"Which is Which?"

The good thing about working on this newspapers project for the CWI Office/Lincoln Bicentennial Commission is that occasionally I come across interesting and/or amusing items. Here is an article from the Philadelphia Press, January 19, 1861.

Which is Which?
The blunders of the English journals, when American topics are discussed, are frequent and amusing. At one time English editors declare that the President of the United States is elected by the rowdies of New York; at another, they acknowledge Mr. Bennett's Herald to be reliable and respectable; anon, they discourse of Ohio as margined by the Atlantic, and so on. We have now to notice their latest and most amusing error.
A London periodical, entitled "Once a Week," commenced eighteen months ago, to rival Dickens' "All the Year Round," has an article, in its number for December 29, called "Abraham Lincoln, President Elect of the United States." It commences thus, biographically.
"'Honest Old Abe,' as the Americans call Lincoln, was originally a farm-laborer in Illinois. Frederick Douglas, 'the Little Giant,' his defeated antagonist, was a cabinet maker."
Here be two pieces of exclusive news - that Frederick Douglass, the negro, was the political antagonist of Mr. Lincoln, and that the said Frederick bears the sobriquet of "the Little Giant." In the innocence of our heart, we always thought that, not Frederick Douglass, but Stephen A. Douglas, stood in that position, and bore that familiar sobriquet. Moreover, we were certain - until corrected in our belief by "Once a Week," - that Stephen A. Douglas is a white man, instead of a black.
The English editor cannot plead, in extenuation, that Frederick was a slip of the pen, for a dozen lines lower down, he describes what Frederick Douglass said of Mr. Lincoln "in one of his stump speeches, when lately itinerating the northwest provinces." He adds that in 1858 this self-same "Frederick" was elected Senator for Illinois, and that the New York Tribune is a "religious" paper. Nothing can be said to excuse the ignorance of a writer who confounds black and white in this odd manner - who supposes a negro eligible for the Presidency - and who speaks of the States of the Union as provinces. To carry on the joke, this very facetious and accurate English writer brags of his personal knowledge of America, its institutions, its people, its politics. "I," he says, "who have stood for hours and days watching the boatmen of these rivers [the Wabash and the Mississippi] know how laborious is their life," he alludes to the boatmen and so on. All this comes from people writing boldly about matters with which they are almost unacquainted. Not otherwise could any person have blundered so palpably as to confound the Hon. S.A. Douglas, the patriotic and eloquent Senator for Illinois, with Frederick Douglass, the negro.

"The tube returneth."

That tube thing returned to the square today. It, of course, got stuck again. It took slightly less time for the authorities to move it since they've had practice now, but it still backed up traffic for quite a while. I found it very amusing that they did not learn their lesson the last time. Also, I still do not know what the hell that thing is.

An update on the Cyclorama

At the end of my shift at the VC on Friday, one of my managers took me upstairs to check out the Cyclorama. They were beginning to install the diorama part of it, including a cannon that is in line with the other cannons in the painting. The actual restoration is pretty much complete and now it's just getting the rest of it set up and the room/hallways/stairs ready for visitors. It's set to open September 26th and put plainly, it is going to be awesome. We've been giving out coupons for 50% off a New Birth of Freedom/Cyclorama ticket and they have no expiration date, so if you find yourself at the Visitor Center before September, make sure you track one down so you can save a bit when you return for the multi-media experience.

Interview with Zack Fry

Zack Fry is a history student at Kent State University who has studied the Civil War for most of his life. He has been published in Gettysburg Magazine, The Ohio Civil War Genealogy Journal, and other periodicals. Among the groups he has led on battlefield tours are the Civil War Education Association, Military History Online, and the Gettysburg Discussion Group. He also regularly gives presentations at local libraries and historical societies. Most importantly, he's also a good friend of mine.

Sarah Adler (SA): How did you first become interested in the 59th New York?
Zack Fry (ZF): My fascination started when I realized that much of the regiment was actually from my area of Ohio. I learned the story of their horrific experiences at Antietam, and I soon found that a man from nearby Bellville won the Medal of Honor at Gettysburg. Early in the project, I received copies of the Jacob L. Bechtel letters, an invaluable first-hand account of day-to-day life in the regiment. Bechtel wrote the letters to his sweetheart in Bellville. They really put a human face on the story. From there, my interest grew to include the entire regiment and all their experiences, from Antietam to Gettysburg to the end of the war.

SA: What would you say is the biggest obstacle you've needed to overcome as a young historian?
ZF: That's a tough question. In a strictly practical sense, it's realizing you don't have the means yet to do some of the more detailed research at distant facilities like the NARA in Washington. That day will come, and hopefully very soon. My initial interest was mainly the Ohioans in the 59th, and, unfortunately, just about all the records for their involvement are indeed in New York or Washington. I've made indispensable connections in some very fine historians who have helped me along the way, though, and I'm thankful for that every day.

SA: I know that you have faced some sporadic opposition to your findings. Would you say that this has actually helped you in some ways?
ZF: Nobody who puts his findings on the line escapes some mild criticism. Fortunately, the vast (and I mean nearly unanimous) majority of feedback I've received on my 59th research and interpretation has been complimentary and supportive. Of course criticism makes you a better historian - it keeps you focused, keeps you alert, and keeps you careful in what you say and how you say it. It sounds trite, but the true key to accepting criticism is to learn from it. Where the criticism is correct, vow to avoid that fault in the future. If it is scurrilous or destructive, look past it, and hope others do the same when they witness it happening. That's how I see it right now.

SA: You took the Gettysburg battlefield guide written exam when you were sixteen, right?
ZF: Fourteen, actually. It was in 2002. I remember it well. I think there were about 200 participants, and I wasn't in the top twenty, of course. Unfortunately, I learned the most about the Battle of Gettysburg in the following two years!

SA: So you were the youngest ever to take the exam?
ZF: I have no idea. I think someone at the site said I was, but that would be a difficult thing to determine, and I suppose it wouldn't mean much even if I were. Doing things because you'll be "the youngest" is a bad inspiration, I think; doing them because you believe you can succeed or because you enjoy them is better. Going back to the previous topic - if you're serious about studying history, and especially about being published, you should be willing to accept criticism in whatever fashion it is presented to you. Age must necessarily be immaterial at that point if you hope to be taken seriously.

SA: What would you say is your dream job?
ZF: Any occupation where I can tell others about the historical topics I love and be in the company of those who share my interest. I'd particularly like to teach. One thing is for sure - I hope I never stop learning. I love to research.

SA: You do a lot of your own artwork when you write. How did you get the idea to start sketching to accompany your articles?
ZF: I've always enjoyed portrait sketching, and many friends suggested I use that to my advantage in my writings. When I was just beginning serious research on the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Assault several years ago, I read Kathy Georg Harrison's "Nothing But Glory," wherein the author included her own excellent sketches of key participants. I thought that really gave the piece a personal touch, so it kind of inspired me to do the same. Sketch art for me is a hobby, but it's a very convenient and enjoyable one.

SA: You lead the occasional battlefield tour. Would you say you prefer giving tours to writing?
ZF: Both are incredibly rewarding, I think. Writing and speaking both involve a great deal of research, which I enjoy to no end. Of course, I can amass more detail in the story when I write, but that venue also lacks the face-to-face interaction that makes battlefield tours remarkable. I'm thankful to have had ample opportunities for both. A historian must be able to argue his case effectively in writing and in person. It's satisfying to be part of a published piece, but it's also very rewarding to be on the battlefield and see firsthand that your point is getting through to someone. I've also made great friends in some truly wonderful people on tours, such as fellow Gettysburg aficionado Lew Gage and the late historian Keith Snipes.

SA: Who would you say has been most influential in your studies?
ZF: On a personal level, my family has provided great support and encouragement. I'd be remiss not to thank professionals such as Bob Krick, Gary Kross, Bob Maher, Dan Reigle, and a host of others for the opportunities and the guidance they've given me. I had the good fortune to learn from some excellent high school history teachers, especially my good friend, the authoritative Mr. Conry. He continues to teach me the historian's craft with a bluntness that only decades of insight can afford, and I'm looking forward to walking the fields of Waterloo and Ypres with him in a couple months. My very inspirational philosophy professor, Dr. Wattles, teaches me at every turn to seek the greater historical truth. As far as Civil War history is concerned, I'm a great admirer of the work of Dr. Gary Gallagher, especially his efforts to connect the battlefield to the home front. Several classics gripped me in my childhood, including the staples of any Civil War bookshelf - Catton, Freeman, and some well-known Gettysburg-specific classics such as Frank Haskell's narrative and George Stewart's "Pickett's Charge." I've also gained a great deal from reading other military history writers such as John Keegan, David Chandler, Mark Grimsley, and Victor Davis Hanson. I'll leave it there for now.

SA: This is a question that has plagued many for ages; Guelzo and Prokopowicz disagree on the answer. So I ask you, do you think Lincoln would have been able to dunk a basketball?
ZF: Let's just say I think he would have had a much better chance of success than Little Mac would have.

Pivot! Pivot!

Yesterday there was this... thing... in the square. I noticed an unusual backup in front of the train station (where I was working) when I left, and I looked towards the square eventually to see what was holding up traffic. And I saw this. What is it? I do not know. I know that it was large and rusted and tank-like. And that the truck carrying it wasn't able to make it all the way around. It was stuck in the square, taking up the whole area from York Street (where the truck part was) to Chambersburg Street (where the end of the thing was). People were getting out of their cars and leaving the shops to come out and get a look and snap a few pictures. Luckily I had my cell phone with me.