Young Historian Spotlight: Jack Weaver

Two reenactors portray men from the German Regiment,
the subject of Jack Weaver's excellent senior thesis at W&M.

Today, we are going to begin the first of a series of interviews with a number of young historians. By the time this series concludes in early November, we will have heard from Jack Weaver, Andrew Warren, Ben Olex, Casey Hill, Samantha Sproviero, and Davis Tierney. All of these individuals are broadly interested in the Kabinettskriege era, and have been selected as a result of recent promotion, impending graduate school applications, or work recently begun in graduate school or at a historic site. Today's young historian is Jack Weaver, a bright young Revolutionary-era historian currently applying for graduate school. Jack  has previously written for Kabinettskriege. 

Alexander Burns : What drew you to study the history in this era? In 2018, much of popular memory of military history in the United States is focused on World War 1, World War 2, and the Vietnam War. What about the history of the 1688-1815 era do you find so compelling?

           

Jack Weaver[1]: I grew up around it. When I was a child, my parents would always take me and my brother to important historic sites, especially over times like spring break in elementary and high school. My dad is interested in the Revolutionary War, so we ended up going to a lot of Revolutionary War sites -- I visited Boston, Yorktown, Williamsburg, and Mount Vernon all before I went to high school. My interest continues because even though this period is critical to American history, it is not well understood by many people. In addition to the World Wars and Vietnam, popular memory also focuses on the American Civil War, which is an interesting and worthwhile topic, but it seems to be the earliest event in American history to which the public at large has an easy time connecting, even though earlier periods are just as interesting and just as important.

AB: Is there a particular person, conflict, event, or geographical setting which draws you to this era?

JW: While the earlier part of the period does hold interest for me, I am most interested in mid-eighteenth century America and the early Republic. The work I have done so far focuses on German-Americans during the Revolutionary War, but their impact spreads much further than that. Germans were involved in many of the conflicts which defined British North America. For example, many cities organized German companies of militia, and there were Germans in places of reasonably high leadership. Conrad Weiser was one of Pennsylvania’s leading Indian Agents in the eighteenth century, and his son was a captain in the Continental Army. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, the son of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (the leader of the Lutheran Church in America) became a general in the Continental Army, and his brother, Frederick Augustus Conrad, was the first speaker of the US House of Representatives.

AB: How do you plan to continue your research into this era? You have been employed in a public history setting, and are currently applying to graduate programs. Why have you chosen your particular path?

JW: I spend most of my time at Fort Niagara talking about the French in the French and Indian War and the British in the American Revolution, even though they are not my direct topic of research. There are a few historic sites which explore the role of Germans in Colonial America, but not that many which directly deal with German-Americans in the Revolutionary War. As far as accessible scholarship goes, there are many books available about Germans in Colonial America, many of them actually written by Germans, but there are few which discuss the role of Germans in the Revolution itself. For example, one book in my reading list is Citizens in a Strange Land: A Study of German-American Broadsides and Their Meaning for Germans in North America, 1730 -- 1830, by Hermann Wellenreuther, which certainly deals with the American Revolution and its implications, but that is not its direct topic.

AB: What have you been reading, recently? Could you recommend one book on your topic of interest, or any recent work on the era?

JW: My reading lately has been pretty eclectic, and I have not had much time for it as I would like. Starting from about a year ago and moving forward, I the books relevant to this time period I read were Crucible of War by Frederick Anderson, Heart of Europe by Peter Wilson, and The Civil War of 1812 by Alan Taylor. I am currently reading Dunmore’s War by Glenn Williams, and I am going to start reading The Divided Ground, also by Alan Taylor, when I’m done with that. There are two books I would most recommend. The first Charles Royster’s A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775 -- 1783, a definitive work on the American Revolution, and even though it is ageing a bit, if you want to understand the United States in the war that gave it independence, that is the one to read. The other one is a primary source: the memoir of Joseph Plumb Martin, a Connecticut soldier in the Continental Army which sometimes goes by the name Private Yankee Doodle. Plumb Martin was present at many of the important events of the Revolution, such as the encampment at Valley Forge and the Siege of Yorktown, and his memoir has an excellent dry wit, despite the dreary circumstances in which he often found himself.

AB: Jack- what do you think of Dumore’s War? Do you agree William’s argument that the colonists fought this conflict as a defensive war?

JW: It really depends on the definition of “defensive war.” I suppose it is in the sense that in 1774, Native Americans along the frontier aggressively invaded Virginian land, but the raids they conducted were in response to massacres perpetrated by white settlers. I am not all the way through it yet, though, so I cannot write about William’s argument intelligently.

AB: Thanks so much Jack! Good luck applying for graduate school, we looking forward to following your career as it continues!

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook,  or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading,



Alex Burns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Jack Weaver is a graduate of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he majored in History and minored in German Studies. His Honors Thesis: 'A Corps of much service: the German Regiment of the Continental Army,' received the Ellen Monk Krattiger Award for outstanding work in the study of Colonial North America. He has worked as English Teaching Assistant with Fulbright Austria, and is employed as a Historic Interpreter by the Old Fort Niagara Association. He is currently applying to graduate school for history.

Why Study History?

Dear Readers,

Today we are going to venture off the Kabinettskriege path and look at a question that many minds (much greater than mine... Marc Bloch, for example) have answered, or attempted to answer.

The question is this: why study History?

Why should anyone care about History? It doesn't feed you, it doesn't clothe you, it doesn't shelter you, why should you care?

As a history student, I can't recall how many family dinners where someone hears that you study history, and asks something like, "So you are studying history because you want to be a professor... doesn't that seem like a self-sustaining system?" or, "What is the use of history? So we won't be doomed to repeat it?"

The answer to this question is manifold. Here, I will attempt to give you the bare bones of an argument for history.

1) The "doomed to repeat it" mantra.

Believe it or not, this is actual a legitimate reason to keep the past alive. Ever heard of the Holocaust? American Slavery? There are people in this world who attempt to argue that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that Slavery, "really wasn't so bad." Well, as a Historian, I can guarantee that the Holocaust did happen, and Slavery really was so bad. Let's not even talk about what happened to the Native Americans. 

2) The "Informs who we are today" argument.

This is another common argument, and another good one. The best example I have ever heard of this is the Confederate flag. If you think History doesn't matter to people, go buy a Confederate (non-American readers: The rebels during the United States Civil War) flag, and wave it around in the American rural south. The individuals there will probably clap you on the back and offer to buy your drinks. Do the same thing in urban centers of the American north, and you might receive a beating. (With VERY good reason.) Thus, while history might not put food on the table, it informs who we are today.

3) Leads to a full life.

I met someone recently, who told me that living a life without a knowledge of history is like watching the Thanksgiving day parade on a small black/white tv. You could hear the commentary, perhaps even make out the various floats, but would it really be enjoyable? Living a life without history is the same way.Without it, you can get by, do your job, and live your life, but history adds meaning and depth to life.

4) Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy it! (And this makes History marketable)

In my mind, one of the best arguments for history is that some individuals actual enjoy it! Ever met a Civil War reenactor? A wargamer? Or perhaps someone who just enjoys reading? These people love history. In this way, one could think of the historian as a someone in the entertainment or hobby industry. While my professors would doubtless cringe to think of themselves in this way, the historian is not unlike a company which builds fishing boats. Not everyone loves fishing, or fishing boats, but some people do, and these people fishing boats, creating a demand for more fishing boats. In the same way, historians create a product (books, lectures, etc) to meet a demand.

5) Unless our society changes, schools and colleges require students to have History classes. 

History is a subject which students need to have. Like it, hate it, you have to take it anyway. This creates a demand for history teachers and professors. No one tells the science teachers that they are unnecessary. The fact that history teachers cannot be coerced into designing WMD's is an advantage, right? Just watch Back to the Future. If Doc Brown had been a History teacher, the Libyans wouldn't have shot him.

In summary, History warns us about the traumatic events of the past, (even if we usually choose to ignore that warning,) creates the word in which we currently live, adds meaning and depth to life, and is a commodity which can be bought and sold like anything else.

Believe it or not, History matters.

Thanks for reading,

Alex