Lucius Fairchild and GAR Patriotic Instruction

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

This morning, one of my youngest readers, Andrew, creator of the blog Civil War Kids, reminded me of the very troubling fact that many grade school children have no grasp of even the most fundamental Civil War history.

As disheartening as this is to me - as I am sure it is to you -  it would have been all the more so to the veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic. GAR veterans were resolutely determined to insure that children knew their Civil War history, what had been at stake, what Union soldiers had sacrificed, and what had caused the conflict. Naturally, their history had a decidedly Union bent - children of Confederate veterans were not so keen on Union history...and neither were their parents. But more on that later.

Today we look at Lucius Fairchild. He was quite the accomplished fellow, with an impressive vita. He served as an officer in the storied Iron Brigade, rising to the rank of brigadier general, did a stint as the Secretary of State, President Grant appointed him consul to England, and then France, he was elected governor of Wisconsin and served three consecutive terms, and he was elected Commander-in-Chief of the Department of Wisconsin, GAR. And I thought I was busy.

Fairchild's work with the GAR also included what the organization termed "patriotic instruction." Veterans took an active role in education to make certain that their voices were heard (and remembered). Part of this included a series of essays written about the war by school children. I have included a few snippets from the 1890s that I found particularly illuminating - the collection is housed at the Wisconsin Veterans Museum in Madison, should you ever care to check it out.

– Frank Toby, age 12, sums up the history of the war in two concise sentences.

“About this time there were negro slaves in the south owned by southern planters. Abraham Lincoln set them free by the War.”

- Charlie Baumel, age 10, had this to share regarding slavery and secession:

“The people in the cotton growing states believed that by this election that the North were going to pass laws to deprive them of their slaves so six of the southern states withdrew from the Union.”

- Esther Komitsch, age 12 wrote this homage to Lincoln and the Union soldiers:

Our flag is red, white, and blue
Abraham Lincoln was brave and true,
He freed the slaves,
To the southern peoples’ amaze,
And was honored by the boys in blue.
The Boys in blue,
Were very brave too,
They fought with all their might,
Some lost their lives,
And some lost their sight
To free the southern slaves.

Through these children's papers, we can see how the Fairchild's efforts to incorporate the slavery issue in to patriotic instruction worked. Years after Fairchild's death, others who had taken up the task of instructing school children would continue to stress the importance of this work. In 1906, instructor Edward Cronon would offer these words to his comrades:

We have saved the Union; those who come after us must be taught to preserve it. this is not mere sentiment; it is a duty which we owe to those who come after us, and who are to take our places as citizens when we are gone. if they are properly instructed, as I am sure they will be, then our mission will have been accomplished.

And in 1915, he would again speak to his instructor brethren and this time color his words with hues of reconciliation, while nevertheless remembering the Union cause:

While I am not in favor of flaunting our victory in the faces of the brave old comrades who felt it their duty to fight on the other side, it is well worth while for us in the jubilee year to recall in a public manner the high courage and patriotic devotion that saved our country from disunion, kept all the stars on our flag and made it in fact as well as in song – the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Peace,
Keith

A Promising New Civil War Blog

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

It may seem somewhat premature to favorably review a blog in its earliest incarnations. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the content will be up to Cosmic America standards.

The blog's title, in all its straight-forward simplicity, is Grand Army Blog: The Veteran In A [Digital] Field. It is authored by Yale Ph.D. candidate Brian Matthew Jordan, who recently published Unholy Sabbath: The Battle of South Mountain in History and Memory, September 14, 1862.

What I gather from Brian's mission statement and first handful of posts, is an innovative addition to the ever-growing collection of Civil War memory studies. His focus is on Union veterans - but he endeavors to reorient Civil War remembrance along a veteran-civilian axis. This blog promises to be reflections on Brian's research and writing of his study, "When Billy Came Marching Home: Union Veterans and Their Unending Civil War."

On veterans, civilians, and Civil War memory, Brian states: The categories fashioned by the historian David Blight to sort competing memories of our fratricidal war – what he called the “emancipationist,” “reconciliationist,” and “white supremacist” visions – were useful in explaining how the national narrative of the Civil War was segregated, but stopped well short of explaining how that same story was, from almost the very beginning, sanitized. The sanitization of the Civil War narrative, much like its segregation, has a troubling history.

While I disagree with Blight's thesis (not Brian's assessment of it), and I find categories of all kinds profoundly problematic, I am nevertheless intrigued by the undertaking of a new categorization of Union veterans. Sanitization of the Civil War narrative would necessarily exclude a number of the maimed veterans who lived to see the end of the war. I am interested to see how he approaches said category - and his veteran-civilian axis.

My questions are numerous - particularity concerning the themes of fluidity/rigidity as veterans once again entered civilian life. Were they indeed cordoned off and kept away from the general public? Those who "shall have borne the battle" as Lincoln said, were certainly discussed at length at monument dedications and other veteran events. Were there intersections in which the maimed and disfigured were accepted in Brian's conception of a sanitized narrative?

I look forward to Brian's work - I am sure I will have plenty to discuss.

Peace,

Keith

Pinterest Update and a New Question Box

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

When I am not harassing flaggers or keeping the world up to date on Twitter and Facebook, I am engaged in an experiment in what I am calling aggregate imagery narrative, which is actually just a fancy schmancy way of saying that I am telling a story with a collection of pictures.

My medium for this experiment, as I noted a while back, is Pinterest. So far the site is gaining some traction, generating enthusiasm, and driving traffic to the Cosmic America blog. Success, success, success. The Pinterest experiment is working exactly like I planned - and as an interesting insight, visitors seem most drawn to the pictures that include a relevant quote.

So far, I have included several boards - arranged in chronological order, with a few others arranged thematically (monuments, museums, etc). Within the next couple of months, I should have a comprehensive story assembled. For now, and much to my irritation, Pinterest does not allow one to rearrange pictures within a board - so, for example, pictures on the 1863 board may suffer from a lack of narrative integrity. I am hoping that this will soon be fixed. For now - I'll let people figure things out for themselves. I would like to get more people involved - check my site out and let me know what you think...suggestions are welcome.

One more quick thing - while Office Hours has been on something of a sabbatical, its popularity has yet to subside, and questions continue to find me. To facilitate this process in anticipation of a planned increase in video segments (you can check Youtube for prior episodes) I have created a question form located at the right of this post - under the chat box. So fire at will my friends - with all your Civil War inquiries! I am looking forward to your questions.

Peace,

Keith

PS - speaking of the chat box. Like I always say - consistency is key. I notice that the chat feature lights up an the most unexpected times - and I cannot always answer. In the next few days, I will figure out some regular chat time, post a schedule, and announce it on Twitter and Facebook.

My One and Only Flagger Post

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

On March 31, 2012, The Museum of the Confederacy will open the doors at their new site in Appomattox. Let's get right to the point. Neo-Confederate heritage groups have their panties in knot over the museum's decision NOT to fly any Confederate flags. There will be an American flag and flags representing all the states of the former (emphasis...former) Confederacy. But no Stars and Bars...no battle flags.

My position on flying Confederate flags in public areas and at public buildings is well known. These banners are hardly innocuous symbols of a "cause thought just." Displaying them has a tendency to arouse bitter ire. And rightfully so. They flew at the head of treasonous columns hell bent on destroying the nation...they flew over a government established to preserve slavery. So they belong IN the museum - not flying over it. And that is ALL I will say on the topic.

Why? Because I have found that arguing with neo-Confederates has little to no utility. So I won't waste my time. I do think it is necessary to point out what exactly is going on, though - just to inform my readers (if you don't already know) that there is a pretty upset unreconstructed bunch out there. The flaggers have promised to organize a public campaign to rectify this "insult," which will include a demonstration at the museum's opening on Sunday. In all fairness, I think it appropriate to offer their side of the story. You can find some pretty choice nuggets HERE.

Also, the flaggers have organized a Facebook page rallying the troops to the (long defeated) southern cause. And, an additional note - flaggers will be meeting the day before the museum showdown at the Appomattox Pizza Hut at 5:30. I guess they want to bulk up on some healthy eats to fortify their two days of protest.

For the record - the Museum of the Confederacy is a wonderful organization dedicated to preserving the history of a profound event that nearly tore the nation apart. The museum is not a neo-Confederate organization nor does it implicitly endorse secession or the Confederate States of America. The assumption forwarded by the flaggers that the MOC should honor (and thus endorse) secessionist emblems is ludicrous.

Waite Rawls, the executive director of the museum (the flaggers refer to him as a "Scallawag") had this to say: "Appomattox is a metaphor for the reunification of the country. To put the Confederate flag into that display would be a historical untruth."

I'll close with that - but leave things open for discussion. Full disclosure: flaggers...I am not going to argue with you. Period. If you are determined to fly your flags, do so on your private property, as it is your right to do so. I have said all I care to say on why the public display of Rebel flags is wrong. But if you have something insightful to contribute, be my guest.

Peace,
Keith

The Ever-Intrusive [sic]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The hour to vent has arrived - yes...I tend to get annoyed from time to time. You know that little Latin adverb that you sometimes find bracketed at the end of quoted sentences or passages? It's there indicating that the quote was transcribed exactly, but that it contained errors in spelling or some other incorrect information.

The use of [sic] drives me nuts. What may be no big deal or even a minor annoyance to you I find to be horribly and inexcusably intrusive. It breaks up the flow of the prose...it stands out like an irritating blemish on an otherwise clean surface...it disrupts like a cell phone going off at the end of Titanic. I can't stand them - they are entirely redundant as well. If a passage has been set apart with quotation marks, should we not be aware that it is an exact transcription - errors and all?

I have been reading Harold Holzer's book on Lincoln at Cooper Union. This is a book I find thoroughly fascinating and well executed. But those little [sic] notations keep finding their way into the text and spoiling my otherwise enjoyable experience. I believe that an informed public will be more than aware that when a spelling error occurs in a quoted passage it is the original author's, not the esteemed Mr. Holzer's mistake.

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson explained in a foreword to Cause and Comrades that he would avoid using [sic] and instead make slight corrections to the text - but only when it eased the flow of reading. I don't even think that is a good idea. Let's just leave historical actors' words alone. If you have to explain why you are doing what you are doing in an introductory statement then so be it.

Okay - now that I have gotten that off of my chest and can get through the rest of the day. It's the little things, you know.

Peace,

Keith

Surrender - Finale

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

It did not take long for Grant and Lee to dispense with the proceedings for which they had met. Grant wrote up the terms - Lee reminded him that his officers owned their own horses, Grant made adjustments to the terms to allow the men to retain their mounts, and Lee agreed.

And there it was - the grand Army of Northern Virginia was no more. The two generals exchanged a few words and Lee, with his aide-de-camp, left the building. Below is an eyewitness account of what next transpired:

At a little before 4 o'clock General Lee shook hands with General Grant, bowed to the other officers, and with Colonel Marshall left the room. One after another we followed, and passed out to the porch. Lee signaled to his orderly to bring up his horse, and while the animal was being bridled the general stood on the lowest step and gazed sadly in the direction of the valley beyond where his army lay - now an army of prisoners. He smote his hands together a number of times in an absent sort of way; seemed not to see the group of Union officers in the yard who rose respectfully at his approach, and appeared unconscious of everything about him. All appreciated the sadness that overwhelmed him, and he had the personal sympathy of every one who beheld him at this supreme moment of trial. The approach of his horse seemed to recall him from his reverie, and he at once mounted. General Grant now stepped down from the porch, and, moving toward him, saluted him by raising his hat. He was followed in this act of courtesy by all our officers present; Lee raised his hat respectfully, and rode off to break the sad news to the brave fellows whom he had so long commanded.


The following day, Lee issued his Farewell Address to his army:

Headquarters, Army of Northern Virginia, 10th April 1865.
After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.

I need not tell the survivors of so many hard fought battles, who have remained steadfast to the last, that I have consented to the result from no distrust of them.

But feeling that valour and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that must have attended the continuance of the contest, I have determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen.

By the terms of the agreement, officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged. You will take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you his blessing and protection.

With an unceasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your Country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration for myself, I bid you an affectionate farewell.

His words would inform legions of Lost Cause advocates later in the nineteenth century. Overwhelming numbers and resources soon became the cornerstone of the an argument - persisting until today - suggesting the the Rebels wore themselves out defeating the Yankees.

Peace,

Keith

Surrender - Entr'acte

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So, what did Lee and Grant talk about before they got down to the business at hand? I mean...it must have been uncomfortable, to say the least - maybe the exchange of a few pleasantries? Sort of along the lines of..."So, Lee - long time! How have things been since Mexico? Not so well....I guess. Sorry about the whole independence thing."

Well, it did not go exactly like that, but the two generals did have something of a chat before the official surrender proceeded. Below is an excerpt from Ulysses S. Grant's Personal Memoirs - he provides a wonderfully detailed description of the goings on before the two men sat down and signed the necessary paperwork - complete with a clearly articulated understanding of the Confederate cause.

I had known General Lee in the old army, and had served with him in the Mexican War; but did not suppose, owing to the difference in our age and rank, that he would remember me; while I would more naturally remember him distinctly, because he was the chief of staff of General Scott in the Mexican War.



When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb.  I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was.  When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats.  I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview.



What General Lee's feelings were I do not know.  As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassable face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it.  Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter [proposing negotiations], were sad and depressed.  I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.  I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.



General Lee was dressed in a full uniform which was entirely new, and was wearing a sword of considerable value, very likely the sword which had been presented by the State of Virginia; at all events, it was an entirely different sword from the one that would ordinarily be worn in the field.  In my rough traveling suit, the uniform of a private with the straps of a lieutenant-general, I must have contrasted very strangely with a man so handsomely dressed, six feet high and of faultless form.  But this was not a matter that I thought of until afterwards.



We soon fell into a conversation about old army times.  He remarked that he remembered me very well in the old army; and I told him that as a matter of course I remembered him perfectly, but from the difference in our rank and years (there being about sixteen years' difference in our ages), I had thought it very likely that I had not attracted his attention sufficiently to be remembered by him after such a long interval.  Our conversation grew so pleasant that I almost forgot the object of our meeting.  After the conversation had run on in this style for some time, General Lee called my attention to the object of our meeting, and said that he had asked for this interview for the purpose of getting from me the terms I proposed to give his army.  I said I meant merely that his army should lay down their arms, not to take them up again during the continuance of the war unless duly and properly exchanged.  He said that he had so understood my letter.

Then we gradually fell off again into conversation about matters foreign to the subject which had brought us together.  This continued for some little time, when General Lee again interrupted the course of the conversation by suggesting that the terms I proposed to give his army ought to be written out.  I called to General [Ely S.] Parker, secretary on my staff, for writing materials, and commenced writing out the terms...

Tomorrow (or maybe later today - I am home ill) we will put an end to the Appomattox story - as told by the participants. So stay tuned.

Peace,

Keith