The Tennessee Tea Party and Slavery in Textbooks: An Example of Lazy Journalism

As a local Nashville paper pointed out, the HuffPo article on the Tennessee Tea party’s criticism of the discussion of slavery in school textbooks is a year old. I even wrote about it last January.

The idea that textbooks shouldn’t discuss historical reality remains absurd, but I don’t understand why HuffPo and other news outlets only now uncovered this “news.”

UPDATE (1-26-12): Now, HuffPo is writing about two of John Tyler’s grandsons who are still alive. That sounds familiar . . . wonder who wrote about them over a year ago? Get out of my head, HuffPo!

ANOTHER UPDATE (1-27-12): Mental Floss has tweeted a link to a New York Magazine interview with Harrison Ruffin Tyler. By the way, Mental Floss was the source of the HuffPo article.

The Man Who Wanted to Kill Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson often elicited strong, violent emotions. During his presidency, one man tried to assault him, and another tried to shoot him. What you may not realize is that John Wilkes Booth’s father, Junius Brutus Booth, threatened to kill President Andrew Jackson three decades before the younger Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln on that fateful Good Friday in 1865.

Junius Brutus Booth was a noted American actor during the antebellum period. In 1835, he sent Jackson a threatening letter. If the president refused to pardon two pirates who faced the death penalty, Booth warned him that he would “cut your throat whilst you are sleeping.” Later in the letter, the actor also promised to have Jackson “burnt at the Stake.”

Booth’s alcoholism apparently led to his menacing correspondence. He was known for acting irrationally while in drunken fugues, and that appears to be the case here.

What’s really interesting is that historians considered this letter a fake until Dan Feller and Co. confirmed its authenticity as part of a History Detectives episode.

For more information on this letter, see this article in a Knoxville newspaper and this fascinating Library of Congress blog post about the role conservators played in verifying the letter’s authenticity.

Brief Review of Kathryn Olmsted, Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11

Kathryn Olmsted’s Real Enemies is an excellent survey of conspiracy theories in the 20th-century United States. A history professor at UC-Davis, Olmsted makes three arguments. First, the U.S. government perpetrated conspiracies against American citizens in response to alleged anti-government conspiracies. In response, Americans constructed alternative conspiracy theories to explain the conspiracy theories that the government used to cover up its own conspiracies. When the U.S. government criticized and cracked down on the creators and supporters of the alternative conspiracy theories, Americans developed conspiracy theories to explain the government’s suppression.

It sounds confusing, but Olmsted’s presentation is clearer than my own. Let me give you an example. During the Cold War, the U.S. government approved the assassination of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. When John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas in November 1963, the federal government did not fully disclose all of the information surrounding the assassination in order to protect the Kennedy administration and its culpability in the attempts on Castro’s life. To explain the gaps, Americans, many of them ordinary citizens, looked for evidence to explain how a lone gunman could kill the “leader of the free world.” When criticism arose from the media and the government, these citizens attributed the criticism to a government plot to silence and discredit them.

Olmsted addresses World War I, Pearl Harbor, McCarthyism, the JFK assassination, Watergate, 9/11, and various conspiracy theories of the 1970s-1990s, including Roswell, Iran-Contra, and the distribution of crack in the African American community. I was surprised by how often Dick Cheney’s name was attached to various conspiracies and conspiracy theories over the past four decades. Perhaps he’s the alien overlord or the Antichrist?

Olmsted concludes with the argument that conspiracy theorists “help to keep American democracy healthy and inform the public debate” (235). They demand government transparency, which is a good thing (236). But she admits that “the costs of conspiracy theories far outweigh their benefits” (236). Their paranoia and insistence on an absolute good vs. evil narrative “injects toxins into the public discourse” and “hinder the process of historical discovery” by ignoring evidence that does not fit their firm belief in conspiracism (236).

I recommend this book for anyone interested in American conspiracy theories.

Brief Review of David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History

There are a number of overviews of modern conspiracy thinking. David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories offers the perspective of a British journalist and writer. He looks at many of the traditional conspiracy theories prevalent in U.S. society, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Communism, and JFK. The value of Aaronovitch’s work, I think, is in his examination of British conspiracies (the deaths of Princess Diana and Hilda Murrell, for example) and the Truther/Birther movements of the past decade. As someone looking at U.S. society from the outside, he gives a different slant on the more common conspiracy theories embraced by Americans.

As one might expect from a non-academic book, the footnotes and bibliography are a bit light. I’ve read several analyses of conspiracy theories, so I was able to fill in some of the gaps in scholarship on more traditional and well-known conspiracy theories that are absent from this book. Aaronovitch’s writing is engaging, though, and I expect newcomers interested in conspiracism would find Voodoo Histories compelling enough to read more theoretical works.

AHA 2012: Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together

This year’s AHA was the best I’ve ever attended, primarily because it’s the first I’ve attended without interviewing for a job but also because of the great weather.

Our panel went well, despite only eleven people in the audience. (One member of our audience, Nick Cox, blogged about our panel.) Natalie and Ken gave great papers. Lorri Glover was complimentary, yet challenging, in her comments. She noted the similarity between Andrew Jackson, Jr., and Payne Todd, the stepson of President James Madison. Both men were ne’er-do-wells who accumulated significant debt and lost their paternal estate. Glover observed that the important historiographical question that I raised in my paper centered on the “lost generation” of the 1830s and 1840s. What were the defining characteristics of that “lost generation?” Was it different enough to warrant that name? A related point that she made was, if I used Jackson’s family as a case study for the “lost generation,” what would my comparison points be in terms of socioeconomic class and geography? Finally, Glover also recognized that there is a bigger story with the Jackson family post-1845. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment and have already started researching that story.

Two points Glover raised for all three of us also stood out. One was the role of religion in the kinship networks. I briefly raised this issue in relation to Jackson, but she’s right: religion often formed an important connection for kin, but it’s often overlooked. The second point she raised was accounting for the failure of kinship networks. Historians focus on kinship networks expecting to find success, Glover noted, but how do we identify when those networks fail to achieve what their members expect?

The audience, though small, offered several important observations and questions. Nick Cox wondered if Jackson, as president, hid his slave purchases and sales to protect his public image, something that James K. Polk did a decade later. I had never thought of that connection, but with the attacks on Jackson’s slave trading and treatment of slaves in the 1828 campaign, that certainly is possible and warrants further investigation. Another audience member, whose name I did not catch, asked if the generic advice Jackson gave to his wards was intended to achieve a specific action on their part. In other words, did Jackson use the advice to lay the groundwork for a future conversation about a particular issue of concern? I didn’t (and still don’t) have an answer, but the thought is intriguing. Finally, an audience member, Kate Jewell (Fitchburg State), identified her family and research connections to both Lebanon and Cumberland University. She, Natalie, and I had a good time after the panel talking about the connections that we shared.

During the conference, I also had the opportunity to speak with a publisher about a book proposal I sent in November. No definitive word yet, but prospects look very promising. (How’s that for a horoscope prognostication?) When I know something, you’ll know something.

While I didn’t make it on HistoriansTV or even get to pitch my idea for a Reality TV show on history departments (a mixture of Survivor meets The Amazing Race, with the historiographical battles of the consensus, sociocultural, and postmodern schools thrown in), I still consider the 2012 AHA a personal success.

What Does a History Course on Conspiracy Theories Look Like?

As far as I know, I am one of only four history professors in the U.S. to offer a course on conspiracy theories. Kathy Olmsted, Robert Goldberg, and Jeff Pasley are the other three I know of. Pasley even has a website devoted to his course. (Update: Sara Morris alerted me to Jonathan Earle‘s course on the history of conspiracies and paranoia at Kansas University.)

I’m not as ambitious as Pasley and certainly not as well known as he, Olmsted, and Goldberg. Regardless, I want to outline the structure of my course in case someone else is interested in developing his/her own.

Course Description

The course is a 300-level course, geared toward junior and senior history majors  but also any student in the humanities and social sciences. The course description reads:

Conspiracy thinking has been a part of American society from the colonial period through the present day. Americans have labeled as enemies numerous groups, including Catholics, Communists, Democrats, Jews, Masons, Mormons, Republicans, and women, to name just a few. They have accused leaders such as George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Franklin Pierce of working to undermine the American way of life, not to mention the various conspiracy theories about aliens, AIDS, and the One World Government.

This course will explore a sample of those theories in United States history. Using an array of written and visual sources (personal correspondence, newspaper articles, editorial cartoons, televised speeches, etc.), students will be exposed to the conspiratorial language used by Americans to explain the unexplainable. They will emerge from the course with a better understanding of the differences between conspiracies and conspiracy theories, the historical context for the belief in conspiracy theories, and the use of evidence and argumentation in critically analyzing conspiracy theories.

Course Readings

This semester, I’m using Donald T. Critchlow, John Korasick, and Matthew C. Sherman, eds., Political Conspiracies in America: A Reader (2008) and Robert Alan Goldberg, Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America (2001).

If you’re looking for alternate texts, there are several available. I’ve used David Brion Davis’ reader,  The Fear of Conspiracy: Images of Un-American Subversion from the Revolution to the Present) and Daniel Pipes’ Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (1997). Also good would be Kathy Olmsted’s Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 and David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History.

I’m also assigning several articles that address early U.S. history:

David Brion Davis, “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47 (September 1960): 205-24.

Robert A. Goldberg, “‘Who Profited from the Crime?’ Intelligence Failure, Conspiracy Theories, and the Case of September 11,” Journal of Intelligence and National Security 19 (Summer 2004): 249-261.

Richard Hofstadter, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” in The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 3-40.

Elaine Frantz Parsons, “Klan Skepticism and Denial in Reconstruction-Era Public Discourse,” Journal of Southern History 77 (February 2011): 53-90.

Gordon S. Wood, “Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style: Causality and Deceit in the Eighteenth Century,” William & Mary Quarterly 39 (July 1982): 401-441.

Bertram Wyatt-Brown, “Honor and Theater: Booth, the Lincoln Conspirators, and the Maryland Connection,” Maryland Historical Magazine 104 (Fall 2009): 302-325.

Course Schedule

WEEK	TOPIC	Readings/Writing Assignments/Quizzes/Deadlines	Holidays
1—January 11-13	Introduction of Course and Themes
2—January 16-20	What Is a Conspiracy?	Read Hofstadter article; W.A. #1 due on Wed., January 18	No class on Mon., Jan. 16—MLK Jr. Holiday
3—January 23-27	Conspiracy in EarlyAmerica	Readings: Wood article, Critchlow, Sect. 1, and Goldberg, ch. 1
4—January 30-February 3	Conspiracy in AntebellumAmerica	Read Davis article and Critchlow, Sect. 2
5—February 6-10	The Assassination of a President: The Case of Abraham Lincoln	Read Wyatt-Brown article and Critchlow, Sect. 3
6—February 13-17	The Ku Klux Klan as a Case Study of the Paranoid Style	Read Parsons article
7—February 20-24	Conspiracy in Late 19th- and Early 20th-CenturyAmerica	Read Critchlow, Sect. 4
8—February 27-March 2	Who Killed JFK, X, MLK, and RFK?	Readings: Critchlow, Sect. 5, and Goldberg, chs. 2 and 4; JFK group presentation on Mon., Feb. 27; MLK group presentation on Fri., March 2
9—March 5-9	Spring Break		No class—Spring Break
10—March 12-16	Deep Throat, Richard M. Nixon, and the Watergate Conspiracy	Read Goldberg, ch. 7
11—March 19-23	Conspiratorial Literature	Writing Assignment #2 due in class on Mon., March 19
12—March 26-30	The Conspiratorial Mindset Among Christian Fundamentalists	Read Goldberg, ch. 3; Antichrist group presentation on Mon., March 26
13—April 2-6	The Truth Is Out There: Fighting Aliens with Mulder and Scully	Read Goldberg, ch. 6; Area 51 group presentation on Wed., April 4	No class on Fri., April 6—Good Friday
14—April 9-13	TheUnited States’ Role in theNew WorldOrder	Readings: Goldberg article, Goldberg, ch. 5, and Critchlow, Sect. 6; Oklahoma City bombing group presentation on Mon., April 9; 9/11 group presentation on Fri., April 13
15—April 16-20	Movie presentations	Presentation dates assigned in class
16—April 23-26	Course Wrap-up
16—April 27-May 4	Reading Day and Final exams	Final Exam: Mon., April 30, 1-3:00	Reading Day (Fri., April 27)

Course Assignments

Students’ first assignment is to read Hofstadter’s essay on the paranoid style and, in a thought piece, explain their understanding of the difference between an actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. This gives us a baseline from which to work as we progress in the course.

The second writing assignment asks students to analyze a novel by answering the following questions in their essay:

1. What is the conspiracy at the heart of the novel? How does it threaten American/human values?
2. Who are the villains? What traits do they possess? What are their goals? Why do you think they are identified as the villains?
3. Who are the heroes? What traits do they possess? What are their goals? Why do you think they are identified as the heroes?
4. What “truth” is the author trying to convey to readers in his/her presentation of the conspiratorial struggle between the heroes and the villains?

The list of novels I’m assigning this semester include:

James BeauSeigneur, In His Image (2003)

Glenn Beck, The Overton Window (2010)

Steve Berry, The Jefferson Key (2011)

Steve Berry, The Templar Legacy (2006)

Dawn Blair, America 2014: An Orwellian Tale (2004)

Larry Burkett, The Illuminati (1991)

Taylor Caldwell, Captains and the Kings: The Story of an American Dynasty (1983)

Orson Scott Card, Empire (2007)

Michael Crichton, State of Fear (2004)

Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum (1989)

Nelson George, The Plot Against Hip Hop (2011)

Stephen King, 11/22/63 (2011)

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Left Behind (1995)

Bob Larson, Dead Air: A Novel (1991)

Frank Peretti, This Present Darkness (1986)

Pat Robertson, The End of the Age (1995)

Joel C. Rosenberg, The Last Jihad (2002)

Dan Simmons, Flashback (2011)

Gore Vidal, The Golden Age (2000)

There are some other novels that might work, such as John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief and Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. I tried to avoid books that have been made into movies to head off the tendency of students to take shortcuts.

I’m also assigning two group projects. I don’t particularly like group projects, but I’m building in safeguards (I hope) to prevent slackers from sponging off of their colleagues.

The first project assigns groups one of several conspiracy theories: the MLK Jr. assassination, Area 51, the Antichrist, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11. The second assigns groups a movie with a conspiracy theory or conspiracy thinking as its main theme: Arlington Road (1999), JFK (1991), Left Behind (2001), The X-Files (1998), and The Manchurian Candidate (1962 or 2004). There are other movies, such as Conspiracy Theory (starring Mel Gibson) and Enemy of the State (starring Will Smith), for example.

Groups are required to conduct research on their conspiracy theory and to analyze their movie. On their assigned day, they lead the discussion. I encourage them to use a mixture of approaches in leading the discussion, including lecture, surveys, film, Powerpoint, the Internet, music, etc. I am also requiring them to produce a two-page artifact to hand out to the rest of the class.

Other Course Materials

There’s a lot of pop culture material to interweave into this course. I’m plan to show an episode of Community (“Conspiracy Theories and Interior Design”), play some rap music (Dr. Dre, Mobb Deep), and view parts of documentaries (Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke) and Internet productions (Loose Change). The real problem is finding just enough to stimulate discussion without spending the entire class passively absorbing the media.

Obstacles

The number one obstacle to offering this course is the suspicion of faculty and administrators. “What exactly are you going to teach in the class?” is the common question, with eyebrows raised suspiciously. The answer is that I am teaching students to think critically about historical rhetoric and evidence, with the objective of helping them be less susceptible to the paranoia that infuses U.S. politics and society.

In class, the major obstacle is student enthusiasm, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. This is the one course in which I’ve never had to encourage discussion.

AHA 2012: Bracing for the Windy City

I’ve had two occasions to visit Chicago, and both came in the winter. It’s only appropriate, then, that the third time will be for this year’s AHA. Maybe someday, I’ll have the opportunity to travel to the Windy City when it isn’t so cold and . . . windy.

I’ll be back to regular posting next week, but in the meantime, enjoy reading the paper I’m presenting Friday morning. If you’re not attending some of the competing panels, drop in (Miami Room–Chicago Marriott Downtown) and introduce yourself.

Interested in Writing a Guest Post for a History Blog?

If you are an Early Republic historian who has considered writing for a blog but hasn’t taken the leap, I would like to offer you the opportunity to guest blog for Jacksonian America. Let me know, and we’ll work out the details.

Have a good holiday break, and I’ll see you in 2012.

Holiday Readings, 2011 Edition: Conspiracy and Politics

I’ve presented myself with quite the hefty reading list for the holiday break.

Most of these books are either ones I’ve assigned for Spring 2012 courses or ones that are helping me prepare historical background for those courses. The exception is Kentucky Rising: Democracy, Slavery, and Culture from the Early Republic to the Civil War, by James A. Ramage and Andrea S. Watkins, which I’m reviewing for the Journal of Southern History.

The rest:

Kathryn Olmsted, Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11

David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History

Charles W. Calhoun, Minority Victory: Gilded Age Politics and the Front Porch Campaign of 1888

Frank Lambert, The Battle of Ole Miss: Civil Rights vs. States’ Rights

James Roger Sharp, Deadlocked Election of 1800: Jefferson, Burr, and the Union in the Balance

Donald T. Critchlow, John Korasick, and Matthew C. Sherman, eds., Political Conspiracies in America: A Reader

There are worse ways to spend free time, so I’ll keep my whinging to a minimum.

Patriarchy and Masculinity in Antebellum America: Andrew Jackson and His Male Wards

As I’ve done for papers at the 2011 SHEAR and 2011 SHA conferences, I am posting ahead of time the paper I will be giving in Chicago at the American Historical Association annual meeting.

This paper, which examines patriarchy and masculinity in Jackson’s advice to his male wards, is in many ways a continuation of the paper I gave at SHEAR. I hope to combine the two into an article at some point soon.

My colleague, Natalie Inman, organized the panel. Her former advisor, Lorri Glover, is chairing and commenting. Kenneth Wheeler and G. Richard Wright are also presenting on the panel.