Looking to join a Historical reenactment group

[macwilkin]

You might consider starting a 79th New York Cameron Highlanders rre-enactors group. They were a union highland unit in the Civil War. I bet there are plenty of Confederate re-enactors in Louisiana that would love to fight some kilted Yankees.

Except the 79th New York never served in Louisiana, and wore Federal blue far more than they ever did the kilt.

Regards,

Todd

[79thReproductions]

Except the 79th New York never served in Louisiana, and wore Federal blue far more than they ever did the kilt.

Regards,

Todd

Historical re-enactments don't need to be done where things took place....
True story on the uniform comment ith:

[macwilkin]

Historical re-enactments don't need to be done where things took place....
True story on the uniform comment ith:

Sorry, but I disagree. It's one thing to reenact a battle like Culloden in Pennsylvania. I have no problem with that.

It's another thing entirely when you reenact a unit in a geographic area that never served there, such as the aforementioned 79th New York in Louisiana -- if you want to portray a New Yorker in La., then why not be accurate and portray the 165th NY Veteran Volunteer Infantry, the old 5th NY Duryee's Zouaves -- unlike the 79th, they were actually part of the Red River Campaign of 1864.

I can't tell you how many times I saw "farby" Eastern impressions at Trans-Mississippi Theatre events, and then hearing spectators commenting about all of the kilts and what-not that were in the Civil War. Why do you need to reenact a unit that never served in your area, when there were many other units that didn't have the "cool" uniforms, but served just as gallantly under fire?

The purpose of a living historian, INMHO, is to accurately portray (as much as possible) the average experience of a soldier or civilian in the time period they represent. Unfortunately, in the case of Civil War reenacting, too many participants today don't take the time to research their impressions and what not. But, I'm looking at from a NPS living history perspective, and NPS strives to be as accurate as possible when presenting living history to the public.

If someone wants to do an individual impression of a 79th NY soldier in La. to talk to students and what not, the fine -- but to imply that a unit served there when they didn't just because you can do a "historical reenactment" anywhere is dishonest to the very people that the reenactor is supposed to be educating.

Todd

[79thReproductions]

Sorry, but I disagree. It's one thing to reenact a battle like Culloden in Pennsylvania. I have no problem with that.

It's another thing entirely when you reenact a unit in a geographic area that never served there, such as the aforementioned 79th New York in Louisiana -- if you want to portray a New Yorker in La., then why not be accurate and portray the 165th NY Veteran Volunteer Infantry, the old 5th NY Duryee's Zouaves -- unlike the 79th, they were actually part of the Red River Campaign of 1864.

I can't tell you how many times I saw "farby" Eastern impressions at Trans-Mississippi Theatre events, and then hearing spectators commenting about all of the kilts and what-not that were in the Civil War. Why do you need to reenact a unit that never served in your area, when there were many other units that didn't have the "cool" uniforms, but served just as gallantly under fire?

The purpose of a living historian, INMHO, is to accurately portray (as much as possible) the average experience of a soldier or civilian in the time period they represent. Unfortunately, in the case of Civil War reenacting, too many participants today don't take the time to research their impressions and what not. But, I'm looking at from a NPS living history perspective, and NPS strives to be as accurate as possible when presenting living history to the public.

If someone wants to do an individual impression of a 79th NY soldier in La. to talk to students and what not, the fine -- but to imply that a unit served there when they didn't just because you can do a "historical reenactment" anywhere is dishonest to the very people that the reenactor is supposed to be educating.

Todd

I have to disagree with that, though I understand what you are saying and to a point I agree. As a civil war re-eancter on the west coast I have my bias. I also do different impressions that range from WW1 to Vietnam.

For my its not about cool uniforms, its about the 79th Highlanders...I really care about their legacy. I think alot of people get caught up in what they wore so thats what I spend a great deal of my time explaining. Because I live in Oregon, does that mean I should just hang up my uniform, put away my dresses and tell everyone we should disband because the 79th was never in Oregon? I think that having an organization that portrays a group of people is very respectable. It doesnt matter where on earth it is.....its being done and that counts for something

....having said that....I think that being appropriate to an even or specific battle is very important. I dont want highlanders running around at Gettysburg. (Cus' we all know it would have been a one day fight. )

...But not creating an organization that portrays a great regiment like the 79th or any other just because they never were around? I'm not sold.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The purpose of a living historian, INMHO, is to accurately portray (as much as possible) the average experience of a soldier or civilian in the time period they represent.

I totally agree. Unfortunately not all reenactors see themselves as "living historians", often focusing more on "dressing up" or "playing soldier" than accurately recreating history.

(Note to Mods: we really do need a "living history" thread.)

[macwilkin]

Rachel,

I think we agree on more points than we disagree. If you'll re-read my post, you'll notice that I stated twice that I have no problems per se with a well-done impression for living history purposes, regardless of the location -- in a well-done impression, interpretative talks which clearly explain the history of said unit is the key.

Unfortunately, in a reenactment setting, historical interpretation tends to play second fiddle. As Rathdown mention, some (but certainly not all) reenactors treat "the hobby" as just that -- a hobby. Yes, reenacting is supposed to be about having fun, but the key purpose is to tell the story of those who have no voice.

Again, I don't have a problem with your unit's impression of the 79th per se, but if it were me, I think I would choose to portray an ordinary soldier from one of the Oregon or Washington Volunteers first -- it certainly wouldn't be as "glamorous", but an important story nonetheless that probably doesn't get told. Why go to another area of the country when the local story is probably all but ignored?

Where I have the problem with ACW reenacting is where a specific battle is reenacted, but there are no uniform or impression guidelines that are enforced, so you have kilted Highlanders, Zouaves, Black Horse Cavalry or whatnot fighting in a battle where none of those units fought -- that to me does a great disservice to the general public, especially since the majority of spectators accept the reenactment at face value as "accurate".

And btw, I've reenacted more than just the Civil War -- I've done War of 1812, Mexican War and Spanish-American War impressions as well.

So, if your unit does a historically accurate impression, then bully for them. I just like to see folks focus on local history first. Many reenactment units actually have 2-3 impressions; a friend of mine used to serve with the 9th Texas Infantry (CS) that also did a 165 NY Infantry impression for the Red River Campaign in 1864, for example.

Keep up the fire! (the motto of the 9th US Infantry, my Span-Am unit)

Todd