The second great point that struck me while listening to Dr. Robertson was… in him, are we listening to the end of an era? He didn’t say anything about this… it’s just something that came to my mind. I think we are.
Not only are we looking at one of the history community’s living connections with the Centennial, but we are also, I would suggest, looking at the end of an original style of Civil War historian.
In one way, I would define style as… the type of historian who says… “this is a subject and I’m going to tell you about that subject” (person, battle, etc.). I think it’s key to keep in mind that this is the original storyteller version of the historian. This, I would suggest, is… “Bud” Robertson, and he’s very much an artist with that style.
That’s one thing I think we’re seeing an end to (or, perhaps just less historians who practice this as an “art form”). In that people entering history with Catton, Robertson, and others on their lists of “having reads”, I don’t think the style dies, as mimicking is, for many, a way to start… especially for those who enter the practice without going through the academy. It was actually my start. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see the same folks modify style over the years, as other methodologies are employed (more mimicking… and nothing wrong with that either). I know my style changed, but because the second phase of my learning was as a student cycled through academia.
Still, there is another thing we’re seeing an end to, and I’m getting to that.
I think it goes without saying, methodologies have changed. Some argue for the better (most especially from the academic approach), some… not so much (those who wish to adhere to the traditional, and have resentment for the new approaches). We are in the midst of a stylistic movement (though not “new”) that demands 1) more careful analysis and 2) the ability to be critical (which is sometimes literally defined) of previous historians. Personally, I like both styles, but… not on the “being critical of previous historians” part.
As far as analysis goes… I like it… but I prefer to take care not to muddy the story with it. Technique is fine to exhibit in a blog post, perhaps, but in writing for print, I find analysis best used as a sidebar, and/or if carefully blended into the narrative without the reader feeling as if he/she’s hit a bump in the road where the analysis begins to be more obvious and distracts from the story. Thanks to my work in my tech comm degree, I’m much more consumed with trying to write in a manner in which the narrative can immerse a reader, and not interject something that distracts from the story. “Please, learn… without realizing you are learning”. In that way, I think I’m still showing my roots… my early years of writing history. And, it only makes sense, as I adopted styles from what I had read… and one of the authors which I read (and I still have my original copy of The Stonewall Brigade, by the way) was “Bud” Robertson.
But, back to that “being critical of previous historians” part. This is where we come to the other “end of an era” point.
In some instances (and yes, I think it’s especially evident in blogging), I’ve seen that tact is a lost art. Actually, I very much love the quote from HBO’s John Adams, in which Benjamin Franklin notes…
It is perfectly acceptable to insult a man in private and he may even thank you for it afterwards but when you do so publicly, it tends to make them think you are serious.
I’m not saying I haven’t been guilty myself. We’re all human. I would suggest, however, that… much like what we do in the name of being objective (being conscious of the fact that we strive to be objective, though we sometimes fail)… we also hope that we don’t lose the ability of tact and “classiness”, most especially while tackling a subject previous taken on by an earlier historian.
I recall a paper that I wrote, in the late 90s (I started my history MA in ’95, and didn’t return to complete it until ’07… so that in itself made me aware of changes), for a grad level Civil War course, in which I was critical of Jennings Cropper Wise’s The Long Arm of Lee. In short, I said that it was a book right for its time, and that Wise had done an incredible thing in putting it together… but, I suggested (at length) that it was time to revisit the “Long Arm of Lee” in a new work, employing new methodology and, with the ability to bring more data to the table. To be honest, I’ve even said that I’d love to revisit the Stonewall Brigade (with nothing but respect for what Dr. Robertson accomplished with his book) in the same way, though with what I have on my plate, I doubt that I’ll ever take on that project. Again, though I voice the desire to revisit either the Long Arm of Lee or the Stonewall Brigade, it’s not about belittling the previous historian, it’s just that I see other avenues in which to take the subjects. If he/she missed something… at least something that I think he/she missed, I need not point it out as a flaw. I think it’s better to just move ahead without having done so.
Does it make one a better historian to point out what he/she sees as the flaw of the previous historian?
“Look, see… he/she missed this” or “he/she didn’t analyze this in the way that it should have been done.”
I think such approaches are less than classy.
Truth be known… in most cases, the previous works passed the test of their contemporaries. Additionally, the original efforts still merit the honor of a respectable place on the bookshelf, and I have no doubt they won’t sit there with with a dusty “U” around the back-binding, with pages left un-turned.
The art of a storyteller… with class and tact… these are things I see in Dr. Robertson.
As we move forward and try to see the future of the Civil War, I don’t think it’s necessary to do so at the expense of the history field’s past contributors… or those who move into the field having climbed on the shoulders of the traditionalists… or those who try to keep their personal brands free and clear of the “Jerry Springer movement of historians”.
Onward we go…
Cenantua's Blog 
Richard Williams
March 30, 2013
Another great post Robert. I may digest it a bit and make another comment. The art of storytelling, in my mind, is something often missing in some of the more recent books about the Civil War and American history in general. Robertson’s a classic when it comes to that art as demonstrated in his Jackson biography. There are very few people, in my opinion, who are good historians but who are also good writers. Robertson is certainly one of those few. Freeman, Foote, and Catton also come to mind as well as Robert Krick. McCullough is another writer who comes to mind, though not in the WBTS genre.
This also impacts, I believe, the diminishing interest in the Civil War. One needs to write with a style that “feels” like a story and inspires, while remaining true to the facts, in order to generate interest among the general public. This explains why many university press histories sell so poorly (in my opinion). Also, as I mentioned before, I do believe the trend in recent years has been to demonize certain American “heroes.” I don’t mean to start a firestorm here, but this constant drumbeat of “evilizing” figures in American history has had a negative impact on how many Americans view our history. Andrew McCarthy put it this way:
“What most frustrates Americans is that we are a happy, optimistic, can-do people ceaselessly harangued by media solons, delusional academics, post-sovereign Eurocrats . . . While we free and feed the world, they can’t tell us enough that we’re racist, imperialist, torturing louts. We know it’s a libel, an endless stream of slander. But we also know it’s an absurd libel. We’re tired of hearing it, but taking it too seriously would give it power it doesn’t deserve.”
In all honesty, who would want to read about our history when this is the way it’s framed? I’m asking the question from a general public’s point of view, not an academic or professional historian – of which I’m neither. Bottom line – I think a lot of Americans are TIRED of hearing it and reading it, thus the lack of interest.
And yes, I do believe that Robertson’s exit will, sadly, be the end of an era.
BTW, for an interesting contrarian view of CW “celebrations”, I’d recommend Steve Syliva’s piece here: http://www.nstcivilwar.com/cgi-bin/Forum.asp?34
Robert Moore
March 30, 2013
Thanks, Richard.
Yes, I think, essentially, the greater audience wants to hear stories. Of course, they readily devour stories with bad history… so, really, why not give them good history? But, I digress.
In my mind, 18th and 19th century American heroes (and identified as such, really, in our not so distant past), are still American heroes. Why throw out the baby with the bath water? We can find flaws in everyone… they are, after all, human, and lived in a time very different than our own… and, regretfully, some things identified as “flaws” are identified under contemporary standards. I don’t think it’s fair, or ethically responsible to assess with that sort of baggage. Can I find flaws with Washington and Jefferson, Lee and Grant? Absolutely. Still, each have qualities that make them worthy of honors. I’d even add, that each of them (and many others) displayed character that remain as inspirational models for us today. Maybe I’m just cut from that older cloth, but calling them American heroes beats the heck out of some who are identified in today’s mindset as “heroes”.
I’ll add… hearing Dr. Robertson speak, in person, in the Sesqui is something that is a “must do” during the Sesqui. This is the second such instance for me during the Sesqui… the first “must do” being along with Ed Bearss in a tour at Antietam, on the 150th anniversary.
Richard Williams
March 30, 2013
“Can I find flaws with Washington and Jefferson, Lee and Grant? Absolutely. Still, each have qualities that make them worthy of honors. I’d even add, that each of them (and many others) displayed character that remain as inspirational models for us today. Maybe I’m just cut from that older cloth, but calling them American heroes beats the heck out of some who are identified in today’s mindset as “heroes”.”
Absolutely. BTW, changing gears . . . if you’ve not read David Johnson’s biography of John Randolph, I’d highly recommend it. I’m about 1/3 of the way through and it’s quite fascinating.
Robert Moore
March 30, 2013
Thanks again, Richard. No, haven’t read it. Might have to take some time to borrow a copy from someplace and thumb through it. I have to admit, however, I have little patience in sticking to a book. Takes me forever to read one from cover to cover. Alas, my flaw as a notorious “skimmer”!
Richard Williams
March 30, 2013
“I have little patience in sticking to a book.” Odd you should say that. I find it more difficult to stick with one as I get older. I have so many interests and so many irons in the fire, a book really has to grab me to hold my attention, though I’m still buying at least a couple dozen a year. I’m also a skimmer. But Randolph has always fascinated me. His keen wit and intellect, demons, love of liberty, and fearless political stands make an intriguing study. Johnson’s a good writer and worked 10 years on this biography.
I’ve got a post coming up on the book, as well as Johnson. I think you’ll find it interesting.
Robert Moore
March 30, 2013
Adult attention deficit disorder 😉
Look forward to your post.
Richard Williams
March 31, 2013
“Adult attention deficit disorder” – My wife swears I’m afflicted with that disorder. I’m beginning to think she may be on to something.
Tim Snyder
April 1, 2013
Hi, Robert. I thought I’d share my impressions of Bud Robertson and his talk last Thursday. I don’t disagree with yours at all, but my first impression was of a personal nature, and at a more emotional level: I was simply struck by the decency of the man on a number of different levels. Dr. Robertson, we learned, has been coming to the Hagerstown Civil War Round Table since 1959, about 6 or 8 separate visits. As a historian and professor of national stature, he didn’t have to come at all, especially now that he is retired and age 82. Selling 8 or 10 books isn’t going to change his standard of living. He did so out of loyalty, and because he doesn’t see himself above the average layperson with an interest in the Civil War. Condescension and arrogance aren’t a part of his nature. Secondly, even though he was a college professor, accustomed to interacting with bright students and learned colleagues, we heard that Dr. Robertson made it a point to create a video that instructs Virginia’s grade school students in the fundamentals of Civil War history. He was determined to do so because he saw his work with the Civil War Centennial Commission in the 1960s as having failed to make provisions for the youth; the didn’t want that deficit to go unaddressed twenty-five years later. We also saw his legimate concern for fate of our country. He stated flatly that America was founded upon compromise and castigated those today (without naming individuals or parties) who dig in their heels and refuse to yield an inch. He compared the political polarization in our country today to that that existed in 1850. We also witnessed his intellectual honesty: In spite of being a native Virginian and a southerner, he made a point to acknowledge that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
In summation, I came away from the talk with the impression that James I. “Bud” Robertson, Jr., is a good and decent person, worthy of our respect and admiration apart from his accompishments as a professor and historian.
Robert Moore
April 2, 2013
Thanks for your comment, Tim. I agree. It was quite interesting to hear him speak about the failure to compromise in current politics, and what he sees as striking parallels today, with what was going on in the 1850s.
Dave Jordan
April 13, 2013
Just out of curiosity, did anybody ask him what he thought about the state of college football? (Bud was a long-time referee in the ACC).