FARMINGTON – The year the University of Maine at Farmington was established 150 years ago, the American Civil War would rage on for another year.
Those very different sesquicentennial anniversaries are being brought together in one event on Saturday by Civil War re-enactors.
Nick Bucci, a UMF sophomore creative writing major with a political science focus from Gardiner, is helping to coordinate the effort between his college and his 15th Alabama, Company G outfit.
Bucci, president of UMF’s Civil War Club and the club’s advisor Doug Tucker, a custodian at UMF, who are both Civil War re-enactors are coordinating the event.
Bucci said plans include his company setting up an encampment in Abbott Park on the UMF campus Friday night for a full day of public events from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday.
Firing demonstrations will be held every two hours at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m., and 3 p.m.
At 1 p.m. a demonstration march to the Civil War Memorial in Meetinghouse Park in downtown Farmington will take place. A ceremony will be held that will include firing shots off.
From 9 to 11 a.m. and 1 to 5 p.m., a historical dress-up tent will be open for visitors to try on period clothing.
From 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. children can learn to drill with the re-enactors. Throughout the day, a medical staff tent will be set up with a surgeon and his assistant on hand to discuss medicine and surgical procedures used at the time of the Civil War.
Lunch will be served at the campfire, “between the drills and cleaning our rifles,” Bucci said.
The 15th Alabama, Company G group has been based in Farmington for sometime, but has become more active lately, he said. About 50 people are on the roster with 15 or more expected to attend Saturday’s event. Re-enactors are coming from neighboring New England states that include New Hampshire and Vermont. There may even be a few re-enactors coming down from Canada to join in on the event, Bucci said.
The event is free and the public is encouraged to attend.
Greetings, pards:
Af few words from a guy who fought the “War of the Rebellion”/”War Between the States” 2.5 times from about 1900 to 2000. I learned a few things and had a lot of weird “fun” trying to pretend I could learn about war and killing other people from playing make believe, Oh, how one feels heroic when putting on the blue (or dirty gray) suit! I did learn a lot about real history from reading a lot of books, and I sadly found that a lot of re-inactors used their misguided thinking about glorious war to urge on the horrible, criminal wars we (modern yankees) were beginning for empire and petroleum.
No war is ever “civil”. My father’s diverse experience fighting as an airman in WWII and during the Korean “war” was not civil to him or the rest of my family. Nevertheless, he helped teach me truths about war. Strangely, so did my graduate school advisor, a bird biologist, but also an intense historian interested in Custer, the Great Plains, and the native American peoples there.
I learned that a man (or woman) acting as a soldier is not a “troop” or a “force, as the media use the word. A “troop’ was a group of calvary of about 75 men. Custer had 11 (as I recall) troops of calvary at the Little Big Horn. Each troop was a cavalry (no, the word is not “calvary” as so often said) unit more or less equivalent to an infantry company. So Custer managed to get about 5 troops eliminated, and about 300 men (cavalry troopers) killed. It didn’t get him the nomination for the presidency, nor did he get to hang a banner that said “MIssion Accomplished.”
Today we have troops of state police with each man a “trooper”. We have troops of boy scouts (about 40 boys is a good size) with each boy a …. scout. The media and, sadly, the military use of the word “troop” for each human being has perverted it over many years. In a subtle way it belittles the value of the men involved. Wounded or killed “troops”; well, not so bad. But wounded or killed men, sons, husbands, brothers? That hurts a bit more. Today, most of our soldiers are infantry. I’m glad we haven’t perverted the term “company” to mean soldier. Word perversion can get pretty dumb, but it’s a media legacy.
If you want to earn the title of credible re-inactor. Do some things correctly. To wit, the “Rebellion War” soldiers were mostly not fat, graying, older men with big bushy beards who wore glasses in battle; unless you are talking about some of the officers. Granted, the southern “boys” were often younger and older than many from the north, but that’s because the south had a more desperate army for much of the war, and they drafted men before the North did. And, of course, their culture glorified war as well as slavery (not unlike our current oligarchy; our slavery is debt) . So…the truth.
Soldiers of 1860-65 averaged about 28 years old. They were not graying geezers. From the thousands of superb photographs of soldiers you can see in the hundreds of books, you will find also the following. They essentially never wore glasses in battle or formation. They were ALL about the leanest of the rarest of us today, and most in the North did not have big bushy beards. Of course they got very dirty and stayed that way when in combat mode. And for the record, the men from the rural northern states were every bit as tough and effective as the southern men; once they had competent officers. The northern city men were a different case apparently, at least for a while.
To make yourself a real re-inactor. Shed the glasses and get dirty and worn and stinky. Do not persistently participate in events until you have a complete “outfit” including pegged brogans and not jeans, etc.. Dye your hair, including beard, to get rid of the gray and try to cut your hair to at least remotely resemble most of the soldiers. Get fit enough to executed a bayonet charge, and lastly loose the big belly. If you are wise you can use re-inacting as a way to get more healthy and loose weight. Start by reading the book, “Primal BluePrint”. Those boys in blue and dirty gray were pretty primal.
Yes, I did dye my hair, I got very dirty and stinky (fun!), had tremendous fun around the campfires, and for some years could out run the few young men in a bayonet charge. When I no longer could do the sleeping on the ground, or the fierce bayonet charges so well, and was clearly no longer able to pose as a 45-year-old, I planned my retirement. Seeing the silly drilling of kids at the encampments for the public as if it were done by the soldiers of 1960-65 – a form of indoctrination of the young to think war is fun – made it easier to sell my kit.
Pardon my typos, y’all. Enjoy the re-inactments, especially the early mornings around the campfires. And remember, re-inacting is supposed to make people avoid war, not encourage it.
@Jim, where to start. Firstly, words change. I don’t think people are “perverting” the definitions of certain words, rather they change with time. A lot of words from 1861 have changed their meanings, it doesn’t mean their “perverted”, like anything else they bend and change to conform with realities today. Secondly, I think any young people who choose to lean about the Civil War through reenactment is a GOOD thing. Too many young adults have so little interest in history, many don’t know simple facts regarding the American Civil War, WWI, WWII etc. Reenacting is supposed to be fun, if young adults actually learn something about the Civil War through “playing war” then what’s it matter? Would you prefer they not and go back playing video games and watching garbage on TV? Maybe they cannot afford the $2500 realistic, accurate historical impression set, maybe they can only afford “less accurate” representations of uniforms. I would think as a historian that you claim to be you wouldn’t care so much about how they’re doing it but rather that they are interested in it in the first place. Finally, I’m not sure you fully understand who is reenacting these days. You have some idea that these young men and woman who are reenacting are some sort of paramilitary group who are training for war…….yeah……no. I know Doug, I don’t think he is encouraging war in any form, sheesh. In fact, it’s those who don’t remember the past who are going to drop us back into war, as George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it”. Any and all interest in history is good, no matter how it’s done.
John who? Yes, I didn’t say learning through reenacting was a bad thing, for any age of person. My words encourage the opposite. No; acceptance, repeated, knowing use of incorrect speech is a form of perversion. It is a great way to mis-lead, even lie. Not just change over time. Bush said “nucular”, and the media and politicians kissed up and used it, a non-word. I’m pretty sure he did it on purpose (what purpose?). He said “nuclear” about 10 times when once on the stage with Tony Blair. Interesting. Perhaps he was concerned with his image in that comparison. It probably helped get the public ready to accept the interesting term (and process), “enhanced interrogation”.
Oh, I had fun reenacting. So will they, and that’s good. The point is to learn that war is not fun, which depends on how you re-enact. I don’t claim to be a historian; only to have learned a lot about history that interests me. You certainly are good at putting words and thoughts in other peoples minds. Militia group? Accusing Doug (with whom I’ve reenacted ) of incouraging war? Where did you get these ideas? How far you spin such nonsense into straw men. I’ll leave the militia grouping to the young marines. Any and all interest in all history is good, unless, of course in involves falsification of the reality. Are you John Frary? If so, then I understand you.
I guess it doesn’t take much to get Jim on a tangent, he went from word perversion to Bush’s “enhanced Interrogation”. Jim from reading your first post it does in fact seem as though you were grouping all re-enactors who have “fun” as war mongers. Either way, I agree all interest in history is a good thing, regardless of beard length or historical accurate personal hygiene. I get it though, you intensely dislike firearms, military culture, anything remotely smelling like Republicans and most of all, kids playing army. So you are conflicted, part of you (the historian who doesn’t like being called a historian) enjoys the idea of re-enacting as it allows some fun hands on learning of history and then the side that dislikes people enjoying it too much, so much so that unless you follow the strictest of guidelines shouldn’t be participating. Again as John seems to be trying to point out, I don’t think re-enacting in any way is indoctrinating young men and woman and glorifying war.