Good thing that BRAB didn't wadd up a lead ball inside the barrel. Me thinks that she sould stick with plinking Barney with her trusty .22 LR,
Boq
Good thing that BRAB didn't wadd up a lead ball inside the barrel. Me thinks that she sould stick with plinking Barney with her trusty .22 LR,
Boq
18 Comments
Blogads Milhive
Advertise on Military Blogs!
Blogads Gunhive
Advertise on Castle Argghhh!
Blog advertising is good for you (and us)!
Sabrina Chase - our favorite author!
Project Valour - IT
Providing voice-activated laptops, Physical Therapy Wii's, and GPS devices to wounded soldiers - 2,700 and counting! Click the graphic above for more information.
Hosting Matters - indeed it does!
© Original Content 2003-2011 John Donovan
All rights reserved. © other material retained by owners and used by permission or excerpted under "Fair Use"
All rights reserved. © other material retained by owners and used by permission or excerpted under "Fair Use"
My incredible sense of fashion obviously deserted me with that outfit.
Where DO you find these things, Boq?
Um. What's a VPL?
"Verifiable Panty Line."
I hate these videos. It shows exactly why the really good reenactment unit have strict safety precautions and training programs. Many NPS folks are simply NOT inclined to pay more than lip service to the rules in place, especially for misfires.
I also have a real hard time with women portraying men in these programs. Women passing themselves off as men did everything in their power to APPEAR as men, because if they were discovered, they were mustered out and sent away. Although historians often cite the number of women in the ranks of ACW units as more than 870, I have yet to see the source of that citation, other than another author. No study, no record, etc, is ever offered. Even if true, as a proportion of those who served, it is an insignificant number. 870+ out of more than 4 million?
IF parks and battlefields and museums and other places are to use reenactors, docents, or whatever you want to call them, then they have an obligation to not only have them wel-trained, but well clothed and equipped, and, to date, that has been the exception rather than the rule.
That's my morning vent on the pet-peeve issue.
IOW, the writer had no justification or evidence, she just felt that there *had* to be more than four hundred.
Re women reenactors - I believe that more than 800 women managed to draw pensikons or other benefits after the War Against Southern Independence from their time in the ranks. And not all were discharged when found out. One woman rose to command an artillery section in the CSA, she was faound out, about to be discharged, and the men unde her said "Heck no! She does a bettter job than most of the other officers, she goes and we go." At that time, unlike now, if a person dressed as a man, and was not quite obviously a woman, then, they were acccepted as a man. Now we are used to women dressing in mens clothing. I'd have to redo a lot of research, the motherboard on my laptop suddenly died, and all my information on the subject is on that.
This is kind of like the people who say that blacks were not in the ranks of the CS armies. They were there since they had been in state militia and you can find refernece to them in writings of the US Sanitary Commission and Fredrick Douglas, just for starters, as well as letters from Union soldiers.
The majority of them were for service as nurses in the field hospitals, but the ones who received pensions for serving in combat were *specifically* recognized for having done so. Nobody's denying that women served in combat -- just not in the numbers cited.
Joe,
My point is that the number of women reenactors who can pass themselves off as men can likely be counted on one hand. Most of them could care less about their impressions. Of course, there are any number of men that have trouble passing themselves off as soldiers too, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Vis-a-vis blacks in Confederate ranks. Oh yes, you have no argument from me. There were thousands who served as soldiers, ambulance corps, etc, and NOT as laborers, servants, etc. Historians simply don't want to address that issue, nor the issue of thousands of free-blacks in the South who also owned slaves. It goes against the official narrative, regardless of the reliable sources such as US Census data, etc.
The big problemI have is that using an identifiable woman as a soldier in a presentation to these young kids gives them a false impression about history. The mission of these historical sites is the preservation of history, and passing that information along to future generations. Spending money on CORRECTLY reproduced items, and hiring and properly training folks to portray the soldiers of these periods is every bit as important as funds spent on other projects. Either that, or stop doing these programs.
Respects,
But the answer to the question is that you lift the flap, then RLH...
There is no denying that many served as waggoners, laborers, servants, and indeed possibly some picked up arms and fought. To make a leap to hundreds or possibly thousands in the ranks is denying all evidence to the contrary.
And if there were this many black men serving, why was there such a debate in '64 and '65 when Cleburn and others suggested using this available pool of manpower? Why didn't they say, "wow we've got x negros in the ranks already, adding y slaves isn't that big a deal."
As to the video, she didn't follow NPS mandated mis-fire proceedure. Got what she deserved. Be nice if there was a man to do the program, but some sites don't have that luxury and if she gave a caveat at the beginning of her presentation to that effect, I don't see a problem. The lack of safety with the matchlock is much more serious.