James McPherson on Causes

Greetings Cosmic Americans!
Here, historian James McPherson offers his assessment on how former Confederates moved way from the slavery issue when they tried to explain the cause of the Civil War. He highlights state rights and cultural nationalism. What do you think?

Peace,
Keith

Civil War Lives: a Debriefing

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The article "the" could easily have been added (as pointed out by one scholar in attendance) to the most recent soiree at the Huntington Library in San Marino to confirm that, indeed, the Civil War lives. It most certainly does.

Cosmic America readers by now know that last weekend I attended Civil War Lives: a conference (this time) focusing on biography. A splendid time was had by all. Even my wife, Coni attended - both days, mind you - and got some insight into the wonderful world in which we Civil War historians share.

For those of you who have never attended such a meeting, let me point out that this conference was not an ordinary academic gathering. While those can be a little on the dry side, so to speak, Civil War Lives was nothing of the sort. Yes - a number of the nation's most esteemed Civil War historians gave talks, but the colloquial atmosphere without question made the conference more inviting.

My point: both scholar and lay person would have come away pleased...as many did. The line up featured - among others - Joan Waugh, Gary Gallagher, Brooks Simpson, David Blight, Carrie Janney, and James McPherson. I will not go in to depth about the talks specifically, but I will point out that such a collection of scholars is rarely assembled for a single conference. We even got some insider jokes...Gallagher noted how he has been a great admirer of McPherson since he was a young boy (commenting on McPherson's advanced age), and one attendant suggested Waugh's attention to questioners' use of microphones and keeping the schedule within the allotted time frames would make for great high school teaching, a point to which all (including Blight) agreed.

Personally, I got to have nice chats with former teachers (Gallagher and Waugh) reconnect with an old graduate school friend (Janney), finally meet a fellow blogger (Simpson) and have lunch with one of my favorite scholars (Blight) who, by the way, I take to task in my own forthcoming book on Civil War veterans.

I did not shoot a lot of video - you can click here to see Gallagher speak on Robert E. Lee's loyalties. Consider this a teaser...keeping in mind that you will need to clear your calendar for next year's conference. Of course I will keep you all posted when I get the dates and other information. Trust me, you will not want to miss it!

Peace,
Keith

PS - Brooks Simpson pointed out on Crossroads that podcasts of all the speakers' talks will be available shortly - for now, Joan Waugh's introductory remarks and Gary Gallagher's talk concerning Robert E. Lee's loyalties are available HERE.

Writing Will Beget More Writing

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

This may be one of my favorite Youtube videos. James McPherson - talking about his writing habits. I can't imagine what it must be like to write out entire books in longhand and then type them on an old (once state of the art, to be sure) Olympia typewriter, But hey - whatever works...right?

My Civil War enthusiast readers should definitely enjoy this - but any author will benefit from McPherson's words. I would pay particular attention to what he says about introductions. Words to live by :)

Peace,

Keith

Upcoming Civil War Conference You Will Not Want to Miss

[caption id="attachment_1692" align="alignleft" width="195" caption="Historian David W. Blight, author of Race and Reunion and American Oracle will be discussing the work of Bruce Catton"][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

If you live in Southern California, or if you are looking for an excuse to head west - you will want to be sure and put this one on your calendar.

On October 21st and 22nd, the Huntington Library in San Marino (right next to Pasadena) will host the much anticipated conference: Civil War Lives, co-convened by Joan Waugh (UCLA) and Gary Gallagher (UVA).

This should be quite the shindig indeed. Speakers include an all-star line up of the some of the country's best historians including James McPherson, David Blight (pictured), Joan Waugh, Caroline Janney, Brenda Stevenson, Brooks Simpson, Alice Fahs, Stephen Cushman, and Gary Gallagher. Prepare yourself for a healthy dose of Civil War history and memory - you will not be disappointed. The icing on the cake? It only costs $25 (money well spent). You can access the Huntington calendar of events by clicking HERE, and there you will find a contact email and phone number for registration.

Naturally, Cosmic America (namely, me) will be there with cameras rolling. So stay tuned for a full report.

Peace,

Keith

More on Contingency - Ed Ayers's In the Presence of Mine Enemies

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Continuing on with yesterday's post discussing (in part) contingency and the Civil War, I thought I might offer a few words on Edward L. Ayers's book, In the Presence of Mine Enemies.

Ayers crafts a narrative claiming to be free from such analytical impediments as simple explanations, stark opposites, and sweeping generalizations. Seeking to clarify how otherwise intricately linked communities - one northern and one southern - wound up on opposing sides of the conflict, Ayers builds a case for “deep contingency.” For Ayers, deep contingency emphasizes “dense and intricate connections in which lives and events are embedded.” Further, it rejects formulations of inevitability, particularly those that pit “progress” against “backwardness” implying an obvious victor. He does so by weaving together national events with sectional, political with cultural. Ayers considers previous analyses of chance, what he refers to as “surface” contingency, flawed. This scholarship, Ayers argues, has only emphasized and dramatized national affirmation and redemption thus obscuring the realities of the period. Arguments boiling down to simple “unfolding inevitabilities,” he claims, “ miss the essence of the story.” Yet, does observing contingency at a supposedly deeper level represent a significant departure from previous efforts to understand the Civil War era? I am not so sure.

Ayers’s principal objection to James McPherson’s brand of contingency refers to both his Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom and his later publication illuminating the “turning point” at Antietam, Crossroads of Freedom. He acknowledges McPherson’s conclusions regarding battlefield contingency and admits that momentous events on the battlefield had dramatic repercussions for both the Union and Confederate causes. Further, Ayers agrees that events in the war were unpredictable and could have deviated in multiple directions with innumerable potential outcomes. Thus, he similarly emphasizes the so-called turning points of 1862 – the Valley campaign during the summer arresting the Union onslaught in Virginia, and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation following the narrow Union victory at Antietam that autumn. However, while Ayers maintains that prior works concerning these events appropriately underscore the lack of predictability in a war, he concludes that they do not support the notion of deep contingency that frames his book. “We acknowledge contingency,” Ayers suggests, but because contingency eventually led to the end of slavery, we “still feel the pull of the inevitable.”

For Ayers, an understanding of deep contingency helps one read beyond the simplistic formulation of the Civil War as a slave society versus a non-slave society. To avoid “false impressions that we have explained something when we have not,” Ayers insists on gathering as much data as possible concerning the whole society. Only then will the profound web of connections between politics, ideology, culture, and economics be revealed. One can identify sudden historical shifts easily enough, but illustrating the root cause (or causes) is infinitely complex.

Ayers’s reading of Battle Cry and Crossroads suggests that McPherson has made the critical error of illustrating the forces of history working in a predictable and ultimately positive direction, and that McPherson illustrates contingent factors – the chance occurrences on the “surface” – as events further aligning the war toward the known outcome: the prevailing cause of freedom.

Well...maybe so, but I am still puzzled at the need to differentiate between deep and surface contingency. You be the judge - as always, your two cents are more than welcome.

Peace,

Keith

Turning Points

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

One of the most useful tools for bloggers is something called Statcounter. Just in case you are not familiar with this free service, Statcounter is an invisible tracking service that you can configure to track just about anything that happens on your blog (or website). Where the hits came from, where they went, how long they were there, and what they searched for on Google (or whatever) to find you. It might seem a little obsessive to meticulously go over these stats every day. But really, the information gleaned from this site has really helped me tune Cosmic America to my liking.

Anyway....the reason I mention all of this is because the other day I noticed a few hits from someone who had done a Google search with this intriguing question: "Why was Gettysburg the turning point of the Civil War?" The phrasing is what caught my eye -  because the person asking presumed that Gettysburg was the turning point...as opposed to a turning point.  Suffice to say, Gettysburg was a significant battle in the overall scheme of things. It was the last time a major Confederate army advanced into United States territory and the Union victory greatly improved the morale of the loyal population in the North. But to suggest that Gettysburg was the turning point obscures the ebb and flow of prospects for victory for either side. The war was hardly a downhill ride for the Rebels from July 1863 on.

The notion of turning points is always a tricky matter. While is it tempting to view them, especially in the case of Gettysburg, as clear cut lines of delineation, in doing so we run the risk of falling into an ahistorical trap...that is, reading history backwards.

(sidebar: I once heard of a history class taught precisely this way. It began in the present...and worked backward to discover the origin of events. Honestly, I shuddered at the thought.)

Suggesting that Gettysburg (or Vicksburg or any other battle) was the turning point in the Civil War is is a sure-fired way to get it wrong. In fact, from our twenty-first century perspective, there were many turning points in the war. The ascendancy of Robert E. Lee in the early summer of 1862, the Battle of Antietam in the autumn of the same year. The fall of Atlanta in 1864. The reelection of Abraham Lincoln. The list goes on and on. We can point to any of these events and say with confidence: AHA! There it is! From this point the outcome of the war was set in stone. But we can only say that because we know how things turned out.

The point is, those in the ranks and on the homefront did not. Soldiers and citizens on both side sides had their doubts, their certainties, their hopes...and all of these could (and did) change with changing events.

James McPherson, in his Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom warns against viewing the war as destined to end the way is did from any given point. His ideas regarding contingency illustrate that any number of things could have happened potentially changing the outcome of events. Meaning: the United States proving victorious at Gettysburg did not mean the war was over - not by a longshot. While McPherson in this regard provides a valuable lesson for Civil War students, I would caution nonetheless. Even esteemed historians can accent the battles and other events - providing a trajectory (contingency intact) of a steady movement toward Union victory and all that came with it. Contingency or not, a certain teleology bleeds through in Battle Cry. Nation, freedom...it almost seems foreordained from the onset.  There is an overall triumphal tone to his book, implying a progression toward the ultimate goal of victory and freedom. McPherson writes  always knowing what is at the end of the tunnel. He generally stresses the significance of contingency when it works in favor of the Union cause and Union victory, but does not give the same treatment to the Confederacy at Chancellorsville or Jubal Early’s shelling of Washington City in 1864, McPherson's work is strikingly similar in terms of the relationship between civilian morale and battlefield events…he concentrates on the tendency of northerners to steadily grow in support of things such as the Emancipation Proclamation.

And so we need to think carefully about turning points - or any events for that matter. What they mean to us...what they meant to those who lived through them - did they suspect that such turning of the tides were actually taking place? I have indeed looked at a number of soldiers' and civilians' letters and diaries written shortly after Gettysburg - from both sides. With a few exceptions (such as sensationalist newspaper headlines), I have seen scant trace of certain victory or certain defeat. Unionists were thrilled - Confederates were not...but the war dragged on.

Peace,

Keith

James McPherson on Lincoln as Commander in Chief

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I always like to pass along prominent historians' takes on the Civil War. Here is a mighty fine video featuring Pulitzer Price winning historian James McPherson speaking on Lincoln as commander in chief. It is nearly an hour long - but totally worth the time spent watching. You can also check out his book, Tried by War, on the same subject.

Enjoy!

Keith

Zouaves Before the Battle

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I thought it would be nice to get a little military action in this morning - so here, courtesy of this company of Woodland Hills Zouaves - California Regiment, for lack of a proper unit designation, is an example of some first rate drilling.

You know, drilling is something that occupied a great deal of a soldier's time. Big battles, especially in the first two years of the war, were seldom. In short, Civil War soldiers spent a lot of time in camp - perfecting the art of killing.

One of my favorite soldier accounts of the war, Elisha Hunt Rhodes's All For the Union, discusses drilling and camp life at length...reading Rhodes, one might suspect that life in the army was actually pretty boring - only punctuated by fierce combat.

But it is here that we discover what military life was like - where we discover the insights of a Union soldier on Union, emancipation, secession, and religion. Coupled with scholarly accounts of Civil War soldiery, such as James McPherson's For Cause and Comrades, such writings are an invaluable resource. But if asked (and I often am), I would recommend a soldier account to get anyone started, and then offer what scholars think in comparison.

Peace,
Keith

Historians Barbara Fields and James McPherson on Lincoln the Emancipator

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well as we know, historians disagree on just about everything. And it's a good thing too - if we didn't - there would only be one book on the Civil War...we would all read it...and that would be it. Not too exciting. The subject of "who freed the slaves" generally stirs up a lively debate - here's what two prominent scholars have to say about it.

Columbia University historian Barbara Fields insists that Lincoln’s dedication to freedom was superficial and never strayed from the confines of war necessity. Relying heavily on the oft-quoted words of Lincoln himself, Fields reminds readers that the president would have eagerly saved the Union “without freeing any slave.”

[caption id="attachment_615" align="alignright" width="110" caption="Barbara J. Fields"][/caption]

Fields attempts to show how Lincoln adopted a strictly limited policy of emancipation only as an attack on the Confederacy’s ability to wage war. A great many bondsmen, including those enslaved in loyal states or those residing in areas already occupied by United States forces, remained enslaved. Further, those laboring deep in the Confederacy, far from liberating Union lines, remained beyond the reach of the proclamation’s power. Fields admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was significant, but rather than illustrating a crucial development with roots in Republican ideology, she asserts that slaves provided the impetus for such a policy through self-emancipation. The slaves themselves forced the issue and convinced Republicans to attack the institution where it existed. “No human alive,” she comments, “could have held back the tide that swept toward freedom.”

[caption id="attachment_620" align="alignleft" width="129" caption="James M. McPerson"][/caption]

Princeton University historian James McPherson answers this challenge by pointing out that Lincoln and the Republican Party were not only committed to thwarting the expansion of slavery into the territories, but also that containment was the “first vital step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction.” Well before the outbreak of war, McPherson illustrates, Lincoln made it abundantly clear that a man governing another man was despotism, that the relation of masters and slave was a violation of the principle of equality embedded in the founding documents, and that the slave system undermined the “principles of progress.” Although Lincoln knew he lacked the authority to tamper with slavery where it already existed, he hoped that when the Union became either “all one thing or all the other,” that slavery would have met its demise. McPherson adds a further cautionary note in answer to Fields’s assertion of an inevitable “sweeping tide.” Her conclusions depend on a Union victory – a victory hardly foreordained in 1861.

Now you know I want your opinion - so sound off!

Peace,

Keith

Who Freed the Slaves?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - on to the matter at hand. Who freed the slaves? Why that's simple right? It was Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator.....right? I mean....right?

Not so fast amigos. As usual, thing can get a little more complicated when you look a little closer at the historical record. Oh sure, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation all right, which technically freed all slaves who were (as of January 1, 1863) living in states currently in rebellion. (NOTE: The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves in the border states - not to mention...the Rebs were not exactly willing to comply with the proclamation, either). As historians like James McPherson note, the Proclamation was a crucial step in a series of actions taken against the institution. But is there more to the story?

Historians like Barbara Fields and Ira Berlin think so. They talk a lot about what they refer to as "self emancipation." Yep - it's exactly what it sounds like. Slaves, not just sitting around waiting to be freed by northern politicians, simply left. That's it. They saw an opportunity and took it. Seeking freedom for themselves, these men and women walked away from the farms and plantations were they had been held in bondage and fled to Union lines. Many of them ended up in contraband camps (more on these later) and thousands would eventually join Union army USCT Units - all black (led by white officers) regiments of fighting men (more on these guys later too).

Well, I am not really one for either/or questions. Of course there is validity to both bottom up and top down analyses of emancipation. Slaves (now former slaves) took action, and, while the Emancipation Proclamation did not really free anyone on day one, it certainly changed the meaning and direction of the war.

But here's some food for thought for a Saturday morning. What about the United States Army? Don't they get any credit? Robert Gould Shaw, immortalized by the film Glory, said it best when he noted in 1863 (insert affected Boston accent here) after hearing of the Proclamation, that it was all well and good but it really made little difference. Writing his mother - "For my part I can't see what practical good it can do now. Wherever our army has been, there remain no slaves, and the proclamation won't free them where we don't go."

So, while presidential proclamations and self emancipation were significant aspects of the demise of slavery in the South, without the army...nada. Remember - the slaves held in places that saw no pronounced military presence (like Alabama and Texas) remained slaves until the end of the war.

So with that I will sign off until Monday - Please leave a comment whether you agree with me or not. I promise to be nice :)

Peace,
Keith