When the September 2019 issue of Civil War History released it immediately created a “twitterstorm” as historians reacted to Earl Hess’ article “The Internet and Civil War Studies,” at least certain parts of it. Hess broke down historians’ use of the internet into six categories—published primary materials, archival institution, marketing Civil War books, collaboration between historians, social media, and informational websites—and analyzed the use of each in the field. He based his analysis on several surveys he conducted with professional historians and institutions that use the internet, such as archives and universities.

There are several points in Hess’ article that make sense. In the first category about published primary materials, Hess points to an overwhelmingly positive impact by the internet. A large quantity of published materials—books, regimental histories, government reports, etc—have been digitized over the past few decades and this allows for much wider access to research sources for historians at all levels. I know this had a big impact on my research as a graduate student, and now as I am working on my book manuscript, because I could access many sources without having to travel (which I did not have the time or funding to do). The respondents to Hess’ surveys also discussed better access to teaching materials and research materials for their students, which allowed for better educational experiences in their courses. In a bit of contrast, the success of the internet has had less impact on archival sources. While there have been efforts to digitize archival materials—for example, the National Archives has been working on digitizing the Civil War pension records—this process takes a lot of time and funding, which many institutions do not have. Plus, they need to have enough space on the internet to house their collections and some fear losing proprietary rights to material once it is made public. Hess concludes that research in the archives is not going away anytime soon and it will remain a core part of the historical method. However, there has been a significant advance in accessibility to materials through published finding aids and archive websites that has made it easier for historians to locate the materials they need and plan their research process more efficiently.

Hess’ third and fourth categories are more neutral. He says that there has not been a significant impact on the marketing of Civil War books due to the internet, although most people use the internet to purchase books. He admits though that this is a hard category to analyze since there is very little public data on how many books are sold per year. The only part of this section that I took issue with was a set of comments by a survey respondent complaining about the use of the internet for self-promotion. This respondent said that they did not like self-promotion because our scholarship should stand on its own. I think that all of us expect that our scholarship can stand on its own merit, but we all rely on our scholarship for our career. I do not see an issue with using the internet and social media to amplify the awareness of our work in the field. The fourth category was on collaboration. Hess saw that the internet has increased the communication between historians, but not necessarily collaboration. This makes sense though, as Hess points out, because our field is not necessarily that collaborative and we mostly work on research alone.

The fifth category—social media—was where there was controversy among historians who frequently use the internet for this purpose. Hess and many of the survey respondents took a negative view on social media and blogs. The surveys concluded that most Civil War historians do not use social media. I wonder about the demographics of the survey respondents. What were the ages of those who took the survey? Were they all senior scholars, or was there a mix of junior historians and graduate students? I know many historians in the field who engage with social media or blogging as part of their career, scholarship, and public engagement. The only reason I even created a twitter account was to connect with other professionals and keep up with the field. Twitter has allowed me to keep up with new scholarship coming out and debates in the field (including the one over this article). In addition, it has helped me connect to colleagues that I might only see at conferences, or not see in person at all. Here again were complaints about scholars using social media for self-promotion. However, in the tough market we face today, junior historians especially need to use all strategies to try to secure a place in the field. And why is it a bad thing to boost each other up when our colleagues and friends have a successful moment? It is in no way a detriment to the historical field.

Hess’ article and several of the survey respondents were particularly negative against blogging. Respondents claimed that blogging took away from the real scholarship of the field and did not meet the standards of peer-reviewed books and articles. I was particularly struck by comments from Dr. Allen Guelzo who called blogging “a pernicious waste of scholarly time” that “undermine[s] large-scale, detailed research work and encourage those with little to say to say it as though it were some authoritative utterance” (228). When I was a student with the Gettysburg Semester in 2008, under Dr. Guelzo, he used blogging to promote the semester program. I was the official (and paid) student blogger and I wrote weekly posts about our experiences throughout the semester. It also seemed a bit uncouth to target one single blog with such negative comments (Kevin Levin’s Civil War Memory) when there are dozens and dozens of Civil War blogs (many written by scholars in the field) that could have been analyzed as part of a bigger picture.

This negativity over blogs is partially in response to a challenge that I think everyone can agree on: the fact that anyone can post anything to the internet. Blogs, social media posts, and informational websites (the subject of Hess’ sixth category) are problematic because it is easy to publish misinformation and much of the public do not have the skills to differentiate between scholarly work and incorrect information. This might be the biggest challenge to historians and the most negative impact of the internet on the field. I agree that the internet is a challenge in this way, but I do not agree with the article’s negative view on blogging (obviously, considering my work here with Civil Discourse). Of course, blog posts are not equivalent to peer-reviewed scholarship. Our work on books and journal articles is going to remain the most important part of pushing our understanding of the Civil War period forward. However, the audience for our scholarly books is small and the internet is now where our public is. Blogging is a tool to connect the scholarship of the field, current interpretation, and correct historical methods to the wider public. Yes, there are problems with internet and historical literacy in the public, but why not use blogs and social media to combat that and put correct information on the web? It can be an exhausting process to try to combat misinformation (just ask Kevin Levin with his work on black Confederates), but that is our job. Historians do not just produce scholarship at the top levels; we teach, we work at public historical sites, we do documentaries, and talk to the media. The internet is now where the public is, and historians need to be there too. Will it always be groundbreaking scholarship? No. Not every topic is going to be suitable for a book or article, but many would be interesting to read, would educate about the past, or introduce correct historical interpretations. Historians have a responsibility to engage in current dialogue about the past, and much of that is happening on the internet.

And, on a personal note, blogging is also fun and a great way to stretch interests and intellects. It is so easy to experience burnout when teaching and focusing on a large research project, such as a book manuscript. To me, blogging is a way to talk about subjects that might not be connected to my main research, keep my writing skills sharp, and take a breath from my heavier research agenda. It helps keep my excitement and passion for history going when I get bogged down in the bigger projects I am working on. It also fits in to my personal goals of being an academic historian, but one that tries to connect the historical field to the public. Hess’ article notes that the popularity of blogs is waning; perhaps so, but I think they can be used as a great tool to present well-done history to both colleagues in the field and the public.

Hess, Earl. “The Internet and Civil War Studies.” Civil War History 65, 3 (September 2019): 207-234.

Blog Posts

Editorial: Responding to Earl Hess’ “The Internet and Civil War Studies”; In Defense of Blogging

Civil Discourse