(re)(en)acting
150 years later...they return (again) and I arrive
I pulled up to the camp in my red VW Beetle, unsure of what to expect, or, more specifically, if I would make it through four days of the unexpected. Out of the thousands of canvas tents, I found the yellow beaver-emblazoned flag of Weidrich’s Battery’s encampment and unloaded my gear, which consisted only of clothes just purchased at Wal-Mart (as I was not planning on keeping anything I wore there) and an abundance of bug repellant, sunscreen and baby wipes. I was the last to arrive and thus the only one not in period clothing. Dressed in a tank top and shorts due to the 95 degree weather, I was called a “fallen woman,” using the vernacular of the time, and good-naturedly ridiculed by the reenactors for showing my ankles.
Anxious to begin my research, which meant not only interviewing reenactors but reenacting in as many different impressions as I could muster, I quickly slipped out of the climate-appropriate clothing and donned a day dress of navy blue flowers complete with hoop, snood, hat, gloves, and purse. I had just a few minutes to prepare my impression as a female civilian for the first battle, “Crossroads of Destiny,” and thus little time to truly think about what I was doing. Now ridiculously dressed for the heat and not graceful in my walk with a six foot circumference around me, I headed to the field for my first glimpse of just what I had gotten myself into.
I wound my way through the spectators and found a vantage point behind the artillery and, amazingly, found Weidrich’s and their three inch ordinance cannon. Five men operated the cannon and axillary artillery troops stood at the ready behind the limber to assist if, and when, members of the battery were killed. And some men were to die in that battle, as the unit was already reprimanded once for not having any of its members succumb to the Rebel firepower at the last reenactment. Watching the spectacle of the battle, I did not have a sense of stepping back through time – and I wanted it. I knew that I needed to get my hands on that cannon. Which meant getting into some wool pants.
After my experience at the Neshamminy reenactment a few months earlier, I knew that I had a lot to learn – and that most would only be learned through experience, not interviews. One of the difficulties I had in my first set of reenactor interviews was that I was not speaking in the language of the hobby – I was asking in the vernacular of an academic. As much as I tried to formulate my questions in their language, I did not have the experience to do so and no amount of reading was enabling me to integrate myself enough into the reenacting culture to fully understand the ways in which to ask particular questions or speak of various topics of this subculture. Read my after-action-review of my first reenactment and reenactor interviews.
While I was looking forward to interviewing the reenactors, it was difficult to formulate questions that would enable me to explore further the intersection of war, memory and gender for reenactors without having the experience of reenacting myself. Dressed in period clothing, I was now an insider, one of “the men,” and could move easily through the camps, battlefields and sutlers watching and listening with intent. I learned an incredible amount in a short time – the stories, gossip, pet peeves and jokes of the hobby, the expectations and the disappointments of the event, the familial bonds that turned into unit cohesion - and had a new perspective on my project and my previous hypotheses. After just a few days in the baking sun on a rented farm, I saw that the hobby could not just be treated as an area of inquiry and critique. There was more to the story here that needed to be uncovered and told. Most works that discuss reenacting fixate on the performative and the (re)creation of historical narratives that shape the cultural understanding of the nation. While there is still much to be said on that front, the reenactors themselves routinely cite their family – past and present – as a reason for their being dirty, sweaty, and smelling of black powder for many weekends a year. This familial connection to the past (comparing how many “grates” you had in the War is a common discussion in the camps) and the present (all the units I spoke with were comprised of familial units spanning several generations) was the major draw to the hobby for a majority of the reenactors I spoke with. Commemorating their ancestors and their country while getting to spend quality time with their family is what kept them coming back year after year. Hear reenactors explain in their own words why they reenact.
Of course, many also enjoyed the opportunity to shoot the guns and/or cannons and hoped for a “moment” of time-traveling clarity into the past – two of the reasons of reenacting that much of the literature discusses. What the literature is very thin on, however, is the history of reenacting itself. There is a great emphasis on the influence of the Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary of the early 1990s, Tony Horowitz’s Confederates in the Attic and of the big anniversary events that roped people into the hobby. However, at Gettysburg I had the fortune to meet Ray Smutko, an artillery Captain who reenacts the 1st New Jersey Light Artillery and who has been reenacting since the beginning of American organized Civil War reenacting 50 years ago. I spoke for hours with Cpt. Smutko and his extended family (all reenactors, including two of his teenage granddaughters) and learned of a fascinating, colorful history of reenacting that I had never encountered before in any reading. Capt. Smutko was given a citation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the Gettysburg event, commemorating his 50 years of service to the reenacting hobby and noting his participation in the 100th Gettysburg national reenactment exactly 50 years earlier. Read more about Capt. Smutko and the history of reenacting.
Questions I needed to answer:
Who is the audience?
Reenactors tell me that they are reenacting for themselves – for their forefathers who served, for the experience, for the love of history and for the opportunity to spend quality time with their family away from the distractions of the 21st century – work, cell phones, Facebook.[1] The spectators were in the thousands and filled up several of the portable stadium seating that are used at the US Open and spilled out along the edges of the battlefields. However, these masses were typically not in the consciousness of the reenactors, whose main audience was themselves and their fellow reenactors. The performances by the reenactors were for themselves, for their ancestors, or for the men beside them. During some battles, such as one that I participated in serving the Infantry soldiers as an “Ice Angel,” the spectators were up to half a mile away, so it was not difficult to forget there was an audience and easier to focus on the battle (and our inglorious retreat) and to perhaps feel like you “were really there”. At Pickett’s Charge, our battery was no more than 20 feet from the grandstand so the audience was always a factor, but less in a performative respect and more so that we were monitoring to be sure no one was smoking as we had 14.5 pounds of black powder in the limber.[2]
The spectators, or “the public” as they were often referred to, treated us like we were "animals in a zoo" as one reenactor noted. They would walk right up to us, when out in the sutler area, or at camp, and snap a photograph without saying a word. Some more intrepid spectators would ask a question or two, but most took pictures and kept on their way, not inquiring about what they were taking a picture of. They were paying for entertainment, and we were it.
Where are the "real" veterans? Is reenacting a way to (re)live the martial masculinity of a youthful soldier or to get to do in a staged battle what you were unable to do as a soldier?
With a deep anti-gun sentiment in America today, why are there so many families who reenact and who bring their children to see simulated violence?
Why has the real history of reenacting not been told before?
How does embodying a soldier, or watching the embodiment, achieve catharsis for the reenactor and the spectator?
What are the connections between reenacting and the Boy Scouts? Why are there so many ex-Scouts/Troop leaders reenacting?
How do those who do specialty impressions obtain the role? What is the hierarchy of a reenactment? And why do people willingly subscribe to this structure?
How do reenactments and reenactors (re)shape history in their performances? How do these performances inform others about the understanding of the War and the nation? Should reenactors be the ones to teach history? What are the advantages of "living history" in the education of children and adults? What are the ramifications of being viewed as an "expert" because you are dressed up in period clothing?
Is reenacting a mythopoetic act?
[1] Yet, there were many reenactors who were carrying their digital cameras in their haversacks and taking pictures during the reenactment and even during the battles, most of which I am sure will end up posted on Facebook. Like mine did.
[2] We also had some watermelon slices and other snacks, but we were less worried about those exploding from an errant cigarette butt.