By John A. Miller

As a historical site relating to the American Civil War, or a historical site that gives Civil War programming, are you giving the misconception of truthfully educating the public? The reason I ask is because I seen historical sites put on reenactments where no battles were even fought, doing so under the guise that they are really educating the public about the Civil War. They advertise a Civil War encampment where they ask members of the public to come out and learn how Civil War soldiers lived, cooked and then watch a battle reenactment. Newspapers come out and take pictures of the camps filled with big A-frame tents and huge wall tents and publish those photographs as if it were an authentic Civil War experience. We’re going to break all of this down from what is historical fact and what is known as a reenactorism.

Once in a while I drive by the National Wax Museum in Gettysburg and I see all of the reenactors with what is dubbed as a “city of canvas.” The public interacts with the reenactors, and while they do know a great bit about the Battle of Gettysburg or the particular unit they portray, they are not always the most authentic unit and whether they realize it or not, they are giving a major illusion of misconception and selling it to people as historical fact. “This is a Civil War period tent that soldiers slept in.” Wow, if all soldiers had tents, then they didn't have it so bad. The truth is that A-frame tents were used in a garrison situation, which was not the case in any of the three campaigns that took place in our area, the Tri-State. I am thankful that many of my participants often ask why I do not have a tent set up as part of my display. I can then educate them on the misconception about tents and all soldiers having them.

You see it at the Gettysburg reenactment. Hundreds of tents set up in a company street. Reenactors cooking over fire and hanging out under the company fly which is attached to an A-frame or wall tent. When you look at the first hand accounts of the average Confederate soldier, you’ll quickly realize that they did not carry these tents. Once marching northward, soldiers were required to carry only the absolute necessities while on a long hard march. Quartermaster and the wagon trains were often lagging miles behind. The more the soldier carried, the heavier it would get, and the more tired they would become. Soldiers learned very quickly to loose the items that they really didn’t need. Toward evening when the soldiers were ordered to rest, most of them just dropped to the ground and fell asleep. If any tents were issued to Confederate soldiers it came in the form of what is called a fly. From recent research there appears to be something along the lines of a Confederate shelter half that was issued. Wayne Hutzell is researching that topic as we speak.

The Union army was similar, however during the four years of the war, each Union soldier was issued what is called a shelter half. One Union soldier paired up with another in order to form a tent. Once the tent was formed, then the ground cloth or gum blanket went down and the blankets went on top unless it was foul weather. Prior to the Battle of Gettysburg and their follow up to Lee’s movements into Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union army issued light marching orders to the soldiers. This required a soldier to carry only the necessary items they needed. This could be one blanket, ground cloth or shelter half wrapped around them in the form a roll. With a little bit of simple planning, soldiers in messes could each carry the things that they needed with each one carrying about the same size load. One soldier of the mess would carry a blanket while the other a ground cloth. Or their knapsacks were loaded very lightly. The First Corps at Emmitsburg, Maryland were ordered to drop their knapsacks and march forward to Marsh Creek. The Eleventh Corps was also issued the same order on July 1st.

So why all of the A-frame tents at a reenactment if the average Civil War soldier was not using them? That is a great question and I wish I had a better answer. When you compare a mainstream living history to that of an authentic campaigner event, the mainstream event has more of a visual appeal for spectators and it is a "camp of convenience" for reenactors. It looks real, even though the camp is not how it would have appeared historically. The downside to this is that the spectator, interacting with the reenactor is being sold on the idea that this “camp of convenience” is a garrison camp and that is really how they lived during the Civil War. I have seen participants sneak a peak inside of an unmanned tent and watched the disappointment on their faces as they see coolers, sleeping bags and many other modern conveniences. At encampments like these, I have seen both sides of the spectrum: spectators laughing at these camps when they walk away, knowing how incorrect they are, and unfortunately, on the other side, parents telling their children that this was how soldiers lived during the Civil War.

The main cause to this misconception is the fact that historical research in this area is very relaxed. I think to the old timer, he knows they are not portraying the camp correctly, but they choose to do so by their own decision. As newer reenactors come into the hobby, they see what is around them and they too fall victim to the misconception as they buy their uniform, equipment, and tent. Where as the authentic living historians are smaller in number, and can present several programs that are very educational. The historical site needs to ask their selves one question: Would you rather have quantity or would you rather have quality?

The spectators that visit an authentic living history, can see tons of things without the canvas, all being displayed and all are documented to the time period being portrayed. I feel that you as a spectator, see more once the big tents are no longer blocking the view. These authentic events provide a substantial amount of education, not just with the camps themselves, but the living historian as well, from his uniform to his abilities to survive with the absolute minimum. Their haversacks are full of period food rations, which, in itself seems to be missing from mainstream living history. The spectator can gain so much from these authentic living histories without having worries of being sold on the reenactorism that is presented as being fact. Tents were used but only when the scenario and time period is appropriate.

The living historian really deserves to be given a great deal of credit. The type of programs they provide are based solely upon research, from their presentations, appearance, and attitudes to their drill, and interpretational skills. A reenactment may draw in hundreds of people, and for most sites, this is part of their yearly budget, but there are ways around that. As the historical site, you can determine and set forth a set of standards or programming that will help make your event not only enjoyable for the public, but one which can also be used as an educational tool.

In this hobby, you have mainstream reenactors and then you have progressive/hardcore living historians. When you get the two together in the end, one is authentic and one is not; one has a larger following than the other; one is researched based who educates the public and one needs to be educated. With all of this knowledge, which groups are you bringing into your site and which groups do you prefer?