from Inquiry, Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 1998, 22-25
© Copyright 1998 Virginia Community College System
Abstract
By writing internal and external criticisms, engaging in research, and preparing oral histories, students take active roles in learning history and use primary sources, as would professional historians.
I would say many students' attitudes toward history are probably mixed with their religion. By that, I mean they pray, "Please, God, if I have only one more hour to live on this earth, let it be in a history class because time goes so slowly." To try to make history more active than just sitting and listening, I have incorporated into my US survey sections three different exercises - internal criticism, research techniques, and oral history - that approximate closely what a public historian actually does.
The internal criticism exercise revolves around a 14-page handout of selected accounts on the Battle of Sand Creek, Colorado, in November 1864. Internal criticism is evaluating people's testimony to see if they are able to tell the truth because of their locations, ability to observe, and interest in the event, and also if they are willing to tell the truth because they have something to gain or want to shade the facts. Of course, there is room for honest disagreement.
The students use the 14 pages of data to answer five questions about Sand Creek. The work is worth 10% of the semester's grade, and the students have two weeks to do the assignment outside class. Because this event took place in 1864, near the "break" point in the US survey course, it can be used either semester.
On the day I give out the Sand Creek assignment, I take an hour to talk about internal criticism, and the historian's goal to find truth, both in fact and interpretation. An example of truth in fact is that Mr. Jefferson outlawed slavery from spreading in the Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois). But did he do that because he wanted to contain the institution of slavery because he thought it evil, or did he want the South, and especially Virginia, to keep a monopoly on slave labor? In this case, the interpretation or the "Why" is everything. Similarly, there was a wall dividing Berlin. Was it there to keep people out or keep them in? Again interpretation, or "Why the wall?" is everything.
The National Archives has close to six linear feet of testimony about the Sand Creek incident. From that, I gleaned quotes and narratives from about 30 people who testified. I also used accounts from two books to show how historians have decided what was truth and what they have written about the incident.
In the Sand Creek exercise, we assume authenticity of the testimony. We are interested in what and why they said what they said about the event. Although students need no other information beside the 14-page handout, some look up the event and use additional accounts to bolster their arguments of why they answered questions as they did.
The general situation at Sand Creek was that Chief Black Kettle and his band of Cheyenne were camped peacefully in eastern Colorado when Colonel Chivington and several units of troops attacked and killed as many Indians as they could, mostly women and children.
The questions I ask about the event are as follows: "Was there an American flag flying over the Indian camp? Had the Indians recently taken scalps? Did the soldiers scalp the Indians? How many Indians were killed? Can it be called a massacre?" The assignment is to answer each question unequivocally and give a few sentences on why they answered as they did. For instance, when deciding how many Indians died, a response of "between 100 and 200" is unsatisfactory. I want an answer like, "About 250 Indians died." Of course, they can not know exactly, but they are the historians and if they can't give a figure, who else can ?
In class, we talk about organizing the mass of information they have before them. They are going to have to think through, evaluate, analyze, and apply internal criticism criteria to many "facts." Because each of the 30 sources does not give information on each question asked, students usually decide on some type of matrix with the questions along the top and the sources on the side, thereby putting all pertinent data about each question in a column. As you might expect, students organize many ways, from color coding to cutting and pasting. Then the criticism of the data begins.
Usually someone asks if there is a "right" answer. Of course, there is a right answer because the event happened, but I don't know what the truth is. We then talk about what history is, usually we decide if one can describe about 30% to 40% of what actually happened about an event in a coherent narrative, then probably we have a good history. We have a color motion picture of the Kennedy assassination and still can't decide how many gunmen there were, how many shots were fired, and from where. What can we know for sure about Sand Creek from the written record by whites only?
When the assignment is due, we talk about their answers before they pass them in so they can refer to their papers. Students never cease to amaze me in their combining of facts, disregarding of facts, applying 20th century values and perspective to the time period, and making invalid inferences. Some answers are flaky, others original and quite good, but usually all are an honest attempt at truth.
I have seen students who have never spoken in class before becoming animated in presenting "truth" as they see it. It's an eye-opening experience for me to see who has become deeply involved with the material. Also, we talk about "fuzzy" words, like "recently" in the question about when the Indians had last scalped. Students' perception of "recently" run from a few hours to years. Less than half the class bothers to look up the definition of "massacre" in a dictionary to see if this event qualifies. Then they discover it matters which dictionary they use, as some dictionaries use the word "massacre" regardless of the number killed. In other words, you could massacre one person according to the American Heritage, but Webster's II requires "many" to be killed.
Part of the testimony of George Bent, half-breed son of William Bent, owner of nearby Bent's Fort, states:
It was not yet light next morning when I was awakened by people shouting that soldiers were coming... by the dim light I could see the soldiers charging down on the camp from each side. When I looked toward the chief's lodge I saw that Black Kettle had a flag up on a long pole, to show the troops that the camp was friendly; then the soldiers opened fire from all side.
There is a lot of discussion deciding if George Bent is able and willing to tell the truth. The obvious points are that he said, "It was not yet light," but he also said by the dim light he could see. Then he said, "When I looked to the chief's lodge, I saw." Could he see? Or is he testifying to what he believed after the fact? The soldiers charged down from each side and opened fire from all sides. Probably not, as tactically in such a maneuver soldiers would shoot each other (friendly fire). Maybe it just seemed to George Bent they were surrounded, and his testimony is not accurate in detail. The 14 pages have many seeming contradictions and discrepancies throughout.
I have another similar, but spurious exercise on a US senator's vote for declaring war in 1917. I give it to students second semester who have done the Sand Creek one first semester. It involves four pages of quotes from diaries, newspapers, books, and collections of personal papers. In this exercise, the students apply internal criticism, but also answer 30 questions with "probably," "probably not," and "indeterminable." They also write a two-page paper on the senator and his vote for war.
Beside internal criticism, there also is external criticism, and we spend some time talking about it as the application of science to a document, such as testing the paper to see if it is as old as the date on it, or finding out if typewriters existed to tell if a typed note from Jesse James could be authentic. Last semester when I talked about external criticism in class, I used articles from national magazines and newspapers about the validity of some recently found documents of President Kennedy having to do with Marilyn Monroe, the Mafia, and other private matters. In this case, the use of zip codes on documents before codes were in existence, multiple pen strokes on one letter which usually is characteristic of someone forging or drawing words, as well as the method used for correcting typing errors which was not available when the papers were dated. All fall under external criticism and seem to show the papers are forgeries.
Researching is a second useful skill for a practicing historian, useful for anyone who organizes data or plans to attend college. I require the students to do a research project. I introduce it the first day of class and dedicate three pages of the syllabus to it. They have all semester to work on it. Worth 30% of their grade, the completed project is a stack of note cards answering a question they have chosen. They never have to turn the notes into a term paper, but they, or anyone else, could write a term paper from the cards. I believe this activity can teach students how to do historical research; that is, how to ask a good question, stay organized through the research part, know when they have finished, and make sure the answer fits the question asked. I'm sure, in a three-hour history course, I can't teach students how to write, and I would rather not have to evaluate their historical knowledge through their writing abilities..
Those who take my course for the second semester do the third exercise, an oral history, if they had done the research project the previous semester. Usually the oral history project is done with an older family member and turns into a pleasant and sometimes an emotional experience for everyone. In this exercise, students learn how to ask good questions, use follow-up questions, use the tape recorder, edit the text, and index the tape. For most, this is the first peek behind the words in textbooks, to see why the authors wrote as they did. Like anything else, there is good history and bad history, and the internal criticism exercise teaches students to be wary of "facts and interpretations," and how to better inquire about what happened in the past. Students' end-of- the -course evaluations of these exercises are highly favorable. Students indicate that they like the oral history projects more than the course's quizzes and tests.
I feel the Sand Creek internal criticism exercise, the research project, and the oral history give a student an idea how a historian, either academic or public, handles primary sources. Students may enjoy the historian's craft, and decide they want to be historians - worse things could happen.
Dr. Lynn Sims has been a historian for the Department of Defense at Fort Lee, Virginia, since 1982. Previously he was Director of the Richmond Bicentennial Commission and city historian. After eleven years teaching in a college in New York, he entered the public history field as a civilian instructor at the Command & General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. His undergraduate degree is in history from Wheaton College in Illinois, and his masters and Ph.D. are in United States Military history from New York University. He has been an adjunct professor at John Tyler Community College for three years, in addition to his full-time position at Fort Lee.