In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE CONTINUING WAR by Robert Dykstra IN NO FIELD MORE THAN IN THE STUDY OF THE CrVTL WAR ERA DOES THE academic scholar meet the general public in such a useful way. Often this confrontation is eye-to-eye at "round table" meetings held throughout die country, there being a real demand for autiioritative lecturers. More often it comes through the medium of die printed page, since despite an occasional notewordiy exception, die publishing historian is a history professor. And—to name only a few examples recendy brought to our attention—such scholarly products as Frank Klement's Copperheads in the Middle West, Richard C. Todd's Confederate Finance, and Kennedi Stampp's Indiana Politics During the Civil War are indeed being read beyond the sacred thickets of academe. All this comes to mind by virtue of a new little volume entided Will Success Spoil Jeff Davis? written by T. Lawrence Connelly ( McGrawHill , $3.95). Except for a good deal of refreshing iconoclasm toward things Confederate, togetiier widi several genuinely amusing chapter tides, Mr. Connelly's narrative has litde to recommend it unless you like your humor country style. (Samples: "While most Northerners wished to see Jeff Davis hang, die radicals wanted to tickle his feet as he swung." "The most famous diplomatic episode of the War was die Trent affair. A Confederate diplomat's liaison widi a Mrs. Trent") Well . . . but let's be fair. The hilarious illustrations by Campbell Grant are probably worth die price of the book. The dust jacket assures us that Mr. Connelly is chairman of the history department at Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina, and "is a frequent contributor to historical journals. . . ." Thus when the author starts sniping at formal scholarship some calculated return fire seems very much in order, since the pot shots come from the rear, so to speak. "Lord knows," Mr. Connelly hints waggishly, "what die reading public would do witiiout die highly specialized Civil War students diat die graduate mills grind out. Consider a few recent dissertations, which unfortunately are often published in book form. . . ." The "sole purpose" of die university press "is to publish die dull narratives of Ph.D.'s diat 95 96C I V I L WA R H I STO R Y would not receive consideration elsewhere." Scholarly composition, adds Mr. Connelly, "has its advantages. If he cannot write good prose, the writer can bury himself in footnotes." And so forth. Perhaps, like die Bill of Rights, the concept behind historical scholarship needs to be reasserted occasionally. The key words are Original Research, and they stand for the process involved in presenting new historical facts or interpretations of significance. Entertainment value alone, it goes without saying, is never enough. Now where would die Civil War be today witiiout diese twitted academic dissertations? From Fred A. Shannon's monumental Organization and Administration of the Union Army to Albert Castel's fine study of wartime Kansas, A Frontier State at War, the published Ph.D. diesis runs like reinforcing steel through the accumulated literary masonry that structures our knowledge of die 1861-1865 conflict. As every doctoral graduate knows, however, university press publication is not the sure thing Mr. Connelly suggests. The fact is that a definite prejudice against the dissertation—for no other reason than that it is a dissertation —has become the mie. Purely visceral attitudes like dus are most insidious when diey originate within die academic community—from university bookmen or the occasional renegade like Mr. Connelly. But they are also common in circles that like to tiiink of diemselves as comprising the "literate" or "informed" population stratum. Professional historians—who needs them? So scoffed a Harper's contributor a few years ago. The scoffer in this case was Helene Hanff, then "a television writer for the Hallmark 'Hall of Fame,' 'Ellery Queen,' and other popular story programs," according to an editorial blurb. Miss Hanff relieved herself of some allegedly whimsical experiences gained while completing a Hallmark TV "outline" on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. "You didn't need historians," she congratulated herself; ". . . you used die Congressional Record, transcripts of die Sedition trials, and odier original sources such as diaries and newspapers of...

pdf

Share