Long & Proud Tradition

[tbw]

I welcome those who are of this field to come here and tell us of their experiences and roles. I would like to greatly expand this section of The Custer Files and make it like a 2nd home to those who enjoy not just the performances of Custer's Last Stand but of the Civil War and other famous events as well.

There are those today who profess knowledge of Samuel Clemens and quote chapter and verse about his prose and what he meant. He was one of my relatives, as was William Clark and General George Roger's Clark, the former of Lewis and Clark fame, the latter a famous General in the Revolutionary War, both Great, great, great, great Uncles. There are of course others too tedeous to mention here. So I am profoundly interested in many venues where reeinactments and period history are concerned. My family history does extend back to Scotland, Wales, England and Norway, so there too is a long rich tradition in those areas of interest as well.

There is a tendency today to place a burden upon modern acting, those who to some think 'shine' over others, and in doing so denigrate those who in this field deserve a richer more fuller expression of our gratitude for their dedication of their time and effort in 'living history' by demonstrating to us their knowledge, skills and abilities in their field, which history and time has so granted them the perfect right to do so.

Those who have long since passed, those like Twain, the Clark brothers, Lincoln, Lee, Grant and even Custer would be honored by your dedication and the performances you provide to an eager public wanting to learn, to know. Unlike the movies on tv, one can attend in person, and feel the aura, the sense and thrill and excitement of it all. Not to down the sense of any one movie, for theirs too is of great entertainment value and also helps us to understand and learn.

Some have chastized you for your looks, oh, that I know, they've chastized you for your period dress and the list goes on and on. But for those who love this field of work and the dedication that they place upon their service to it, theirs is no finer example of dedicating onself to those historical events that one cherishes in their hearts and minds. And this singular dedication brings a finer accuracy to the performance than anyone would ever believe.

It takes great knowledge of history, skill with the articles you use and abilites in all that you do and what you do, especially military history. It takes an artistic discipline and an academic insight most simply cannot imagine. You devotion to realism and the accuracy you bring to the presentations speak for themselves. Those in the field of 'living history' have unspeakable knowledge, skills and ablilites when it comes to their performances. They have to know all the small details that most who merely read a book or watch a movie could never fathom. And for those who reenact or do 'living history' performances, whether its at the LBH or elsewhere, I applaud your efforts, now and forever.

[melani]

Well, gee, thanks. I'm up to about seven time periods now, and I'm lucky I know what day it is. I've got more costumes than regular clothes. And yes, it's largely because I like to play dress-up. I dress up in this particular fashion because I like history more than, say, science fiction--I've never really had a desire to be a Klingon, but I have friends who do. Our new commanding officer in the Confederate artillery also does Vietnam and some weird sci-fi venue, where he wears a brown trench coat, among other things. (Any of you guys ever see Firefly? That's sci-fi I can relate to!) I do 1588 (Renaissance), 1787 (tall ship Lady Washington) 1812 (privateer Lynx, when I can manage to get on board), 1860 (Dickens Christmas Faire), 1863 (Confederate artillery), 1901 (San Francisco Maritime NHP), and 1876, (well, sorta--costumed trail ride last year). My friend Debbie and I stopped by a mountain man rendezvous reenactment in Wyoming on our way home from LBH last year, and before we knew it, they were recruiting us for that, but we'll see what happens. My Confederate first sgt. does mountain man here in California, as well as Renaissance and English Civil War. She much prefers events where she can bring her cannons. That's another perk of Civil War reenacting--I never had any idea how much fun it is to fire a cannon until I tried it. Best of all with no projectile, so nobody really dies.

There are advantages besides just getting to amass a ton of cool gear--I have noticed that reenactors really like "stuff." (My new CO is just married and living in a downtown condo with wife and cat, and they are actually storing gear in the bathtub. He may have to move. His wife tolerates CW, but really likes medieval.) I have now ridden parts of Reno and Custer's routes in a wool period uniform. While I was conscious of the fact that we had weather about 15-20 degrees cooler than in 1876, it was still pretty bleeping hot, and I now have a real personal idea of how it must have felt, and how it probably added to the challenges for the soldiers. The Indians, of course, were dressed rather more sensibly for the occasion. And a number of people who have worn them have pointed out that it's pretty hard to run in cavalry boots. No kidding.

So now we come to the issue of cross-dressing (and I don't mean Indians in uniform). My first sgt. has pretty much given up calling herself "Jake" instead of Jane, her actual name, since she began researching the subject. So far there have been about 400 documented women in uniform during the Civil War, and that's just the ones that got found out. There was a woman in uniform found among the dead after Pickett's Charge. Sgt. Jane's personal favorite is Lady Rebel, by Patty and George Beal, which documents a Confederate artillerist named Jane Perkins, who was with a Danville battery. She was a schoolteacher in Danville, and must have been pretty well-known. She enlisted along with her brother in 1861, before the Confederacy was even desperate. I have often imagined the scene: "Hi, Jane, what do you want, and how come you're wearing your brother's clothes?" "I want to join up. And don't call me Jane." "Oh. Okay, what shall we call you?" She must have been recognized.

I think the success of a disguise must have largely a matter of expectation--if it wears pants, it must be a guy. Here's one of my favorites:



Frances Clayton enlisted with her husband in a Minnesota regiment, was wounded (husband killed) at Stones River, discovered, and sent home. Prior to that she was considered "a good fighting man." What gets me here is that as a female, she looks perfectly dreadful, but in uniform, she looks a lot like one of our park rangers, and nobody would ever mistake Ranger Christine for a guy.

It's been observed that many cross-dressing reenactors don't look much like guys, and that's certainly true. Our club (NCWA) says that women must be able to fool people at 30 feet. Generally the audience is much farther away than that, and when we talk face-to-face between battles, it gives us an opportunity to bring up the subject of women in the ranks.

Of course, there was only one documented cross-dresser in the 7th. I have often thought of playing Mrs. Nash and REALLY confusing the issue! ;D

[tbw]

Melani,

Personally, I don't see what all the hullabaloo is all about. If it was a documented part of history, and we all know that it was. Then why would anyone have a "hangup" with someone performing the part?

Of course just as many males most likely cross-dressed to escape doing their honored duty as did those women who wanted to help and crossed dressed to do what those who were "found out" did.

It of course, would be very interesting to know of the males, who in the course of history did do this, of which I am sure there were some. At this point in time, I recollect that it did occur, but cannot recollect a single occurrance.

While you emphasize the female perspective of this "cross-dressing" and perhaps today's bias against it. I for one fail to see the difference in females today who put on jeans, a shirt and sally forth into the world and are perfectly comfortable with it. Is this not "cross-dressing"? And if it's not, then by what standard, what measure would or should someone's bias say that any male who put on a skirt and a blouse, or for that matter a dress and sallied forth should be judged any better or any worse for doing so?

The difference as I see it is what was "historically" done. And what one is trying to re-inact or perform within that historical context. And what today's bias says is right or wrong about it should be a moot point, should not be considered or thought of as wrong to the history that was. And anyone who diasagree's with this, which most likely would be 'male', should take up his skirt and do what we know was historically done and perform in front of hundreds if not thousands, his to impart of history's past, for the sake of historical preservation, for the sake of the art, and for the dignity and honor of the profession, only then can one appreciate what you do.

[melani]

Well, here in the Bay Area, there are quite a few guys in dresses! ;D Not to mention the popularity of Utilikilts--and regular kilts, for that matter. But I rather doubt that there were a lot of guys pretending to be women to get out of the Civil War. There has always been more of a prejudice against guys wearing skirts than against women wearing pants. Case in point--Noonan and Mrs. Nash.

In a side note--there was a New York Scottish regiment who wore kilts at 1st Manassas--the only time they did that. It really wasn't too practical, and the other guys laughed.

The problem some hardcore reenactors have with women cross-dressing is that they think there were no women fighting in the Civil War, and that is why some reenactor units don't allow it. The National Park Service is required to allow it in reenactments on Park Service land, ever since something called the Antietam Lawsuit, in the '80's. A woman named Lauren Cook was thrown out of the Antietam reenactment for dressing as a Confederate soldier, on the grounds that there were no women in the ranks at Antietam. (In fact, there were at least six that are known.) She looked quite good disguised as a guy--I've seen her picture. In fact, the whole thing started when a woman complained to a park ranger that there was a man in the lady's room. The court decided in her favor--but their reasoning was that if a 300 lb. 60-year-old guy can play a Confederate, it's equally inaccurate, so they have to let women in as well. This annoyed Ms. Cook, so she and another woman named DeAnne Blanton got to work and wrote a book called They Fought Like Demons, which of course documents those 400 women I mentioned above. There's another called All the Daring of the Soldier, by Elizabeth Leonard--I recommend both.

Lauren Cook began her research when, after the publicity over the lawsuit, she was contacted by relatives of a woman named Sarah Rosetta Wakeman, who had long been considered the family's weird maiden aunt who they didn't talk about. They had a packet of letters that Rosetta, as she was called, had written to her family while serving in the Union Army. The letters made it perfectly clear that her family knew exactly where she was and what she was doing, and she even mentions visiting with some friends from home who came to see her at her post in Washington, D.C. She also mentions that a major of another volunteer regiment, having been elected to the position by her friends and neighbors who made up the regiment, was sent to jail for impersonating an officer after the higher-ups discovered she was female. Private Wakeman served for a couple of years, fought in two battles, and ultimately died of disease. She was buried in a military cemetery in Louisiana as Private Lyons Wakeman.

Here she is:



Lauren Cook edited the letters and published them with commentary in a book called An Uncommon Soldier.

The point is that many, if not most of the women in disguise were probably known to the guys in their units, though not necessarily to the higher officers. I suspect if they did their jobs well, nobody cared that much. Another woman named Sarah Edmonds served as Franklin Thompson, developed feelings for another soldier, and told him the truth--he promptly freaked out, but they remained friends and he kept her secret.

Now of course most of the soldiers who fought in the Civil War were guys, and a modern-day reenactment has a much higher proportion of women in the ranks than would have been the case, but there were women there. And of course we have no idea how many were never discovered. It's a long-neglected part of history, and my reasoning is that if I don't really look enough like a guy to fool anybody at close range, it at least gives me the opportunity to discuss the topic with the visitors between battles. I carry cards to hand out with our unit information on one side, and the titles of the three books I have mentioned on the other.

As for women wearing jeans today, well, times have changed. Guys wore dresses and played female roles in Shakespeare's day because it wasn't considered proper for women to be on the stage. By the Civil War women could be on stage, but it still wasn't considered totally respectable. By, say, 1900, it was okay for women to go swimming in dresses that only reached their knees. And so on. Elsewhere on this board, you guys were talking about how 19th century types were totally racist and thought that was proper. Everything changes over time.

[tbw]

Everything changes over time.

But what doesn't change is the hearts and minds of the people.
There still exist the bigotry, the racism, the male dominance in gender roles that will not close the gender gap. No one is saying that role reversal is what is needed, nor desired, but what is needed is a greater understanding and a responsibility towards equality that our national standards represent. Otherwise nothing changes but the surface appearances on the one hand. And on the other hand the bigotry and misunderstanding inequality of overbearing and assertive people not learning what you so nobly perform and demonstrate to others. It is best summed up with these words, "And the meek shall inherit the earth," only then will things change over time.

[melani]

That's one of the reasons that we do a suffragette march for Women's History Month at 1901 Hyde Street Pier. It's good to remember that women only got the vote in all states during my mother's lifetime, and then only because they demanded it.

[joewiggs]

Isn't it incredible that women only recently achieved the right to vote!?! Perhaps if they had achieved this privilege earlier, man's inhumanity to man may not have been so dastardly inhuman.

It has taken me many years to comprehend the ultimate truth;man without the wisdom of woman is ego run amok. Only through the combined efforts of both can we (humanity) achieve the resurrection of Mother Earth.

[tbw]

I would have to agree with this fine assessment. It does make one wonder though, what about those JA's we've both encountered before, that would claim marriage and still do the same inhumane things that they do?

[melani]

Women got the vote in Wyoming in 1869, but that was really only because of a very small population. My favorite line on voting in Wyoming was from the judge, a Democrat, who sentenced Alferd Packer, the cannibal who chowed down on his companions while stranded in the Rockies over the winter: "There were six Democrats in this county--and you ate five of them!"

The official name of the DOI lunchroom in Washington, D.C., so I am told, is the Alferd Packer Memorial Cafeteria.

[joewiggs]

Melanie, forgive me. I know your post was serious and, it was very informative. However, when I read the judges comments I literally fell on the floor laughing uncontrollably. That may have been the funnest "line" ever uttered in the annals of human history. Alfred should have been ashamed of himself. Any social group attempting to function under such limited numbers should not be eaten under any circumstances.

[melani]

Of course it's funny--that's why I quoted it! And by the way, the guy spelled his name"Alferd," rather than the more usual "Alfred"--not a typo. His downfall came because he didn't eat all of them--one got away to testify.

[whitebull]

The way things are leaning now, I can not help but wish that the man had eaten the sixth and last democrat.

[joewiggs]

I just saw this and would like to add a thought; its pretty good! ;D

[Cutter]

Well, progressives are a issue now a days. Might be ok though, I hear tell they eat their young.