Rethinking "Westward Expansion": A Guide for Preservice Teachers

Image
Article Body

What is it?


“Westward expansion” is a topic covered in many U.S. history textbooks and one that appears in most every state's social studies standards. At the same time, most states also mandate that students be taught to consider history from multiple perspectives or points of view. But what does it mean to consider multiple perspectives about westward expansion? What would it mean to consider the point of view of Native Americans who were the most directly affected by the process called western expansion? A change of perspective might reveal a great deal. As historian Daniel Richter notes in his book, Facing East From Indian Country, “if we shift our perspective to try to view the past in a way that faces east from Indian country, history takes on a very different appearance.” Historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz makes a similar point in her 2015 An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, “Writing US history from an Indigenous peoples' perspective requires rethinking the consensual national narrative. That narrative is wrong or deficient, not in its facts, dates, or details but rather in its essence. Inherent in the myth we've been taught is an embrace of settler colonialism and genocide.” This guide provides teachers with resources to analyze Library of Congress primary sources so that students can account for Indigenous perspectives that “faced east” in their analysis of westward expansion, colonialism, and land rights.

Key points:

  • The activity outlined here will take one 90-minute period or two 45-minute periods. It is appropriate for a high school U.S. history classroom, but can be modified for a variety of learners.
  • Students will analyze, interpret, and evaluate primary sources. 
  • Students will learn about Native peoples responses to the settlement of the western U.S. and gain new perspectives to better understand "Westward Expansion".

Approach to Topic

Even the term “westward expansion” assumes a facing-west point of view rather than a perspective of someone already living in the west. While U.S. history textbooks now include more topics related to Native people, these topics are typically presented as a subset of a larger story about westward expansion. For example, in McGraw Hill’s United States History and Geography, the chapter on westward expansion, “Settling the West,” contains a section titled “Native Americans”, but it comes after two other sections: “Miners and Ranchers” covering the California gold rush and cattle ranching in the west, and “Farming the Plains” which deals with white settlers seeking farmland in the west. Framing and organizing the topic this way presents Native people as obstacles or complications to the westward movement of settlers. This framing also implies that westward expansion was more or less inevitable rather than a series of deliberate choices, an idea often closely linked with the concept of “manifest destiny” as a divinely-ordained establishment of the United States.

The textbook narrative obscures the fact that the taking of Native people’s land was an intentional project backed by the U.S. federal government. Instead of emphasizing the deliberate dispossession of Native land, students usually read about a series of general breakdowns in relations between two groups, settlers and Native people. For example, the 1867 Indian Peace Commission is presented under a subheading of “Doomed Plan for Peace” while the 1887 Dawes Act is presented as a largely positive plan to help Native Americans that simply “failed to achieve its goals.” In other places the purposeful destruction of Native resources is described in the passive voice, such as “The buffalo were rapidly disappearing.” In response to these textbook depictions, teachers can encourage students to analyze how these topics are framed in their textbooks and think about how they might look from another point of view.

To teach students to consider the multiple perspectives on westward expansion, it is also important for teachers to think critically about their own relationship to place and support their students in doing the same. The history of “westward expansion” involved a series of events where Native people were displaced, removed from their land, and coerced into signing disadvantageous treaties many of which were later broken by federal, state, or territorial governments. As scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang have written:

In order for the settlers to make a place their home, they must destroy and disappear the Indigenous peoples that live there. Indigenous peoples are those who have creation stories, not colonization stories, about how we/they came to be in a particular place - indeed how we/they came to be a place . . . For the settlers, Indigenous peoples are in the way and, in the destruction of Indigenous peoples, Indigenous communities, and over time and through law and policy, Indigenous peoples’ claims to land under settler regimes, land is recast as property and as a resource. Indigenous peoples must be erased, must be made into ghosts.

In teaching this topic to students, it is therefore necessary to not make Native people into the “ghosts” that Tuck and Yang reference and to understand that Native people did not disappear, indeed they refused to, despite the repeated efforts of governments and settlers.

One challenge to including the perspective of Native people at this time is that colonial record-keeping disproportionately documented the perspectives of white men in positions of social authority this is part of the same disappearing process described by Tuck and Yang. Though the sources are sometimes more difficult to locate, resources do exist to help teachers actively include the perspectives of Native people and share it with students. Many Native people throughout the past and up to the present day have continued to assert their points of view in spaces visible to the wider U.S. public. Their voices are sometimes visible within colonial sources, including through a process of reading against the grain. Indigenous people have vigorously defended against settler land theft and continue to invest in their cultural, governmental, artistic, linguistic, and social systems today, despite centuries of colonial disruptions.

This guide will focus on two examples of Indigenous people who advocated for Indigenous rights in the early 1900s: Zitkala-Ša (also known as Gertrude Simmons Bonnin)  and Charles Eastman (also known as Ohiyesa). Both were important figures in the Society of American Indians, an organization established by Native intellectuals from across the country in 1911. The members of the SAI, in scholar Philip J. Deloria’s words, “worked actively to preserve elements of Native cultures and societies from destruction.” Through their words and actions teachers can locate an alternative to the westward expansion point of view and make a different history more apparent.

Description

Zitkála-Šá
Zitkála-Šá (pronounced Zeet-KA-la-sha) was Yankton Dakota, born on the Yankton Indian Reservation in South Dakota in 1876. Like many thousands of Native children at the time was also forced to attend a boarding school far away from her home. At eight years old, Zitkála-Šá left Yankton and her family to attend the Indiana Manual Labor Institute in Wabash, Indiana over 700 miles away. At the institute she was given the name Gertrude Simmons (later Gertrude Simmons Bonnin) which she also used at various points in her life. Zitkála-Šá would attend the boarding school for three years and there learned to play violin and piano. She returned to Yankton, and then went back to the institute three years later. Upon graduation, she took a position as a music teacher at the school. Zitkála-Šá/Gertrude Simmons became an expert at navigating two cultures. Some scholars have seen Zitkála-Šá as a person who assimilated into white-U.S. culture, but more recently scholars have emphasized how she used these cultural skills to support and defend Native people and culture. As historian Tadeusz Lewandowski writes in his biography of Zitkála-Šá, she “fought the dispossession of Indians with every tool of white society she had mastered.”

In her life, Zitkála-Šá rose to prominence as a musician, writer, and political advocate. An accomplished violinist, she performed at the White House for President William McKinley in 1900 and as a soloist at the Paris Exposition that same year. A prolific writer, Zitkála-Šá’s presented depictions of American Indians that emphasized family and community in books such as American Indian Stories and presented her own experiences in personal essays for Harper’s Monthly and The Atlantic Monthly.

In perhaps her most famous work, The Sun Dance, Zitkála-Šá translated the sacred, ceremonial dances performed by various Native groups across the Americas - dances that had been declared illegal by the federal government - into an opera. Working with composer William F. Hanson, Zitkála-Šá used her training in western music and her knowledge of Native culture to demonstrate the beauty of these dances in a form that would draw the attention of the larger U.S. public.

For more background on how The Sun Dance opera came to be written by Zitkála-Šá and Hanson have students listen to an excerpt from this interview with Zitkála-Šá P. Jane Hafen from the podcast Unsung History https://www.unsunghistorypodcast.com/zitkala-sa/. The excerpt on The Sun Dance is from 21:16 to 25:53. 

Questions to ask about this source: In what ways was The Sun Dance a product of western culture and in what ways was it a product of Native American culture? How does it demonstrate Zitkála-Šá’s understanding of two cultural worlds?

Zitkála-Šá also used her cultural expertise to lobby the government directly on policies that affected Indigenous people and in particular advocated for the government to protect Native people and culture.

Primary Source #1
“She is Watching Congress,” Evening Public Ledger, February 22, 1921 https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045211/1921-02-22/ed-1/seq-20/

Primary Source #2
“Sioux Princess Closely Watches Indian Welfare,” The Richmond Palladium and Sun-Telegram, February 26, 1921 https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86058226/1921-02-26/ed-1/seq-15/


Questions to ask about these primary sources:

  • Although white reporters regularly used stereotypical and condescending terms to refer to Zitkála-Šá (i.e. describing her as a “Sioux princess” who was “watching Congress”), she chose to present herself in traditional Native clothing. What might have been her reasons for this choice?
  • How might this decision have fit with her goals to influence Congress on Native issues?
  • Compare these photos to a photo of Zitkála-Šá in western clothing: https://www.nps.gov/people/zitkala-sa.htm
  • Why might she choose one form of dress over another depending on the situation?
  • How might her choice of clothing affected how audiences viewed her?
  • How might her choice of clothing made it more likely for white audiences to listen to her?

Along with other members of the Society of American Indians, Zitkála-Šá advocated for Native Americans to receive the full benefits of United States citizenship including the right to vote. Scholar K. Tsianina Lomawaima argues that the Society for American Indians saw citizenship as a tool to defend Native people from dispossession and protect their land. The Dawes Act, also known as the General Allotment Act of 1887, converted Indigenous territories from collective management and converted that territory to private, transferrable land deeds for individual land tracts based on western land ownership. As a result of the Dawes Act, Indigenous people lost 90 million acres of land in less than fifty years.

Under the Dawes Act, Native people whom the US government did not see as “competent” had their land (called an “allotment”) held by the US government. Though Native people were already citizens of their Native nations and did not necessarily want US citizenship, Zitkála-Šá saw U.S. citizenship as one possible form of protection against land loss. She not only advocated for citizenship for Native Americans but also for women to receive the right to vote. In this source from 1918, Zitkála-Šá addressed the National American Women's Suffrage Association and tied together the causes of the women’s vote and the vote for Native Americans:

Primary Source #3:
Maryland Suffrage News, June 15, 1918
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89060379/1918-06-15/ed-1/seq-5/

Question to ask about this primary source:

  • Why might Zitkála-Šá have decided to speak to the National American Women's Suffrage Association?
  • What were her goals? [For more resources on Native American women advocating for womens’ suffrage, see the guide on Native Women and Suffrage]

In 1924, partially as a result of the lobbying of Zitkála-Šá and the Society of American Indians, the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. This concluded the process of making all Native people born in the United States citizens. Although it is important to note that states could restrict the Native people’s right to vote and states such as Utah and New Mexico did just that. Zitkála-Šá continued to speak out on Native issues to both national and local groups. For example, in 1928 in Bismarck, North Dakota she gave a talk on the history of Native people and the current Native issues to the Rotarians, a community-based organization.

Primary Source #4:
“Rotarians Hear Famous Woman at Weekly Meeting,” The Bismarck Tribune, June 14, 1928. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042243/1928-06-14/ed-1/seq-7/


Questions to ask about this primary source:

  • According to the newspaper article, what did Zitkála-Šá tell the Rotations about the history of Native people?
  • Why do you think the article addresses Indigenous participation in the World War?
  • What did she say about the current situation faced by Native people?
  • Why do you think she chose to emphasize these issues?

Charles Eastman
 As was the case with Zitkála-Šá, Charles Eastman’s upbringing involved direct experience with white society, his Dakota nation, and a variety intertribal communities. He too developed skills to move within and between these social spaces. Born in 1858 near Redwood Falls, Minnesota to a Dakota woman named Winona who died in childbirth, he was given the name “Hakadah.” He fled with his family to Canada following the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. As an older child, he was given the name Ohiyesa (pronounced oh-he-yes-suh and meaning “the winner”) after a victory in a lacrosse match. When he was 15, his father — who had been estranged from the family — returned and demanded that Ohiyesa live with him in Dakota Territory near present day Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Ohiyesa’s father had converted to Christianity and taken the name “Jacob Eastman”. His father changed Ohiyesa’s name to “Charles Alexander Eastman” and enrolled him in white schools. Similar to Zitkála-Šá, Eastman grieved about the separation from the culture he was born into while, at the same time, he also excelled in his new environment. After secondary school, he attended college at Beloit College and then Dartmouth, and eventually earned his degree in medicine from Boston Medical School in 1890.


Eastman sought to use his training to help Native people so shortly after earning his degree, he accepted a position on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. On December 29, 1890, only a few weeks after Eastman’s arrival, 500 soldiers of the United States 7th Cavalry confronted a band of 350 Miniconjou Lakota Indians that included women and children and fired on the unarmed group killing more than 150 people. It is important to emphasize that this incident, which would become known as the Wounded Knee Massacre was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern where U.S. military forces, often commanded by officers with little to no knowledge of Native people and irrationally paranoid about their safety fired on defenseless Native groups that included unarmed men, women, and children with deadly results. Soldiers and travelers took souvenirs and graphic photographs document the carnage. At Pine Ridge, Eastman helped treat the few who survived. For more on the Wounded Knee Massacre read this entry from the Encyclopedia of the Great Plains: http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.056

In addition to his career as a physician, Eastman wrote about Native American people and culture in a way that both defied the stereotypes prevalent among whites at the time and also countered the prevailing notion that Native Americans were a disappearing people and culture. In this account, Eastman related a visit to the Objibwe of Northern Minnesota.

Primary Source #5:

As I approached the island next morning. I saw a pretty procession of birch-bark canoes converging upon it. This was evidently a gathering of the clans whose highway is the blue water, and the graceful canoe their sole means of transportation. Invariably the man sits in the bow of the light craft, his wife at the stern, and the children by pairs between so low that only the tops of their black heads are visible. All the household effects are carried, except the dogs, who are obliged to run along the shore and swim the narrows from island to island.

The whole family, even little children, paddle the canoe, and such skill, confidence and safety I have never seen elsewhere. "When the wind rises and the water is so rough that no one can be found willing to venture out in launch or row boat, these people may be seen skimming the big waves like aquatic birds. Along the shore I saw women here and there, setting their gillnets for the wily pike and bass. Most of them do this as an every-day duty. In camp, some were making nets, others working upon their birchen cones, preparing the bark and the cedar bindings, or soaking the strappings and boiling pitch to glue the seams.

Majigabo's immediate village was the meeting-place, and there was the "sacred ground" where they initiate new members into their lodge, consecrate some of the children, celebrate old rites, and commemorate the departed. There were feasts galore of the delicious wild rice, venison, dried moose meat, bear steaks, and sturgeon. Maple sugar packed in small birchen boxes called "mococks" was plentiful and of the finest flavor. Here is one chief just beyond sight of the smoke of the locomotive, in the heart of a wilderness already penetrated by the whistle of the saw-mill, who still preserves many of the ancient usages of his forefathers.

 Charles Eastman, “My Canoe Trip Among the Northern Ojibwe Indians of Minnesota The Oglala light. [volume], May 01, 1911. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/2017270500/1911-05-01/ed-1/seq-13/

Questions to ask about this primary source:

  • What year did Eastman write this account? 
  • In what ways does the account reveal the persistence of Indigenous intellectual traditions and technologies despite colonial pressures to assimilate? 
  • How does this reshape the narrative about westward expansion present in your textbook?
  • In what ways did Eastman emphasize family, community, and land relations in his description? Why do you think he did that?

In the Classroom
The primary sources above can be incorporated into a unit that also covers westward expansion. Teachers can use this opportunity to have students reflect on how the term “westward expansion” only considers some perspective while leaving others out — namely the perspectives of those in the “west” who are “facing east”.

In the classroom, students can be prompted to reflect on these east-facing perspectives:

  • In a 5 minute think-pair-share activity, students can think of their own response, talk it through with a partner, and then “share out”.
  • Then students can be asked how they could learn about the missing points of view - what kind of evidence or sources might provide these perspectives? Again students can come up with ideas in another 5 minute think-pair-share activity.
  • The class can then transition into analyzing the primary sources included in this guide.  Communicate to students that this is one way to consider multiple points of view. Referencing their list of other points of view to consider and what evidence might be used, teachers can and should acknowledge that not all points of view are being considered nor will they be able to analyze and consider all of the evidence, but the sources they will examine do provide a valuable perspective that is not present in most textbooks.
  • Put the students in groups of 3-4 and give them a selection of 2-3 sources.
  • As the students examine the sources, prompt them with the guiding questions included above with each primary source.  For more scaffolding, teachers may have students fill out primary source analysis sheets for one or more of the sources: https://www.loc.gov/programs/teachers/getting-started-with-primary-sources/guides/
  • After examining the sources, ask the students to discuss in their groups: What issues related to Native people were Charles Eastman and Zitkála-Šá most concerned with?  What perspective do these sources provide on westward expansion? How does the term “westward expansion” hide other perspectives, namely the struggle of Indigenous people over their homelands and livelihood? What would an east facing version of this story look like?

Extension/enrichment ideas: Students could research further into the history of the Society of American Indians or any of its prominent members such as Rev. Sherman Coolidge, Arthur C. Parker, Angel DeCora, Francis LaFlesche, or Marie Bottineau Baldwin. Using this research students could then develop a multimedia digital project that presents a “facing east” history of westward expansion. As part of this project students should reflect on what they would want to communicate about this point of view, to show that “westward expansion” was not inevitable and to show how Native people persisted and refused to simply disappear. Primary sources like those above and others from the Library of Congress could be featured in a website or slide presentation. As part of the project, students might also research the history of their own communities and the Native people who lived there in the past and live there in the present.

Teaching history inevitably means teaching about topics that generate strong reactions from a wide range of people. While not every reaction can be anticipated, the following tips can provide a strong basis for a rationale for your learning activities:

General Tips for Teaching Controversial Subjects

  • Center activities on primary sources. Primary sources are tangible evidence that allow students to engage directly with history. These primary sources in particular were preserved and digitized by the Library of Congress because they were deemed important to the history of the United States.
  • Discussion and analysis of these sources can be wide ranging, but within each class those discussions can always be turned back to the source itself.
  • The sources are also, by definition, only pieces of a puzzle. They bring us closer to understanding the past but there is always room for doubt and uncertainty.  
  • Questions, Observations, and Reflections should come from students. These are primarily student-directed learning activities. It is the instructor's role to create a space for inquiry and empower students to drive the inquiry.
  • It may help to remind students at the outset that it is normal for different individuals to come to different conclusions, even when we are looking at the same sources. Further, it would be strange if we all agreed completely on our interpretations. This can normalize the strong reactions that can come up and enables educators to discuss the goal of historical research, which is to hopefully go beyond the realm of individual  perspective to access a fuller understanding of the past that takes multiple perspectives into account.
  • Teaching historical topics that involve violence and other trauma can be traumatic for some students as well. Providing students with previews of what content will be covered and space to process their emotions can be helpful. The following video series from the University of Minnesota contains further tips for teaching potentially traumatic topics: https://extension.umn.edu/trauma-and-healing/historical-trauma-and-cultural-healing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information

Additional Readings/Viewings

Sabzalian, Leilani. Indigenous Children’s Survivance in Public Schools.
“Stories I Didn’t Know,” Rita Davern and Melody Gilbert dir. https://www.storiesididntknow.com/
Christine Sleeter, Critical Family History, https://www.christinesleeter.org/critical-family-history
Zitkala-Ša, “Why I am a Pagan,” The Atlantic, 1902. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1902/12/why-i-am-a-pagan/637906/
“Zitkala-Ša”, Nation of Writers Podcast, Interview with scholar P. Jane Hafen,
 https://americanwritersmuseum.org/podcast/episode-13-zitkala-sa/
“Zitkala-Ša”, Unsung History Podcast, Interview with scholar P. Jane Hafen
https://www.unsunghistorypodcast.com/zitkala-sa/
On the history of the Dawes Act: Indian Land Tenure Foundation, https://iltf.org/land-issues/history/
Ohiyesa: The Soul of an Indian dir. Std Beane https://visionmakermedia.org/ohiyesa/
Documentary made by Eastman’s descendents
Kiera Vigil, Indigenous Intellectuals: Sovereignty, Citizenship, and the American Imagination, 1880-1930, Cambridge University Press, 2018
Dr. Vigil discusses her book on the podcast here: https://newbooksnetwork.com/kiara-m-vigil-indigenous-intellectuals-sovereignty-citizenship-and-the-american-imagination-1880-1930-cambridge-up-2018

 

American Tourists and the Holy Land, 1865-1900 nsleeter Fri, 01/22/2021 - 08:38
Teaser

Help students make connections between religion, technology, and American culture in this teaching module.

lesson_image
Website
Shapell Manuscript Foundation: American Tourists in the Holy Land
Description

Students analyze maps, travel posters, and the writings of Mark Twain to explore expectations versus reality. They then plan their own itinerary for American tourists.  

Article Body

In this teaching module from the Shapell Manuscript Foundation in collaboration with the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Mediastudents learn how to examine engaging primary sources including travel posters, train tickets, maps, and a letter written by Mark Twain to better understand the attitudes and experiences of Americans who travelled to British Palestine in the late 1800s.

Students work in small groups to analyze sources and think through what kinds of expectations Americans might have had about the Holy Land before they travelled there. Students are also encouraged to explore what technological changes allowed tourists the opportunity to travel across the ocean. Primary sources such as travel posters present an idealized version of the places that Americans were familiar with from the Bible. 

After analyzing these primary sources students work in groups to create their own travel itineraries and promotional posters or pamphlets to advertise tours in the Holy Land. These can be physical materials or students may use digital tools to create their promotional materials. The modules also contain guidance on differentiation for diverse learners and connections to standards.  

Topic
American Tourists in the Holy Land
Time Estimate
90 minutes
flexibility_scale
2
Rubric_Content_Accurate_Scholarship

Yes

Rubric_Content_Historical_Background

Yes

Rubric_Content_Read_Write

Yes
Students show their understanding through primary source analysis and creating visual media. 

Rubric_Analytical_Close_Reading_Sourcing

Yes
Requires close reading and attention to source information.

Rubric_Scaffolding_Appropriate

Yes

Rubric_Scaffolding_Supports_Historical_Thinking

Yes

Rubric_Structure_Assessment

Yes

Rubric_Structure_Realistic

Yes

Rubric_Structure_Learning_Goals

Yes

Feature on
Home page pullout
Section splash
Section splash pullout
Home page

Statistics in Schools

Image
Annotation

This website makes U.S Census data accessible to K-12 social studies students through 20 classroom activities. Divided by grade-level, these activities trace change over time in the United States using statistics. Activities address civil rights, continental expansion, the treatment of Native Americans, immigration, and other topics related to demographic change.

With schools placing a greater emphasis on the STEM fields, these activities are helpful for social studies teachers who are trying to make cross-curricular connections. Each activity requires students to analyze data to draw conclusions, clearly demonstrating how teachers can use non-textual primary sources to encourage historical thinking in the classroom.

These activities are also very clear about which standards (Common Core and UCLA National Standards for History), skills, and level of Bloom’s Taxonomy they address. However, it would be helpful if it were possible to search activities based on at least one of these categories, rather than by grade range only. Nevertheless, a well-designed website with well-written activities for thinking historically with diverse types of sources.

Quantitative Evidence
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Data
Revolution & New Nation, 1754-1820s
Expansion & Reform, 1801-1861
Civil War & Reconstruction, 1850-1877
Devel. of the Industrial US, 1870-1900
Emergence of Modern US, 1890-1930
Great Depression & WWII, 1929-1945
Postwar US, 1945-Early 1970s
Contemporary US, 1968-Present
African Americans
American Indians
Business
Cities & Suburbs
Economy
Ethnicity
Immigration
A Close Look at the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial jlee Thu, 06/13/2019 - 11:43
Video Overview

Historian Christopher Hamner leads teachers through a close examination of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial in Washington, DC. Just like a document or photograph, Hamner says, monuments and memorials reward questioning and analysis.

Video Clip Name
Grant1.mov
Grant2.mov
Grant3.mov
Grant4.mov
Video Clip Title
An Unusual Realism
Heroic Charge or Disaster?
Grant's Strategy
Grant in the Memorial
Video Clip Duration
7:44
4:59
4:44
4:55
Transcript Text

Christopher Hamner: We're going to look at a couple of monuments today, and I want to approach it from this idea of what is it telling us about the moment and the way that Americans are struggling with their memory of a particular event. Think about the Mall. There will be a thousand people passing through Air and Space between 9am and 9:10 this morning; so in 10 minutes, that's a career's worth of people who may be getting all their history out of just going through those exhibits. The World War II Memorial, which we're going to visit in the afternoon, gets 4.4 million people per year. So in terms of shaping the way people think about events and history, this is really powerful stuff. And I think it's important to think about, well, who made this? And what did they make it for? And what were the circumstances under which this was put up and why does it look the way it looks? For my money, the one that we're going to look at first is the single best, most interesting, most fascinating memorial in the entire city. It's the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial. What makes it so interesting is that you can walk past it and only get a tiny, tiny piece of what's going on. You have to really study…you have to spend a little time kind of engaging the monument to kind of get the full experience. And one of the thinks that's so cool [is] that you can talk about it as a piece of history [and] you can also talk about it as a piece of art. And this is one of the neater sculptures, both on this side and on the other side. The sculpture is so well done that if you walk around it, it almost seems to move. You see different things at different spots as you kind of make the semicircle. So maybe we should start there. Just kind of start here—and just like we've been talking about, you know, images, music, all sorts of things that you can read closely—look closely for the detail and try to figure out what's going on here. Teacher 1: He's riding one of the horses. Each one. Teacher 2: There's two riders. Teacher 3: Are they both shot? It looks like this guy's shot over here; he's shot here. This guy's avoiding being shot just like these guys, they're ducking, they're using them as shields. Christopher Hamner: Alright, if you just look at it—if you're just standing here for example and you just take the most cursory look at it what does it look like? If you only spend 40 seconds like most tourists, you take a shot from here and you move on, what do you get out of it? Teacher 4: It's a wagon, going from one place to another. It's moving. Christopher Hamner: It's kind of the heroic—it looks like a standard—you've got the horses rearing back, it's soldiers, it's kind of heroic, there's a guy leaning back, he's got the U.S. artillery flag. It looks like a pretty standard war memorial. When you take a little more time to look at it, what's going on? What is it, first of all? We've got a bunch of guys on horses— Multiple Teachers: It's artillery. Christopher Hamner: It's horse-drawn artillery, it's got an artillery caisson, it appears to be moving up to the front someplace. Everybody got that, right? What's going on? Teacher 5: They're stuck in the mud. Teacher 6: They're under fire. Teacher 7: Yeah, they're in battle. Teacher 5: I got stuck in the mud and cold, suffering. Teacher 8: And this guy looks like he's getting shot. And it looks like they're avoiding being shot. Christopher Hamner: Okay, that's one way to interpret it. One thing, if they were close enough to the front that they were taking fire the battery would probably be disengaged and wheeled in. So it would be rare to get that close. But everybody's kind of gotten the sense that it's in the process of crashing. Right? Let's go around to the other side. What's happening over here? Teacher 9: From this side you can definitely tell that it's more tilted, the part where they're sitting. Christopher Hamner: Okay, so. Teacher 5: The axle is breaking. Christopher Hamner: The axle is snapping; you can see the slack in the tackle there. But notice there's a lot of slack here, they're rearing up, it's in the process of crashing. I mean look at the wheels are akimbo. I think what's happening here is not that these guys are getting shot but, the horses have reared, it's just at this moment—it's full of energy, it's just at this moment where it's about to crash. These guys, I don't know if they're ducking fire of if they're just tired in the back. Especially this guy on the right, I mean, that is just exhaustion in his face. These guys have been towing this thing around for months or years. But they're not even aware that in four tenths of a second the momentum of the artillery case is going to carry them into this huge mess of horseflesh. And these guys are trying to rein in the damage. But, this is a picture of a crash about to happen. Think of how different that is from what you would normally see in a heroic military monument. This isn't a tribute to efficiency, or a tribute to the sheer power of the army, so much as a honest portrayal of how easy it is for things to go wrong. I especially like the guys riding in the back, just the exhaustion there. And think about how atypical that is for a military monument. When do you think this was put up? Teacher 10: After Grant died. Christopher Hamner: Yes! When? So that would cover roughly 130 years. Teacher 10: I was thinking post-World War I. Christopher Hamner: Good! I like that. Post-World War I is a good guess, why? Teacher 10: Because we struggled with modern warfare there and lots of people came home, and Veterans Affairs was formed. Christopher Hamner: That is a great guess, but not correct. That's what's interesting about this. This is pre-First World War by like 20 years, which is really kind of unusual when you think of all the other Civil War statues that we've looked at. We looked at Stonewall Jackson, you know, superhero, Superman, steroids, muscles bulging—that's much more traditional, that's sort of heroic, he looks indestructible, he looks incredibly powerful. This is not indestructible. Teacher: On the right, on the back he's got both of his hands bracing him on the other side like he's getting ready— Christopher Hamner: This is kind of the sense of energy…there's nothing that these guys can do. This is going to go very badly for them in a second or two. And there's a kind of resignation and exhaustion and a realism that is really unusual. You don't normally see a country putting up a military monument that depicts a crash and I think it says something kind of interesting about where the nation was 25 years after the Civil War when they started putting this up. How do we want to remember this event? What are we going to put up? What are we going to show? How are we going to show it? Teacher: Maybe like you were saying, when you really look at war and teach it you should look at the tough side of it and don't glorify it. Like you were saying, it was a struggle, it broke our country apart. Christopher Hamner: I think that's exactly where we're going with this, there's even more interesting stuff on the other side. But think about how unusual that is. And it will become, I think, even clearer as we get to World War II, which does not have this kind of gritty realism to it.

Christopher Hamner: What's the kind of tone of the memorial? Teacher 1: Charge! Teacher 2: The cavalry is making a charge. Christopher Hamner: It's a cavalry charge and it's kind of got those iconic touches: there's the captain in front, he's got his saber up, and they're pointing forward, and there's flags streaming and there's muscles rippling in the horses. It kind of feels like a traditional, heroic celebration. What's going on when you look at it more carefully? Teacher 3: This guy on the side here he's shielding his face. This guy is about to get his day ruined. Christopher Hamner: What's happened to this guy? Teacher 3: His horse is down. Christopher Hamner: His horse has either been hit or has tripped. What is about to happen, what is the story that's going to unfold here? Teacher 4: It's going to be a domino effect. Christopher Hamner: There's a cascade of—the guys in the back are totally unaware of what's happened in front. And the officer leading the charge has got this heroic pose and a heroic look on his face, but is oblivious to the fact that this is, like the other one, kind of in the process of falling apart. What's gonna happen to this guy? Teacher 4: He's going to have his head stepped on. Christopher Hamner: There's a pretty good chance he's gonna be trampled because the horses are going to be unable to stop. That is supposed to represent Shrady, the sculptor, in fact, the face is modeled after his face, which is a kind of odd touch. He didn't live to see the entire thing cast and commissioned. But you've got the same kind of sense that there's energy coming, but if you look closely there is the beginnings of a sort of disaster happening. You have to look for it. If you just step back and say oh, standard cavalry charge, it looks a lot like the heroic monuments you would see at Gettysburg or Antietam; look more carefully and it's kind of brutal realism. Not everybody—the charges didn't always work, the horses fell down. What's going on on the ground in both of them? There's like mud in motion. How many monuments do you recall seeing where there's so much attention to the ground and how nasty—I mean, there's a chopped-down tree trunk on the other side. It recognizes that these Civil War battles didn't happen on a manicured golf course, that they happened in really nasty conditions and there's—it's all in motion too, it's mud that's being kicked up. It's kind of a dirtier, grittier, more realistic version of warfare. This is pre-World War I, and this is really, really different. If you look at most statues of generals, particularly from the Civil War, or a statue of Washington, they're turned out in their general regalia, their officers coats, and their insignia, standing erect and their chests are out—it’s a heroic celebration. This is something different. You get a little bit of that in the front, but it's kind of got this ironic twist in that this glorious charge that he's leading is about to meet with a sort of disastrous end. Teacher 5: I was noticing a few of the other elements that usually you don't see in statues. As you mentioned the mud and the tree back there, but look at the horses' mouths. About three or four of the horses they're exhausted, the tongues are hanging out, especially the one on the far side here. The one on the near side has a wide-open mouth. So they've been charging for a while, this isn't automatically happening, you know, we're not just starting it. Christopher Hamner: That one sort of looks terrified, too. In the horses and on the artillery side there's a sense that they're portraying the fear, which is a real part of the experience, that again you don't normally see. What do you think that the people who put this up, who donated money to it, who designed it, who cast it, who erected it—how do they want you to think about the war? Teacher 6: A more realistic view. Which is kind of before their time. Teacher 7: It's certainly—for me, I'm trying to contextualize it within the end of the Gilded Age and the beginning of imperialism and I'm trying to make sense of it and it doesn't jive with my preconceived notions of what to expect out of a monument during that time. They were in to stuff that was grandiose and heroic; and this is heroic in a very raw way. It's not— Teacherr 5: Raw. Raw, I like that word. Christopher Hamner: If—this should have been erected in 1918 or 1919, right? That would fit in with the narrative of how we understand that people kind of gave up their glorious view of warfare and adapted a more realistic tone. But it doesn't.

Christopher Hamner: Turn around and take a look at U.S. Grant up there. There's some interesting stuff going on with the depiction of Grant, just the way he's portrayed. But there's also the relationship between the two lower pieces, the cavalry on this side and the artillery on the south side and where Grant is located. What do you know about—what is your sort of thumbnail understanding of Grant as a Civil War general. This is after his presidency, which is generally regarded as something of a disappointment. So he's depicted here in his more successful incarnation as a general. You can kind of work backwards from there and one of the reasons that Grant accepted the surrender is that he was the victorious general, he is the general after that incredibly torturous process of trial and error, plugging these guys in and we cover this a little bit in the summer, that there was this revolving parade of generals who had been disastrous—you know, Pope, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, these guys who just could not get it done. And then in the summer of 1863 Grant distinguishes himself at Vicksburg, comes west, and it's Grant who is the head of the armies in the last two years of the war. And who finally grinds down the army of Northern Virginia and forces its surrender. How does he do that? Teacher 1: He picked up on the war of attrition. Christopher Hamner: The thing that Grant did differently that none of the generals previous to him did—So many of those generals were about maneuver and about trying to get behind Lee's army or trying to get between Lee's army and Richmond and trying to win the war without fighting a really bloody battle. Grant was one of the first to embrace a more modern sensibility that said you cannot win a war in this day by capturing the enemy capital, you have to win the war by destroying the enemy army and they only way you can do that is by meeting it on the battlefield and fighting it. Remember the Union had that huge advantage in its, the manpower pool it could draw on, its productive capacity; and the South didn't. The South had a much smaller population and they had much less capacity to produce ammunition and weapons. What had happened in the first two years of the war in a general way is that there that would be a big battle and both armies would kind of pull back. That allowed the South to keep fighting for a long time. Grant is the first commanding officer who really understood that they were going to have to fight them and keep fighting them. Remember when we did the campaigns of 1864; there is just horribly bloody battle after horribly bloody battle from May to July of 1864. They are fighting a massive, deadly engagement every couple of days, this is the Wilderness qne Spotsylvania Courthouse. There were more than 60,000 Union causalities in a six-week period during that point. That’s—they're fighting a major battle every couple of days. Remember, we were talking about the bottom-up experience, what it's like not just to be a soldier, but to be the wife of a soldier, or the mother of a soldier, someone on the home front, and imagine what it's like to get that newspaper every other day and to flip right to the back page, which was called the "Butcher's Bill," and to read over the individual names and be praying that it's not your loved one that's going to be listed there. And that's kind of an interesting contrast to our 20th-century experience. We do a lot of the same things today, but in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts four deaths in a day is a horrible tragedy—and it is—but imagine that there are 400 deaths every day and that it just keeps going on and that there are 4,000 deaths some day. It's a kind of warfare that reaches into Union homes, homes in the North, in a way that was really unprecedented. Grant was extraordinarily unpopular. They began to get a real kind of respect for Grant—who was the total antithesis of a lot of the generals they had had before. McClellan was a little Napoleon, he was always very turned out in polished brass and very much looked the part of a general. You can see that Grant doesn't. A lot of the soldiers saw him as someone that was more relatable. At the same time this is a guy who's continually plunging them into battle. In the spring of 1864 it's not at all clear that that's going to have a successful conclusion.

Christopher Hamner: What's coming across here about him as a general? What is the tone or what adjectives would you use to describe how he's being portrayed. Teacher 1: Alone. Christopher Hamner: Where do you get that? Teacher 1: Well, obviously there's no one else up there with him. You just see the sight of him looking straight, he's in his own thoughts, his own world, he's battling the elements, the wind is blowing past him, the horse's tail is swept; yet he's going to stand fast, like he's determined to have whatever he has in his mind fulfilled. Christopher Hamner: There's like three or four things we can dig into there. First in terms of him being alone, look at how separate he is from the troops that he's leading. He is, what is that, 30 feet? Maybe more? He is physically separated from them; he is also 30 feet above them. He's away from them on this axis and also on the vertical axis. Teacher 2: He could theoretically have been placed in one side or the other in terms of the way that they portray him in his dress. Teacher 3: All of these guys on both sides they don't look like they're wearing like summer—they look bundled up like the weather is bad. I mean, the mud, the rain. Christopher Hamner: And Grant's got that going on too. The adjectives that you guys threw out—resolute. But he's lonely up there. And he's not interacting with the soldiers. Teacher 4: He's in the middle of it all; he's in the weather. You have the same type of weather theme being done, but he's still somehow above it all. Christopher Hamner: Literally above it! Right? He's kind of figuratively above this but he's also literally above it. There's a kind of sense of determination, he's got a fist on his hip. You get this sense of how resolute people wanted to imagine him as. This is a guy who understood that there was not a way to win the war except to do a lot of fighting and an incredible amount of dying, and you can kind of see the weight of that on his shoulders. Teacher 3: He sort of famously internalized a lot of the—I feel like you can see that, his shoulders are kind of hunched forward. Teacher 2: He's not postured the way that you see Stonewall Jackson. Teacher 5: He seems kind of hunched forward. Christopher Hamner: And remember, they had 20 years to think about this. They did not decide to raise the money for the statue on Monday, throw it together on Thursday, and commission it on Friday. There were 20 years of planning and artist models that they work a lot in clay on miniature before they cast something in bronze. There were all sorts of different potential ways to portray Grant. They didn't have to do it the way that they did it. And unlike other kinds of historical texts, where you can say sure you can change that, it's not written in stone—this is written in stone and cast in iron! Teacher 6: One thing that's striking me is that he's also surrounded by four lions. And typically what is a lion known as? The king of the jungle. I think that's speaking out to me right there, too. Christopher Hamner: Well, and then there's something else we haven't talked about, there's the sort of relief that's on the pedestal. Can you guys make out on both sides? Teacher 3: The cavalry again. And then the infantry on this side. Christopher Hamner: The soldiers are present, they're there. And again, that's a little more of a realistic depiction of the soldiers. Teacher 1: Thinking about both sides of the relief, they could have put that relief anywhere. But look where they put it. And what is the relief supporting? Grant. So the underlying message is his men supported him and his decision that he's making on that horse right now. Christopher Hamner: And you notice it's got this kind of realism that I think is really unprecedented, particularly for the time and it's still pretty rare. But, was it Brian pointed out the lions, there's the kind of marble pedestal. It's not the Korean Memorial where you can actually walk around the figures, it still has these nods to more traditional, classical form. But it also incorporates the stuff that's new and I think that makes it just so complicated and so interesting. There's a series of choices here and I think they tell us something about where the nation was at the close of the 19th century and remembering this war and figuring out where it fit into our national narrative.

National Portrait Gallery: Teaching with 19th-Century Portraits

Video Overview

Briana Zavadil White of the National Portrait Gallery introduces TAH teachers to portraits of inventors and presidents from the 19th century, inviting teachers to ask questions and form hypotheses.

Video Clip Name
portraitgallery1.mov
portraitgallery2.mov
portraitgallery3.mov
portraitgallery4.mov
Video Clip Title
Piecing Art Together
Christian Schussele's "Men of Progress" (1862)
Ole Peter Hansen Balling's "U.S. Grant" (1864)
Portraits of Abraham Lincoln
Video Clip Duration
5:12
5:26
3:33
9:02
Transcript Text

Briana Zavadil White: So, within the education department what we do is we use the portrait as a springboard into a conversation about history and biography, because the Portrait Gallery considers itself to be a biography, history, and art museum. So the art, the portrait, is always our focus, yet we're using that to get into a much deeper conversation.

The activity that we like to do is called a puzzle activity. You will need to share, and some of you will get your own. All right, this is what I would like you to do. In your pairs, or individually—depending on if you have a pair or you're working individually—just look at your puzzle piece, and try to identify what it is that you see. You're not trying to put the puzzle together yet, because we will get to that point; don't share with another group what it is that you have, just identify what it is that you're looking at. Okay? And then we'll go through in just a second.

[One group converses]

Speaker 1: [Unintelligible]

Speaker 2: It makes him seem really easy and relaxed.

Speaker 1: And interested in what he's saying. The other person over there, it's like he's not party to that conversation.

Speaker 2: Right, like he's focused on something else over here.

Speaker 1: Doesn't that look like he's looking at—maybe the city—

Briana Zavadil White: Just identify to the group what it is that you saw, but not showing anybody else your puzzle piece. Okay? Okay?

Speaker 1: Levers, wheels, some type of transportation tool? Lots of wood, and lots of levels—platforms—made of wood.

Speaker 2: We had a rug, a couple shoes—with feet and pant legs. And a map, or sketch of a building unrolled on the floor.

Speaker 3: I had what looks to be a blueprint sitting on an end table with a red rug on the floor.

Speaker 4: We have a meeting; there are many men involved. Two men are having an aside—one is turned to the other listening. There's something strange on the table, a metallic device, it looks like it's got tape through it; so we were wondering if it’s a telegraph receiver or something.

Briana Zavadil White: What do we know for certain about this portrait?

Speaker 5: That it's a formal affair.

Speaker 6: The signing of the Declaration of Independence or something?

Speaker 7: There's no women.

Briana Zavadil White: So it's a meeting, there's no women, it’s a formal affair, the signing of perhaps the Declaration.

Speaker 8: They look like prominent, powerful men; they have authoritative dress.

Briana Zavadil White: Okay, so their clothing is telling us that—again, this idea of formality—but also that they are prominent gentlemen.

Speaker 9: Movers and shakers.

Briana Zavadil White: We talked about the rug, there's some red drapery, right? And the marble pillars.

Speaker 10: There's the Franklin portrait.

Briana Zavadil White: There's the Franklin portrait.

Speaker 10: Which would mean that it's not the Declaration of Independence signing, but maybe it's inventors or industrialists.

Speaker 11: Maybe the period of Enlightenment, invention, science.

Briana Zavadil White: And you had said mid-19th century. Why did you say that?

Speaker 12: The clothing.

Speaker 13: No powdered wigs.

Speaker 12: The dark black coats that seemed to have been popular around that time.

Briana Zavadil White: Okay, okay. What do you want to do with it?

Speaker 13: Put it together?

Briana Zavadil White: Why don't we do it right there, in that open space?

[Attendees assemble puzzle]

Briana Zavadil White: What's the big "so what?" of a puzzle activity?

Speaker 14: If you did it with a class, they'd be questioning where things go, where things are placed, what's the significance of observing.

Briana Zavadil White: Okay, so observation [and] visual thinking. What else?

Speaker 15: Spatial awareness of where something's located within something larger.

Briana Zavadil White: Okay, and making inferences. Anything else?

Speaker 16: Working collaboratively.

Briana Zavadil White: The puzzle activity works really well when you choose a portrait that has a lot going on in it, like this piece does. It allows the opportunity to get into the individual pieces, because no one piece doesn't have a lot going on. Even the piece in the corner that sort of looks like a lot of just dark space, I mean, it's still an important piece of the puzzle.

Briana Zavadil White: What do all of these men have in common? Speaker 1: They've got to be inventors. Speaker 2: They're trying to make a decision. Briana Zavadil White: They have to be inventors, they're trying to make a decision. What visually in this portrait is leading you to believe "inventors" and, again, this idea of a meeting and trying to make a decision about something? Speaker 3: Blueprints, models. Speaker 4: Different things, like the gun could be a Colt; just all the different little contraptions, definitely the blueprints, and Franklin again, I think that's— Speaker 5: He's symbolic. Speaker 6: You've got the gentleman pointing at whatever it is, and it looks like the three of them together in the center are pointing at it. They may agree on something and the guy turning across the table to talk to the gentleman behind him…maybe there's two different ideas about what's going on. Speaker 7: I'm wondering though about the men on the left. The lighting is on them so they're significant somehow, but they seem on the fringe of what's going on. So I'm wondering why are they there and what impact do they have? Speaker 8: Or are they just the investors. Briana Zavadil White: Okay, okay. So this is interesting right? You're thinking that perhaps some of these individuals are investors. So again I guess the question would be, what do they allhave in common? Speaker 9: They don't look happy. Briana Zavadil White: Okay. Speaker 10: Well, they're all white males. Briana Zavadil White: What does that tell us? Speaker 10: They are leaders of some industry, because white, and they probably are property owners because they're making a decision and at this timeframe you had to own property to have any kind of power or authority. Briana Zavadil White: What does it say that Ben Franklin is in this portrait, but as a portrait within the portrait? Not physically among them. Speaker 11: It's past his time, but he's influenced the thinking or whatever is going on. Speaker 12: He's pretty much the "Great Inventor." He represents the spirit of inventing. Briana Zavadil White: Okay, so, it's past his time—which is starting to help us date this portrait a little bit; we know we're past 1795. He is above them, again as the Father of Science and Invention—the patron saint. Okay. What else? Speaker 13: This guy in the center is probably one of the lead authority figures in this group because his body is facing toward us, and his body scale is a little larger, seemingly, than some of the other ones—just the width of him. Briana Zavadil White: He's spread out, right? The way that the artist has positioned him we actually see his whole body, not profile. All inventors, right? So, we've got Franklin as the Father of Science and Invention watching over all of these men, okay? One of the reasons why we know that they're all inventors is because—this is when it all fits so nicely together for you as educators—because these men are placed in this portrait with their inventions, with models of their inventions. You've got the Colt Revolver; you've got McCormick's mechanical reaper; you have Goodyear's rubber soled shoes right here. I have had so many conversations—I was just having a conversation this morning with two of the Portrait Gallery's historians, and for the life of us, we just don't know what this is! This is the telegraph. We think that this is a model for a printing press. This is a sewing machine. And the carpet loom. And one of the reasons that we know that we're smack dab in the Civil War for this portrait is the facial hair. Think about it, Abraham Lincoln—with the facial hair—I mean, we're very much in that style. So, you've all been very curious about the individuals, and the lighting, and the way that they're faced, so here's my question to all of you: You are the preeminent inventors of the era; are you all going to have time to come together and have time to sit for your portrait to be painted? Group: No. Briana Zavadil White: No, absolutely not. So what the artist, Christian Schussele, has done in this portrait—just like he did with Washington Irving and his friends at Sunnyside right there—is he sketched them individually from life, so the connection between the artist and the sitter, and then brought them together in his imagination. Okay? So this is why we've got a little bit of strange lighting right here. It's also why most of these men don't necessarily seem to be looking at each other. I mean, they're looking in the same general direction, but it's not as if it's a straight-on conversation.

Speaker 1: It's like a memoir. Like it's telling about his history, not just that moment in time. Speaker 2: Somebody made it to show honor or respect to him. Was he president at the time? When was it painted, like right then or after? Briana Zavadil White: So even though we're seeing "Grant, 1863," the question is: Is this 1863 or not? Is it later? Speaker 3: I think it's later. Briana Zavadil White: It is later, it's 1865. Alright? So when you know that this is Grant at Vicksburg and it's 1865, what does that tell us? Speaker 4: Well, I mean, he was a failure. He was considered a failure in so many different ways. And looking at him, you know, Vicksburg was a big deal; it effectively split the South in two. So it was a big deal. You look at this and Hey, look, I am a— Speaker 5: But I think he looks sad. I don't think he looks like "I am—"; I think he looks sad. Speaker 4: He brought—he pulled himself back up. Speaker 6: The frame is black, and I find that odd—I don't think I've ever seen a frame at all like that. I mean, black is usually mourning. Speaker 7: Black and gold. Briana Zavadil White: My sense is that it's probably meant to contrast with the gold. We've got the acorns referencing oak leaves, and oak leaves are a symbol of strength, right? So it could be it's meant for the battles and for the acorns to stand out. Speaker 8: It's like somebody wants us to know that he's not a guy who just sits around and signs things, he is a man of action and taking charge of whatever. It's all done and now he's in the midst of this mess, not sitting in a tent waiting to hear how it turned out. Speaker 9: And I think his face—I do, I just see this poignancy in his eyes like glory has pain. That's that look in his eye. Speaker 10: The frame and his positioning in the picture makes it seem like he's trying to promote an agenda. Briana Zavadil White: I don’t necessarily know if the portrait was created for him. What I can tell you though is that the artist who created it, Ole Peter Hansen Balling—he was a Norwegian, I believe—he also created the portrait of John Brown that you took a look at out there. He also created Grant and His Generals, I saw some of you looking at it; it's that huge 10 by 16 portrait. This was an artist who did portraits on the side of the Union, right, and so he was commemorating. Especially with that portrait of Brown, that painting was created in 1872, long after Brown had been hung. In a way, I guess the question is: Are these portraits acting as propaganda? Speaker 11: With an agenda? Briana Zavadil White: Maybe a little bit. Right? Right?

Speaker 1: He's leaning forward like he's engaged, he's not passive. Briana Zavadil White: Okay, what else? Speaker 1: Because, you know, sitting is a passive act. Speaker 2: Also, even though he's in a suit, it's ruffled and it has the wrinkles in it. So that whole, common man, rail-splitter platform that he won the election with. Speaker 1: Even the cuff of his pants is caught up in his boot. Speaker 2: And that jacket being so crumpled in his chair. Speaker 1: His boots look a little worn, they don't look new. Speaker 3: There's a neat line that I thought of when I read—when I saw this picture; he said—they were talking to his law partner—"he had a slow but tenacious quality of his mind," [he] noted that Lincoln's "intellect worked not quickly nor brilliantly, but exhaustively. He not only went to the root of the question, but dug up the root, separated and analyzed every fiber of the root before he would come to a decision." Briana Zavadil White: I wonder what could you do—how could you make the connection with your students between that quote and this portrait. What could you have them do? Speaker 2: Pose it in a way that would represent them. Speaker 1: Make cartoon balloons of what he's thinking at that moment in time, because that would go with that thought process. Speaker 3: Yeah, he's certainly not thinking about what to eat for lunch. Speaker 4: I don't know, I think—some of the things that I read, like, at the Ford's Theatre talked about how these people were petitioning for places on his cabinet, and that he would listen to them, and that he's seen Sojourner Truth—it just seems like he was a listener. And that to me looks like he's almost listening to somebody talk attentively, he didn't brush people off—is what I kind of got the impression. Briana Zavadil White: So you're getting this feeling of him listening to somebody telling him something. Okay, interesting. Speaker 1: There's no accoutrements, there's no symbolism, there's no draped background, there's no mini log cabin on the floor. It's just him and the chair and the room. Briana Zavadil White: It lacks the objects, right? We know that there's a setting; it's most likely some sort of studio type of setting, right? But, again, like Sherman, we're forced to focus on Lincoln himself. So this particular piece—people always flock to it. It always strikes them for some reason, and maybe it's the pose, maybe it is that there isn't a lot of the extra stuff in it, but this particular image—which is by the artist George P. A. Healy—is actually a replica. Everybody knows the difference between a copy and a replica, right? A replica is a piece created by the same artist who completed the original, and a copy is a piece created by somebody entirely different. So here's the sneaky detail about this portrait, Lincoln had already died when Healey painted The Peacemakers. So he had to use a model, and then he used, mostly likely, photographs of Lincoln to create this likeness. Isn't that interesting? So, similar to the Brown downstairs—that portrait, like I said, is 1872—the artist had to use photographs from the trial to create the likeness. Alright, be in a position where you can see this portrait. Tell me about Lincoln's expression here. Speaker 2: At peace. Briana Zavadil White: At peace, what makes you say that? Speaker 2: He has somewhat of a smile on his face. Speaker 5: Relaxed. Briana Zavadil White: Okay. Does everybody agree that he has somewhat of a smile on his face. Speaker 4: He looks tired to me. Speaker 1: I don't think he looks peaceful. Briana Zavadil White: You don't think he looks peaceful. What's giving you the impression of him looking tired? Speaker 6: The eyes. Speaker 4: Yeah, I was going to say the eyes. And the shoulders are kind of slouched a little bit. He just looks tired. Speaker 1: His hair is just sort of ruffled around his ears. Briana Zavadil White: Kind of a bit unkempt, Lincoln is known for that certainly. Speaker 1: The big bags under his eyes. Briana Zavadil White: Okay. So we've got these bags, right, under his eyes here. And tell me about his cheeks. Multiple Speakers: Sunken. Briana Zavadil White: They're sunken in. What else? Speaker 1: His bowtie is askew. Briana Zavadil White: His bowtie is askew, isn't it? And it's always so interesting because this is a formal photograph, right? And yet, here we have Lincoln with his bowtie askew and his hair sort of a little disheveled, okay? It really is a true likeness of Lincoln because that's how he often was portrayed. Speaker 2: He looks like a common man. Briana Zavadil White: So, this is a photograph; where is the focus? Because we all can see a focal point, we also can see a blurred piece of the portrait. So what becomes the focus? Speaker 8: His face. Briana Zavadil White: Okay. Right really in the middle of his face, right? And then everything else gets blurred out from there. Speaker 3: The crack of the glass plate negative is a focal point though, too. Briana Zavadil White: Okay, and everybody sees that? Speaker 3: That wasn't intentional though. Briana Zavadil White: No, it absolutely wasn't. It absolutely wasn't. So is this—we certainly know, think about the plaster cast on the other side. You can tell that this is Lincoln, right, at the end of the war. This is February 5, 1865. This is one of the last formal sittings that Lincoln sat for. And this wasn't the only portrait of him that was created on that day in Alexander Gardner's studio, but the reason why this particular image was saved is because of that slight smile. Speaker 2: He did accomplish what he set out to do: he kept the Union together. And that was the goal. Briana Zavadil White: I want you to think about all of the photographs of Lincoln that you've seen. Do you ever see that expression? Multiple Speakers: No. Briana Zavadil White: No. The crack has taken on so much importance in contemporary times. But the reason why, again, the portrait was kept then, was because of the expression on his face. People talk now about how the crack is a foreshadowing of his assassination, and how it's separating North from South—but that's all contemporary ideas. Absolutely. I would urge you—and I saw that you have the Lincoln Smithsonian in your classroom, right? Did you get that? So the Portrait Gallery partnered up with the Center for Education and Museum Studies to create that issue. So in that issue you will have this piece, along with the life masks, as well as the Cooper Union carte-de-visite that I was telling you about downstairs. It really does provide a nice comparison between Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil War and Lincoln at the end of the Civil War. The other thing that you're going to get as well—and I think it's either on the CD or in your folder—is a lesson about the chronology of Lincoln. So I'm giving you about 20 different images of Lincoln spanning from I think 1857 to 1865 for your students to be able to consider that chronology and place—really place the portraits in order and to do it visually.

Smithsonian American Art Museum: Close Observation

Video Overview

What can you learn from a source using just sharp eyes and an inquisitive mind? Suzannah Niepold of the Smithsonian American Art Museum guides teachers through close observation of four works of art, including Mike Wilkins's Preamble, Richard Norris Brooke's A Dog Swap, Allan Rohan Crite's School's Out, and Kerry James Marshall's SOB, SOB.

Video Clip Name
americanart1.mov
americanart2.mov
americanart3.mov
americanart4.mov
Video Clip Title
Mike Wilkins's "Preamble" (1987)
Richard Norris Brooke's "A Dog Swap" (1881)
Allan Rohan Crite's "School's Out" (1936)
Kerry James Marshall's "SOB, SOB" (2003)
Video Clip Duration
6:24
6:20
6:50
6:27
Transcript Text

Suzannah Niepold: Just having lived in this country, you have all the background knowledge, all the tools you need, to analyze this and have some understanding of maybe what the artist is trying to say. It's a good starting point. I want you to use a really basic looking tool called the "Observation/Interpretation Chart," has anyone done anything like this before? Okay, yeah, it's pretty familiar. The goal is just to separate what you see from what you think it means. But it's more challenging for kids than you might think. Hopefully it will give them the tools they need to write a good historical argument, because you're essentially coming up with all your evidence, and then using that evidence to make an argument. So let's just start. Our goal is just to make a long list of observations based on this piece. What is it that you see here? Multiple Speakers: License plates. Suzannah Niepold: License plates. Okay, that's a— Speaker 1: State names. Speaker 2: Does spelling count? Speaker 3: Not for the HSA. Speaker 4: Somebody said state names. Speaker 5: ABC—yeah, alphabetical— Suzannah Niepold: Alphabetical order. The plates are in alphabetical order by. . .? Multiple Speakers: State. Speaker 2: Or district. Suzannah Niepold: There was some stuff over here I missed. Speaker 4: Common colors—white, blue, yellow, green. Speaker 5: It's "We the people of the. . . ." Suzannah Niepold: Ah, so it spells something out on the license plates. Speaker 1: It's the Preamble! Suzannah Niepold: The Preamble of the Constitution. Speaker 5: It's like each license plate has a state theme. Suzannah Niepold: How does it have a state theme? Speaker 5: On some of it. Like Alabama, "Heart of Dixie." Not all of them. Suzannah Niepold: Okay, so some of them have text— Suzannah Niepold: What else do you see on individual license plates? Speaker 6: A year. Speaker 5: Yeah, the year. And the artwork behind, depending on if it's just the plain—some are just two colors, some have three colors, some have like a picture behind it. Speaker 7: It's on the seat of a car, right? That somebody flattened out. Suzannah Niepold: Ah, so looking at the background reminds you of a seat of a car. Speaker 7: Like at a rest stop, or that you'd see in a diner or a drive-in or something. Suzannah Niepold: What do you see that makes you think diner or drive-in? What is it about the— Speaker 4: The metal on the outside of the cushiony seat. Speaker 5: And the color coordination. Suzannah Niepold: So the materials in the background make you think of the diner/drive-in or car seat. Speaker 8: How about six, five, six, six, five, six, five—in terms of how many license plates are in each row. Suzannah Niepold: So there's a pattern, there's not always the same number of license plates in a row, but it does alternate sort of sixes and fives. Speaker 2: Some have natural features on them while others are political statements. Suzannah Niepold: So the types of things chosen by the state, some are natural features and some are political. Speaker 5: It looks like some of them actually have—like Alabama has a tag on when they had to renew it and some don't, like if you look at Colorado, there's no dates on Colorado. Alabama's actually—it depends. And the number one color of the license plates—the background—tends to be white. The dominant color. Suzannah Niepold: That's good. A couple of people are noticing the dates on them, some of them have them, some of them don't, there's a bit of a range. Speaker 10: On most of the individual plates the words don't make sense by themselves. A couple do, like Hawaii is "none" and South Dakota is "this," but for the most part if you just look at one plate it doesn't really make much sense, it's just a couple of letters or numbers. Suzannah Niepold: So, looked at individually it's rare that a single license plate will have a word on it that makes sense. Is there anything else design-wise that is common to the license plates? Speaker 2: They're rectangles. Suzannah Niepold: So all the same shape. Speaker 3: They're bolted in with four bolts. Suzannah Niepold: Bolted in with four bolts, and those bolts are in the same location, right? Speaker 7: Deal with mass production for cars. Suzannah Niepold: There's evidence that these were mass-produced instead of custom made. Alright, are we ready to start moving into this column? Thinking about all of this as evidence, what do we think the artist is trying to say? Why did he put these license plates together to spell out the Preamble? And what does that tell us about our country? Speaker 2: Because all of them together is what shows us what our country is made of and really is the foundation of the nation, that we can't really go back to the Civil War era—we're not divided, we have to be all together. Suzannah Niepold: It's putting them all together is, how did you say, the spirit of the country? Speaker 2: Spirit of the country, basically what makes us make sense. Suzannah Niepold: So we are indivisible, we've come out of the Civil War and we're still part of the Union. Now what—: Speaker 4: It's obviously the shift to car culture, and that, you know, we are a nation of highways that are interconnected and the car is the way we get to places, we move from the cities to the suburbs, we move from Route 66. It's become—we're a nation of cars and highways. Suzannah Niepold: So his choice to use license plates is not random? Multiple Speakers: Right. Suzannah Niepold: He's really using that material to make another point about how we're a car culture. And that's another connection, right? As you mentioned, the highways connect all the states. Speaker 5: I also think it brings out the individual characteristics and history of each state, but yet we're all, as everyone has said, connected and that's what makes us strong. Yet, we each have flavor and things that are unique that make each state special. Suzannah Niepold: Great, so everyone had the theme or the slogan that you noticed, the symbols, whether they're natural environment or political symbols. The "flavor" is a great way to put it, but as he said, we're all indivisible; we're all part of the Union. I think maybe that pattern emphasizes that as well.

Suzannah Niepold: What's going on in this picture? Speaker 1: Relaxing after a hard day of work. Suzannah Niepold: What do you see that makes you say that? Speaker 1: You see both of the gentlemen sitting there who are sort of resting, as well as this younger gentleman over here. The little girl looks like she's kind of tired too. Speaker 2: The boots. Hanging. Suzannah Niepold: There are boots hanging here, okay. Speaker 3: He's got like work clothes on, and they look undone. Suzannah Niepold: Okay, so these look like his work clothes, how can you tell? Speaker 4: There are holes in them. Dirty shoes. Speaker 5: He's smoking a pipe. And the gun resting on the knee of the older gentleman. So maybe they were hunting? Speaker 6: They may be calloused, his hands [have] different coloration. So just outdoor work. Suzannah Niepold: So signs that they spend their time working outdoors. We noticed this man is smoking a pipe, this man is holding a gun. The pipe might add to the sense that they're relaxing after a hard day, and the gun might be an indication that they've been out hunting. Speaker 5: The black one looks like a hunting dog, the yellow one doesn't. Speaker 7: And there's another little one over underneath that the boy's playing with. Suzannah Niepold: This is one that's a little bit harder to see, especially if you're looking at this in reproduction, but there's a little tiny dog over here and then the two in the front. What makes this one look more like a hunting dog than the other two? Speaker 8: It looks like a Labrador. Suzannah Niepold: So it’s a breed we associate with hunting. Speaker 5: The yellow one looks like a herding dog. Suzannah Niepold: The title—which some of you might have noticed, we're not doing as much to cover it up this time—it's called A Dog Swap. What does that tell us about the picture? Speaker 7: So he's saying goodbye to his dog. Speaker 3: Or he's thinking about whether to go through with this or not. 'Cause he looks very pensive and the other guy looks like he's waiting for him to make up his mind. Speaker 8: He certainly has his gun there to make sure that he's— [laughter] Suzannah Niepold: You did something when you said waiting, you went forward a little bit, and I think that this man is leaning forward, which indicates that maybe he's waiting for an answer. As you said, this man is looking more pensive, more thoughtful. Speaker 1: Maybe that's why the little girl is sad? Maybe that's going to be her pet they're giving away. Speaker 5: Look at that little puppy, don't give him away! Speaker 1: They're going to give the black dog away because you can see he's kinda like comforting him, like don’t worry you'll be okay. Speaker 3: I think the little boy is interesting because he's kind of like fading into the background. Speaker 7: He's looking away. Suzannah Niepold: He's looking away, he's faded into the background a little bit. Why do you think the artist might have done that? Speaker 9: Maybe he's attached to the dog. Suzannah Niepold: Oh, he's attached to the dog. So why is he facing away? Speaker 9: It's his dog. Suzannah Niepold: Now what else is the little boy doing? Speaker 7: Playing with the other— Speaker 10: Focusing on a new dog. Suzannah Niepold: Yes, he's playing with this one. Speaker 10: Out with the— Speaker 9: Somebody's already said, we're getting a new dog. Suzannah Niepold: So he's coping with it by turning away, playing with the little puppy. Why do you think the choice of dog is important to this family? Speaker 7: It looks like they're in a field—so maybe, if the other dog is, like she said, a herding dog then it would be more working for them, for their livelihood, I guess. Speaker 10: Maybe this is a stretch, is that a fishing net? Suzannah Niepold: So they're using the land, they've got a fishing net. Speaker 8: You can see fencing in the background. Speaker 9: You've got your cabbage and collards up front. Speaker 7: One would assume that makes it a community kind of situation where people are helping each other; perhaps they are dependent on each other. Hunter-man brings meat, and this family farms. Suzannah Niepold: Okay, so maybe it's a community exchange. Speaker 3: Some kind of sharecropping. Suzannah Niepold: What else can you tell about their daily life and the condition of their home? Speaker 1: A dirt entryway. Speaker 7: You can tell in terms of relationships, Mom's in the doorway kind of hovering in the back with what looks to be the older daughter. So the women are kind of back away from the decision making of this or in the home, so to speak. Suzannah Niepold: So the decisions are being made by the men, the women are a bit farther away. Speaker 7: Yeah, because even the boy is outside. Suzannah Niepold: Someone mentioned sharecropping, this painting is from 1881, the artist is from Warrington, VA, so not too far away. So if this is painted after the Civil War, a little bit even after Reconstruction, what do we know about the lives of these people? Speaker 8: They're very, very tough. Suzannah Niepold: Tough how? Speaker 8: They're having to make their own way in a segregated society where nobody's looking out for them. And sharecropping—very tough, very tough occupation. Suzannah Niepold: Tough life. As you noticed in the beginning, probably working outside, working the land, getting food however they can—whether it's growing things, fishing, hunting. What are maybe some of the advantages though? Multiple Speakers: Free; self-sufficient; freedom Suzannah Niepold: Self-sufficiency, freedom. Speaker 9: Autonomy. Suzannah Niepold: Autonomy. Speaker 7: You have the ability to build relationships, remember we were talking about the community. Before you could be sold off and not have a family and not be a part of a family. Speaker 3: And they're trading property that they have now, which before they would not have been able to. Suzannah Niepold: So they have property. So the dogs maybe represent that. Someone mentioned family; I think that's very important that you have a family group together.

Suzannah Niepold: This is a work that I find really interesting because even though it's really an everyday scene there's a lot of maybe kind of misconceptions that feed our interpretation of this work. So I'm interested to see what you can make of it. What's going on in this picture? Speaker 1: There are no men. Suzannah Niepold: There are no men, so it's all women. And what else? Speaker 2: These little girls are fighting. Suzannah Niepold: How can you tell that they're fighting? Speaker 2: Because the one girl is yelling at her, wearing red, and the little girl in blue has her hands at her hips and is like nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah. So, you can tell they're fighting. Suzannah Niepold: So the artist gives us some really clear body language. The girl in the red top sort of leaning forward, mouth wide open, the other girls have kind of squinchy faces. Speaker 3: It seems like school, like parents dropping their kids off or picking their kids up or something. Speaker 4: The moms don't look real happy. Suzannah Niepold: So there's not any sort of bright smiles on any of the women's faces. How about the scene as a whole, what do you think the mood of the whole picture is? Speaker 1: Well, could it be Sunday? Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm thinking it could be Sunday. Because the mother has a flower on her lapel. It could be Sunday. Suzannah Niepold: Without looking at the title, which is going to give it away, how can we tell if it’s a school-related thing, as you first thought, or a Sunday, like church perhaps. Speaker 6: There's no religious imagery in it. Speaker 3: A couple of them have books, but the books are different colors, and they don't say Bible. There's nothing that looks churchy, there are no crosses. Speaker 1: There's nobody wearing hats, that's churchy. Speaker 5: None of them are wearing hats. Speaker 2: Not all of them. Speaker 3: There's one woman in a hat. Speaker 7: Is that a graduation hat? Suzannah Niepold: You know, that's one of the misconceptions again because it has that kind of flat top. But if you look at it closely it's not a mortarboard, it’s a fancy hat. Speaker 7: They're all wearing dresses. Speaker 8: I was thinking '50s. Speaker 5: Girls didn't wear pants back then. Speaker 6: If it's Sunday, where are there husbands and sons and brothers? Speaker 5: It could be a Women's Day; I've gone to Women's Day events before. So it could be Women's Day. Suzannah Niepold: Someone mentioned there are no churches in the background, can you identify any types of buildings in the background? Speaker 5: I don't know—it looks like a school. Suzannah Niepold: But which part looks like a school and how can you tell? Speaker 7: The left. Speaker 5: But a lot of churches are in schools. I went to church in a storefront, so—back then, I don't see a storefront, but I used to go to church here in Maryland in a school. I think it's probably a school or a church event. So it doesn't necessarily have to be "school" because people don't always go—in urban settings, people don't always have access to a church building. They do church in different buildings. Speaker 2: I think their skirts are too short for church. Speaker 9: That's what I was thinking, that one girl kneeling— Suzannah Niepold: Some of the evidence I hear for school is that this fence was built maybe to control people, to keep them in, so maybe the playground is inside the fence. As you said, there's no men, it's all women and female children. The clothing will throw your students off, they're not used to an everyday scene where everyone is in dresses or everyone is dressed up. What else is going on, what else can you find? Speaker 4: It reminds me of Baltimore with the red brick and the stoops and the Federalist architecture. Speaker 6: The obvious thing to me is that there's black and white children and that right central there's an African American woman holding the hand of an African American child and what appears to be a white child has her arm wrapped around that woman. Speaker 3: It seems the African American women are the ones caring for the kids. And maybe the mom's coming to get her? Speaker 5: But they're not wearing maid uniforms. Suzannah Niepold: So the adults, unless I'm getting this wrong, are all African American—or the ones that I can see. Speaker 2: No. Speaker 4: She's raising her hand. Suzannah Niepold: But there are children, there are Caucasian children. Speaker 5: Well, wouldn't the Caucasian children be with their nannies? Speaker 9: That's what I was wondering, are they nannies? Suzannah Niepold: Are they nannies, or what other roles could they be filling? If it's a school scene— Multiple Speakers: Teachers. Suzannah Niepold: If this is a school, what do we know about the school based on the people that we see. Speaker 5: All girls. Speaker 6: It's mixed. Suzannah Niepold: It's mixed, it's not segregated by race, just by gender. Speaker 5: I don't know, African American people are all different colors, so when I see someone who's lighter I don't assume they're white. Suzannah Niepold: That's true, sometimes you can get into dangerous— Speaker 5: I'm not saying they are or aren't at this point, I'm not saying that. Suzannah Niepold: You're right, so we can leave it as an open question mark. But there are certainly children with—just literally white, not even peach-colored. Speaker 6: Right, because that girl with her hand up stands out to me in the back. She's like waving; I can't tell what she's doing. Speaker 7: It's almost designed to draw your attention. Suzannah Niepold: The title is School's Out, so whoever said end of the daym whoever said school, they're borne out by the title. It's 1936. What part of the country would we imagine this to be? You said it looks a little like Baltimore. Speaker 10: Gotta be in the North. Suzannah Niepold: Okay, why does it have to be in the North? Speaker 10: Because of the integrated school. Suzannah Niepold: And why does it have to be a big city? How can we tell that about the image? Speaker 4: Because of the Federalist architecture. Speaker 6: And that's a lot of people. You wouldn't have that many children of that age in a small town school. Suzannah Niepold: This artist—one of the reasons that we always put the birth and the death dates and locations of the artist is to try and give you a sense of where the scene might be and what their background knowledge is. Allan Rohan Crite spent most of his life in Boston. So we think, based on an interview with him, that this is a South Boston school in 1936. If you look at the history of segregation in the schools—because he is an African American artist, this is an African American show—is that the schools were desegregated in the 19th century, but the neighborhoods weren't. So because the schools were just organized by neighborhood they were still vastly majority African American school or white school. So here you see maybe a few who either are light-skinned or are white, but certainly the majority are African American.

Suzannah Niepold: So again, just take a minute to observe the detail before we talk about it. What's going on in this artwork? Speaker 1: It's looking kind of at a study of Africa, of African culture. Suzannah Niepold: What do you see that makes you say that? Speaker 1: The books that I can see from here are about—you've got Africa and Asia, The Soul of Africa, the book there Africa Since 1413. Suzannah Niepold: So the book titles are turning into a bit of a clue about the artist's intention or message for the entire work. And something that really pops out to you is Africa. Speaker 2: Americans in particular like W.E.B Du Bois and the language that of course then was used, so you certainly see like the African American experience. Suzannah Niepold: It's an African American experience but tied back to Africa, which is appropriate since we are in the American Art Museum. Speaker 1: Then you have some odd ones that seem out of place, like Pushkin. Speaker 3: And some of covers seem more worn than others. Suzannah Niepold: Some of the books are maybe more worn, more well read than others. Are there any in particular that look more worn? Speaker 3: The Du Bois book. Suzannah Niepold: Because the title is wearing off a little bit. Speaker 4: She has then N and the A Encyclopedias of Knowledge, Culture, and I don't know what that word is on the bottom shelf. Suzannah Niepold: Yeah, it doesn’t always give you the title. So there's a repeated theme in the encyclopedias, that the volumes on the shelf refer to the N words or the A words. Speaker 1: Well the n-word is right there. Suzannah Niepold: Yes. And that is an issue, obviously, if you're using this in schools, and if you want to talk about that we certainly can. I use it only on a kind of case-by-case basis depending on the teacher and the class in school. But this can be kind of a major point of discussion with kids, the language that's used in the text. What more can you find? Speaker 5: I think I'm in debate on "sob," if it's really "sob" or if it's son of a— Suzannah Niepold: So there are these words here that could be read as "sob" or could be read as "S.O.B." Again, with prior approval from the teacher I have taught that acronym to about 300 8th-graders at this point. Doing well! What else do you notice about the words, how are they painted? What are they? Speaker 4: Her thoughts. Suzannah Niepold: Her thoughts. Where do we recognize that as thoughts from? Where do we get that? Multiple Speakers: Comics. Suzannah Niepold: Cartoons, comic books, so that's one kind of influence on this artwork. What more can you find? Speaker 6: She seems to be looking out somewhere. We see this window here, I don't know if she's looking at someone or out the window. Suzannah Niepold: How can you tell where she's looking? Speaker 6: Well, I mean just from the way her face is turned, her eyes are directed someplace other than— Suzannah Niepold: Everything—her face and her eyes are directed up here and directed away from the books. Speaker 7: I don't think it's her house. Suzannah Niepold: Okay, tell me what do you see that makes you say that? Speaker 7: I just look at how she's dressed, she's got on heeled shoes, she might—from where I'm thinking—just be visiting and all of a sudden inspecting somebody else's library. And then she just starts pulling off these books, and then she turns and maybe she just has a question or a strong feeling. Suzannah Niepold: Ah, strong feeling. Well, we see her thoughts. Speaker 4: So she may be listening to someone and thinking. And then she's also sitting on the floor, you're right, she's dressed up, but she's sitting on the floor. Speaker 3: What about those two books on the second shelf? The Slavery of Freedom and Black Women and White America almost as like questioning of the future, what's been lost? Speaker 8: I see bookshelves like this every ay at the office because you're always trying to figure out who the occupant is based on what they're reading. One of the things that kind of connects the books for me is this idea that Africa is interesting and significant as long as it's impacting white people. Africa becomes interesting when we start exporting slaves, Slavery to Freedomm you know it's the ownership of African Americans that makes it important. It's not interesting in and of itself, but only in its implications. Which would make me say either "sob" or "S.O.B." Suzannah Niepold: Yes. That's interesting, first of all because by looking at a bookshelf we can tell a lot about the identity of the owner of the bookshelf, who has arranged or even curated that collection of books. And also that so many of these are focused on Africa after European contact and the impact on this country. All of these books, I don't know if you've ever read any of them, but they are all real. We did end up featuring this in one of our programs I work on with 8th-grade students because the teacher, when selecting works with me, came up and said my parents had the same bookshelf. Not literally the same bookshelf, this very kind of fragile—maybe it's meaningful that the artist put this one spindly leg out there so that the whole history is going to just crash down. But she really related to this and she wanted to kind of bring some ideas together in her classroom and she was comfortable bringing out some of the more uncomfortable history, which, depending on your class and your group and how well you know them, you may not be. So this is one of the more challenging works, but the result, the product we got, we had students write about this work, were in the end deeply meaningful and they found real relevance to their own histories here. So we found it worth it in that situation.

For Us the Living

Image
Annotation

For Us the Living is a resource for teachers that engages high school students through online primary-source based learning modules. Produced for the National Cemetery Administration's Veterans Legacy Program, this site tells stories of men and women buried in Alexandria National Cemetery, and helps students connect these stories to larger themes in American history. Primary sources used include photographs, maps, legislation, diaries, letters, and video interviews with scholars.

The site offers five modules for teachers to choose from, the first of which serves as an introduction to the cemetery's history. The other four cover topics such as: African American soldiers and a Civil War era protest for equal rights, the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth after Lincoln’s assassination, commemoration of Confederates during Reconstruction, and recognition of women for their military service. Most of the modules focus on the cemetery’s early history (founded in 1862) although two modules reach into the post-war era. Each module is presented as a mystery to solve, a question to answer, or a puzzle to unravel. Students must use historical and critical thinking skills to  uncover each story. Each module ends with two optional digital activities, a historical inquiry assignment and a service-learning project, related to the module theme.

Teachers should first visit the “Teach” section which allows them to preview each module (including its primary sources, questions and activities), learn how to get started, and see how the site’s modules connect with curriculum standards. In order to access the modules for classroom use, teachers do have to create their own account, but the sign up process is fast, easy, and best of all, free! The account allows teachers to set up multiple classes, choose specific module(s) for each class, assign due dates, and view student submissions.

Cartoons
Film and Video
Maps
Newspapers and Periodicals
Official Documents
Personal Accounts
Photographs
Political Documents
Speeches
9
10
11
12
Confederate
Reconstruction
Cemetery
national cemetery
Abraham Lincoln; John Wilkes Booth; assassination
women
history of women
laundry
U.S. Colored Troops
Alexandria
Alexandria National Cemetery
petitions
African American
soldiers
Hospital
Memorial
military
9-12 Resources
Images
Text
Video
Veterans Day
Civil War & Reconstruction, 1850-1877
Devel. of the Industrial US, 1870-1900
Postwar US, 1945-Early 1970s
African Americans
Environment
Gender
Health & Medicine
Ideas & Ideologies
Legal History
Media
Mid-Atlantic
Military History
Politics
Reform
Slavery
Women

Las Vegas: An Unconventional History

Image
Photo, Burt Glinn, Las Vegas: An Unconventional History
Annotation

Produced as a companion to a PBS documentary, this site explores the history of Las Vegas through interviews, essays, and primary documents. "The Film and More" offers a film synopsis, a program transcript, and six primary documents on Las Vegas. These include a 1943 Time article on lenient divorce laws in Nevada as a tourist attraction and a newspaper report of an NAACP protest. "Special Features" offers seven presentations that include an interview with noted Las Vegas historian Hal Rothman, an exploration of the Federal government's public relations campaign on nuclear testing in the 1950s, and an essay on Las Vegas architecture. "People and Events" offers 14 essays on the people of Las Vegas and three essays on Las Vegas history.

An interactive map allows the visitor to survey the Las Vegas area and examine its development, and a timeline from 1829 to the present charts the growth of Las Vegas from a small railroad town to the present-day resort and gaming metropolis that is the most visited place in the world. A teachers' guide contains two suggested lessons each on history, economics, civics, and geography. The site also has 11 links to related websites and a bibliography of 55 books. The only search capability is a link to a search of all PBS sites.

Newspapers and Periodicals
Official Documents
Images
Text
Civil War & Reconstruction, 1850-1877
Devel. of the Industrial US, 1870-1900
Emergence of Modern US, 1890-1930
Great Depression & WWII, 1929-1945
Postwar US, 1945-Early 1970s
Contemporary US, 1968-Present
African Americans
Business
Cities & Suburbs
Consumer Culture
Economy
Environment
Family Life
Legal History
Military History
Politics
Popular Culture, Leisure
Reform
Science & Tech.
Western States

Eckley Miners' Village [PA]

Description

Eckley is one of the hundreds of company mining towns or "patches" built in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania during the 19th century. In 1854, the mining firm of Sharpe, Leisenring, and Company, later known as Sharpe, Weiss, and Company, leased land from the Tench Coxe Estate of Philadelphia and began work on the Council Ridge Colliery and the village of Eckley. The village, built near the colliery where the coal was mined and processed, provided housing for the miners and their families. Its stores, schools, and churches supplied the economic, educational, and religious needs of the villagers. By owning the village, the company had greater control over the lives of their workers.

The site offers exhibits, tours, and occasional recreational and educational events (including living history events).

What Happened to the Fenians After 1866?

field_image
Fenian Prisoner, 1857, New York Public Library
Question

What happened to the Fenians after 1866?

Answer

The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was established in 1858 in Ireland and the United States as a secular, revolutionary movement committed to armed struggle against Great Britain in order "to make Ireland an independent democratic republic" as members pledged when taking the society's oath. In 1859, the American wing—"equal, if not senior, partners in the trans-Atlantic organization," according to historian Hereward Senior—became known as the Fenian Brotherhood, a name derived from the Fianna, the militia of the warrior Fionn MacCumhail of Gaelic legend.

Modeled on earlier Irish revolutionary organizations by revolutionaries who had fled Ireland following the failed rising of 1848, the Fenian Brotherhood and the IRB emerged following a decade during which the population in Ireland had declined from 8.5 million to six million due to famine, disease, and mass migration, especially to the U.S. In a resolution agreed upon at the first Fenian Congress in the U.S., held in Chicago in November 1863, Fenians expressed "intense and undying hatred towards the monarchy and oligarchy of Great Britain" that, they charged, had "ground their country to the dust, hanging her patriots, starving out her people, and sweeping myriads of Irishmen, women, and children off their paternal fields, to find refuge in foreign lands."

...Fenians expressed "intense and undying hatred towards the monarchy and oligarchy of Great Britain."...

Although the Fenian Brotherhood remained in existence until 1886, its most notable North American exploits, a series of failed military raids into Canada, occurred in 1866. After 1866, the IRB center of gravity moved to Ireland, although in 1870 Fenians undertook another series of raids into Canada. Following 1870, as the Fenian Brotherhood declined in importance, the group Clan na Gael developed into the most prominent Irish-American revolutionary organization, and during the second half of the 1870s, the latter group became allied with the IRB. Throughout this period, the words "Fenian" and "Fenianism" were applied to the IRB as a whole and to revolutionaries not connected with the original Fenian Brotherhood. Historians have noted significant unintended consequences in Canada of the Fenian raids and have contended that Fenianism influenced later Irish nationalist movements of the early 20th century.

Canadian Incursions

In 1866, the Fenian Brotherhood conducted three military incursions into Canada after plans for an insurrection in Ireland had fallen apart due to British raids against the IRB in Dublin in September 1865 that had resulted in arrests and dispersal of the leadership. With many Irish-American veterans of the American Civil War in their ranks, the Fenians decided to seize territory in British North America and proclaim an Irish Republic. They hoped their raids would encourage the United States to follow with troops in order to establish the St. Lawrence River as its northern border or even to annex the whole of Canada.

During the Civil War, tensions had heightened between the U.S. and Great Britain when the latter, after declaring its neutrality in the conflict, allowed Confederate diplomats passage on British ships and sanctioned the building in England of Confederate cruisers that later destroyed Union merchant ships. American hostility to Great Britain increased in October 1864 when a Confederate band, after crossing the Canadian border, robbed banks in St. Albans, Vermont, stole horses, set fire to houses, and shot a citizen before returning to Canada. After a local Canadian court released the raiders on a technicality, voices in the American press called for an invasion.

In 1865, an ephemeral movement to annex Canada called for outright attacks and coercive economic pressure

The movement in 1865 in the U.S. for the annexation of Canada, characterized as ephemeral by historian Donald F. Warner, included calls in the press for Union and Confederate armies to unite to attack Canada and schemes of politicians to coerce annexation through economic pressure. Although expressions of U.S. interest in annexing Canada died down following the end of Civil War hostilities, the Fenians nevertheless hoped that their planned invasion would revive the annexation movement and draw British troops to North America leaving Ireland vulnerable.

Plan of Attack

The plan of attack, devised by the Fenian secretary of war who had been a U.S. Army major during the Civil War, called for multiple invasions: across the Vermont-Canadian border; from Malone and Potsdam in New York to the Canadian towns of Cornwall and Prescott, then north to Ottawa and Montreal; across Lake Michigan and Lake Huron to Stratford and London in order to gain control of an important railway terminal; and incursions to capture Toronto and major waterway and railway centers. The Fenians had some reason to believe that the U.S. government would recognize an Irish republic on captured British soil, as President Andrew Johnson and his Secretary of State, William Seward, anxious not to antagonize Irish-American voters, reportedly stated that the U.S. would "acknowledge accomplished facts," in the words of historian William D'Arcy, when they were informed by a Fenian delegation about the group's vague intentions to seize territory in Canada. No official U.S. commitment, however, ever was committed to writing.

Fenians misjudged both U.S. and Canadian politics and history.

Canadian historians have concluded that in addition to misreading the response of U.S. politicians, the Fenians also misjudged the Canadians. Their invasion plan was formulated, Hereward Senior has written, "without much regard for Canadian history or the contemporary political scene." W. S. Neidhardt has pointed out that Fenian plans to win over key elements of the Canadian populace "were based on completely false assumptions." Contrary to their beliefs, most Canadians of Irish descent were Protestants from Northern Ireland, not Catholics like the Fenians. Furthermore, for many Irish Catholics, "Canada offered a reasonably good government, a fair legal and adequate educational system, and an opportunity to maintain a decent standard of living." Most Canadians who had experienced the Famine in Ireland during the 1840s were unlikely to risk their present situation to support the Fenians' scheme.

Across the Border

The first Fenian operation of 1866 occurred in April when a small force raided Indian Island in New Brunswick as part of a plan to invade the nearby island of Campobello in order to establish a base for a later landing in Ireland, for launching cruisers to attack British commercial vessels, and as a diversionary tactic designed to keep British troops in North America preoccupied while revolutionaries in Ireland attempted a rising. By declaring themselves a republic at war with Great Britain, the Fenians hoped to attain the status of belligerents, rather than pirates, and thus not risk violating U.S. neutrality laws. A concerted effort by Canadian militias, well-armed British naval vessels, and the American military, however, confounded Fenian plans with only a few shots fired during confrontations and no reported casualties.

Some nine combatants from each side were killed in battle, however, during the second Fenian invasion of 1866, which began in the early morning of June 1 as a Fenian force of nearly 1,000 men traveling on canal boats that were towed by tugs crossed the Niagara River near Buffalo and landed at a dock just north of the Canadian village of Fort Erie, which they proceeded to occupy. Two days later, following a victory at Ridgeway over ill-prepared Canadian volunteer forces—the ease of disrupting the Campobello plot apparently had led to complacency among Canadian troops—the Fenians, aware that a large Canadian force was approaching, retreated back across the Niagara River, where U.S. naval forces belatedly called into action arrested them. Three days later, President Johnson issued a proclamation characterizing the Fenians as "evil-disposed persons" and their actions as "proceedings which constitute a high misdemeanor, forbidden by the laws of the United States as well as by the law of nations."

The final Fenian raid in 1866 took place one day after Johnson's proclamation, on June 7, when a band of less than 1,000 raiders starting out from St. Albans crossed the Vermont border and planted an Irish flag near the Canadian village of Pigeon Hill. Fenians subsequently occupied Pigeon Hill and three additional Canadian villages before fleeing from a Canadian cavalry corps that chased them back to the border. Under political pressure during a congressional election year, Johnson issued executive orders to release Fenians arrested in the raids and return arms that were seized, and intervened with British authorities to try to get Fenian prisoners in Canada and Ireland released. Although 25 of the invaders were tried and convicted, all but one—a man who died in prison—were pardoned by 1872.

After elections of 1866, Fenian influence on American politicians waned, but more attacks on Canada would follow.

After the congressional elections of 1866, the Fenians no longer were able to exert a significant influence over American politicians. Plagued by factional fighting, financial troubles, police informers, and opposition from the Catholic Church, they did not attempt another Canadian raid until May 24, 1870, a date chosen to coincide with Queen Victoria's birthday. On that day, President Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation warning U.S. citizens "against aiding, countenancing, abetting, or taking part" in reported "sundry illegal military enterprises and expeditions" aimed "against the people and district of the Dominion of Canada."

A Fenian force of less than 200 men crossed the border the next day despite warnings from a U.S. marshal that Canadian riflemen in well-chosen positions on an overlooking hill awaited their arrival. Although four or five Fenians died in the subsequent battle, as the Fenians fled, their commander, John O'Neill, berated them for cowardice. O'Neill himself then was arrested by the marshal. On the following day, a group of more than 450 Fenians gathered in Malone, New York and advanced over the border. In a skirmish with Canadian forces the next day, one Fenian was killed before most retreated to Malone. Despite entreaties by their general for further action, most of the Fenians remained convinced that they had no chance to win and the general was arrested. The Canadians suffered no serious casualties during the 1870 raids. In October 1871, O'Neill, having resigned from the Fenian Council, led a group of three dozen men across the Canadian border into Manitoba in an unsuccessful raid that an advocate for the independence of the Red River Colony had proposed, but which the Fenian Council had rejected. Historians have credited the Fenian raids with encouraging a nationalistic spirit in Canada and spurring the movement to confederacy.

Aftermath

Despite failure in North America, the Fenians, after shifting their focus of attention to Great Britain at the end of 1866, "helped to work a change in the traditional English attitude toward Ireland," according to historian Brian Jenkins. Locating themselves in London, Fenian leaders, supported financially by Irish-American contributions, adopted a strategy of guerrilla warfare. In a proclamation published in the Times of London in March 1867, they announced the formation of an Irish Republic and Provisional Government. During that month, Fenians fought police and soldiers in clashes throughout Ireland in an attempted rising. In November, three Fenians, executed on the basis of doubtful evidence for the murder of a police officer who had been escorting captured Fenian leaders to prison, were heralded in the press as the "Manchester Martyrs." In December, 12 Londoners were killed in an explosion designed to facilitate the escape from prison of a Fenian armaments organizer.

In response to fears of the British populace stimulated by the return of Irish revolutionary activity, the new Liberal Party Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone, in 1869 and 1870, successfully enacted laws to disestablish the Church of Ireland and address longstanding Irish land tenure issues. Gladstone acknowledged that Fenianism had "produced that attitude of attention and preparedness on the whole population of this country which qualified them to embrace, in a manner foreign to their habits in other times, the vast importance of the Irish controversy." Gladstone's actions, historian Oliver P. Rafferty has written, were intended "to alienate Fenian opinion, and enable the mass of the Irish people to differentiate their aspirations from those of the revolutionaries." Subsequently, the Irish Protestant barrister Isaac Butt advocated home rule for Ireland as an alternative to an Irish republic, stating that Fenianism "taught me the depth, the breadth, the sincerity of that love of fatherland that misgovernment had tortured into disaffection and . . . exaggerated into revolt." While a number of leading Fenians supported the home rule movement and entered into mainstream politics, under an agreement characterized as the "New Departure," Fenians also maintained their revolutionary commitment to create through insurrection an independent Irish republic.

Rafferty has contended that "the Fenian idea of the necessity, or inevitability, of armed insurrection passed into Irish historical lore and conditioned the thinking of, perhaps, the majority of those who staged the 1916 insurrection." In a recently published history of the rise of Irish nationalism during the period between the 1880s and the Easter rising of 1916, M. J. Kelly has asserted, "Historians have largely neglected the activities of the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the 1880s, tending to focus on the two great flash-points of 1867 and 1916." In his revisionist history, Kelly has looked anew at a "second generation of Fenians, qualitatively distinct from their fathers and uncles," who developed "a fresh separatist dynamic based on the nurture of a distinctly Irish culture" and significantly influenced subsequent Irish nationalist political activity and ideals.

Bibliography

W. S. Neidhardt, Fenianism in North America (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975), 4, 13, 41–42.

Hereward Senior, The Fenians and Canada (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1978), 24; Donald F. Warner, The Idea of Continental Union: Agitation for the Annexation of Canada to the United States, 1849–1893 (Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1960), 48.

William D'Arcy, The Fenian Movement in the United States: 1858–1886 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947; reissue, New York: Russell & Russell, 1971), 84.

James D. Richardson, comp., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Washington, 1899), 6:433, 7:85.

Brian Jenkins, Fenians and Anglo-American Relations during Reconstruction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969), 216.

Oliver P. Rafferty, The Church, the State and the Fenian Threat, 1861–75 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999), 110, 154, 155, 158.

M. J. Kelly, The Fenian Ideal and Irish Nationalism, 1882–19 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2006), 15, 16.

Robert Kee, The Green Flag: The Turbulent History of the Irish National Movement (New York: Delacorte Press, 1972).

Hereward Senior,The Last Invasion of Canada: The Fenian Raids, 1866–1870 (Toronto: Dundurn Press, in collaboration with the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, 1991).

American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives, "Fenian Brotherhood Collection," (accessed September 14, 2008).

Subscribe to Devel. of the Industrial US, 1870-1900