean Baker, this would be wrong. In her Mary Lincoln biography she wrote:

"Female abolitionists and suffragists gained no respect from her (Mary Lincoln); she believed them unwomanly creatures. She had no interest in obtaining the vote, intending instead to influence her husband."

That statement bothers me because I have always understood that Mary gained a solid political background as a young girl at the knees of both her father and Henry Clay. I thought it irritated her greatly when, as a grown woman, she was ignored or looked down on by our "senior statesmen" upon arriving in Washington City.

[AussieMick]

Laurie, you write "That statement bothers me because I have always understood that Mary gained a solid political background as a young girl at the knees of both her father and Henry Clay. I thought it irritated her greatly when, as a grown woman, she was ignored or looked down on by our "senior statesmen" upon arriving in Washington City."

I can understand the possibility that Mary was opposed to women having the vote but also being politically astute. I'm sure that she wouldnt have been alone in her thinking.

One perfectly reasonable argument (I'm not saying its correct) would have been that many women at that time would have been less educated than males. They would have been brought up to focus on doing the cooking and not worrying their pretty little heads about issues. Many women would (if given vote) have simply asked their husband for advice.

It is so important, I suggest, to recognise (as far as possible) the different pressures, mores, and cultures of people in earlier times.

Mary made the point that she would seek to influence her husband ... her right to vote was less crucial to her. Yes, I agree with you Laurie ... Its very understandable that she would have felt frustrated and annoyed by some of the dingbat, less astute than her, male politicians (and the lack of interest by the "shucks-why-I'm-just-a-woman" attitude by some their wives).

[Eva Elisabeth]

It's quite a while (few yrs...) ago that I tried to "figure" this question (maybe we did on the forum?). My book is far away and I forgot - what is the source for Baker's statement? I think I somewhere also read the claim Mick thinks possible - too many too little educated females to give the license to all is possibly what Mary felt.

(If I recall correctly, at least in a few states - New York I remember - women had the right to vote in the beginnings of the US if they owned property or means. This right was later withdrawn.)

[L Verge]

I agree that the accepted norm for women (up until the 1950s or later) was to maintain a happy home for their husbands, bear and raise children appropriately, and don't waste time on critical thinking. And, it appears that Mary Todd slipped into that role when she became Mrs. Lincoln. However, I also think that, as she and Abraham rose in the political world, it must have grated on her that she was excluded from conversations that she probably could have participated in fairly well.

Of course, I also know that many suffragettes were frowned upon by other women who still held to the theory that a woman's place was in the kitchen -- despite what the Civil War had taught about women's competence. It is also strange how the suffragettes turned against the black women who were also seeking full citizenship and the vote. I hope in this upcoming centennial year of the 19th Amendment that there will be a focus on all aspects of that movement.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Maybe Baker mixed it up with Tarbell's view? See Rob's post #13 here:
https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...light=Vote

[Steve]

(09-30-2019 06:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We had to diffuse a recent situation at Surratt House Museum where there was a misunderstanding related to the current issues surrounding the American Civil War and some of the effects that have lasted for generations. A visitor posted her hurt feelings (and anger) on social media, and that required careful thought in putting together a response.

Laurie, if you don't mind my asking, are you able to share more about what exactly what was upset about?

[L Verge]

Very briefly, one of our narrators on our very popular bus tours over the John Wilkes Booth Escape Route inserted a mention of the current controversy over the removal of statues. This upset a participant who is a member of a specific organization.

[Christine]

Coby's comments about being a historian was so beautiful! I loved his thoughts. Wish more people understood this.

[J. Beckert]

(10-03-2019 10:06 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Very briefly, one of our narrators on our very popular bus tours over the John Wilkes Booth Escape Route inserted a mention of the current controversy over the removal of statues. This upset a participant who is a member of a specific organization.

PERFECT response by Coby. As far as the complainant's objections... well, Bless her heart.....