Cosmic America is Under Construction

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

For the next day or so, I will be working on a whole new look for Cosmic America. The content will be the same - but the feel will be much more streamlined and user friendly - with links to all of the C.A. projects. Check back soon - and I hope you like the new site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the nostalgic among us - I offer a screenshot of the old blog home page.



Peace,

Keith

Charles Francis Adams, Jr. and the "Historical Keynote"

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Charles Francis Adams, Jr. had two presidents in his lineage. His father was the United States minister to England. The younger Adams had attended Harvard and at the beginning of the war was practicing law. In December 1861, Adams was commissioned first lieutenant in the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry and eventually fought at Antietam and Gettysburg. In July 1864, Adams rose in rank to lieutenant colonel in the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry - an African American unit that fought at Petersburg and elsewhere.

On March 4, 1865, Adams found himself in Washington City - as the war drew to a close, he was eager to hear the president's second inaugural address. Writing to his father a few days later, he had this to say: "That rail splitting lawyer is one of the wonders of the day. Once at Gettysburg and now again on a greater occasion he has shown a capacity for rising to the demands of the hour ...This inaugural strikes me in its grand simplicity and directness as being for all time the historical keynote of this war."

I would certainly agree with Adams. What do you think?

Peace,

Keith

Finger Lickin' Dead

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

[caption id="attachment_2584" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Well love him then...in HELL!!"][/caption]I saw this video a while back posted at Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory - and it seemed like time that I shared it here as well. So what do you know - when Mel Gibson isn't being a misogynistic anti-Semite, he actually has a sense of humor.

Peace,
Keith

Archaeology is Always Destructive

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The axiom about archaeology is true enough. But in this case it has led to what some note as a troubling conundrum. Imagine the discovery of traces of the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown. Without question - a site worth uncovering, dissecting, and cataloging. But what if archeologists had to destroy the remnants of some Confederate earthworks to get at it? That is precisely what is happening. The traces of Confederate Fort Pocahontas sit directly on top of and next to the early settlement's Fort James, an enclosure originally encompassing a little over an acre.

Sites related to two central episodes in American history are thus in conflict. According to an article in the Washington Post, "because much of the original fort is buried underneath a Confederate earthwork...these discoveries forced a painful historical and archaeological trade-off. To reveal James Fort, nearly half of Fort Pocahontas has been removed. In the process, invaluable traces of America’s founding have been discovered right next to remains from the Civil War. 'It’s probably the only place you would have a story like that,' says Colin Campbell, president of Colonial Williamsburg, citing the conjunction of two pivotal moments in U.S. history. 'I think it’s absolutely fascinating.'"

In the process of cutting away the Civil War fort, archeologists have unearthed a number of valuable discoveries, such as a remarkably preserved bomb proof, complete with period log supports and sandbags. And, the site is being digitally mapped in 3-D, so it is not completely lost - sort of.

Archeologists based the decision to remove the Confederate fort on its relative insignificance during the war. And, quite obviously, the profound significance of what lies beneath it. While I am generally opposed to destroying any of the few remaining Civil War sites that have not already succumbed to strip malls and other unsightly suburban sprawl, in this case I will side with the Jamestown archeologists. As they say, they are not just digging arbitrarily, and I believe their cause worthwhile in the overall scheme of things. What are your thoughts?

Peace,

Keith

The War Through the Eyes of Battlefield Artists

[caption id="attachment_2557" align="alignleft" width="206" caption="National Geographic, May 2012"][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

By now we are certainly accustomed to seeing the nation's iconic publications feature a Civil War related cover or series. Time magazine, the New York Times, and the list goes on. After all, we are in the midst of the sesquicentennial and Civil War history has worked its way in to media, popular culture, and maybe even water cooler discussions at the office. I was recently asked by a member of the National Geographic staff to feature and weigh in on an article in their May 2012 Civil War issue.

The article - "A Sketch in Time," by Harry Katz -  reviews briefly the lives of Civil War sketch artists - known on both sides of the conflict as "specials." Katz has published a soon-to-be-released book on the subject - noted as a "landmark collection of rare and sensational images of the Civil War" - so let's consider the article as something of a warning shot.

Katz makes a number of compelling statements suggesting that specials endured the same privations as did a typical Civil War soldier - they came under fire, sustained injuries, and risked death - all to provide the realistic images of combat, life on the march and in camp, and other activities to an eager and anxious public. While at times he ventures down the problematic path of anachronistic language and comparisons - noting that specials were "embedded" with troops (a term they would not have used) and making tenuous connections to war correspondents in Afghanistan - Katz ultimately opens the door for a look at the men behind the work with which we are all quite familiar. Such peccadilloes can thus be forgiven.

In comparison, we know a great deal about the work of Civil War photographers such as Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner. But technological insufficiencies rendered their work somewhat incomplete. The artists providing the action - what Civil War era cameras could not do - for publications such as Frank Leslie's Illustrated and Harper's Weekly have gone largely unnoticed. Katz's work is a welcome addition.

Below is an excerpt from the article - you can access the full story here.

At the time of the Civil War, camera shutters were too slow to record movement sharply. Celebrated photographers such as Mathew Brady and Timothy O’Sullivan, encumbered by large glass negatives and bulky horse-drawn processing wagons, could neither maneuver the rough terrain nor record images in the midst of battle. So newspaper publishers hired amateur and professional illustrators to sketch the action for readers at home and abroad. Embedded with troops on both sides of the conflict, these “special artists,” or “specials,” were America’s first pictorial war correspondents. They were young men (none were women) from diverse backgrounds—soldiers, engineers, lithographers and engravers, fine artists, and a few veteran illustrators—seeking income, experience, and adventure.

In spite of the remarkable courage these men displayed and the events they witnessed, their stories have gone unnoticed: Virginia native son and Union supporter D. H. Strother’s terrifying assignment sketching the Confederate Army encampments outside Washington, D.C., which got him arrested as a spy; Theodore Davis’s dangerously ill-conceived sojourn into Dixie in the summer of 1861 (he was detained and accused of spying); W. T. Crane’s heroic coverage of Charleston, South Carolina, from within the Rebel city; Alfred Waud’s detention by a company of Virginia cavalry (after he sketched a group portrait, they let him go); Frank Vizetelly’s eyewitness chronicle of Jefferson Davis’s final flight into exile.







[caption id="attachment_2573" align="aligncenter" width="949" caption="BATTLE OF FAIR OAKS, VIRGINIA, JUNE 3, 1862; LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Union soldiers bury their comrades and burn their horses after the Battle of Fair Oaks. Alfred Waud, on assignment as a "special artist" for Harper's Weekly, sketched the grim scene."][/caption]

To view the National Geographic May 2012 Civil War artist photo gallery, click here.

Peace,

Keith

Reunion and Reconciliation - There is a Difference, You Know

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I often make mention of two significant books in the historiographical timeline of Civil War remembrance: Paul Buck's Road to Reunion and David Blight's Race and Reunion.  Both (quite obviously) mention the word reunion in the title and then proceed to discuss at length, especially the latter title, the process of reconciliation - it is as if the two words mean the same thing. In fact, if one were to immerse themselves in the literature on post-war commemoration and general remembrance they might indeed arrive at this conclusion - a synonymous marriage of definition...reunion and reconciliation. The words even sort of appear interchangeable...or at least convey a sense of starting anew in tandem.

The two words are related but not interchangeable. But we are dealing with more than mere shades of meaning. From the perspective of the Civil War generation - those who fought and those who lived through it - reunion simply meant the coming together of individual states, previously united under one government, subsequent to a protracted war. It was a reality sealed by the final surrenders of Confederate armies, the dissolution of the Confederate national government, and the forced suppression of a domestic rebellion. Reconciliation, in contrast, was an experiential action undertaken by the participants of that war (military and civilian). The word implies general forgiveness, but in the context of the Civil War era, refers more pointedly to a general acceptance that those once warring parties were again fellow citizens. The promotion of reconciliation acknowledged a sense of unity – a sense of sectional healing. Veterans willingly, often enthusiastically committed to embracing an all-encompassing national identity – an identity as Americans, one and all. Ultimately, national politics depended on reconciliation; economic expediency rested on it. So veterans from both sides of the bloody chasm set out to craft a message of reconciliation from the scattered shards of disunion.  In so doing, they preserved the memories of their ideals, their trials, and their respective causes.

Their speeches, parades, monument dedications, and literature reflecting on the war provided the means through which they articulated visions of reconciliation – visions that in essence mirrored the causes for which they had fought. Veterans’ reconciliationist views were in fact colored by their experiences of war, the issues that had been at stake, and their respective causes. They at once promoted reconciliation and reminded their audiences that only one side had been right. Their challenge was how best to situate former enemies within these commemorative contexts.

While scholars such as Blight (and his legion of proponents) have blurred the distinction between the two, I offer terms of separation - and clear definitions. Presuming of course that one agrees with my definitions, we might proceed with caution when we use them, and keep in mind how the veterans made the distinction between the two.

The Road to Reunion - Paul Buck's Spin

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Historians speak often about the storied "road to reconciliation" after the Civil War. I, as you all probably know, have spent the last ten years talking about it, and I do not think that I will relenting any time soon.

The scholarly approach - at least how many understand it - is part of the foundation of the history and memory cottage industry that has been a hot topic for the last couple of decades.

The approach (most famously argued by Yale historian David Blight) boils down to a few simple lines. Reconciliation came at the expense of what was promised by Union victory. Black people - slavery and emancipation - were essentially whitewashed out of the war's memory. The Civil War was thus commemorated on southern terms. You can find out why I do not necessarily agree with this idea by doing a simple search for "reconciliation" right here on Cosmic America.

But Blight's take is only new in that is casts a negative light on effort by both by sides to reconcile. Others...earlier in the twentieth century, drew similar conclusions - although they were celebrating reconciliation in the process.

Among the first to assess the implications of reconciliation, Paul H. Buck tendered an affirming appraisal of veterans’ efforts despite the overt racism apparent at commemorative gatherings. In 1937, his The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 lauded the “positive influences” paving the way for the “promise of ultimate peace” and applauded the breakdown of sectional animosity during the postwar years. He nevertheless admitted that reconciliation ushered in a “period where [black people] would no longer figure as the ward of the nation to be singled out for special guardianship or peculiar treatment.” Buck paid tribute to reconciliation but observed “the tremendous reversal of opinion” regarding freed people.

Just a few thoughts - I'll be back tomorrow to explain why I think the words "reunion" and "reconciliation" should not be used interchangeably. They may seem like the same thing - but guess what, they are not.

Peace,

Keith