COLLABORATIVE LESSON PLANNING


Meeting the Needs of Students in a Collaborative 
Class through Collaborative Lesson Planning
 
Jason J. Ellington
University of Mary Washington
EDUC351: Instructional Design and Assessment
Professor Janine S. Davis, Ph.D.
December 10, 2013
  
                                                                                                         
 Abstract
 
In the last few decades there has been an increased emphasis on including students with special needs in the general education classrooms.  From the outset, this emphasis on inclusion has placed more pressure on general education teachers to meet the needs of all of their students.  This pressure was met with the growth of the special education teacher specialty within school districts across the U.S.  Initially these “specialized” teachers were references for the general education teachers to use, but more and more special education teachers are placed in the general education classroom in a co-teaching role.  Given this inertia, the relationship between the general education teacher and the special education teacher is crucial to an effective classroom environment.  One area where this relationship should be grounded and fostered is during lesson planning.  Given that the general education teacher is the subject matter expert on curriculum and the special education teacher is the subject matter expert in the instruction of and the accommodations required of students with special needs, it only seems logical that they work as a team to map out the lessons for the class.
Key words: co-teaching, inclusion, lesson planning 
 
Meeting the Needs of Students in a Collaborative Class through Collaborative Lesson Planning
 
Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, schools have struggled with how to conform to the dictates of the law.  More than abiding by the law, schools want to know how best to serve their students with special needs.  The initial response by the states was to structure separate classrooms for those students with special needs in order to more readily meet those special needs.  Historically, people with special needs, i.e., blind, severe cognitive or emotional disabilities, and the deaf, were placed in separate facilities all together.  These people were seen as “defective” by society and were separated from the mainstream because of this defect.  These individuals with special needs were not seen as being able to function in and contribute to society.  The idea was not to educate the special needs population for life in society, but was more focused on providing humane care (Mungai & Kogan, 2005).
With the passage of Public Law 94-142, children with special needs were provided an education in a public school, not in a separate facility providing “humane care”.  The idea of students with special needs being afforded the least restrictive environment (LRE) arose.  It was that language that began the road to the inclusion we see today.  The LRE is at the heart of why students with special needs are in general education classrooms.  However, placing them in the general education class presents many problems, especially for the general education teacher, particularly if they have not received any specialized training as it relates to students with special needs (Mungai & Kogan, 2005).
Today, the problems associated with inclusion for the teacher is being answered by: 1) having the general education teacher receive specialized training in special education (typically a university survey course) , 2) increasing the number of special education teachers in the schools, and 3) placing those special education teachers in the general education classroom in a co-teaching situation.  It is on this third solution that I want to focus.  Who is responsible for what?  What is the role of the general education teacher?  The special education teacher?  Specifically, what are the roles of each of these teachers as it relates to lesson planning?
Discussion
Effective lesson planning is crucial to effective teaching.  Teachers are taught how to construct objectives from the overarching standards that are required to be taught.  Teachers are also taught to implement research-based models of instruction to effectively deliver lessons to students.  What teachers aren’t taught is how to develop objectives and plan for instruction as a teammate in a co-teaching situation.  Both teachers are educated in much the same way; knowing how to develop objectives, align assessments and lessons to those objectives, and how to appropriately deliver that lesson.  In a co-teaching, inclusion classroom, what the general education teacher’s and the special education teacher’s responsibilities are as they relate to lesson planning is of paramount importance to effectively educating the children in the class.  According to Mungai & Kogan (2005), “…an effective collaboration model involves a team of teachers working together as equal partners in interactive relationships, and all involved in all aspects of planning, teaching, and assessment” (p. 31).  While this generalization is true, a lack of specialization in the areas of planning, teaching, and assessing will result in duplication of work and frustration on the part of the general and special education teacher. 
 
Collaborative classroom situations vary from one school to another.  In some schools a special education teacher with a degree in history may be co-teaching in a calculus class, while in other schools the special education teacher may have the background and skills in the requisite area.  Given a lack of standardization of assignment, there should be established a minimum level of responsibility for both the general and special education teacher, especially in the area of lesson planning.  The different knowledge and skills that the individual teachers bring to the classroom would be most useful during the planning process.  The general education teacher’s knowledge of the subject matter and how it fits into the curriculum and the special education teacher’s knowledge of required accommodations of students with special needs within that classroom are examples of the background knowledge and skills that are unique and consistent to each teacher throughout their respective disciplines.
A collaboration model should be developed that, as its basis, accounts for the minimum individual responsibilities that each teacher in a collaborative classroom could follow.  Limiting it to a minimum level would allow autonomy of the teaching team to develop a professional relationship on their terms.  One model of instructional collaboration that could be used as the basis of the general educator-special educator team is the “one teaches, one supports” model.  In the “one teaches, one supports” model “one teacher leads the lesson while the other assists in providing individual assistance and child monitoring” (Loreman, Deppeler, and Harvey, 2005, p. 86).  This is an apt description of the basic collaborative teaching situation and could easily be modified whereas the special education teacher is teaching classes, grading assignments, etc., but no matter what the individual situation for the collaborative team, defining lesson planning responsibilities is paramount to capitalizing on the skills and expertise of both parties involved.  
Given the uniqueness of each teacher’s skills and knowledge, the general education teacher, it should be said, is overall responsible for lesson planning, with the special education teacher having the ability to dictate accommodations and procedure for the students with special needs as delineated in the students’ Individual Education Plan (IEP) (Howard & Potts, 2009).  From the perspective that the general education teacher is the subject matter expert for the curriculum being taught and the special education teacher is the subject matter expert for accommodations as outlined by the IEP, it should not be difficult to define their basic roles along those lines and allow them to grow as a team from there.  The beginnings of any new collaborative team would have as its foundation this concept of the general-special educator team.  The mismanagement of talent may result in special educators teaching content that they are not familiar with, while also neglecting to attend to the very students that they are trained to serve, those with special needs.  This type of situation should be left to the collaborative team. 
  
   
Reference List
 
Howard, L., & Potts E. A. (2009) Using co-planning time: Strategies for a successful co-teaching marriage.  TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(4), 2-12.
 
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2005).  Inclusive education: A practical guide to supporting diversity in the classroom.  London: RoutledgeFalmer.
 
Mangai A., & Kogan, E. (2005).  Pathway to inclusion: Voices from the field.  Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
 
 
Posted in Uncategorized

COLLABORATIVE LESSON PLANNING


Meeting the Needs of Students in a Collaborative 
Class through Collaborative Lesson Planning
 
Jason J. Ellington
University of Mary Washington
EDUC351: Instructional Design and Assessment
Professor Janine S. Davis, Ph.D.
December 10, 2013
  
                                                                                                         
 Abstract
 
In the last few decades there has been an increased emphasis on including students with special needs in the general education classrooms.  From the outset, this emphasis on inclusion has placed more pressure on general education teachers to meet the needs of all of their students.  This pressure was met with the growth of the special education teacher specialty within school districts across the U.S.  Initially these “specialized” teachers were references for the general education teachers to use, but more and more special education teachers are placed in the general education classroom in a co-teaching role.  Given this inertia, the relationship between the general education teacher and the special education teacher is crucial to an effective classroom environment.  One area where this relationship should be grounded and fostered is during lesson planning.  Given that the general education teacher is the subject matter expert on curriculum and the special education teacher is the subject matter expert in the instruction of and the accommodations required of students with special needs, it only seems logical that they work as a team to map out the lessons for the class.
Key words: co-teaching, inclusion, lesson planning 
 
Meeting the Needs of Students in a Collaborative Class through Collaborative Lesson Planning
 
Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, schools have struggled with how to conform to the dictates of the law.  More than abiding by the law, schools want to know how best to serve their students with special needs.  The initial response by the states was to structure separate classrooms for those students with special needs in order to more readily meet those special needs.  Historically, people with special needs, i.e., blind, severe cognitive or emotional disabilities, and the deaf, were placed in separate facilities all together.  These people were seen as “defective” by society and were separated from the mainstream because of this defect.  These individuals with special needs were not seen as being able to function in and contribute to society.  The idea was not to educate the special needs population for life in society, but was more focused on providing humane care (Mungai & Kogan, 2005).
With the passage of Public Law 94-142, children with special needs were provided an education in a public school, not in a separate facility providing “humane care”.  The idea of students with special needs being afforded the least restrictive environment (LRE) arose.  It was that language that began the road to the inclusion we see today.  The LRE is at the heart of why students with special needs are in general education classrooms.  However, placing them in the general education class presents many problems, especially for the general education teacher, particularly if they have not received any specialized training as it relates to students with special needs (Mungai & Kogan, 2005).
Today, the problems associated with inclusion for the teacher is being answered by: 1) having the general education teacher receive specialized training in special education (typically a university survey course) , 2) increasing the number of special education teachers in the schools, and 3) placing those special education teachers in the general education classroom in a co-teaching situation.  It is on this third solution that I want to focus.  Who is responsible for what?  What is the role of the general education teacher?  The special education teacher?  Specifically, what are the roles of each of these teachers as it relates to lesson planning?
Discussion
Effective lesson planning is crucial to effective teaching.  Teachers are taught how to construct objectives from the overarching standards that are required to be taught.  Teachers are also taught to implement research-based models of instruction to effectively deliver lessons to students.  What teachers aren’t taught is how to develop objectives and plan for instruction as a teammate in a co-teaching situation.  Both teachers are educated in much the same way; knowing how to develop objectives, align assessments and lessons to those objectives, and how to appropriately deliver that lesson.  In a co-teaching, inclusion classroom, what the general education teacher’s and the special education teacher’s responsibilities are as they relate to lesson planning is of paramount importance to effectively educating the children in the class.  According to Mungai & Kogan (2005), “…an effective collaboration model involves a team of teachers working together as equal partners in interactive relationships, and all involved in all aspects of planning, teaching, and assessment” (p. 31).  While this generalization is true, a lack of specialization in the areas of planning, teaching, and assessing will result in duplication of work and frustration on the part of the general and special education teacher. 
 
Collaborative classroom situations vary from one school to another.  In some schools a special education teacher with a degree in history may be co-teaching in a calculus class, while in other schools the special education teacher may have the background and skills in the requisite area.  Given a lack of standardization of assignment, there should be established a minimum level of responsibility for both the general and special education teacher, especially in the area of lesson planning.  The different knowledge and skills that the individual teachers bring to the classroom would be most useful during the planning process.  The general education teacher’s knowledge of the subject matter and how it fits into the curriculum and the special education teacher’s knowledge of required accommodations of students with special needs within that classroom are examples of the background knowledge and skills that are unique and consistent to each teacher throughout their respective disciplines.
A collaboration model should be developed that, as its basis, accounts for the minimum individual responsibilities that each teacher in a collaborative classroom could follow.  Limiting it to a minimum level would allow autonomy of the teaching team to develop a professional relationship on their terms.  One model of instructional collaboration that could be used as the basis of the general educator-special educator team is the “one teaches, one supports” model.  In the “one teaches, one supports” model “one teacher leads the lesson while the other assists in providing individual assistance and child monitoring” (Loreman, Deppeler, and Harvey, 2005, p. 86).  This is an apt description of the basic collaborative teaching situation and could easily be modified whereas the special education teacher is teaching classes, grading assignments, etc., but no matter what the individual situation for the collaborative team, defining lesson planning responsibilities is paramount to capitalizing on the skills and expertise of both parties involved.  
Given the uniqueness of each teacher’s skills and knowledge, the general education teacher, it should be said, is overall responsible for lesson planning, with the special education teacher having the ability to dictate accommodations and procedure for the students with special needs as delineated in the students’ Individual Education Plan (IEP) (Howard & Potts, 2009).  From the perspective that the general education teacher is the subject matter expert for the curriculum being taught and the special education teacher is the subject matter expert for accommodations as outlined by the IEP, it should not be difficult to define their basic roles along those lines and allow them to grow as a team from there.  The beginnings of any new collaborative team would have as its foundation this concept of the general-special educator team.  The mismanagement of talent may result in special educators teaching content that they are not familiar with, while also neglecting to attend to the very students that they are trained to serve, those with special needs.  This type of situation should be left to the collaborative team. 
  
   
Reference List
 
Howard, L., & Potts E. A. (2009) Using co-planning time: Strategies for a successful co-teaching marriage.  TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(4), 2-12.
 
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2005).  Inclusive education: A practical guide to supporting diversity in the classroom.  London: RoutledgeFalmer.
 
Mangai A., & Kogan, E. (2005).  Pathway to inclusion: Voices from the field.  Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
 
 
Posted in Uncategorized

“The Conspirator” and Southern Sympathy

Robert Redford’s The Conspirator, released in 2011, is a movie that tells a story of the events surrounding the prosecution of Lincoln conspirator Mary Surratt.  Most of the movie hinges on the trial and plays on the audiences’ curiosity about whether Mary Surratt was guilty of being a conspirator or not.  Surratt is portrayed as a sympathetic character, bordering on being a victim of the federal government and the military tribunal that she was prosecuted under.  While Redford’s goal seemed to be to highlight the inherent injustice in the process he, possibly inadvertently, caused the consumer of the movie to be overly sympathetic to the person on the receiving end of that injustice, Mary Surratt.

There are two facets of Mary Surratt’s life that are overlooked in telling this story.  First, she was a staunch Confederate sympathizer and her part in supporting the Confederacy during the war is largely underplayed in the movie.  Second, Mary Surratt was a supporter of slavery whose family profited through the use of slave labor in Maryland before the Civil War.  Slavery, as an issue, is never discussed in the movie.

Viewers of The Conspirator will inevitably walk away feeling sympathy for the leading character, Mary Surratt, and quite possibly for the former Confederacy itself.  Redford’s attempt to reconstruct the trial that he obviously feels passionate about left little room for an accurate portrayal of who Mary Surratt really was.  The overriding impression that the viewer is left with is that this poor Confederate sympathizer was unfairly convicted and put to death by an overbearing, corrupt federal government.  This perpetuated memory relates to the idea that the South suffered unfairly at the hands of the federal government after the Civil War.  Redford’s emphasis on the trial and the subsequent lack of contextual character background will inevitably leave some viewers with the wrong impression of Mary Surratt and misguided sympathies about the aftermath of the Civil War.

The Conspirator. DVD. Directed by Robert Redford.  Los Angeles: The American Film Company, 2010.

Posted in Uncategorized

Lost Cause ideology on display in 1866 newspaper article.

While conducting research on Colonel John S. Mosby, I came across an article in the Anderson Intelligencer about General Ashby’s funeral that described Mosby as ready to continue the fight and curiously about a faithful slave.  The South as being ready to continue the fight and the faithful slave aspects of the Lost Cause ideology are clear.  The article (bottom right in link) is quoted as such:

“Colonel John S. Mosby, the terror of
the Yankees, was present and acted as a
marshal. He looks remarkably well, and
from every indication it would appear he
has many more campaigns in him yet.
We were much struck by a negro ser¬
vant of General Ashby’s family at the
grave. He wept profusely as the remains
of his former master were being lowered
in the earth.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized

The Continued Attack on the Lake City, Florida Logo

The logo of the city of Lake City, Florida (my hometown) is under attack again by the NAACP.  Dr Coski pointed out in The Confederate Battle Flag that this issue previously came up in 2000. (p. 277)  Dr Coski’s description of the logo doesn’t match what is being contested presently.  It appears to simply depict an impending battle (the largest in Florida during the Civil War) with Union and Confederate soldiers marching toward each other carrying the American Flag and the Battle Flag respectively.  Aside from being the former home of the University of Florida, the Battle of Olustee is all that the town is known for.

Posted in Uncategorized

Mosby Heritage Area Website

I found this website while doing research for my Mosby project.  It is a very large resource of information, mostly about Mosby, but all from the local area.  I even found a photo of a civil war marker next to someone’s above ground pool in their backyard.  It supposedly marks the spot where Mosby captured someone.  I will try to find out more when I head to that area over the next couple of weeks.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Mythology and Memory of Colonel John S. Mosby

The primary and secondary sources listed in the attached bibliography discuss the mythology and memory of Confederate Colonel John S. Mosby.  The focus of my research will be on the development of the “Mosby Myth” during the Civil War and the ways in which he has been remembered by historians and memorialized in Virginia in the late twentieth century.  Despite allying himself with U.S. Grant and his run for the presidency in 1870, repudiating the rise of the Lost Cause ideology, defending J.E.B. Stuart’s actions at Gettysburg (thereby indirectly blaming Robert E. Lee for the defeat), and openly criticizing Robert E. Lee, Mosby has largely been remembered fondly by his fellow Virginians.  This is especially true during the latter part of the twentieth century.

The “Mosby Myth” was created based on his wartime exploits and the reporting of those exploits.  His factual wartime accomplishments have been well documented in biographical works like The Mosby Myth, Gray Ghost, Mosby’s Rangers, and Rebel.  Primary sources such as the newspapers of the era are replete with stories of his exploits.  Of particular importance were the writings of Mosby himself.  Given that he lived until 1916, he was given ample opportunity to write about his wartime exploits through letters and articles.  He authored his memoirs which were released the year after his death in 1917.

Remembrance and memorialization in Virginia is largely concentrated in and around what was known as “Mosby’s Confederacy” during the Civil War and is today known as the Mosby Heritage Area in Northern Virginia.  The Mosby Heritage Area is supported by the Mosby Heritage Area Association which was founded in 1995.  Research of the Mosby Heritage Area and the Association will focus on how Mosby is remembered today in Virginia.

Bibliography

Ashdown, Paul and Edward Caudill.  The Mosby Myth: A Confederate Hero in Life and       Legend.  Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.

This biography is the most detailed and complete description of the creation of the             “Mosby Myth” from his Civil War exploits to modern popular cultural uses of Mosby’s image.

Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Blight draws attention to Mosby’s transformation from Confederate cavalry leader to             supporter of U.S. Grant and his repudiation of the Lost Cause ideology growing in the South.

Fauquier Historical Society. http://www.fauquierhistory.com/index.cfm?pagesID=9 (accessed February 10, 2013).

This website contains a wealth of information about Mosby landmarks in Fauquier             County.

“Mosby Again.” The Times Dispatch, Richmond, May 1, 1904.

This article provides a great deal of evidence of the adoration that Virginians had for             Mosby at the turn of the century.  Supports the chivalrous ideals of the Lost Cause in detailing how Mosby never profited from his raids and that he provides an example for young men to emulate.

Mosby Heritage Area Association. 2011 Historic Fauquier County Scavenger Hunt Handout.

This 27-page pamphlet is produced by the Mosby Heritage Area Association and has detailed information about all of the significant areas within the Mosby Heritage Area.  Information includes brief history of each area with names, dates, etc.  The pamphlet itself is significant in showing how some seek to remember Mosby and perpetuate that memory.

Mosby Heritage Area Association. http://www.mosbyheritagearea.org/ (accessed February 3, 2013).

This is the official website for the Mosby Heritage Area Association and speaks to the             motivations behind the group’s activities in its remembrance of Colonel Mosby.  Site contains points of contact for possible interviews.

Mosby, John Singleton. The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby. Boston: Little, Brown, and             Company, 1917.

The personal memoirs of Colonel Mosby in which he speaks about his wartime             exploits, his denunciation of the Lost Cause and the Lee Myth.  These memoirs contributed to the growth of the Mosby Myth.

Mosby’s Confederacy Tours. http://www.mosbystours.com/index.htm (accessed February 12, 2013).

Website contains information about touring the Mosby Heritage Area, and in itself             speaks to the way Mosby is remembered in Virginia.

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. “Aldie Mill Historic Park.”             http://www.nvrpa.org/park/aldie_mill_historic_park (accessed February 15, 2013).

This website is dedicated to Aldie Mill which is a significant location in the history of             Colonel Mosby.  During the Civil War, Colonel Mosby captured several Union soldiers at the mill.  The presentation of Mosby’s connection to the mill will be studied.

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority.  “Mt. Zion Historic Park.”             http://www.nvrpa.org/park/mt_zion (accessed February 15, 2013).

This website is dedicated to the Mt. Zion Baptist Church which is a significant            location in the history of Colonel Mosby.  During the Civil War, Colonel Mosby’s Rangers fought with Union soldiers in the vicinity of the church on several occasions.  The presentation of Mosby’s connection to the church will be explored.

Ramage, James A. Gray Ghost: The Life of Col. John Singleton Mosby. Lexington: The             University Press of Kentucky, 1999.

This is a biography of Colonel Mosby that covers his Civil War years, the birth and             growth of his mythology, and continues through to his memory in popular culture, namely television and film.

“Reunion of Mosby’s Command.” Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, January 17,             1895.

This article provides a detailed account of the proceedings during a reunion of Mosby’s Rangers.  It reveals many Lost Cause ethos, from the playing of “Dixie” to             members belting out the “Rebel Yell.”  Mosby’s demeanor is described as well.

Robison, Debbie. “Frying Pan Baptist Meeting House.” http://www.novahistory.org/Frying_Pan_Meetinghouse.htm (accessed February 16, 2013).

This website is dedicated to the history of the Frying Pan Baptist Meeting House            which is a significant location in the history of Mosby.  During the Civil War, Mosby’s            Rangers fought with Union soldiers in the vicinity of the church and used it as a meetingarea.  The presentation of Mosby’s connection to the church will be explored.

Sedore, Timothy S. An Illustrated Guide to Virginia’s Confederate Monuments.    Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois University Press, 2011.

This book provides the details behind the monument erected for Colonel Mosby             outside the Fauquier County Courthouse as well as the Mosby Ranger monument erected in Front Royal to the Rangers who were executed by order of General Custer.

Siepel, Kevin H. Rebel: The Life and Times of John Singleton Mosby. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.

This is a biography of Colonel Mosby that covers his Civil War years, the birth and             growth of his mythology, and continues through to his death.  Unique to this biography is            amount of information on the treatment of Colonel Mosby after he decides to go north            and support Grant.

The History of Loudon County, Virginia. http://www.loudounhistory.org/site-index.htm             (accessed February 17, 2013)

This website has detailed information about many of the significant Mosby sites.

The John Singleton Mosby Foundation Museum. 2008. http://www.mosbymuseum.org/.            (accessed February 11, 2013)

This website is the official website of the Mosby Museum.  It is located in a house that Mosby use to reside in.  The museum’s grand opening was January 30, 2013.  The background effort to create the museum will be explored.

“The Memory of Mosby.” The Lexington Gazette, October 18, 1911.

This article recounts an alleged encounter between Colonel Mosby and a bank             employee where Mosby is depicted as someone to not be messed with.  The article clearly speaks to how Mosby was thought of late in his life.

The Mosby Heritage Area Association.  The Mosby Heritage Area Sampler: A Motoring Tour in the Northern Virginia Countryside.

Similar to the scavenger hunt pamphlet, this pamphlet provides great detail about the sites within the Mosby Heritage Area.  The amount of information and detail is indicative of the Association’s treatment of Mosby’s memory.

U.S. Army Ranger Hall of Fame. http://www.ranger.org/Resources/Documents/RHOF%20 Master %20List%20(06-04-2012).pdf (accessed February 17, 2013).

This website details the fact that Mosby was inducted into the U.S. Army Ranger Hall             of Fame during its inaugural induction ceremonies in 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form.  Form no. 10-300. Request to have Brentmoor placed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Submitted January 20, 1978.

Provides information relative to the justification by the owner to have this home, a             former Mosby residence, recognized by the National Park Service.  The justification is revealing in that it provides a glimpse into the way people remembered Colonel Mosby.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.  NPS Form 10-900. Request to have Waveland placed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Submitted July 2, 2004.

Provides information relative to the justification by the owner to have this home, a             home used by Mosby during the war, recognized by the National Park Service.  The             justification is revealing in that it provides a glimpse into the way people remembered Colonel Mosby.

Warren Heritage Society. http://www.warrenheritagesociety.org/ (accessed February 16, 2013).

Provides detailed information about significant Mosby sites and information             concerning the Mosby artifacts contained within the Warren Rifles Confederate Museum.

Wert, Jeffrey D. Cavalryman of the Lost Cause: A Biography of J.E.B. Stuart. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008.

A biography of J.E.B. Stuart that provides insight into the relationship that the two had and how his association with Stuart helped fuel his mythology and his denunciation of             General Lee after the war.

Wert, Jeffrey D. “John Singleton Mosby’s Revenge.” Weider History Group. HistoryNet.com.  http://www.historynet.com/john-mosby#articles (accessed February 16, 2013).

Article that details the execution of Union soldiers by Mosby’s Rangers in retaliation             for the execution of some of Mosby’s men on the orders of General Custer.

Wert, Jeffrey D. Mosby’s Rangers: From the High Tide of the Confederacy to the Last Days at Appomattox – The Story of the Most Famous Command of the Civil War and its             Legendary Leader, John S. Mosby.  New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.

A biography of Mosby and his Rangers focusing specifically on his Civil War exploits            and the growth of his mythic persona.

Posted in Uncategorized

Florida’s Last “Confederate Widow” Honored

A monument was erected in Florida for Nena Mosely Feagle portraying her as the last Confederate widow from Florida.  Mrs Feagle was born in 1894 and died in 1985.  There are two remarkable facts about this case.  The obvious one is that a woman who wasn’t even alive during the Civil War is being honored for her ties to it.  The only information I could find about the “Veteran” is that he perrformed one mission, carrying a message through enemy territory during the Battle of Olustee, when he was six years old! (1)  Even for modern contributors to the Lost Cause this seems like a bit of a stretch.

(1)http://dayfamilynet.tripod.com/1146/id6.html

Posted in Uncategorized

New Slave Monument Approved in North Carolina

The more things change, the more…  It seems that some never learn.  A monument to honor slaves that allegedly served in the Confederate Army has been approved in Union County, North Carolina.  Surprise, surprise, one of those that has been pushing for this is member of the local Sons of Confederate Veterans organization and amateur historian, emphasis on the amateur.  It appears that the ancestors of the slaves are happy about the occasion, but it screams of creating the loyal slave image that is prevalent in the Lost Cause  ideology.  I am sure that a great effort has been made to dupe them into thinking that this is a great honor for their family members.  Certainly someone on the Union County “historic commission” has read about Civil War history and heard of the Lost Cause…

Posted in Uncategorized