Mike Jernigan - Auburn Man (2)

If ever there was an "Auburn Man," then George Petrie would be near the top of the list.  He founded Auburn football and put Auburn's first team on the field in Atlanta against Georgia in 1892.  He taught at Auburn for almost 55 years and for many years he was Dean of the Graduate School.  He influenced so many Auburn people including Shug Jordan.  He composed "The Auburn Creed" in 1943.

Petrie was born in Montgomery in 1866, the son of a former Confederate chaplain who later became a prominent Presbyterian minister in Charlottesville, Virginia.  In doing his undergraduate work at UVA his chosen field was to be Latin and modern languages.  Hard to believe, he took no history classes at Mr. Jefferson's university.  He accepted an Auburn job in 1887 to teach modern languages at $750 a year.

What did he think of Auburn when he arrived in 1887?  Old Main (it was called), the precursor of Samford hall, had just burned and Langdon Hall was just about it.  It's amazing that Petrie stayed, but stay he did, but not before heading Johns Hopkins for his doctorate.

In the spring of 1889 Petrie headed for Baltimore.  It was in grad school under the famous historian Herbert Baxter Adams that he got turned on to history.  How many people were inspired into their career choice by a great teacher?

It was a visiting lecturer named Woodrow Wilson who turned Petrie on to football.  I had no idea before reading this book that Woodrow Wilson played a role in the beginning of Auburn football.

Petrie returned to Auburn in 1891 when President Broun created for him a Professorship in Latin and History at the Agricultural and Mechanical College as Auburn was known then.  He didn't retire until 1943.

In 1907 Petrie was attracted to a potential job at Tulane,  Thank goodness he decided to remain at Auburn.  Otherwise, there might have been no Auburn Creed. He also received an offer from the U of Alabama 1913.  Thank goodness he stayed with us!

Changing our 19th Century History Language

9-4-15

These Are Words Scholars Should No Longer Use to Describe Slavery and the Civil War

tags: slavery

 25  9  0 

 

 

by Michael Todd Landis

Michael Todd Landis, an Assistant Professor of History at Tarleton State University specializing in the intersection of slavery and politics in the 19th century United States, is the author of Northern Men with Southern Loyalties: The Democratic Party and the Sectional Crisis(Cornell, 2014).

Plantation or slave labor camp?

Let’s face it: a new generation of scholarship has changed the way we understand American history, particularly slavery, capitalism, and the Civil War. Our language should change as well. The old labels and terms handed down to us from the conservative scholars of the early to mid-twentieth century no longer reflect the best evidence and arguments. The tired terms served either to reassure worried Americans in a Cold War world, or uphold a white supremacist, sexist interpretation of the past. The Cold War is over, and we must reject faulty frameworks and phrases. We no longer call the Civil War “The War Between the States,” nor do we refer to women’s rights activists as “suffragettes,” nor do we call African-Americans “Negroes.” Language has changed before, and I propose that it should change again.

Legal historian Paul Finkelman (Albany Law) has made a compelling case against the label “compromise” to describe the legislative packages that avoided disunion in the antebellum era.1In particular, Finkelman has dissected and analyzed the deals struck in 1850. Instead of the “Compromise of 1850,” which implies that both North and South gave and received equally in the bargains over slavery, the legislation should be called the “Appeasement of 1850.” Appeasement more accurately describes the uneven nature of the agreement. In 1849 and 1850, white Southerners in Congress made demands and issued threats concerning the spread and protection of slavery, and, as in 1820 and 1833, Northerners acquiesced: the slave states obtained almost everything they demanded, including an obnoxious Fugitive Slave Law, enlarged Texas border, payment of Texas debts, potential spread of slavery into new western territories, the protection of the slave trade in Washington, DC, and the renunciation of congressional authority over slavery. The free states, in turn, received almost nothing (California was permitted to enter as a free state, but residents had already voted against slavery). Hardly a compromise!

Likewise, scholar Edward Baptist (Cornell) has provided new terms with which to speak about slavery. In his 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism (Basic Books), he rejects “plantations” (a term pregnant with false memory and romantic myths) in favor of “labor camps”; instead of “slave-owners” (which seems to legitimate and rationalize the ownership of human beings), he uses “enslavers.” Small changes with big implications. These far more accurate and appropriate terms serve his argument well, as he re-examines the role of unfree labor in the rise of the United States as an economic powerhouse and its place in the global economy. In order to tear down old myths, he eschews the old language.

I suggest we follow the lead of Finkelman and Baptist and alter our language for the Civil War. Specifically, let us drop the word “Union” when describing the United States side of the conflagration, as in “Union troops” versus “Confederate troops.” Instead of “Union,” we should say “United States.” By employing “Union” instead of “United States,” we are indirectly supporting the Confederate view of secession wherein the nation of the United States collapsed, having been built on a “sandy foundation” (according to rebel Vice President Alexander Stephens). In reality, however, the United States never ceased to exist. The Constitution continued to operate normally; elections were held; Congress, the presidency, and the courts functioned; diplomacy was conducted; taxes were collected; crimes were punished; etc. Yes, there was a massive, murderous rebellion in at least a dozen states, but that did not mean that the United States disappeared. The dichotomy of “Union v. Confederacy” is no longer acceptable language; its usage lends credibility to the Confederate experiment and undermines the legitimacy of the United States as a political entity. The United States of America fought a brutal war against a highly organized and fiercely determined rebellion – it did not stop functioning or morph into something different. We can continue to debate the nature and existence of Confederate “nationalism,” but that discussion should not affect how we label the United States during the war.

Why should we continue to employ wording that is biased, false, or laden with myth? Compromise, plantation, slave-owners, Union v. Confederacy, etc.: these phrases and many others obscure rather than illuminate; they serve the interests of traditionalists or white supremacists; they do not accurately reflect our current understanding of phenomena, thus they should be abandoned and replaced. I call upon historians in all fields to reexamine their language and terminology. Let us be careful and deliberate with our wording; though we study the past, let us not be chained to it.

__________

1 Paul Finkelman, “The Appeasement of 1850” in Congress and the Crises of the 1850s. Edited by Paul Finkelman and Donald Kennon (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2012).

---

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160266#sthash.v4NPZpM2.dpuf

George Petrie (4)

For the first Auburn football game against Georgia in 1892 I read that 2,200 tickets were sold although the crowd was estimated at 5 to 8,000.  George Petrie died in 1946  before the advent of modern Auburn football.  What would he think about today's venue in the Georgia Dome?  Could he have foreseen such an explosion of interest in the business of college football?  I doubt it.

George Petrie (3)

"I'm excited that Auburn people can at last read the amazing story of George Petrie---the first Tiger football coach, author of the 'The Auburn Creed,' and one of the university's all-time greatest academic minds.  no other individual in history has impacted Auburn is so many important ways or better represented the ideal combination of both academic and athletic achievement.  Petrie's story is a must for any true Auburn person's bookshelf."
-Pat Dye

George Petrie (2)

Not only was George Petrie Auburn's first football coach, he was Auburn's first baseball coach.  After the Georgia game Petrie and Dr. Herty with whom he had conspired to set up the football game planned a baseball game in Montgomery in June of 1892.  I am sad to report that Georgia won 13 to 3.

George Petrie

Auburn can point to one man who started football on the Plains.

George Petrie started Auburn football having learned the game in Baltimore in earning his Phd in history at Johns Hopkins.   He was our first coach.  Petrie also built the first tennis court at Auburn.

Coach Petrie picked Auburn's colors of burnt orange and navy blue no doubt taking the choice from his undergrad days at Virginia and their orange and blue.

He arranged our first game against Georgia at Piedmont Park in Atlanta in February of 1892.  The Tigers won 10 to 0.

Mike Jernigan - Auburn Man: The Life & Times of George Petrie

Appropriately enough on game week 2015 I am reading the biography of George Petrie, the founder of Auburn football.