150th Commemoration - Home Sweet Home at Fort Snelling

We, as a human race, would like to think ourselves and our actions significant. We ascribe meaning and value to our actions and efforts. When one of us does something powerfully extraordinary, we note it, save it, clip out the newspaper headline, or give trophies and honor. We remember and honor our losses as well. Birthdays are a great example of this. We mark the date on our calendars to commemorate the delivery of a baby and to celebrate how that person has grown and what they have accomplished on that date. We gather and celebrate them. Even after their death, we celebrate their life even in our grief and memory. Commemoration, the celebration of beginnings, endings, life, struggle, death, or loss, is a powerful force in our social lives.

I bring up commemoration because I recently commemorated the end of the Civil War in a very unique way. This post is about the mustering out of the 2nd Minnesota reenacted and commemorated at Fort Snelling. The 2nd Minnesota had an impressive record, not as famous as the 1st Minnesota of Gettysburg, but perhaps more so. They defended Snodgrass Hill with Gen. George Thomas "The Rock of Chickamauga", stormed up and overran Missionary Ridge, fought through Atlanta and to the sea, up through the Carolinas, took the surrender of Johnston's army, and marched through the streets of Washington City in the Grand Review. Now they were coming home to where most of the veterans had mustered in and our job was to portray them. 

Unintentional posing by the sign

Shared from Friends of Fort Snelling

What drew me to this event was how unique it was. The event included arrival by paddle-wheel boat, marching to the fort, barrack life and displays, welcome home celebration meals, pay and final discharge from the army, and it was not a far drive for a 150th commemorative event. I registered early and through a fortuitous acquaintance I managed to secure a spot with Co. K, the unit designation for the campaigner group "the Hairy Nation Boys". The Hairy Nation typically does a first-person interpretation, so I had to create a backstory for myself for this event. It was my first time doing a solid first person impression for a weekend and I think I did well. I had an opportunity to meet some of the members of the Hairy Nation before we went to this event at a training march in April and that helped smooth the transition coming into a company without knowing anyone.

The weekend of the event, we carpooled to the event site. There we finished our
paperwork, were given our corps badges, and were given the location of which barracks rooms we were to occupy for the weekend. We made bedsacks (mattresses bags) beforehand that we stuffed with hay, rather than sleep on the hard and uneven floor. That was another thing that does not happen at every event: sleeping in buildings and mattresses. At the evening formation we practiced the parade-ground maneuver that we were to perform for the crowds tomorrow. Soon the mosquitoes and the sunlight were out and I went to bed, because the next morning was going to be an early start so we could get breakfast and our gear prepared for the boat trip and our grand entrance.

Boat ride! Preparing to disembark

Shared from Here

Here we see the recreated 2nd Minnesota Infantry marching to Fort Snelling. What a grand sight.
Posted by Historic Fort Snelling on Saturday, August 15, 2015

Our arrival at the dockside Saturday morning was exciting to ourselves and curious onlookers. Once aboard, we made our way down river enjoying the breeze, a cookie or two, and the pleasant conversation about what we will do once we are discharged. We arrived at the shoreline after some skillful maneuvering by the ship's pilot, the gangplank was lowered, and we carefully made our way into the interior shaded area. There we assembled, reformed, called roll, inspected arms, and got our one blank round for a firing demonstration. We marched up the steep incline with our martial music, took a break to collect our stragglers, and marched toward the gates of the fort and the cheering crowds. It was a emotional and moving sight to behold.

There we were 'speechified' and dismissed to the barracks and soon to the chow line. From there our act was boredom, anxiously waiting for pay and to go home. The next day was more formations for the crowd. We lined up for pay call and filled out paperwork regarding our final discharge. It was a surreal moment signing my name to sheet. We had to leave early so I was not part of the formal dismissal, which disappointed me, but the cool parts were already behind us.

While there are a number of ways to mark the end of the Civil War and the close of the 150th anniversary series, I felt this was a fitting end. When I held my salute at Appomattox Court House back in April, it was the end of a chapter in American history as another chapter quickly took its place. Too often we see the troops and the battles and the gore and we lose sight of what matters most of all to us. I think that is the personal stories of people living in their historical context. I think in seeing the war and large movements, we lose the individual soldier and their story.

Boat ride! Preparing to disembark

Shared from Here

It is because of these things that we commemorate. Real live breathing, dreaming, flawed people wanted to make their lives meaningful and so they commemorated their lives in to a shared understanding of their experience; in this case, we commemorated the individual soldiers coming home after long years of hardship, trial, and danger and their lives mattered to them, each other, and their families. We remember their lives in history as a whole, in things like regimental histories or in large battle, but the families keep the memories of their individual soldiers. Because if you examine, memory is a root word for commemorate; memory is essential to commemorations. We mark the years that have passed since then; the old veterans met and recollected, their families

Glad that the war is over, but seeing papa alive and well

means more to individuals

Shared with Historic Fort Snelling

heard their stories, and they carried on those traditions and stories in their own ways and passed them to their children, and so on. So when the Civil War Centennial anniversaries started back in the 60s, the stories of family members long gone and the impact of the Civil War, both good and bad, struck a chord in our collective understanding to commemorate the 100 years that had passed since then. That chord strike reverberates to today 150 years later and in all sorts of ways.

I loved this event because it was about regaining the story of the individual soldier; about people moving on in their lives. It was about people who had done some extraordinary things becoming citizens that created the rich fabric of our reintegrated nation. As the 150th anniversaries close, we choose to remember and commemorate the efforts, sacrifices, and lives of the soldiers who fought this war and to do them justice in our portrayal of them so that others can learn from them.

Parade - rest

Shared from Friends of Fort Snelling

Why are there no battle reenactments at NPS sites?

President Woodrow Wilson from Wikipedia

On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the act creating the National Park Service. Called the Organic Act, it stated the mission of the Service as "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."  

The balance, and many times it can be a struggle, is to weigh conserving the natural and historic objects with everything that entails and to provide for the enjoyment of those who visit them unimpaired. This struggle is what I will be looking at this month.

In the 1960s, the centennial of the Civil War began with a reenactment at the battle of Bull Run/Manassas on the battle field. Reenactments are not a new thing in American history; different groups had put on reenactments at various times before for different reasons and had wide varieties of historical accuracy associated with them. In general, they have become more sophisticated and more accurate and, unfortunately, more commercial. Historical accuracy in clothing standards was non-essential; it was the display that counted. Stories have come down through the ages about modifying sport coats and jeans and of firing shotguns and bb-guns. If clothing looked grey or blue, it passed (things have changed much since then, but I see some people's gear and wonder sometimes). Also, the events' attendees left a lot of trash and road ruts. Some questioned whether it was acceptable to play-fight where real men bled and died. For the reenactors' many misguided and thoughtless actions, the National Park Service banned all further reenactments from the National Parks and this rule is in effect today, regardless of what era of conflict that battle took place. The 100th anniversary of the Battle of Bull Run/Manassas was the last battle reenactment of the National Parks. Reenactments, however, continued on private property and some State Parks and, as mentioned, have become progressively better in terms of authenticity standards, litter removal, and environmental impact. 

Fifty years have passed since that rule was made and the 150th anniversary season has arrived. As a response to the many questions they get on a wide variety of topics, one of the questions was "Why are there no battle reenactments on National Park grounds?" To answer this question, the National Park System made a video that addressed that very question, and it is featured below...

I think I am in a unique position to be able to comment on this topic since I am a Living Historian who participates in battle reenactments and have worked for the National Parks in the past. I also consulted others who are in similar positions for their feedback as well. I also realize that this can be a hot point of contention for reenactors. Comments from this video on Youtube have been an outpouring of angry invectives toward the NPS, the makers of this, and the government in general. Here is a selection from the comment section:
"Essentially, you are calling reenactors dangerous, destructive, and disrespectful. I find YOU disrespectful."
"Ethics, my hind leg, just wimps in government get-ups."
"This is unbelievably insulting to reenactors of any era."
"Documented? Children picking up loose black powder? Reenactors shooting live rounds at each other? The NPS says they like living history interpretors [sic] helping but according to this video....I guess not."

On the other side, there were other comments that saw this issue differently....

"As a reenactor with a well known group. I totally respect and understand the policy!"
Reenactment has always been one horrible accident away from being shut down. The NPS is not run for reenactors. That said, the vast majority of reenactors and reenactments are very safe and not destructive or unsympathetic to those they portray." 
"I believe the NPS is correct in banning battle re-enactments....pointing weapons at other people or even in their general direction is bad policy and a fundamental safety violation. Its stupid people."
"There is no need for reenactments in the park system There are living history demonstrations who show how the weapons were fired and tell all about the battle and what the soldiers went through....Battlefields are not playgrounds for reenactors to pretend that they are living in the past."
And this can (and does) go on. I must admit there is an implied depreciating tone that this video has which does not put reenactors in a good light. I think I would like to make a distinction between terms Living Historian and Reenactor. I have mentioned in the past that I identify with the former rather than the latter because "I take this a bit more seriously". I wish to take a second to define this in a broad, general terms that are flawed and not perfect as a Living Historian is any individual of any time period or era who interprets themselves or their surroundings in costume or uniform. I am defining a Reenactor is a person who dresses in costume for a purpose, usually doing battle demonstrations with little interpretation. It isn't exact but it is a  working definition. 

Despite all this, I think this is good policy for a governmental entity to have, even though it means I will never do a battle reenactment on the actual soil of a real major battle. Here are some of my thoughts and opinions based on the video's 3 categories.
1) Ethics. You can't argue against the ethics of this. Real people lived, struggled, and died here on this spot that has been specifically chosen to be set apart as being that we as a society and culture want to protect and preserve. As a Living Historian, I have seen some dumb things done while 'dead' at a reenactment: games of Marco Polo, leaning up on an elbow to watch the battle like watching a TV at home, making chit chat, and having a joking conversation during 'Taps' which was played on a bugle at the end of a battle before 'Recall'. All of these are examples fly in the face of people who say that they reenact to preserve the memory, honor the dead, and 'do it just like they did it'. Living Historians and reenactors are a fun-loving bunch but we sometimes forget ourselves. It's like playing a kazoo in a requiem or playing paintball in a cemetery. If we mean to honor our fallen, then let's do it, and a battle reenactment may not be the best way to do so. If we feel strongly about reenacting on real battleground, some of the private battles and state parks have real battlefields that can have a battle reenacted on it because the governing bodies of those places are different. Also, the carnival-like feel of some reenactments that support the event seems a rude way to make money from carnage and the deaths of people who were fighting and dying for a cause in which they believed.

Climbing in Harpers Ferry "Mennen's Borated Talcum Toilet

Powder" from http://www.pbase.com/image/49162350

2) Safety. This has the potential to be a dangerous hobby. It always was and will always be. So is any other risk activity. Some of these risk activities take place in National Parks, like rock climbing, whitewater travel, and hiking in dangerous areas. True to governmental form, there are loads of training and paperwork and risk assessments for the Parks to do because perfectly rational human beings do dumb things. The Parks are simply making sure they minimize the amount of dumb things people do on national property. It is being over-protective? Probably. But it is probably worth doing. As was mentioned in the comment section on the Youtube video, all it takes is one person to ruin it for everyone else. As far as people go questioning the documentation of accidents at reenactments, they may not make the press (thank goodness!), but they do happen. I have been handed full powder (no projectile) cartridges from children and adults alike. A full 60 grains of powder can do a lot of damage, even without a projectile. I even had a friend hit with a wadded projectile from a pistol. Fortunately, he sustained no life threatening injuries, just received a massive welt, but it goes to show that these things happen and can have the potential to be worse. The National Parks stress safety in their firing demonstrations and the approved procedures must be followed. Generally, the black powder used by Living Historians in these types of demonstrations come from the National Parks themselves to ensure the integrity of each cartridge or cannon load. We had one guy in out unit who was renowned for using 90-120 grains of powder or more to make his loads louder. Several people had to talk with him about his habit and he has since toned it down, but it was a concern. Not to mention the other safety considerations of a battle reenactment like exploding caps, heat issues, dehydration and field accidents like sprained ankles and other similar injuries, all of which open the parks to legal actions by participants.

Even though an anniversary battle have a glimpse of the scope

of the battle, it is rarely personal.

 From http://maineatwar.bangordailynews.com/2013/09/19/

billy-yanks-and-johnny-rebs-camped-a-valley-apart-at-gettysburgs-150th/

3) Resource Protection. This is where the balance of use and protection I mentioned earlier comes into play. The parks are there to use for enjoyment of the visitor, but to the expense of the resource. I would venture that the average reenactor or Living Historian does not consider the environmental impact of their collective presence on a natural resource, intentional or unintentional. Heavy machinery, fire pits, crowds of reenactors and visitors, and their resulting trash and waste are probably the biggest impact to the resources. If you look at the grand spectacle of putting on an anniversary sized reenactment of the last 5 years there was a lot of environmental impact. Tractors hauling machinery, grandstands, booths, equipment, etc, compacting the soil or worse with rutting when the soil gets wet (and it always rains at a major reenactment). Fire is another concern for fear of a larger out-of-control fire that will damage the landscape and wildlife. While reenactors aren't prone to carelessness around fires, the risk remains with more that usual fire pits, fire from candles, and tobacco use. Protecting the landscape is important to the National Parks as well as protecting monuments, waysides, artifacts, as well as the natural environment. One point brought to my attention by a colleague is that larger parks lease land to farmers and a reenactment could interfere with that agreement between a local farmer and a NPS unit.

Another thing brought up was the scope and accuracy of the reenactments. I think if you got all the reenactors and Living Historians world-wide to come to Gettysburg for a big reenactment, we may get close to the numbers of soldiers present on the battlefield when it actually happened. Even if they followed the battle scenario, that plan may be modified to emphasize certain parts of one battle, like "Pickett's Charge" rather than smaller aspects such as "Spangler's Spring". Large anniversary battles also mean that the action often takes place at a considerable distance to the crowds in the paying grandstands, which makes a great spectacle but is far less personal or meaningful. These battles rarely do loudspeaker explanations of what is going on or why the battle is happening like it is. Further, battles themselves are not accurate with the sheer lack of any casualties in the first 5 minutes and a lemming-like wave of deaths toward the last 10 minutes of battle.

The crowd can get closer in interpretive

programs and ask questions, which is what I

like about interpretive programs.

So rather than trying to get accuracy and scope correct, the National Parks focus on smaller, specific programs that can be meaningfully interpreted. I have participated in a number of National Park interpretive programs and I really enjoyed them. Even the makers of this video are excited that Living History programs and demonstrations are conducted on their property and are enthusiastic about doing them! It is not like they don't want Living Historians, reenactors or interpreters to do demonstrations; they fully know the power and impact of a good costumed interpretive program can have on a visitor. They are interested in making a personal connection to their resources, rather than just an entertaining show. From what I have observed, there is very little to no crowd interpretation at large anniversary battle other than what is on their programs. The smaller ones are much better at interpretive themselves, but only if the volunteer Living Historians feel motivated to; see my blog post on what that is like. Each National Park wants to do interpret its own unit and make it accessible to the visitors and they use a variety of interpretive methods and programs to draw visitors; reenactment battle just is not a method they use.

The last point I wish to make is the financial cost of putting on a reenactment. There is a lot of time, planning, effort, and money that goes into a reenactment and even more so for a large anniversary battle. I realize that we will not likely have a humongous Civil War anniversary since the 150s are over but this case can be made for other conflicts anniversary battles as well. It is a consideration of whether having a large or small reenactment event is worthwhile. Even if it were allowed, the efforts put into making a reputable reenactment are difficult and expensive and come with all the problems I've already mentioned and probably a few I have overlooked. Reenactors want amenities: access to food vendors, firewood, straw for bedding, and powder reimbursement for cannon crews, but the event needs portable toilets, seating, shade, an emergency response team, parking, and event logistics and flow for not only reenactors but visitors as well. The National Parks cannot sustain these expenses, not even for anniversaries, because the government budget continues to underfund the National Park Service. Parks that are approved to open are being postponed, maintenance is backlogged for want of funds, and parks have to do increasingly more with decreasingly less each year die to budget cuts. There has been a 12% decrease in total budget for the NPS in the last 5 years, a reduction of $364 million, according to the National Park Conservation Association, an advocacy group for the NPS. In view of the decreasing operating budget of the National Park and the expense of putting on a reenactment of a decent size with all the problems mentioned and all the potential things that could go wrong, the National Parks simply have no choice but to stick to this policy for the time being.

NPS logo from their website

Those are some of the reasons I think this policy is good. Not great, but good. I am sure I am missing a few points. I am also sure I will be getting comments like "How dare you call yourself a reenactor and support the Parks on this policy" and "You are just sucking up to them" and "You are a sell-out traitor". On the other side, I think the National Parks should revisit and reconsider this policy again. The policy was enacted in the 1960s as a reaction to poor planning on everyone's part and much has changed in awareness on environmental impact and safety since then. I think if it is well done, a battle reenactment could be another interpretive tool in the NPS "tool-box" that helps people connect to the resource that they are trying to protect, so long as there is an interpretive aspect to it, rather than just a show. 

When I had originally thought of this topic, I intended a more balanced view of for-and-against but after looking into the topic and doing research I changed my mind about the policy. A reenactment on Park grounds needs to be worthwhile from the Park's perspective as a money making event or an education experience. If it is a money making event, then what are the moral and ethical questions about making money from a military conflict? Will it be profitable or would the expense be paid off after all accounts are settled? If it is an education experience, how can it be an experience that justifies the expense, the maintenance, environmental, and safety concerns? From a Living Historian perspective, why do we need to reenact on the exact grounds in the first place? The power of place is important but is it required? Keep in mind that "it would be cool" is not going to convince officials. If it is to 'honor the fallen', the question will be asked,"Are there other ways to honor the fallen that don't involve changing government policy?" The Park system does not exist as an exclusive playground for weekend warrior reenactors. It is their turf and their rules. In the long run, I think there is room for open discussion about having a reenactment in the Parks, but I do not think that the policy banning such events will change very soon.

The Long Road to Appomattox: 150th anniversary of the surrendering of Lee's troops

 For the 150^th anniversary of the assassination and death of Abraham Lincoln, I present to my recent experience at the 150^th anniversary of the surrender of General Lee's troops at Appomattox Court House....

It was the morning of April 9^th, the day Lee surrendered 150 years ago, when I started my journey east. Weather delayed the flights all day. It could be worse; I could be a surviving Confederate soldier, hunted, hungry, and struggling with the realization this morning that the last four years of hardship were coming to a miserable end. The destination for my flights was Richmond, for the former capital of the Confederacy that was abandoned and still smoldering at the time of the surrender. There waited my father.

The gallant men of the 28th Mass.

I fell-in with my dad’s unit, the 28^th Mass. Co. B, US Volunteers. It has been over ten years since I last fell in with them, at the 140th anniversary Cedar Creek in 2004. This is a dad-n-lad thing for us. Some fathers and sons have camping, fishing, hunting, or cars. We have Living History. Sometimes when we get together that is all we talk about. We both started at the same time and have included other family members such as my brother and my cousin and even my sister.

Fridays are usually setting up days. The event had to make due for the weather and bad dirt roads, not much different than the armies during the Civil War but havoc for pedestrians and drivers alike today. Our camp was at the end of the road, second farthest from everything and made decisions like wandering down to Sutler Row a daunting time consuming task. I met my dad’s unit, but I didn’t recognize any of them from my time before. My dad’s group is your average slightly better than mainstream unit, mostly older with a few younger guys, a loud mouth or two, and a Jonah (a term for “that guy” everyone wishes was not present). We get on well enough and there was no drama. The fire-pit conversations were lively, we sang songs, and the craic was great. After hours around the fire are often the best part of this hobby.

The 'optional' battle from the crowd; the Confederates

right company comes on to line

Saturday morning held several changes; indeed the plan changed every hour or so. The battles were held on some lovely green rolling hills. The fight itself was like many I have been in before, which this one was an attack by the Confederates and and brief stand up fight, followed by repeated flank maneuvers to box them in and drive them back. The boxing-in maneuvers meant we were constantly “dressing the line” to the left. The second battle was optional and I took it to go peruse the Sutler’s Row. A sutler was a vendor who sold goods to soldiers of a particular unit that the government did not provide like canned goods or candy like the PX today; the modern equivalent sutlers sell whatever they want. Most sell a little bit of everything: uniforms, leather gear, tinware, accessories, tents, books, hats, and toys for kids. Some specialize in hats or women’s clothing.

The Parole line

One of the highlights that attracted this event was Living Historian-led scenarios of Confederate surrender. The US Volunteer organization prepared a weapon surrender ceremony, guards for the gear, a parole station for the Confederate soldiers to sign paperwork that would mean they could go home without further obstruction, and provided some food such as ground coffee, hard crackers, and potatoes. This scenario was why I came, to see it end. What should have been a bang was more of a pop, but it was still pretty neat to see that and be a part of it.

The climatic payoff was on Sunday. Not much

 was going on at the event site but the USV was

Troops receiving food

invited to participate at the surrendering of the troops at the Appomattox Court House National Park. It was going to be a very busy day to make that happen. We marched down to a back gate of the event,  were loaded onto six tour buses, and were dropped off at the site. We formed and marched to the end of the Richmond stage coach line, supposedly the direction the Union troops came from to accept the surrendering Confederates. As we swung into town I was seized by a sudden gravity of the moment when I recognized the McClain house, the site of where Generals Grant and Lee had met to sign the formal surrender and it filled me that this was happening and I was a part of it.

Marching to Appomattox Court House

It was eerily quiet, the troops and their marching, the crowds and their watching, no cheers, no encouragement, no narrator or announcer, just the simple report of the lone drum sounding the cadence. The combined Union troops lined the road in battle lines faced in. The command of the Confederate officers were the only sounds. As they approached, the command was given to salute.

“Halt! Front!” The column of grey and brown troops faced us. One fellow looked despondent, the rest sullen.

“Stack arms!” With quiet precision they formed their stacks of rifles, the band played “Auld Lang Syne” and a few other hymns. The command came for them to leave their equipment, slung on the bayonets or dropped beneath the rifles and the flag bearer draped their battle banners over the men so each man could touch their flag before furling and placing them on the stacks. One flag was a rough branch with strips of torn flag cloth which suggested that the soldiers ripped up the flag to keep pieces as mementos or to destroy it rather than surrender t. The man beside me is crying and I felt like it too.

The surrendering troops at Appomattox

Court House National Park

“Right face!” The troops step into the flank.

“Forward March!” and like that, they were gone. A lone straggling Confederate with a scrap of parole paper wandered behind them, numb with shock, fatigue, or hunger I know not which. Perhaps he was a symbol of the South; unsure and uncertain of where to go or what to do next. The next commands were for us. We right faced ourselves and marched away. That was it. Everything else after that was inconsequential. It was essentially boarding buses, tearing down camp, saying goodbye to comrades, and driving away.

I have wondered from time to time,"Why do I do Civil War Living History? What compels me to study this time period more than others?” To be honest, I don’t have a definitive answer. I think that because it was so fierce, so innovative, so dramatic, and so impacting. To say that it is simply 'fun' does not quite satisfy me personally. It is far deeper, but I don’t know exactly from where it comes from. To be there at the 150^th anniversary of the de facto ending War Between the States had profound meaning for me as a person who has spent considerable amount of time talking about it, living it, and researching it. One of the concepts and interpretive assets an interpreter has is to use the Power of Place. Explaining what happened right here, on this very spot where history was made, means so much more and has a greater impact than explaining exactly the same thing elsewhere. We identify with the people in history in the location because we are standing where they stood while things changed. We see the lay of the land, similar surroundings, and think, “What was it like to be here when this happened; was this what it was like?” To be

Ryan at the surrender

there for the 150^th anniversary only a few days after the exact event happened creates a powerful interpretive opportunity. We coupled being in the right place, at about the right time, with a display that set the mood for what it may have looked like and hopefully created a lasting impact on the visitors who witnessed it. I know that it has made an impact on me, and the crying fellow beside me in the battle line. He told me that he had waited 25 years for this. It will definitely part of my lifetime milestones, part of my career as a historical interpreter, and part of wild and wonderful stories I tell.

This summer I am hoping to participate in another 150^th anniversary event at Ft. Snelling in Minnesota. No battles, just a simple mustering out of troops who had gone to war and had come home for good and a discussion about the importance of commemoration. So stay tuned for that in an upcoming post this later summer!

Dealing with the public, part 1. Interpretive Equation

As a historical interpreter, you deal with the public. A lot. Or you should anyways. I have been a Civil War Living Historian for a long time and I find it hard that some of my comrades simply don't want to interact with the public. They will answer questions, sure, but not many are going to get up off their chair and go to talk to a small family unit looking sheepishly at a rifle stack. It is like they are there to camp while the public is there to stare at the 'animals' at the 'zoo'. As mentioned in a previous post, I tend to take my time as a Living Historian seriously enough to see that value of interacting with the public. They want to know more, but sometimes it needs some personal engagement to get them to vocalize in spite of the shyness. If no one will tell them, how will they know? My comrades don't stir, they're "off duty" but I get up and go over to them.



Ryan in tactical position to meet curious visitors who want to know more about rifles.

Go-Go-Gadget Interpretive Equation.



The Interpretive Equation, for the uninitiated but delightfully curious, is a method of interaction with the visiting public. In its long form, it is Knowledge of Audience plus Knowledge of Resource taken together multiplied by Appropriate Techniques, which yields an Interpretive Opportunity. The formulaic notation is (KA + KR) X AT = IO. Starting up to them I'm gathering knowledge of the audience; it appears to be a nuclear family of father, mother, two young sons, and baby in a stroller. The boys are probably most interested in the guns and the bayonets, like most little boys. It is important to note that you shouldn't "dumb it down" for the children, but make it understandable for them. The father may be too. While in transit to their location he ask the boys what the pointy thing on the end is used for; this indicates that he has a level of knowledge of the resource as well. His physique suggests he is not former military, so maybe a war buff. Mother isn't too interested and neither is the baby in the stroller. My guess is that I will probably be talking to the boys mostly. Based on what I observe, that is my basis for the knowledge of the audience I will be working with. If anyone else wanders up to listen to me talk will have to be evaluated on the fly.


I also have knowledge of the resource, in this case, they are looking at the rifle. I've put together a rifle stack for years. I know what makes them stand or fall and which rifle to pick up to demonstrate for the public. I've handled these weapons for years. Re-enactors generally either get a 1861 Springfield rifled musket reproduction or a 1853 Enfield rifled musket. Maybe a handful of 1855 or 1863 Springfields. I have a general idea of effective and maximum ranges, rates of fire, differences, etc. That is my starting point.

Appropriate Techniques can by tricky. I should probably hook them in with what they want. They either want to talk about the rifle or the bayonet based on previous experiences with visitors. Holding the rifle will probably be the highlight. That is an example of participation. Using props is another technique but the opportunity involves a prop so I already have that going for me, although first I should probably demonstrate the rifle; pick it up myself and show the moving parts. They probably won't be interested in a story about the rifles right away. Maybe after a while tell the stories about jamming ball after ball down the muzzle without firing in terror and panic during battle. Using song is probably not appropriate since I don't know any songs about the rifle, it would be awkward, and I don't sing well by myself. But that leads to humor. Humor is great, it relaxes both parties and you can share in something equally. I may make a quip about "boys and their toys" to the mother to bring her in on this too. KA + KN x AT (techniques will likely include prop, demonstration, participation, story).


I greet them and get right to the point. "Would you like to know more about the rifles?" Both boys are excited and affirmative. So I get to a stack of rifles and pick the leaning rifle up. I give it a glance. "This is the 1861 Springfield rifle, one of the many rifles made in the north from the armory in Springfield, Massachusetts." I hold out the rifle for the boys to see first, then the father. But the mother kind of moves in too, so I might not have to work so hard on her after all. "A soldier had to learn to fight with this rifle and learn how carry it." I'm getting ready to talk about how heavy it is and get the boys to feel its weight but the younger boy interrupts.


"What's that?" the older boy asks. He is pointing to the bayonet.


"Ah yes, the bayonet. Boys and their toys, eh?" The wife smirks. "The bayonet is a thrusting blade socketed onto the end of the rifle for use in hand to hand combat. Kind of like a spear." "Cool!" exclaims the older boy, probably louder than necessary. He pretends to stab his brother with his invisible rifle. His father admonished him to knock it off and be quiet. "The man is trying to tell you about it." "Well, there isn't much more to tell about the bayonet. The rifle has a pretty long effective range to it. Previous weapons didn't have that range and took some time to load. So they had to fight closer and massed together to shoot a volley at the enemy, who was also massed the same way. That way they could hit each other. But since it took so long to load and they were so close, the enemy could rush upon them before they could reload, so the bayonet was necessary. But remember now the rifle has a greater effective range. Now they can engage the enemy at a greater distance. If the enemy tried to rush them at 500 yards, we could be reloaded before they made it to us and we would have point blank fire."


"So why did they still have them?" asks the wife. She is getting involved. Good.

"They had them because the tactics hadn't caught up with the weapon technology yet. If you are used to fighting at 100 yards and maybe taking some casualties; suddenly 100 yards is next to murder with a rifle, which can fire farther more effectively. There was some hand to hand use with the bayonet but it was very rare. But it makes a pretty handy tool." Time to do some more demonstrations. I demonstrate the bayonet as a candle holder, a tent stake, a digging tool, a roasting spit, and as a handle on a field modified pan for cooking over a fire.

Time to bring it back to the rifle itself.


"Since I took some time talking about the bayonet, let's talk more about the rifle. Would you like to see how heavy it is?" Then they got really excited. I hand the rifle muzzle up to the older boy but keep my hand on the rifle. Our association created rules about the public handling weaponry so that they aren't disrespectful or dangerous with the rifle, but it is a good rule to have anyway. I keep just enough control of the rifle to be able to take control of it should something happen, but the child is holding the weight. "Ugh! That's so heavy!" Little brother's turn. He can barely lift it and hands it back to me. Dad's turn, he brings it to a ready position but I still have my hand on it, just to the side so he can feel it. He takes aim but I gently admonish him to elevate his rifle at a high angle as I nudge the rifle into the air. There are small clumps of visitors around, and no need to make people nearby concerned that it might be loaded. He hands it back to me, satisfied. I offer to the wife and she gives it a heft.


 Since I have the rifle back, I demonstrate the loading procedure step by step, feigning a cartridge and a cap. Time to throw in some questioning: "Is that a lot of steps to remember?"


“Yes.”


 "Do you think you could remember to all of them safely and correctly in battle?"


 "I could!" exclaimed the older boy; the younger one wasn't too sure.


"There are written accounts of soldiers getting so worked up and excited during battle that they skip steps. I heard of a story at Gettysburg where they found a rifle with 6 bullets [I know they aren't bullets per se, but I am working with the public with something they would understand] jammed in there one on top of the other! What would you do if that was you?" My interpretive question designed to provoke thoughtful responses from the visitors...


Interpreting to students at Harpers
Ferry National Historical Park

"Shoot it!" came the response from the older boy; the younger one wasn't too sure again.

Oh well, maybe a little too young.


"Well, if you come back in a few years maybe we could put you in a uniform and try firing the rifle sometime like I do here at this reenactment."


"Yeah, wouldn't that be great, son?" Said the father, tousling his son's hair. "Well, it was good talking to you." I guess he is wrapping it up for me. "Where is the best spot to watch the next battle?" I give him my best guess of where that might be and wish him and his family a good day.



This example of the interpretive equation illustrates one of countless variable contacts with the public. It wasn't based on a single actual incident, but composites of encounters that I have had with people visiting. It just takes some motivation, knowledge of the resources you have, best figuring for your audience, and using what it takes to make that connection using the techniques that you have learned. It really doesn't take formal training, but the formal training helped clarify what I did in order to make the best of working with the public.