Kevin Levin's Remembering the Battle of the Crater

Let's get straight to the point here. Kevin Levin's new book, Remembering the Battle of the Crater: War as Murder,  is an exceptionally solid work. The book is meticulously researched, and most important, it provides insights into the ever-dynamic (and my personal favorite) sub-field of historical inquiry: memory studies. The book begins, fittingly enough, with the battle itself - underscoring the deeply ingrained racial prejudices against the black soldiers of the United States Colored Troops. It then traces, through the development of the Lost Cause narrative and the systematic exclusion of black people from the southern body politic, how blacks were essentially written out of the Crater story, not only in the South but for some northerners as well - even though they played a significant role in the bloody attack.

I found the chapter called "Whites Only" among the most compelling. This discussion of how early battlefield interpretation left little room for the commemoration of the black soldiers who fought there is clearly building (admittedly so) on David Blight's conclusions in Race and Reunion. Early reconciliation gestures formed the foundation of the park's development.  In the latter decades of the nineteenth century, northern (white) veterans would travel south to visit the sites of their past battles. In the case of the Crater, they were often treated cordially by their former enemies including William Mahone and others. When meeting, veterans from both sides discussed shared virtues of bravery and fortitude - and significantly noted "all feelings of sectional strife [were] entirely forgotten or blotted out." (91)

These meetings, aiding the efforts to put land aside for the creation of a national park, unfolded against the backdrop of a challenging balance between economic development and historic preservation. Without question - the promotion of tourism loomed large for Petersburg officials - and by 1932, land had been secured for the dedication of a national park. The Crater site (formally a golf course) was added in 1936. A subsequent battle reenactment (in 1937) and the National Park's interpretive signage and literature scarcely noted the involvement of African American soldiers in the Union attack.

This narrow commemorative focus took hold and continued through the twentieth century - into the era of the Civil Rights movement and the Civil War centennial. Early commemorative efforts combined to write a persistent message: reconciliatory gestures and shared racism worked to minimize the sacrifices of black participants at the Battle of the Crater. Only recently has the African American narrative gained a place on the battlefield.

Things that I would like to discuss with Kevin over beers:

Without question the interpretive stance at Petersburg (and many other battlefields) for the longest time framed the war as a white man's conflict. Equally true - northern veterans on missions of reconciliation intentionally played down issues involving race. This book does a splendid job at focusing in on a particular place as an emblematic site of one strand of Civil War memory.

Those who read Cosmic America regularly know that I think this particular strand of memory was atypical in the contexts of commemorative cultures broadly defined. But I admit that it existed in certain times and in certain places. I will also note that this strand of memory is significant in terms of how Americans write twenty-first century commemorative culture that challenges a national racist past. As such, Remembering the Battle of the Crater is an outstanding source, which convincingly shows how groups of people can interpret history according to their needs - reconciliation and economic benefit - and in fact, develop commemorative themes that dictate empowerment.

My bar-stool questions for Kevin (and he will have some time to think about it, we next meet in March 2013): what did the veterans (those whose reconciliatory efforts helped develop the site as a national park) have to say when their former enemies were not around? Were they so cavalier about dismissing racial issues or black peoples' involvement in the war? Were they quite as forgiving when it came to former enemies? How would you define a national commemorative ethos and where does the Crater story fit in?

Of course I have questions...that's what I do. And my own conclusions may diverge somewhat from those offered in Remembering the Battle of the Crater. But all of that notwithstanding, I say buy the book. Read it. You'll thank me later for the recommendation.

K

 

Nathan Bedford Forrest and Civil War Memory

The tumultuous battles over who controls Civil War memory are still alive and well - especially if you are thinking about the new monument to Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest - soon to be installed in Selma, Alabama.

Naturally, protestors and detractors from around the country have weighed in against the monument. Noting a couple of glaring facts such as Forrest's prewar occupation trading slaves, his implication in the Fort Pillow Massacre, and his tenure as the first Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, many have been moved to simply wonder why anyone would want to honor such a man with a monument.

Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans see Forrest in a different light. Their Forrest is a man of resolute loyalty to the cause, a man with no military experience who rose to a level of skill and competence matching some of the greatest military heroes of the Confederacy. Novelist Shelby Foote once referred to him as a "genius" comparable to Abraham Lincoln.

Some call him a murderer - others call him a hero. There is no gray area (so to speak). Some Forrest apologists applaud his involvement with a "kinder and gentler" version of Klan as part of an effort to bring law and order to a disrupted South. Hmmmmm. And the monument, say members of the SCV, will go in as planned despite detractors' vows to stop it.

How people remember the Civil War has certainly changed in the last several decades. Not long ago, protests against installing a Forrest monument would have been much less virulent - if they occurred at all. Today's reflections on the war - during the sesquicentennial - are tending to lean in many ways away from the "white only" ceremonies of the early to mid-twentieth century. Slavery, emancipation, race, and racism are deeply embedded in the twenty-first century commemorative ethos and it seems like Confederate heritage groups are losing their grip on commemoration broadly defined. While these groups have never dominated northern Civil War memory (despite what you might read) it now seems that they are losing control in the South as well.

Groups such as the SCV have barricaded themselves against attacks behind the "heritage not hate" motto. But a new monument to Forrest suggests a symbolic middle finger gestured in the direction of those who are not only surprised by such an effort, but offended as well.

What do you think? Should there be a new monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest?

K

Union Veterans Recall the Burning of Chambersburg

Because the war unfolded almost entirely on southern soil, nearly all incidences of the destruction of civilian property took place in the Confederacy. Former Confederates possessed a wealth of evidence from which to recount stories of looting, destruction, and the general abuse of civilians. But they did not hold a monopoly on stories of "uncivilized" warfare.

The burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania on July 30, 1864 reminded loyal citizens of the United States that Confederate civilians were perhaps not the only victims of war they so often claimed to be. When citizens of Chambersburg could not, or would not, pay a hefty ransom demanded by Confederate general Jubal A. Early, the cantankerous Rebel ordered the town fired. Union veterans described the violent scene. Confederates kicked in doors, stole private property, and threatened the townspeople with weapons. Many claimed that Rebels executed their orders with glee, destroying the town while in a drunken state of rage. In June 1905, one GAR veteran described the aftermath of the Rebel invasion.

He [his commander] got there the next morning in time to see the results of that cowardly and uncalled for burning of the homes of women and children. He saw, as did all who where there, the horrors of that terrible scene. Oh, it was something to be remembered as long as life lasts. That little town, beautiful, as you know, was laid in ashes; the people there without homes wandering in the streets, the dead unburied, the sick lying on the sidewalk. It reminded me then and does now as I look upon it, like a terrible dream.

This incident certainly incensed Union soldiers. Later in the nineteenth century, veterans would note the Rebel atrocities as the spark that ignited the final push against Confederate forces in the Valley. “The boys in blue,” suggested one Union veteran in 1881, “frenzied by the sight of homeless, weeping women and children, again charged upon the foe, never allowing them to stop for a moment.”

In the hands of former Federal soldiers, the Chambersburg story grew in intensity by the twentieth century. While no where near as angering as the Andersonville and other prison stories, Chambersburg nevertheless numbered among the many “rebel atrocities,” “increasing acts of barbarity,” and “deliberate acts of vandalism” perpetrated by their former foe. Veterans acknowledged that during the war the incident caused a “considerable civilian panic” and “attracted the anxious attention of the whole country.” Most remained aggravated by the “destruction…caused by a public enemy,” and recalled the acts of “insolence, theft, and violence” alongside the Union battle cry: “Remember Chambersburg!”

All Comedy All the Time

Eric Andre, after noticing a little interpretive whitewashing in the commercial promoting Colonial Williamsburg, offers some historical hilarity on the Conan O'Brien show. Thanks to Matt Moore for the heads up on this one. I do not own a television - so I have to rely on the kindness of my friends in the Twitterverse when this stuff comes up.

Anyway - enjoy

Keith

Come Up From the Fields, Father

Come up from the fields, father, here’s a letter from our Pete,
And come to the front door, mother, here’s
a letter from thy dear son.

Lo, ’tis autumn,
Lo, where the trees, deeper green, yellower and redder,
Cool and sweeten Ohio’s villages with leaves
fluttering in the moderate wind,
Where apples ripe in the orchards hang and
grapes on the trellis’d vines,
(Smell you the smell of the grapes on the vines?
Smell you the buckwheat where the bees were lately buzzing?)
Above all, lo, the sky so calm, so transparent
after the rain, and with wondrous clouds,
Below too, all calm, all vital and beautiful,
and the farm prospers well.

Down in the fields all prospers well,
But now from the fields come, father, come
at the daughter’s call,
And come to the entry, mother, to the front door come right away.
Fast as she can she hurries, something ominous,
her steps trembling,
She does not tarry to smooth her hair nor
adjust her cap.

Open the envelope quickly,
0 this is not our son’s writing, yet his name
is sign’d,
0 a strange hand writes for our dear son,
0 stricken mother’s soul!
All swims before her eyes, flashes with black,
she catches the main words only,
Sentences broken, gunshot wound in the breast,
cavalry skirmish, taken to hospital,
At present low, but will soon be better.

Ah, now the single figure to me,
Amid all teeming and wealthy Ohio with all
its cities and farms,
Sickly white in the face and dull in the head,
very faint,
By the jamb of a door leans.

Grieve not so, dear mother (the just-grown
daughter speaks through her sobs,
The little sisters huddle around speechless and
dismay’d),
See, dearest mother, the letter says Pete will
soon be better.

Alas, poor boy, he will never be better (nor maybe
needs to be better, that brave and simple soul),
While they stand at home at the door he is
dead already,
The only son is dead.

But the mother needs to be better,
She with thin form presently drest in black,
By day her meals untouch’d, then at night
fitfully sleeping, often waking,
In the midnight waking, weeping, longing with
one deep longing,
0 that she might withdraw unnoticed, silent
from life escape and withdraw,
To follow, to seek, to be with her dear dead
son.

Walt Whitman - a poem for Memorial Day

The Contemplative Sort

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

A while back, I got a question from Robby, one of my former University of Virginia students - actually...one of my very best former University of Virginia students. He wanted to know when the war became "real" for me - when I got it...when it clicked. I have been reading about the war since I was a kid - but that did not necessarily mean that I "got it," for lack of a better phrase. In fact, I am not sure that I do now. But I feel as though I am closer.

Civil War memory - a topic close to my heart - is a lived experience. It was so for the generation who lived through the war and its aftermath, and it is for us today. At least this much I understand - while I may not entirely get the war from the perspective of a participant (none of us ever really will) - I have made my personal connections beyond the books. Keep in mind, I don't generally write about myself (much) - my work has a purpose beyond hipsteresque narcissism and hyper-inflated self importance so typical of the blogosphere broadly defined. But I will from time to time divulge a few autobiographical lines, especially when asked. I believe my personal experiences will sound familiar to many of you - and that in this instance they are worthy of note.

Strangely, while I have been reading about the war most of my life, I did not live the memory of it until recently - 1999 to be exact. I was born in Birmingham Alabama, a steel town that was not founded until 1871 - so not much in the way of Civil War action there. I grew up in Southern California - even fewer Civil War attractions there. But in the summer of 1999 I got it together to take my first Civil War vacation, so to speak, in the deep South. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina - and I even made a trek to Western Tennessee and Kentucky...all the way to Perryville. The war became real, I suppose, on the Shiloh battlefield. There I walked in the footsteps of my ancestor, Andrew Jackson Holbert, who fought alongside the men of his Alabama regiment. I stood at or near the spot where he was shot - a chest wound that he miraculously survived.

I was fortunate that it was August, the middle of the week, extremely humid and around 98 degrees. Suffice to say, I had the battlefield to myself. So I got a chance to think about what it must have looked like in 1862 sans twentieth-century distractions (I didn't even have a cell phone yet). Perhaps I have a particularly vivid imagination - it is very difficult to describe with words....but I felt the war all around me. Not an isolated incident, I had the same experience two years later (by then I had a cell phone...but rarely used it)  - while on a trip with my UCLA undergraduate comrades to Gettysburg. I woke up before sunrise on a June morning and headed out to explore the Union positions of July 1, 1863. I was quickly reminded that thinking while all alone in such an evocative place clarifies a great deal about the war. As you might guess, this scene has repeated itself over and over during the last several years - my time in Virginia...and the subsequent trips east since I left.

If anything, my experiences....surely like those of many, validate the cause for battlefield preservation - not only as places of study, but of contemplation. One can understand so much about the war at the places where the issues of the day were decided by arms. Do battlefields resonate with the voices of those long past? I dare not answer definitively...for fear of treading the ground of the theologian - hardly my area of expertise. I will say, however, that for the contemplative among us, the war lives and breathes at these sites of memory. On an experiential level, one can indeed sense - maybe even obliquely grasp - the war in all its realness.

Peace,

Keith

Where Do All the Big Guns Come From?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Over the past two weeks, I have been spending a lot of time at Rosedale Cemetery in Los Angeles. First, it was to find Gone With the Wind star Hattie McDaniel's grave, then I was there to look up a very prominent Union Civil War veteran, Allen Allensworth. One of the cemetery's dominating features is the big cannon guarding the entrance to the soldiers' plot. Although heavily damaged from years of exposure, neglect, and vandalism, the gun still strikes an imposing posture before the graves of the nation's men at arms.

If you have visited cemeteries with special sections for soldiers, you have certainly seen  a gun or two. If the cemetery is old enough, it will probably be the final resting place for Civil War soldiers - and the gun will more than likely date to the Civil War era. But have you ever wondered how the gun got there? I was especially intrigued by this one. Los Angeles was a long way from the action during the war, but there is a Civil War cannon here nonetheless.

I took a few pictures, noted the various markings, and sent them to fellow Civil War blogger Craig Swain for further information. Craig got back to me in short order with more details than I had expected. This 10-inch Rodman probably served as part of network of seacoast defensive fortifications in the northeast. How can he tell? A postwar rifling insert indicates that the gun was modified from its original casting as a smoothbore - the markings on this insert give precise dates and other details. This one was converted by South Boston Foundry in 1877 (where most of the guns from the northeast wound up) - it was the 36th conversion made in the series. It was inspected by Cullen Bryant and weighed 16090 pounds.

But how did it get to California? In the late 1860s, Irvin McDowell, the Union general who lost at Manassas, was in command of the department of the West. He requested that these guns be shipped to California for use in coastal defenses. This Rodman more than likely made its way west after 1877 - it would not have been cost effective (the Army was tightening its belt in those days after a protracted war) to ship it east for rifling and then ship it west once again.

So my best guess is that this gun has never fired a shot in anger. In 1908, the Stanton Post, GAR procured the gun (somehow...I am going to figure that out next) then dedicated it as a monument to their comrades buried at Rosedale. And now it sits rusting, covered with graffiti and filled with garbage in a seldom-visited cemetery that suffers from neglect. If you're ever in the West Adams neighborhood of Washington and Normandie - stop by for a visit.

Peace,

Keith

Yes...I Believe They Mentioned Slavery

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

There has been a lot of hullabaloo over at Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory concerning a recently discovered secession document. We are familiar with other secession papers - those that discuss in explicit detail the threat to the institution of slavery. Well, this document from Florida is consistent on the slavery position...and it has stirred up a fuss.

I would like to direct you to both the posts and especially the comment threads following. Click HERE for the January 10th entry discussing Florida's Declaration of Causes and HERE for the January 11th follow up piece featuring a video by historian Dwight T. Pitcaithley discussing Florida's secession.

I am intrigued by those who insist that this document (and others like them) are presented "out of context" and that southern states were not seceding to defend slavery. I am more than a little interested in what context they are thinking of.

So - if any of you out there can specify exactly what the southern states thought was more important to protect than slavery please do so. And if you say "their rights" you get a C-. I want to know what "rights" (from a white southern perspective) trumped the right to own slaves and why they would go to war to protect them. You can give me the top three...that would do just fine. Anyone who writes me off as a "revisionist" gets a D. I like to go straight to the source and let the secessionists do the talking when it comes to cause.

Peace,

Keith

Civil War Institute Conference 2012

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

[caption id="attachment_1579" align="alignright" width="150" caption="I should have a new battlefield hat by 2012"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_1577" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="The 2011 CWI crew - I hope to see some familiar faces in 2012! "][/caption]

Well, I have officially signed on to do the CWI Conference this coming June 2012. Just like last year, I will be keeping the world up to date with all the usual social media suspects - so stay tuned - it's almost like being there! In addition, this year I will be part of a panel on (what else?) Civil War blogging with Brooks Simpson and Kevin Levin - two first rate historians and expert bloggers. I'll also be leading some discussions concerning Gettysburg. You can bet that I will talk about the battlefield, reconciliation, and Civil War commemoration. Click the tab above for the whole schedule - you will see that I will be in some good company. This is one you will not want to miss - you can get registration information HERE.

Peace,

Keith

Edmund Ruffin - A Man Without a Country

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, he had one for a while anyway. But things didn't quite turn out the way he had hoped

Ruffin was what we could call a fire-eater in every respect of the word. He hated Yankees, supported state rights, and was vehemently pro-slavery.

Before things started heating up that would eventually lead to war, Ruffin made his mark as an agriculturalist - a pretty prominent one, at that. He came from a noted land-owning family, and his talents in the agricultural realm served him well in his pre-war career. In 1833 he founded a journal: The Farmer's Register, which brought agricultural innovations to a wide range of farmers. He also worked diligently to counter soil exhaustion with great success.

But during these years Ruffin became more and more radicalized. By the 1850s, intent on protecting the right to slave property in the South, he became convinced that the slave-holding states would eventually have to secede to protect their property. John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry just added fuel to Ruffin's fire. When Brown was hanged, Ruffin made his way to Charles Town, Virginia to witness the execution (he posed as a VMI cadet at the age of 65 - civilians were not permitted to watch the execution). From here he acquired several of Brown's pikes meant to be used in a slave revolt and sent them to southern governors as a reminder of northern aggression.

But the fun really began for Ruffin in 1861. He somehow found himself in Charlestown, South Carolina on April 12 and joined in with the troops as they initiated the firing on Fort Sumter. He claimed to have fired the first shot himself. Well, we can't really be sure of that, but we do know that he was there when the firing began, so I guess that is close enough.

The collapse of the Confederacy naturally affected Ruffin in profound ways. A man without a country, he committed suicide on June 17, 1865. These days you can hear all kinds of stories about Ruffin - that he stated "I will never live under Yankee rule," or that he wrapped himself in the Confederate flag before doing the deed. Whether true or not, stories seem to romanticize this wiry gray headed secessionist in ways that turn him into a hero of sorts...at least for neo-Confederates.

We do not hear much else about Ruffin, except that he fired the first and quite possibly the last - self inflicted - shot of the war. He even gets a little placard by his grave. The marker highlights Ruffin's agricultural work and the first shot story, but curiously omits his suicide. Would such an admission of defeat be too much for the modern tourist to handle? I often wonder why they left that little factoid out. It just seems kind of important to me.

Keith

John Neff's Honoring the Civil War Dead (his take on) the Problem of Reconciliation

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

And what a perfect morning it is - the sun is shining, the birds are chirping, and the helicopters are circling overhead. It is a beautiful day in Los Angeles.

Given my tendency to reflect on my work of the past several years, I thought it appropriate to discuss one of my favorite books on the issue of national reconciliation in the wake of civil war (sheesh - that would make a great book subtitle!).

John R. Neff is one of the few (and I mean few) who go against the grain by suggesting that all was not so benignly reconciliationist (for better or worse) during the post war decades - especially in terms of commemoration. Sure, as he admits, there were a great deal of spread-eagle, but alas, issue-free reconciliatory efforts/movements/gestures...or whatever you choose to call them...

...but what of those who persistently reminded citizens of the more troubling memories of the war years? What of those memories that did not fold neatly within the confines of the current understanding of reconciliation? Where do they fit in the commemorative ethos? Neff’s book, Honoring the Civil War Dead: Commemoration and the Problem of Reconciliation examines those outside the reconciliation framework defined by most scholars. Basking in the light of the “cause victorious,” Neff argues, many of the Union veterans mourning their fallen comrades harbored bitter resentment toward their former enemies.

Reasoning that veterans could in no way imagine the memories of their fallen comrades apart from the contentions of war, he suggests their sentiments represent the key challenge to reconciliatory efforts in the late-nineteenth century. This compelling study does more to expose the lingering bitterness than any of its predecessors.

Yet it oversimplifies antagonisms by reinforcing a dichotomy of reconciled versus unreconciled veterans. Analyzing these individuals in terms of stark opposition – those who were committed to reconciliation and those who were not – may indeed be a dead end.

It is this over simplification that I find so troubling - and what I also find to be the hardest thing to overcome when considering this era. But riddle me this - Can one favor....even embrace reconciliation on antagonistic terms? It seems that yes indeed, one can - especially if you were a Civil War veteran.

I have fired more than one warning shot right here on Cosmic America - and have written a (soon to be published) book on the subject. So stay tuned...there will be more to follow.

Peace,

Keith

Cosmic America on Facebook

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - are social media the future of teaching? Well, maybe not entirely - I find it hard to imagine the classroom...in the traditional sense, ever disappearing in favor of Internet platforms. I will say this however. In terms of the dissemination of resources and searching the historical record, the Internet and its behemoth networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter are not going anywhere any time soon. So at the very least, we teachers should embrace them - and likewise utilize them to their full potential.

In the spirit of getting on board and not rejecting the "nonsense waste of time" that 14-year-olds flock to to get the latest on Justin Bieber, I have been a champion of social media for some time. And in this same spirit, I have created a Facebook "fan" page for Cosmic America. I will be stepping up my game over there - so I invite those of you who like to put in their two cents on the Civil War to join me.

The idea, naturally, is to discuss the various pictures, videos, and articles that I post on the page - and I suppose you can mention Justin Bieber too, if you feel so compelled. I have to admit that I have actually seen his film Never Say Never, and after I managed to get over my hives, I found his performance at Madison Square Garden....interesting. Do what you want with that information - I digress.

Besides the profoundly broad topic of Civil War history and memory, I propose no specific theme for this page - whatever comes up that day (like the picture to the left or this article on the sesquicentennial) will be wide open for comment, whether you love it or hate it or think I am way off base (that happens from time to time), the forum will be open to anyone.

At any rate - I anticipate some good and hopefully even valuable discussion. Civil War students, teachers, buffs, wingnuts...come one come all!

Peace,

Keith

James A. Garfield on Partisanship, Treason, and the 1868 Elections

Greetings Cosmic Americans.

In 1868, as presidential and congressional races heated up, partisans on both sides invoked the Civil War to further their (or others') political campaigns. In the Republican camp, that wasn't all that hard to do. Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, most prominent Rebels were Democrats, and yes...the man who shot and killed Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat too.

Of course there were loyal Democrats as well - so Republicans did their best to discredit them by making the obvious association.

I recently came across this letter written by James A. Garfield in October, 1868. Garfield had served as a major general in the Union army, spent nine consecutive terms as a Republican congressional representative from Ohio, and eventually was elected (in 1880) the 20th President of the United States - where he served only 200 days before he fell to an assassins bullet.

In 1868, Garfield was trying to convince one of his former Union army comrades - prominent Democrat William S. Rosecrans -  that supporting a Democrat for the House of Representatives was a heinous mistake - perhaps as odious as supporting treason. Rosecrans had moved to California after the war and was heavily involved in land development in Los Angeles...where he also became a key Democratic Party spokesperson. The following letter is a great example of a former Union soldier "waving the bloody shirt," as it were, to make as argument.

“I cannot look upon your present political affiliations with out keen sense of regret – for it seems that the leaders of the Democratic party are so blinded by the fury of partisan feelings that they are quite ready to be led by the old secession rebel element of the south. Our good friends Gen. Schenck is fighting a desperate battle with the Democracy of the District – who are running Valandingham for Congress – I cannot for a moment suppose that were you here – you would differ with me in my purpose to so all in my power to defeat the traitor whom you and I sent through our lines – and electing his stead the Union soldier who helped save the Republic."

So those who had fought to save the Republic always had this card up their sleeve - and would pull it out regularly.

One last thing - someone came after me the other day for not posting footnotes when I quote original research. I have mentioned on several occasions that I would provide my sources to anyone who asked - just send me a note. But for the record, my snarky friend...

James A. Garfield to William S.Rosecrans, Oct 7, 1868, Box 12, Folder 71, Rosecrans Papers, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA.

Peace,

Keith

Did Former Confederates Think the Cause Was Lost After All?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Historians of Civil War memory write often of the phrase “Lost Cause,” so much so that it has become an agreed upon fact – that southerners commemorating the war understood – or the very least, spoke of the conflict as a war lost from the beginning…a noble pursuit against insurmountable odds that illuminated the honor of the southron people, fighting for what they “thought” was right. Fair enough: many former Rebels couched their commemorative rhetoric in exactly these terms. But was this a consensus among ex-Confederates? Perhaps not. Evidence suggests that within the broader context of the commemorative ethos, many former Rebels disputed this phrase – in fact denounced it. Below is an excerpt from my soon (hopefully) to be released book on the subject of Civil War commemoration and reconciliation. It offers a number of challenges to the Lost Cause argument from prominent former Rebels, not all of whom can simply be written off as unreconstructed anachronisms:

The idea that Confederates fought for principles “they knew to be right” rather that principles they “thought” right (or just) pervades the commemorative literature of the era and shows how the words of men such as [George L.] Christian reflect a broader sentiment among Confederate veterans. Statements concerning the rightness of Confederate principles mirror arguments made shortly after the close of war and follow a familiar pattern in to the twentieth century. As one Confederate veteran suggested in 1867, no one would ever “question the correctness of the principles we have laid down.”

John Herbert Claiborne, a former surgeon with the Army of Northern Virginia and author of several books and articles on the Civil War, took such a stance and professed before a gathering of veterans early in the 1890s. “Away the maudlin confession that we fought for what we thought was right! We fought for what we knew was right,” Claiborne argued, “We yielded, not convinced, but conquered.” Claiborne, a prominent postwar politician who held multiple honorary degrees and served on numerous medical boards, wrote often of the war. Of particular interest was his effort to bolster the Confederate fight in print: a comprehensive collection of reminiscences in which Claiborne lambasted the northern fighting man.

While former Confederates talked themselves hoarse telling and retelling the stories associated with the somewhat less vitriolic Lost Cause rhetoric, they also resurrected Confederate principles that they insisted had not perished in 1865. John S. Beard, for example, agreed in typical form with many ex-Confederates arguing, “that the Southern armies really exhausted themselves gaining victories over the Northern armies. I say all of this is matter of such notorious history that it cannot be denied.” The term “lost” however, rankled some who had followed their states out of the Union. Well into the twentieth century, former Confederates gathered in town squares, meeting halls, and other public places not only to “grasp the fraternal hand [and] revive our olden friendships,” but to “reassert the justice of the cause which was never lost, only delayed for a time, that future wisdom and patriotism may lay deeper and stronger a willing union of the states that shall be perpetual.”

In an undated Memorial Day address, published in 1906 with a collection of speeches and other writings paying tribute to Confederate women, Alabaman John Levi Underwood fleshed out the “cause not lost” theme succinctly. Underwood was an ordained Presbyterian minister who had enlisted as a private in the 20th Alabama in 1861 and eventually became the regiment’s chaplain. As a veteran, Underwood focused on highlighting Confederate resonance in the postwar United States. “People are prone to allude to all Lee fought for as a ‘Lost Cause,’” he stated, yet “Lee has accomplished what he fought for.” Underwood clearly stood behind the United States, rejoicing that echoes of the Confederacy remained. “Who would dare to-day to wipe out a State’s individuality?” he asked, “and do we not find to-day, instead of a centralized power in Congress adjudicating things pertaining to the States, the States themselves settling these matters?”

Bradley T. Johnson, an exceedingly vocal former Rebel, had made such claims at least since the 1870s. “I do not believe that we fought in any ‘lost cause,’” he told the members of the Association of Confederate Soldiers and Sailors of Maryland in June 1874 to great applause, “I denounce the phrase as unworthy of our people and their position. Our cause was that of every lover of liberty, in all time, the world over, the right of a people to govern themselves, and it never has been, never can be ‘lost.’” Later in the century, he assured his followers that all joined, or would soon join former Confederates in celebration of a cause above reproach. “There can never be two rights and two wrongs,” he argued late in the 1890s, “this is so of every question of morals and of conduct.” But for anyone confused regarding the righteousness and soundness of the Confederate cause, he quickly pointed out,  “The world is surely coming to the conclusion that the cause of the Confederacy was right.” All “true men and women…will never believe that ‘we thought we were right.’ They will know that we were right, immortally right and that the conqueror was wrong, eternally wrong.”

Elaborating further, Robert E. Lee. Jr., reminded the veterans gathered for a reunion in Richmond in 1907 of what they must certainly have accepted as fact. “Let us not be content with the lukewarm and, if you please, molly-coddling expression that the Confederate soldier fought for what he believed to be right. If precedent is a guide, if argument has any convincing force, if approving consciences any solace, if subsequent approbation by those who once disagreed with him any justification, if duty magnificently performed any indication, then we can assert without fear of any successful contradiction that the Confederate soldier fought and died for what he knew to be right.”

I expect that many will disagree – but the above testimony makes one wonder if those who “knew” their cause was right thought that their cause was indeed lost; that perhaps there was fight left in the South beyond the battlefield, whether political, economical, or social. I welcome any and all comments.

Peace,

Keith

Eyewitness to Lincoln's Assassination - Brought to you by Winston.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I would like to thank my Twitter friends @ZebulonPike1813 and @markcheathem for turning me on to this fascinating television appearance by the last living person to witness the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theater. His name is Samuel Seymour, and he was 96 years old when this show, I've Got a Secret, was filmed in 1956. Thanks guys - I had never heard of him before.

This is an interesting look at Civil War era memory in action. Seymour was only five years old at the time of the shooting, and he only recalls a man (John Wilkes Booth) falling from the balcony on to the stage. As he says..."It scared him to death." Only later did he learn of the significance of the event.

This mid-1950s television show somewhat trivializes Lincoln's assassination, and really really makes me want to smoke a Winston cigarette, but I have to say I was captivated by the elderly man - a witness to a momentous event in American history. Illustrating that even in the television age (which I am pretty sure is on it's way out now) we are not so far removed from the war.

I am going to add this vintage Civil War related footage to my list of favorites right up there with this: Union and Confederate veterans shaking hands at the stone wall on Cemetery Ridge in 1938.

Peace,

Keith

George Llewellyn Christian - an Angry (ex) Confederate

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

George Llewellyn Christian was among the most prolific former Confederates around. It seems he had something to say about pretty much everything Civil War related. He wrote numerous articles, published in pamphlet form, and turned up in states all across the South to talk about the war in person. George L. Christian certainly got around.

Christian was a young man in 1861 - only twenty years old. He enlisted in the Confederate army and served with his fellow Virginians until he was horribly wounded at Spotsylvania. Having lost all of one foot and most of another, he managed to hobble off to Charlottesville and earn a law degree from the University of Virginia - and after the war became a prominent attorney.

But he never quite got over Confederate defeat. His writings and speeches are evidence of just how bitter he really was. In an 1894 tribute to Jubal Early, he noted, “The man whose soul is so dead that he is not proud to have been a part of [the Confederate] army, battling not for what he thought was right, but what was right, is too contemptible, in my opinion, to be by any human power raised to the level of brute.”

Four years later, Christian would remind the people of the South, that “whilst the cause for which [Confederates] fought is a ‘lost cause’ in the sense that they failed to establish a separate government within certain geographical limits, it is only lost in that sense. The principles of that cause yet live.” Adding his bitter voice to those of other aggravated former Confederates, Christian noted the significance of monument dedications and gatherings in terms of perpetuating Confederate memories. “Here, history will record a thrilling tale of outrage inflicted upon this defenseless people by the mercenary hordes of the North, permitted and encouraged by the remorseless cruelty and unquenchable ambition of some of their leaders.”

From the looks of things, Christian had a real problem with reconciliation. In the influential Ghosts of the Confederacy, Gaines M. Foster equates such bitter Rebels with Native American Ghost Dancers of the late-nineteenth century. “They clung to the past, defended old values, and dreamed of a world untouched by defeat.” Very few southerners, Foster argues, joined the ghost dance. By the 1880s, “Confederate celebration did not foster a revival of rabid sectionalism.” Detractors perpetuating sectional animosity simply by “not forgetting” during an era when most had presumably agreed to let “bygones be bygones” thus appear out of place in a nation characterized by an outpouring of reconciliationist sentiment.

Or do they? Historians such as Foster (and...David Blight - see post) have effectively misplaced Christian's form of commemoration. The majority of white southerners, they suggest, distanced themselves from efforts to revitalize the divisive aspects of Confederate memory and rejected bitter former Rebels as unreconstructed anachronisms.

Not so fast - in fact, Christian claimed to be a reconciliationist at heart, and he spoke often of his loyalty to the postwar United States - just like most former Confederates. And thus the problem. How do we deal with those who claim reconciliation and then say every thing they can to suggest otherwise? Evidence that I will present in my upcoming book, Across the Bloody Chasm: Reconcilation in the Wake of Civil War, will offer some clues. It seems that Christian was indeed a typical former Confederate reconciliaitonist...one who wanted peace and brotherly harmony between the sections so long as a few terms were met first. Namely...that northerners admitted they were wrong.

Since this was not about to happen - Christian, and many, many more like him, ran up against a bit of a stone wall (so to speak). Northern Unionists were just as stubborn when it came to their version of the war. Reconciliationists all (or most), they could never seem to agree on what the war was about. This is the legacy that we live with in the 21st century. And - it gives me something to write about...so thanks George!

Peace,

Keith

Black Confederates. Really? REALLY??

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - I've been on Youtube again. It's a guilty pleasure, really. Last night was a real kicker. I followed a few video "suggestions" to a series of posts on black Confederate soldiers. There seems to be this warped idea out there that there were thousands and thousands of blacks serving as soldiers in the Confederate army. One estimation claimed as many as 90,000 black people shouldered a musket for the glorious CSA. You have got to be freakin' kidding me. 90,000?? That is bigger than the whole Army of Northern Virginia at its grandest.

Now I am not saying that blacks were absent from the military scene. When the ANV (or any other CS army) went somewhere, they took black people with them. They were - you guessed it - slaves. They did what they were forced to do. Laundry, cooking, clearing trees, building fortifications, etc. Slaves were drafted in to Confederate service in others ways too (much to the irritation of their masters). They built fortifications around Atlanta, Richmond and Petersburg, for example. These were the toils of slaves. They were not willingly serving the Confederate cause.

The very idea of this is perverse at best. Imagine - blacks serving a country conceived on the idea of racial inequality and the protection of the "peculiar" institution. Wow. Does that mean that a slave or two may at one time have picked up a musket, maybe - but regiments or even divisions of black soldiers. You think we would have heard of them.

Seriously, I have never seen or heard of a letter written by a Union soldier describing the several regiments of black Confederates he faced in battle. I have never read a newspaper describing black Confederate divisions defending a Rebel position. I am guessing it's because they didn't exist. I mean really, don't you think Ken Burns would have at least said something about this? (Insert Ashokon Farewell theme music here..."Dear Mama - today 90,000 black Reb soldiers marched by...we fear the worst...I have dysentery....blah blah blah.")

Now the prospect of raising limited black troops had crossed a few Rebels' minds. Even Robert E. Lee thought it was a good idea. But nothing of significance ever happened in this regard. Rebels in power decided that if they armed blacks, then what they had been fighting for would have been pretty pointless. Late, late, late in the war CSA Congress finally passed legislation to raise a few black troops as sort of a last ditch effort. And there were reports of a handful of black troops drilling in Richmond early in April 1865. But this was way too little waaaay too late.

Now after the war, some United Confederate Veterans dressed up a few former slaves in Confederate gray and paraded them around, I suppose, to show that the war wasn't about slavery and that blacks were in favor of Confederate independence. Oy. So if you are trying to prove that black people supported the Confederate war effort just stop. Or better yet, show me some real evidence that these thousands and thousands of black soldiers actually existed. Put them on a map, show me the battle reports, anything. Just saying they were around doesn't make it so - evidence does.

Have a look at my friend Kevin Levin's Blog, Civil War Memory for a comprehensive look at this topic - he has spent a great deal of time and effort examining the all claims from the moderate to the bizarre. Another friend, Jaime Martinez just wrote a succinct piece on Black Confederates for the Encyclopedia Virginia that you can check out HERE. And of course, if you have any real evidence that these guys actually existed - please submit in the comment section.

Peace,

Keith

Letting Bygones Be Bygones - A Follow Up to the Time Magazine Post

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, there has been a little buzz here at Cosmic America over my critique of Time's article on Civil War memory.

Brooks Simpson over at Crossroads wrote a very thoughtful response and included a few words on one of the best books (that I disagree with, naturally) on the subject of memory - David Blight's Race and Reunion.

I have received comments, here and on Twitter and Facebook, as well as more than a few emails. Some people agree with me, some people think I am missing my mark. Fair enough - there's always lots to argue about. But I was going though the Cosmic America archives yesterday and came across this. It is one of many examples I have of Union soldiers telling it as they saw it - but this one piece, I believe, is a fantastic representation of a very widely held belief.

This is the introductory statement in a book - really a collection of anecdotes written by former Union soldiers - called Sparks from the Campfire or Tales of Old Veterans, edited by Joseph W. Morton in 1899:

Those there are who say ‘let bygones be bygones,’ ‘let us forget all about the war;’ but we cannot endorse these sentiments. Men who talk thus are not those whose life-blood watered the gory field – not those who went promptly to the front when danger threatened, ready to sacrifice life or limb upon the alter of patriotism. We know the war is over; the strife has ceased; the victory has been won; but the story of the great conflict will never diminish in interest, and the tales of veterans will always command respect and attention. Whatever is worth talking about is worth writing; and whatever, is worth writing is worth publishing

These words are about as clear as any that I have run across in terms of how Union veterans remembered the war. So when we begin to think that old soldiers simply put the war behind them and went on about their business, we should reconsider....and have a look at what they actually said.

Peace,

Keith

Time Magazine and CIvil War Memory - A Swing and A Miss

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Yesterday afternoon, I sat in the veterinarian's office for nearly two hours. No big deal...just check ups for a couple of my more rambunctious felines. The good news was twofold. One - the cats checked out fine. Two,  I had plenty of time to read the April 18 edition of Time Magazine. I was particularly taken by David Von Drehle's article "150 Years After Fort Sumter: Why We're Still Fighting the Civil War."

The answer, Drehle suggests, is because Americans cannot agree on what the war was about...presumably a fact that would "make Lincoln weep."

Drehle issues stern judgment on the contentions spanning the Internet. And rightfully so - "mainstream" historians - as he puts it - have determined beyond any reasonable doubt that the cause of the war was slavery.  In Lincoln's words, the nation during the secession winter of 1860-61 was divided by this single issue: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute." Since, there have been plenty who insist that slavery was not the cause of the war - and in fact, merely an incident.

But the author of this article, like many of the self-congratulatory historians of the late twentieth century, obscures the reality of the decades immediately following the Civil War. "For most of the first century after the war, Drehle argues, "historians, novelists and filmmakers worked like hypnotists to soothe the posttraumatic memories of survivors and their descendants. Forgetting was the price of reconciliation, and Americans — those whose families were never bought or sold, anyway — were happy to pay it." Yes, Drehle can join the ranks of those who can feel very good about feeling very bad about the racism of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.

In Drehle's estimation, even Union veterans were eager to get on with things and smooth over war issues like slavery - in essence erase race from the equation in the name of national reconciliation. Clearly, Drehle has never read a Union veteran's personal memoir, nor has he looked at a Union regimental history, or perused the text of a Union monument dedication. If he had, he would have seen that the cause of the war - slavery, and the noble consequence of the war - emancipation, was a central theme for those who had fought to save the Union. For some - the twin themes of Union and emancipation ran side by side with seemingly equal significance.

In an era of moralizing self righteousness, Union veterans were crystal clear on what the war had been about - and worked tirelessly to ensure that they were remembered for their efforts. Reconciliation from a Union perspective - thus, is not about forgetting as Drehle figures, but about remembering the war on northern terms.

Drehle inexorably marches into his own trap - by seeking to rescue the cause of the war from obscurity (at least among the masses) he obscures the persistent fight to commemorate freedom. "The process of forgetting, and obscuring," he writes,  "was long and layered. Some of it was benign, but not all...writers and historians kindled comforting stories of noble cavaliers, brilliant generals and happy slaves, all faithful to a glorious lost cause. In the prosperous North, where cities and factories began filling with freed slaves and their descendants, large audiences were happy to embrace this idea of a time when racial issues were both simple and distant."

This painfully simplistic analysis of Civil War memory rotating solely along a racial axis does Time's readers a disservice. Why are we still fighting the Civil War? Because the nation has never moved beyond the sectionalism of the 19th century. Sure - some have glossed a few things over here and there. But there remains a deep-seated sectional animosity that runs through most nationalistic currents evolved since 1865. "Union," while perhaps not as tenuous as it once was, is nevertheless profoundly undefined. That is what would make Lincoln weep.

Peace,
Keith

Peace,

Keith

Monticello During the Civil War Era

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The other day I had the pleasure of meeting Elizabeth Chew, the curator of collections at Monticello. Naturally, I wanted to know what went on at Mr. Jefferson's during the Civil War. And she happily obliged.

But first, a little back story. Thomas Jefferson died greatly in debt. It seems he had a penchant for buying expensive wines and books and a lot of other stuff. And so, his family had to sell the estate - slaves, land, and house. The first buyer was a doctor named James Turner Barclay who purchased the house in 1831. His plan: raise silkworms. This did not work out so well and in 1834 he sold the place to a naval commodore named Uriah Levy.

Now here's where the story really starts to get interesting. Levy was Jewish and had experienced a great deal of antisemitism while in the Navy - to the point of being court-martialed several times. Admiring Jefferson's views on the freedom of religion, he thought Monticello would be the perfect place to settle down. Well, Levy died in 1860 and left the house to the federal government to be used as a home for orphans of naval officers.

Well, the Confederate government seized all federal property upon secession. The Rebs then proceeded to sell the estate to one Benjamin Ficklin - a Confederate intelligence officer and purchasing agent in Europe who had been instrumental in creating the Pony Express and Pacific Telegraph Company of Nebraska. Ficklin lost the place during the Reconstruction period and it was eventually returned to the Levy family.

Exciting right? I did some more poking around and found out that Monticello had fallen into a state of disrepair during the Civil War period - at one point the house is said to have been used as a Confederate hospital (like every other house in the neighborhood it seems). There are even rumors of Confederate soldiers carrying off vast quantities of Jefferson's possessions. There is no real evidence to support this - but it is a good story anyway.

Today the house and much of the surrounding grounds (gardens, slave quarters, etc) have been restored to their former glory, and I recommend a visit to anyone who happens to find themselves in the Charlottesville area.

Peace,

Keith