The cover story of the newest issue of Civil War Times asks, “Do we still care about the Civil War?” ECW is pleased to partner with Civil War Times to extend the conversation here on the blog. Today, we conclude our series.
As we wrap up our series on interest in the Civil War, it’s worth noting (again) that this entire discussion—here and in Civil War Times—came about following a May 25, 2019, article in the Wall Street Journal. The article made a fundamental mistake in its approach: it equated visitation at Civil War sites, primarily National Battlefields, with interest in the war. Readers of that article, and the countless folks who shared and retweeted it, compounded the mistake by buying into the original premise in the first place.
Examining battlefield attendance numbers is but one metric for measuring interest. John Hennessey, in a widely circulated Facebook page at the time reprinted in the current Civil War Times, explained those flaws. “The NPS had no systematic way of counting visitors prior to the mid-1980s, and even today, various parks count visitors in different ways,” he said.
The Sesquicentennial also demonstrated the flaws in counting heads as the sole measurement of interest. Hopefuls looking for the Sesquicentennial to boost attendance similar to the boost inspired by Ken Burns documentary found themselves disappointed. Attendance, while healthy, did not blossom. As Nick Sacco pointed out here, programs were generally well attended, but beneath the surface of those numbers, a core group of buffs traveled from place to place and event to event. That speaks well to their devotion, but it also means attendance numbers included a lot of repeat enthusiasts rather than fresh audiences.
Were I to design a more comprehensive study to gauge public interest in the Civil War, I would indeed look at visitations numbers, but there are a number of other things I would look at, too. Continue reading →
