Who Wears the Blue and Grey?

A Survey of Civil War Reenactors

 

©  Mark L Shanks, 2000.

This document is a work in progress, available for review by reenactors and scholars only.  All rights are expressly reserved to the author. No re-publication, copying, re-use, or quotation in whole or part is authorized without the express written consent of the author. 

 

 

American civil war (ACW) reenactment is the most popular form of amateur living history today. It is a widespread activity that involves somewhere between thirty and one hundred thousand participants annually.[i] Almost every weekend of the year, ACW reenactors dress in reproductions of historical costumes, drill with and demonstrate reproduction weapons, display traditional military skills, and interpret mid-nineteenth century life for themselves and the public. Yet reenactment has not drawn the same depth and breadth of critical attention that a number of other forms of public civil war presentations such as film, museums, literary fiction, and monumental sculpture have garnered. The limited amount of critical study the hobby has received is largely in the context of demonstrating larger theories of civil war memory or southern identity, rather than examining the reenactment itself or its role in the construction of public historical narratives. Additionally, these prior studies have tended to be based upon limited and inadequate ethnographies. This paper will seek to start to fill the void between these theoretical treatments and the practicalities of reenactment by examining some of the backgrounds, ideas, and historical constructs of those who practice ACW reenactment. Such an examination will tend to present a richer and more complex picture of ACW reenactment than has previously been presented and will offer some insights into reenactors and the underlying reasons for their public constructions of history.

Modern civil war reenactment largely owes its origins to the joint enthusiasm of collectors and shooters of antique firearms, local historical sites, and the National Park Service (NPS) who joined together to provide commemorative events for the civil war centennial of the early 1960’s. The NPS involvement in reenactment however did not endure after the centennial largely because of problems with over-zealous reenactors and academic critics. The reenactor fisticuffs, which ensued at the re-staging of First Manassas, have become the stuff of folk legends in the hobby, but are only the best remembered of centennial difficulties with reenactor safety and behavior. Alternatively, the noted historian Alan Nevins, second chairman of the Civil War Centennial Commission, dismissed reenactments as “trashily theatrical” and suggested that they would proceed further over his dead body. He later retracted this policy when over-ruled by President Kennedy who professed to enjoy the reenactor's “sham battles.”[ii]  In spite of its lack of continuing government or institutional support, the hobby spawned by the four years of ACW commemorative events maintained a life of its own after the centennial. Over the past thirty-five years, it has grown from a handful of devotees to the current multitudes that view reenactment of civil war history as a recreational, educational and social activity. The popularity of ACW reenactment spans the nation, and extends beyond its national borders to such diverse places as England, Germany and Brazil. . These reenactors invest large amounts of their own time and money in presenting this slice of American history.[iii]  Arguably, reenactors and their audiences constitute the largest single, identifiable group of people actively interested in the history of the American civil war[iv]

Central to modern historical reenacting is the concept of living history. Folklorist Jay Anderson, the contemporary chronicler of the living history movement characterizes it as attempting to show "an interpretation of life in another time." He further proposes that reenactors are amateur historians involved in “serious play,” using history in the joint service of recreation and education. He identifies three groups of people who practice living history: interpreters, experimenters and “buffs.” [reenactors]  He offered the following characterization of “buffs:”

...people who . . .[use living history]. . .for personal [as opposed to professional] reasons, often for play and the joy of getting away.  Many of these enthusiasts identify with particular, real, or composite individuals of the past. . . .  Buffs [often] are sticklers for “authenticity”, especially with regard to clothing, grooming styles and idiosyncrasies of speech.[v]

 Anderson further notes the desire of living historians, both professional and amateur, to experience “felt-history,” where for a moment one can say, “this is how it was,” even if simultaneously recognizing the limitations of their historical medium. The anthropologist and performance theorist Richard Schechner labels living history as “restored behavior,” and suggests that it fulfils a need to connect present experience with a mythic past in tangible forms. He categorizes living history performance as a liminal activity, where performer and audience jointly create a shared space separate from conventional ideas of time and place to produce a shared meaningful experience. Specifically, reenactors attempt to suspend "real time," (the present) to create a performed historiographic interpretation of the civil war.[vi]

Who are these reenactors and why do they choose to engage in this form of historical presentation? A limited number of answers to the question of reenactor identity and motive that have been published in both popular works and scholarly tomes. Both journalists and academic critics have examined ACW reenacting, using it as a springboard to discuss wider issues of American culture. Yet their answers are curiously unsatisfying and seemingly tell us more about the observers than the reenactors themselves.

Typical and best known of the popular views of ACW reenacting is the work of Tony Horowitz, whose book Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War, spent weeks on the New York Times best seller list. Horowitz tells us that prior to his own ethnographic research he believed "reenacting was a marginal part of civil war memory, a weekend hobby for gun-toting good ol' boys - with emphasis on the boys." However, he came to conclude that there is much more to current civil war reenacting in the course of the book's chronicling his personal exploration of modern southern society and reenacting. He notes that in spite of occasional phony moments, reenactment provides its participants and observers with "a taste of nineteenth century life." In Horowitz's view most civil war reenactors use the their reenacting as a "talisman against modernity" and an exercise in "armchair blood-lust." He further suggests that their ACW reenactors exhibit a profound discomfort about race and personal identity. However, his journalistic treatment focuses on the most colorful extremes of the hobby, depicting reenactment as a world of eccentrics where historical authenticity is either worshiped by "hard core" reenactors with near religious fervor or treated with casual neglect by "farbs." Additionally, his book's emphasis on southern identity leads him to largely ignore the portion of the hobby reenacting the Union side of the conflict since they are largely irrelevant to his theme of analyzing southern identity.[vii]

By contrast, American studies professor Jim Cullen uses a chapter of The Civil War in Popular Culture: A Reusable Past to examine ACW reenactment. [viii] In this overview, he treats the idea of reenactment with slightly greater respect, tentatively accepting the notion of the reenactors as amateur historians. Cullen proposes that one of the great strengths of the hobby is that:

It can give the participants a vivid, even visceral, experience of the past. One of the byproducts of this is an enhanced respect for the "other guy..." [This attitude] is an understandable and appropriate one.[ix]

However, he hedges this acceptance by arguing that reenacting is a bastion of white males stuck in repeating an outdated and rejected pre-social history academic historiography. He proposes the idea that reenactment acts to whitewash the conflict, ignoring the issue of slavery and race as causative agents in reenactors discomfort with the issues building a sanitized interpretation.

Before we take these statements at face value, it should be noted that these scholars stand as outsiders to both the worlds of living history and historical reenactment. Their views, while finding some ready acceptance in the academic world, are at the very least controversial in the world civil war reenactment. Horwitz especially has been scourged by reenactors for unethically slanting reportage of events, opinions, and interviews in places ranging from the pages of The Camp Chase Gazette ("The Voice of Civil War Reenacting") to reviews of his book on the web site of bookseller Amazon.com.[x] Cullen, similarly dismissed by reenactors, is viewed as solely interested in reenactors and reenacting "only as much as it fits with[in] his preconceived theories" and "when [reenactors] are being politically and academically incorrect," rather than reflecting unbiased observation.[xi] Perhaps more important than disagreeing with their interpretations or conclusions, having set out to consider civil war reenactment, each of these authors are significantly criticized for primarily relying upon limited ethnographic evaluation and analysis of previously published materials to reach their conclusions. Typical of those who have chosen to observe reenactors, neither took the relatively obvious step of surveying a representative body of reenactors to try to gain a more grounded, insider's view of the activity. Nor were they willing to participate in reenactment, passing judgement from within the framework of the activity. [xii]

While these and other observers of reenactment have argued that it is little more than romanticized nostalgia, modern prejudice, and hackneyed presentation, "sound and fury signifying nothing," there is more going on than meets the eye. R.G. Collingwood, in his book The Idea of History, advances the concept that the true job of the historian is not the mere assemblage of these facts, but rather the interpretation of these facts through the mental "re-enactment of past experience." Similar to David Lowenthal’s idea of the “invention” of historical landscapes or the post-modernist’s search for creations of identity, Collingwood proposes the historian's task is to place the past in a personally constructed and self identifiable frame of reference. Viewed in this context, the reenactor’s physical self-representation of this history is merely an exercise in using different methods of public presentation of their historical construct. While one might reasonably argue that there is a qualitative difference between the products of amateur and professional historians, the underlying act of reenactors consciously creating a historic interpretation makes it important that we contextually understand them and their interpretation, before seeking to categorize them as representative of some wider cultural phenomena.[xiii]

Yet in presenting this consideration of reenactors as historians, my own set of background and beliefs may provide a necessary reference to understanding. I came to the historical profession by the circuitous route of a personal interest in living history and reenactment (albeit, not ACW reenactment), therefore I do not see these activities as composed of some caricatured or stereotypical others, but rather as fellow historians of a similar (if rather peculiar) bent and set of interests. Just as I would prefer to create, characterize, and frame my own identity and interpretive beliefs, I would rather start any investigation of reenactment by examining how the reenactors characterize themselves. While critical and probing assessment is a necessary part of any investigative or scholarly undertaking, to gain a real understanding of any extant population as large, diverse, and publicly assessable as ACW reenactors, it seems only sensible to first should start by going to their own words before trying to wrap them within some larger theoretical construct.

Therefore, this study of ACW reenactors will primarily center on a Internet survey of ACW reenactors, although I will also draw upon a wide variety of correspondence, observations, and personal interaction with reenactors. The survey portion of this study was conducted through solicited participants voluntarily visiting and completing a web-based eighty-two item multiple-choice and free-form questionnaire. (see Appendix A) This survey was posted on the Internet at http://geocities.datacellar.net/living-history/cwsurvey.html and represents data collected between 17 August and 9 November 1999. The survey asked reenactors to identify themselves and their reenactment activities, give biographical information, present their view of key historiographic points, and complete a standardized learning style assessment. Participants were offered the option of anonymity to provide freedom to respond honestly. However, given that roughly two thirds of all reenactors declined anonymity, this may not have been that especially significant.[xiv]

Participants were initially solicited by individually directed electronic mail messages, drawn from the on-line address list of approximately 2000 reenactors maintained by the Camp Chase Gazette.[xv]  These addresses were supplemented by others garnered from browsing of reenactors web sites, personal solicitations at civil war reenactments, and individuals personally known by the author to be involved in civil war reenacting. Other survey participants were urged to participate through notices directing them to the survey web site published in the Usenet newsgroups alt.history.living, soc.history.living, alt.war.civil.usa, and soc.history.war.us-civil-war; the electronic discussion group CW-reenacting; and the paper and electronic versions of the Camp Chase Gazette. Further, a number of participants themselves relayed the survey to additional reenactors.  These solicitations produced over 1500 visits (or "hits") to the web site between 17 August 1999 and 8 November 1999.  After discarding blank, duplicate, and unidentifiable responses, this survey resulted in a sample of the backgrounds and opinions of 885 individual ACW reenactors.

Why an Internet survey? With no single, universal, or even broad-reaching reenactor organizations, civil war reenactors represent a remarkably diffuse and difficult to measure population. Not merely located in proximity to the original location of civil war sites, ACW reenactors can be found in every state in the nation, as well as a variety of foreign countries including Germany, France, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan. While previous scholars have relied almost solely on limited field ethnography and studies of reenactor literature to understand this population, their own estimates ranging from 30,000 to in excess of 100,000 active ACW reenactors underscore that such techniques can not hope to represent more than a tiny fraction of this population. By using electronic technology to break the barriers of prohibitive cost, extensive travel, and great investment of time; this survey method provides a significantly larger sample of quantifiable and qualitative results to the discussion of ACW reenacting.

However, this survey must be looked at with caution. Use of Internet technology clearly biases the survey population to those with computer access and competence. A very limited and preliminary survey of 63 non-internet using civil war reenactors conducted in the same time frame at local ACW reenactment events in the Southern California area suggests that while many of the response distributions remain the same, the larger study seems to under represent reenactors with less than three years experience.[xvi] These reenactors tend to be younger, poorer, and are less likely of possessing college education; although these are all traits that they share with their Internet using counterparts of similar inexperience in reenacting. There is the suggestion of a slightly larger number of new confederate reenactors are non-computer users, although it is slight enough that this may be a mere statistical anomaly. These differences not to be significant in understanding the underlying historiographic constructs in ACW reenacting, given the understandably greater and more lasting influence that senior members of the hobby appear to have. While this survey represents a broad and possibly representative look at ACW reenacting's history-creating population, it is not an exhaustive survey.[xvii]

In conducting this survey, reenactors were overwhelmingly willing to share openly their opinions and enthusiasm for this hobby. While I had hoped for a mere 10% response rate to my e-mail survey solicitations, the eventual response approached 40%. Further, reenactors upon completing the survey often sent me lengthy additional correspondence, introducing themselves, amplifying their answers, offering resources, and event invitations. When I mentioned the survey in the course of my visits to reenactments, reenactors showed enthusiasm for this undertaking. Many explicitly requested my web page URL so they too could participate and to obtain a copy of my eventual conclusions.

Many reenactors went on to suggest various generalizations about "what I would find" in the course of my research. Most common among these observations were reenactor perceptions of the obvious demographic breakdown of participants in the hobby. These observations largely paralleled my own impressions from attending CW reenactments. Reenactors were largely male, Caucasian, and middle-class, with a span of ages ranging from late teens to over sixty. It therefor came as no surprise that the basic demographic of reenactors looked somewhat as follows:

Age Group				Gender
Less than 21	66	7.4%		Male	774	87.5%
21-30	122	13.6%		Female	111	12.5%
31-40	221	24.7%
41-65	483	54.0%
66+	2	0.2%
Ethnicity
Caucasian	826	93.3%
African Am.	7	0.8%
Native Am.	6	0.7%
Hispanic	3	0.3%
Other	11	1.2%
not reported	32	3.6%

 

This breakdown of race, gender, and age certainly matches with both the reenactor and previous scholar/critic expectations, with the caveat that the survey method may under-represent younger reenactors.  The idea that reenactors are a solidly middle-class group is equally illustrated by responses to the questions involving self-reported[xviii] levels of income and educational achievement in history:

Income Ranges				Academic Training
Less than $25K	63	8.4%		None / Self-taught	105	12.0%
25-34	114	15.2%		High School	166	19.0%
35-49	153	20.3%		college course [s]	443	50.7%
50-74	211	28.1%		BA in History	101	11.6%
75-124	167	22.2%		MA / PhD	58	6.6%
Greater than $125K	44	5.9%

 

Certainly the demographics of reenactor education throw an interesting light on Cullen's suggestion that civil war reenactors are merely presenting an outdated historiography that ignores the new social history and concerns about race, gender, and class. Over two thirds of ACW reenactors responding indicated that they had college coursework in history. Since the majority are under 50 years in age, most of this training surely happened in the past 30 years, well after the new social history became significant within scholarly study of history. Looking at these figures, one might suggest that Cullen is incorrect, and that the history that reenactors present represent in some way a rejection of certain modern historiographies or a choice of interpretation between competing historiographic positions.

The survey results proved equally challenging to certain beliefs among reenactors.  For example, reenactors commonly made sweeping generalizations about those who portrayed the opposite sectional alignment. Typical were the comments of Joseph Bolivard, who portrays a Union regimental surgeon of the 9th New York:

The people who [are] of middle class [background] will have a tendency to join a Union group.... This may show in the education profile as to the amount of education one has as to which side he joins. There are more men who attend without their family on the conferate [sic] side. Union soldiers are more family oriented and the family attends also. I would say Union reenactors have a higher income than Confederate soldiers.[xix]

In fact, none of these assertions are significantly borne out by the survey when one breaks them down in terms of chosen sectional alignment. For example:

 

Academic Training			Confederate Reenactors				Union Reenactors
None / Self-taught		50		11.5%				48	11.8%
High School		73		16.7%				86	21.1%
college course [s]		238		54.6%				194	47.5%
BA in History		48		11.0%				50	12.3%
MA / PhD		27		6.2%				30	7.4%
Income Range
LT-25		29		7.6%				30	8.6%
25-34		60		15.8%				49	14.0%
35-49		87		22.9%				61	17.5%
50-74		100		26.3%				106	30.4%
75-124		80		21.1%				82	23.5%
GT 125		24		6.3%				21	6.0%
Spouse Reenacts
Yes		171		38.7%				150	36.2%
No		271		61.3%				264	63.8%
Children Reenact
Yes		173		39.1%				141	34.1%
No		269		60.9%				273	65.9%

 

It should be clear that while Union reenactors are slightly more likely to have received a specific degree in history, Confederate reenactors are more likely to have had at least some college level study in history. On the whole however, both groups are relatively well educated. While Confederate reenactors average income range may in fact be lower than their Union counterparts, the annual median household income for both groups falls within the same $50,000 to $74,000 range. Further, the income discrepancies seem bounded in a very much middle-class range of $35,000 to $124,000, with the percentages outside that confine being nearly identical. This economic disparity between sectional portrayals may in fact represent a reflection in cost-of-living disparity between the average location of Union and Confederate reenactors. [more about geographic location will follow] Bolivard's assertion about participation of families is not borne out by the survey responses. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, with generally more spouses and children of Confederate reenactors involved in their activities.

Another common assertion by reenactors of both sectional alignments was the unwillingness of Confederate reenactors to "galvanize." This term, adapted from the disparaging civil war slang terms "galvanized Yankee" or "galvanized Reb," it refers to the civil war practice of captured soldiers being released from prison to fight for their captors. They were "galvanized," because like the very thin plating of rustproof zinc over a ferrous metal, their own loyalty to the uniform they wore was considered slight and suspect. Within modern reenacting, this term has come to mean asking or requiring reenactors of one or the other sectional affiliation to portray the opposite side so as to provide visual balance at a reenactment event. Such requests are often made at events held in the Deep South, where Confederate reenactors outnumber their Union counterparts, and occasionally the other direction in Upper Midwest or New England events.[xx]  Stories of the unwillingness of confederate reenactors to galvanize because "my sainted ancestor would spin in his grave," or predicated on "neo-confederate" ideology have reached mythic stature within the hobby.[xxi]

However, the focus on Confederates as unwilling to galvanize based on heritage may seriously mislead those who examine the question of reenactors portraying sectional affiliations other than their primary choice. When considering the role of heritage and galvanizing, the following reenactor responses are illuminating. The first table records the reenactor chosen response to the fill-in sentence, "I galvanize ________."  The second records whether the reenactor had ancestors who participated in the ACW, and their sectional affiliation.

Galvanize		Confederate Reenactors			Union Reenactors
"NEVER!"		50	11.3%		86	20.9%
"regularly"		104	23.5%		37	9.0%
"rarely", or "as needed"		272	61.5%		261	63.5%
"Unsure what this means"		16	3.6%		27	6.6%
Ancestry
Yes, both		140	31.5%		72	17.4%
Yes, confed.		159	35.7%		34	8.2%
Yes, union		46	10.3%		155	37.4%
No		32	7.2%		60	14.5%
Unknown		68	15.3%		93	22.5%

 

It appears that although the Confederates are regularly the butts of any number of galvanizing criticisms, debates, and jokes, it is they and not the Union reenactors who do most of the galvanizing.  While roughly the same percentage of Union and Confederate reenactors express a willingness to galvanize (as expressed by responses of  "as required" and "rarely") almost three times more Confederate reenactors per capita regularly galvanize compared to their Union counterparts. Additionally, almost twice as many Union reenactors expressed an unwillingness to galvanize (by answering, "NEVER!") than their Confederates as a percentage of reenactors of their own affiliation.

Why should Confederate reenactors be galvanizing more than their Union counterparts? One explanation is there are simply more of them, living closer to the reenactments, and spending more time reenacting. Unlike the historical civil war, where roughly 500,000 Confederates faced 750,000 Union soldiers, Confederates slightly outnumber their Union counterparts in the modern world of reenacting. Of those surveyed, 442 (aprox. 50%) professed that their primary reenacting sectional allegiance was Confederate versus only 411 (aprox. 46%) for the Union.[xxii] The survey responses provide clear evidence of a strong linkage between ancestry and choice of reenacting impression, reflected in the nearly identical percentages of reenactors who choose to portray the side that their ancestors solely fought for. While America may be a comparatively mobile society, one would still largely expect that more Southerners have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy than people in any other region of the country.  Coupled with fact that the vast majority of civil war battles were fought on the territory of the South or its bordering states, it is not outlandish to believe southerners today find it easier to attend battle reenactments which largely, although by no means exclusively,[xxiii] occur at or near to the original Civil War sites.[xxiv] This thesis is additionally reflected in the different participation rates between Confederate and Union reenactors. Confederate reenactors are 20% more likely than their Union counterparts to spend more than thirty days a year in reenacting. Conversely, Union reenactors are 20% more likely to spend ten or less days a year.

The sectional split between Confederate and Union reenactors in their decision to galvanize or portray ancestors (or not) may represent a more fundamental distinction between reenactors, that of their underlying purpose in reenacting. One can see in reenactment the acting out of statements of both ideology and memorial identity on the part of reenactors.

That roughly 60% of all ACW reenactors choose portray the sectional allegiance of an ancestor is a powerful statement of role of re-affirmation and celebration of familial and regional identity in reenactment.  In the course of answering questions ostensibly discussing authenticity and methodologies of living history, many reenactors choose to explicitly relate that they were acting to "keep alive the memory" or "honor" personal ancestors and regional identity.  This relationship between the reenactor's ancestors and his choice of sectional affiliation demonstrate a powerful form of individual memorialism in reenactor's public performance of history.

Alternatively, the choice of ACW reenactors to refuse to galvanize seems to me to represent profoundly ideological decisions, the drawing of a line beyond which their "serious play" of representing history conflicts with a set of strongly held modern and personal beliefs. Equally, the decision to portray a sectional allegiance that is opposite that of or unsupported by their personal heritage (9% and 28%, seems a decision representing a choice at partially or wholly ideological. Such ideological choices of reenactors in characterization speak to a presentist agenda beyond mere heritage.

What is significant to consider however, when comparing the balance between heritage and ideologically driven choices in ACW reenacting, is that there is a distinct difference between responses by Confederate and Union reenactors. While the disparity between willingness to galvanize between those who primarily portray the North or South has already been pointed out, suggesting a much greater ideological commitment on the part of Union reenactors, an equally interesting difference is represented by the choice between competing sectional allegiances by individuals who had ancestors who served on both sides of the conflict.  When individual reenactors are faced with the option of which side to choose to portray based upon ancestry claims from both sides, they favor the south by a margin of roughly two to one.  While it is not overwhelmingly clear from the survey why reenactors make this decision in the proportions they do, unquestionably the factor of heritage plays a role in this decision.

Certainly the Civil War looms large as a key event in the construction of a distinctly Southern identity. From "Gone with the Wind" to present conflict over the Confederate battle flag, the symbols and narrative of the war provide a central and ongoing element to defining regional identity. It seems no coincidence that Horowitz and Cullen both choose to focus largely on southern historical constructions of the war in their texts, rather than a more nationally centered look at the meanings of the conflict. By comparison, the war is merely another historical instance in defining the national identity of such places as New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country. As described by David Lowenthal in his Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, such claims of historical identity are largely heritage claims maintained and supported by celebratory memorialism.  Such memorialism seeks to construct a laudatory past to build positive group identity, and devalues historical inquiry save that it uncovers a unique and positive past to act as a focus for group cohesion. It should come as no surprise therefore that survey responses and communications with Confederate reenactors were nearly three times more likely to specifically mention keeping alive the memory of the ACW or honoring personal ancestors and regional identity than their Union counterparts.  One can easily perceive the attraction of Confederate reenacting to those individuals with competing ancestry claims, since such a choice will place them in the company of others similarly motivated by a celebratory identity.[xxv]

By default, ideological rational seem more strongly imbedded in the choice of Union portrayals. Where reenactors with competing ancestry claims are more likely to portray Confederates, those with no ancestors who fought in the ACW are twice as likely to portray the Union. Additionally, since Union reenactors are 50% more likely not to know whether they had ancestors that fought in the ACW, the clear implication is that they are more likely to presenting this history for reasons other than ancestry or heritage.

Such a distinction between ideology and heritage in reenactor motivation has a wide variety of implications to anyone examining ACW reenactment. In the interests of brevity, I will point out only one within this paper.  I would suggest that this distinction may have bearing on the methods of presentation chosen by reenactors and their significance ad be directly reflected in their presentational methodology.

Within modern living history a variety of methods of presentation are employed. These can largely be reduced to two broad categories: first-person and third-person presentations. Named for the part of speech that the interpreter represents the past with, a third person interpreter would speak of, "how they did" a historic action, in a distanced and authoritative manner. The interpreter can be viewed as an animated portion of the material culture, allowing the reenactor's audience to visualize the appearance of people in the historical environment.  However, by speaking directly to the audience from a modern point of view, the interpreter can maintain an omniscient and dispassionate distance to consider the period interpreted and relate it to the present.[xxvi]

By contrast, a first person interpreter would present their interpretation as, "how I do" the action, assuming the role of a historic individual presented. First-person interpreters phrase their utterances from the point of view of a specific historical or composite role[xxvii], representatively speaking “as” a historical person, rather than within their own modern persona.  The interpreter’s actions are therefore intended to simulate a real or fictive composite historical subject as closely as possible.  The interpreter endeavors to present this characterization through careful use of dramatic techniques demonstrating the results of historical research and understanding.

In essence, a first-person interpreter attempts to create in their actions and persona a model of historical reality for their audience to examine, in the same way that traditional museums might build a diorama or paint a mural to re-create a physical landscape.  This presentational method in many ways changes the role of the audience of history from passive acceptor of information to interpreter of the “historical” acts and utterances of this person.  Some in the field, noting this change, have chosen to refer to the first-person living historian as an “informant,” rather than “interpreter” to note this change in relationship.[xxviii]

Significant to ACW reenactment, both first- and third-person forms of interpretation are practiced by reenactors of both sectional alignments. Further, almost two-thirds of all reenactors use both types of interpretation.  However, when broken down by section, Confederate reenactors are much more likely to exclusively or primarily use first-person interpretation, while their Union counterparts show a preference for using both forms, with a greater emphasis on third-person. Such a split fits with the idea that Union reenactors, are communicating a message more focused on presentist ideological content, easier conveyed in third person. Similarly, Confederate reenactor's choice of first-person methods may represent a substantial choice of personal identification with historical ancestry or group identity.

While this paper has barely scratched the surface of analyzing the data gathered in course of my survey, I would suggest that it represents a first step in considering Civil War reenactors in a new light. When one looks to the responses of these reenactors, the diversity and broad range of reenactor backgrounds, self-conceptions, and motives are evident. In choosing to use this diverse group to represent broad social theories, this study suggests that scholars would be well served to more carefully take into account the differences among this group.

Appendix A: Survey Results

	All Reenactors Surveyed
Prime_Sec_Affil
Confederate	442	49.8%
Union	411	46.3%
Other	32	3.6%
Both	3	0.5%
Prime_Occ_Affil				Confederate Reenactors			Union Reenactors
Infantry	573	65.6%		291	65.7%		284	67.9%
Artillery	65	7.4%		38	8.6%		27	6.5%
Cavalry	75	8.6%		47	10.6%		28	6.7%
Specialist	40	4.6%		16	3.6%		31	7.4%
Naval/Marine	7	0.8%		3	0.7%		4	1.0%
Civilian	105	12.0%		45	10.2%		39	9.3%
Hist. Figure	9	1.0%		3	0.7%		5	1.2%
Galvanize
NEVER!	136	15.2%		50	11.3%		86	20.9%
Regularly	147	16.4%		104	23.5%		37	9.0%
rare/ as n.	565	63.2%		272	61.5%		261	63.5%
Unsure/n.a.	46	5.1%		16	3.6%		27	6.6%
Years_Reenacting
LT 1	18	2.1%		10	2.3%		8	2.1%
1 year	24	2.8%		10	2.3%		13	3.3%
2 years	76	9.0%		43	10.0%		31	8.0%
3-5 years	296	35.1%		158	36.8%		133	34.2%
5-10 years	230	27.3%		125	29.1%		100	25.7%
MT 10	200	23.7%		83	19.3%		104	26.7%
Spnt_Reen
1-3 Days	36	4.3%		14	3.3%		20	5.1%
4-10 Days	134	16.0%		63	14.9%		69	17.5%
11-20 Days	281	33.5%		150	35.5%		123	31.2%
21-30 Days	184	21.9%		84	19.9%		98	24.9%
30+ Days	204	24.3%		112	26.5%		84	21.3%
Gender
Male	774	87.5%		392	88.7%		366	88.4%
Female	111	12.5%		50	11.3%		48	11.6%
agegroup
LT 21	66	7.4%		24	5.5%		42	10.2%
21-30	122	13.6%		75	17.2%		46	11.2%
31-40	221	24.7%		100	22.9%		95	23.2%
41-65	483	54.0%		236	54.1%		226	55.1%
66+	2	0.2%		1	0.2%		1	0.2%
	All Reenactors			Confederate reenactors			Union Reenactors
Ethnicity
Caucasian	826	93.3%		417	94.3%		383	93.2%
African Am.	7	0.8%		1	0.2%		6	1.5%
Native Am.	6	0.7%		5	1.1%		2	0.5%
Hispanic	3	0.3%		1	0.0%		2	0.0%
Other	11	1.2%		5	1.1%		5	1.2%
not reported	32	3.6%		13	2.9%		13	3.2%
income range
LT-25	63	8.4%		29	7.6%		30	8.6%
25-34	114	15.2%		60	15.8%		49	14.0%
35-49	153	20.3%		87	22.9%		61	17.5%
50-74	211	28.1%		100	26.3%		106	30.4%
75-124	167	22.2%		80	21.1%		82	23.5%
GT 125	44	5.9%		24	6.3%		21	6.0%
not reported	132	XXX		62	XXX		65	XXX
Spouse
Yes	340	38.4%		171	38.7%		150	36.2%
No	545	61.6%		271	61.3%		264	63.8%
Children
Yes	324	36.6%		173	39.1%		141	34.1%
No	561	63.4%		269	60.9%		273	65.9%
Ancestry
Yes, both	222	25.1%		140	31.5%		72	17.4%
Yes, confed.	199	22.5%		159	35.7%		34	8.2%
Yes, union	205	23.2%		46	10.3%		155	37.4%
No	92	10.4%		32	7.2%		60	14.5%
Unknown (+nr)	165	18.7%		68	15.3%		93	22.5%
Personal Authenticity
2	2	0.2%		2	0.5%		1	0.2%
3	2	0.2%		2	0.5%		0	0.0%
4	11	1.3%		7	1.6%		2	0.5%
5	120	14.0%		54	12.5%		66	16.5%
6	78	9.1%		39	9.0%		36	9.0%
7	244	28.4%		120	27.8%		119	29.7%
8	282	32.8%		144	33.4%		127	31.7%
9	98	11.4%		47	10.9%		45	11.2%
10	23	2.7%		16	3.7%		5	1.2%
	All Reenactors			Confederate reenactors			Union Reenactors
Living_History
Always	161	18.9%		87	19.7%		82	20.0%
Regularly	459	53.9%		216	48.9%		231	56.5%
Occasionally	205	24.1%		115	26.0%		86	21.0%
Rarely	15	1.8%		18	4.1%		6	1.5%
Never	6	0.7%		4	0.9%		1	0.2%
What is LH?	5	0.6%		2	0.5%		3	0.7%
Fst_Thd_Person
First Person	184	20.8%		117	26.7%		68	16.6%
Both, more 1st	234	26.4%		113	25.7%		111	27.1%
Both, more 3rd	320	36.2%		145	33.0%		163	39.9%
Third Person	111	12.5%		49	11.2%		57	13.9%
What's LH? (na)	36	4.1%		15	3.4%		10	2.4%
Inevitable
Yes	589	66.6%		275	62.5%		287	69.2%
No	242	27.3%		145	33.0%		91	21.9%
No Opinion (na)	54	6.1%		20	4.5%		37	8.9%
academic_training
None / Self-taught	105	12.0%		50	11.5%		48	11.8%
High School	166	19.0%		73	16.7%		86	21.1%
college course [s]	443	50.7%		238	54.6%		194	47.5%
BA in History	101	11.6%		48	11.0%		50	12.3%
MA / PhD	58	6.6%		27	6.2%		30	7.4%
Annon.
Yes	311	35.1%
No	575	64.9%
Updates
Yes	795	89.8%
No	90	10.2%