Veterans Day

It [was] not a war to save the Union alone, it [was] a war to make the Union worth saving.
- William P. Hogarty, Union veteran

Union Veterans Reflect on Robert E. Lee

Robert E. Lee: American hero, icon... and traitor.

After the Civil War, the renown of Robert E. Lee spread far beyond the borders of the former Confederacy. He was respected and praised in the North for his virtues, his fighting prowess, and his conciliation in defeat. Historians such as Alan T. Nolan have noted that the North, whose people “had to acknowledge the honor of the South,” fully embraced the Lee tradition. “Revisionism,” especially in terms of Lost Cause interpretations of the war where Lee figured centrally, argues Nolan, “could not become part of the Civil War legend without northern acceptance, and the North did accept the South’s rewriting of the record.”

While some in the North may have been retrospectively kind to the former Rebel general, Nolan has made far too great a generalization. Union veterans, for example, were hardly generous in their assessment of Lee. To them, Lee was a traitor. In 1891, the Grand Army Record passionately objected to the “saintly slopping over Robert E. Lee,” and others agreed. In fact, GAR protests against Lee helped create a lasting thread in northern commemorative literature. In 1910, one Union veteran wrote, essentially expressing in the same breath how some might find Lee both virtuous and reprehensible: “Though in his Confederate uniform [Lee] may possess all the culture and personal worthiness he had before he thus clothed himself, this badge of disloyalty – of rebellion – so characterizes him that by it he must be judged.” As late as 1922, a variety of groups continued to honor the veterans’ legacy by protesting in “unmeasured terms” the organizations that celebrated the Rebel chief, arguing that treason should never be forgotten, much less rewarded. “No Grand Army man,” offered one Union veteran, “can honorably lend his name to any movement which shall dignify to posterity the name of the traitor Robert E. Lee, or shall make him the equal of the loyal, victorious Grant.”

Union veterans remained determined to praise only the Union heroes who saved the country, rather than a Rebel who had tried to destroy it. The praise allotted to the rebel chieftain wore Grand Army veterans particularly thin. One Collier’s Weekly article citing Lee as America’s most “noble citizen” especially drew fire from the GAR’s patriotic instructor, Robert Kissick of Iowa. “If Lee was all you claim, then the men I represent were wrong in fighting to preserve the nation he fought to destroy.” Further arguing that “Lee did not follow his state out of the Union,” but rather, “his state followed him,” Kissick lambasted the Confederate hero and heaped much of the blame for upper South secession on Lee’s shoulders. As decades passed, few Union veterans could stomach the praise of Robert E. Lee. In 1922, when the American Legion attempted to honor Lee’s birthday, veterans of the Pennsylvania GAR shuddered at the idea that anyone would “place a premium on Disloyalty to the Flag and our Country.”

Although adulation of the Rebel general found a place among northern civilians who perhaps sentimentalized or romanticized the gentile south and all that the Lee family embodied, Lee’s standing among Union veterans never reached the heights the general obtained in the South.

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!”

Albert Woolson - GAR

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Today, still keeping with the veteran theme, I offer some video footage (unfortunately sans interview) of Albert Woolson, claimed to be the last surviving GAR veteran (he died in August 1956).

Now, I have heard that there may be more to the story...that he might not have been a combat veteran or that he may not have served in the army at all. This is all hearsay, of course - if anybody wants to chip in their two cents, I am all ears (um....hello Barb Gannon).

He did get a monument at Gettysburg...so that must mean something. I am embarrassed to say that I know little about him.

Peace,
Keith

To the Soldiers of the Union

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

How quickly do memories fade? Were the citizens of the United States forgetting about the Civil War in the immediate decades following the close of the conflict? Union veterans certainly thought so. In fact, they expressed a palpable anxiety when it came to remembrance...when it came to etching permanently their trials on to the national narrative.

This December 1877 column from the National Tribune, a veterans' publication, illustrates the troubling perception of memories fading - not the memories of those who fought and bled for Union, but those of the citizenry in general:

The events of the war, and the men of the war, are fast fading from the public attention. Its history is growing to be an "Old, Old Story." Public interest is weakening day by day. The memory of march, and camp, and battle-field, of the long and manly endurance, of the superb and uncomplaining courage, of the mass of sacrifice that redeemed the Nation, is fast dying out. Those who rejoice in the liberty and peace secured by the soldier's suffering and privation, accept the benefits, but deny or forget the benefactor.

Reflections such as these were typical; veterans seized the initiative and launched a number of campaigns to ensure that what they saw happening was corrected. Patriotic instruction spearheaded by the GAR, for instance, informed school age children of the causes and consequences of the fight to suppress rebellion. How do we gauge the success of their efforts? In the context of Civil War commemorations coexisting with an exponential increase in population, can we too  sense retrospectively that veterans were losing touch with the national character - especially since many new arrivals to the American shores had no real personal connection to the Civil War? Did Americans forget (or in certain instances, really never know) the benefactor?

I will be working through some of these questions and addressing the old intersecting with the new in upcoming posts. So stay tuned.

Peace,

Keith

Mystery Veteran F. A. Whitehead - Not Quite as Mysterious

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Remember last week when I by happenstance discovered a Civil War veteran's tombstone at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery? I wanted to find out who he was and how he found himself in Hollywood in the early twentieth century. I poked around on the Internet for a bit but quickly grew impatient -  so I turned to my fellow Civil War bloggers for assistance. They got back to me in short order. So thanks Robert Moore and Andy Hall!

Here is what they found: According to the 1920 census, New Yorkers Frederick A. Whitehead and his wife, Agnes were residing in Los Angeles - most likely on Carlton Way, what is now an affluent neighborhood north of Sunset Blvd. in West Hollywood. I am not yet certain what he was doing in L. A., but I now have a pretty interesting wartime story.

It seems that Whitehead enlisted in Co. B of the 1st New York Mounted Rifles in October 1861, which means he would have seen plenty of action in the Virginia theater of war. By January 1863, Whitehead was listed as a deserter...but turned up as a masters mate in the Navy the following year, serving aboard the U.S.S. Narragansett. He resigned in March, 1865.

Was Whitehead a deserter? It may just be a matter of interpretation. In 1891, he successfully had his name cleared of any wrongdoing through an act of congress. He claimed he had been a minor at the time of enlistment and thus discharged. This was actually not true - he was 18 years old. But one thing suggests that at least he thought he was in the clear to "leave" the Army and transfer to the Navy - he enlisted in the Navy with his real name. Could allegations of desertion simply have been a paperwork mix-up?

After the war he spent some time in Fort Meade, Florida and is noted in a book on Polk County:

Capt. F. A. Whitehead, one of Fort Meade’s leading and most active and influential citizens, has a delightful residence amid towering oaks and a fruitful orange grove, in the heart of the village. He also has a variety of pleasing growths, such as Japanese plums and persimmons, Peen-To-peaches, lemons, limes, pine-apples, strawberries, bananas, mangos, sapadillos, grapes of numerous kinds, flowers in great variety, and other things too numerous to mention. He also has large number of acres of the choicest citrus fruits in grove. A native of New York City, he has made good use of his thirteen years in Florida. Resigning his position in the navy at the close of the war, he made a thorough acquaintance of California, and has been in the fruit and stock business ever since, yet having a farm in Delaware. He prefers Florida to any State, has large tracts here and is doing a very extensive real-estate business.

The whole "captain" thing appears to be a post-war self appointment, as was practiced by many veterans (think of all the ex-Confederate "colonels" running around!). And it was more than likely the citrus business that brought him to California. In the early-twentieth century, the motion picture industry was still in its infancy - Hollywood was covered with lemon and orange groves!

So my next step is to begin searching locally, to see what I can find out about the Whiteheads and their work here in Southern California. His tombstone clearly indicates that he was proud of his service in the Army and Navy - if he was involved in veterans' affairs in L.A., he may very well have had some interesting things to say about being a Yankee westerner. Time...and a lot of digging...will certainly tell. So stay tuned as the story unfolds.

Peace,

Keith

Civil War Mystery Veteran

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I was taking a walk yesterday in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery, as I am wont to do, and I stumbled across this grave - one that I had never seen before. The person buried here, F. A. Whitehead, is clearly a veteran of Civil War United States Navy. The usual Internet searches yielded very little information...but now I have to know. Seeing that this is a veteran that somehow found his way to Los Angeles after the war, it might be worthwhile to find out who he was and exactly what he was up to.

If you know anything about this sailor fellow...please fill me in.

Peace,

Keith

Thought for the Day

It [was] not a war to save the Union alone, it [was] a war to make the Union worth saving.
- William P. Hogarty

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

Lt. Colonel Allen Allensworth - a Significant First

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Allen Allensworth was born into slavery in Kentucky in 1842. Like many others, the Civil War brought an opportunity to escape to Union lines. Allensworth took this opportunity and joined with the Union hospital Corps after escaping to an encampment of the 44th Illinois Volunteer Regiment - a unit camped near Louisville. In 1863, he joined the US Navy, where he was soon promoted to Captain's Steward serving on the Gunboat Queen's City.

After the war, he pursued a life of preaching, married, and eventually returned to the Army as the Chaplain of the 24th Infantry Regiment - the Buffalo Soldiers - holding the rank of Captain, he was among the few black officers in the Army. By the time of his retirement in 1906, he had reached the rank of Lt. Colonel - the first black man to do so.

Allensworth is quickly becoming a point of great interest to me. After his retirement, he moved to Los Angeles, California and worked to develop a black community north of Bakersfield. The town of Allensworth, founded in 1908, was meant to be entirely self sufficient - free from racism, and free from the travails of the post Reconstruction South. Sadly, the town failed. The problem - no water. Allensworth returned to Los Angeles where, in 1914,  he was ingloriously killed in a motorcycle accident. He is buried in the GAR plot at Rosedale Cemetery in Los Angeles. 

Allensworth is among several men in my current study of Union veterans who moved west after the war. Did Allensworth develop an identity as a westerner? What sort of identities was he dealing with in a post-Union victory United States that helped inform a possible western outlook? Several identity layers may indeed surface - racial, sectional, gender, class. We shall see - I am planning several trips to the archives including a road trip to the remnants of what was once Allensworth, California.

One thing that is great about this project - it turns out that Los Angeles has a much richer Civil War connection than I had previously thought.

Peace,
Keith

The (International) Grand Army of the Republic

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Scott MacKenzie at Slaveholders' War posted an interesting tidbit today concerning GAR veterans in the Great White North. I suppose I should not be surprised that a number of Union veterans made there way to Canada after 1865 and naturally, considering their tendency to organize, I should not be surprised that they formed GAR posts. Scott listed the posts on record - you never know...there may be more.

I have to admit that I am embarrassed on my lack of knowledge of international GAR veterans. My own research stopped at the borders, so to speak. Scott points out that little, if any research has been done on these guys and wonders about things such as national origin, ethnic identity, and how their presence affected their communities.

If anyone has any insight, chime in. While the overwhelming majority of Union veterans returned to their homes or relocated to places in the United States, some surely left for international locales. Hmmmm - maybe an ambitious historian out there should break some new ground. My current project concerns Union veterans who migrated to California - maybe I'll tackle the Canadians next. Unless, of course, somebody beats me to it!

Peace,
Keith

From the Archives: Ohio Civil War Veterans on Aging and Union

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I came across a couple of tidbits in the Cosmic America archives this morning I thought worthy of sharing. The source: testimony form the war papers published in 1891 by the Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Ohio, Fred C. Jones Post, No. 401, Cincinnati. The papers are housed at Columbia University.

The few short paragraphs here are excellent representations of two very important themes in veterans' commemorative activities. One, the rapid thinning of their ranks as the years inexorably passed, and two, their unflinching commitment to Union.

Union, as historian Gary Gallagher has recently pointed out in his book The Union War, has somewhat faded from our understanding of why northern soldiers flocked to the colors. Why, we might ask, would so many risk their lives for something so abstract? Clearly these soldiers did not dismiss Union as an abstraction, but rather stood by the idea as a tangible one - and one worthy of defending.

I will let them speak for themselves...on aging and Union:

The life of the Grand Army is necessarily a brief one. The survivors of the great war of the rebellion are past the meridian of life, and the shadows of the coming night are rapidly rising above them. There is hardly a man among us whose hair is unsilvered with age. There are no means of perpetuating our Order. We draw recruits from a single source, and that a circumscribed one whose limits are narrowing year by year. In a few years the last veteran of the great army will have passed away.

Our nation survived the shock of war largely because of its peculiar structure, which made every loyal man feel that he was part of the Government; that under our system of decentralized power a part of it is lodged in his person. He felt that he was challenged when the Federal Government was defied, and that he was robbed when the Federal forts and arsenals were taken. The quarrel thus became his personal concern, and the people of the North rose as one man to beat back the bold assault upon a system of government which every man of them was inspired to defend by the same feeling which would move him to defend his own hearthstone.

I discuss both of these subjects at length in my upcoming book on Civil War veterans. I will let you know as the publication date approaches.

Peace,

Keith

Californians Are Just So Freakin' Nice

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Gotta love the West! Especially here in California - we're just so nice and generous and caring. Well...not really. But back in the 1880s, when some good folks were planning a home for destitute Civil War veterans, the idea was to suggest that something was different about the proposed home here in the Bear Republic. In my quest to determine what Union veterans thought about the West, I have begun to uncover a few things. Here is what one San Jose newspaper had to say about the idea of a home -

The plan, as we understand it, is a wider and even more humane one than that of those excellent “Soldiers’ Homes” in the East, where in one large building the veterans are gathered into a male colony, to receive the benefits of which they must be separated form their families. There is something very shocking in this idea, which originated with the English Poor Law Unions, of separating in their old age husbands and wives because they are guilty if the single crime of poverty. An institution will be provided for the single veterans and small cottages, each with a little tract of land, will be allotted to those veterans who are still blessed with the society of their wives whose hearts used to grow faint and their eyes dim as after some great battle they scanned the list of “killed, wounded, and missing."

So are the people of California thinking that those back East are somehow colder, more callous, less sensitive to the needs of those who saved the Union? This is actually a very intriguing question but one at this point I am unable to answer. Let's just say this. It certainly seems from other things that I have been reading that Union veterans who settled West are tending to think of themselves as westerners - and are interpreting and commemorating Union from a western perspective. At least some of them are.

In the nineteenth-century sectional reorientation that recast a nation divided between old and new...East and West, veterans who found their way to California suddenly found themselves with lots to talk about. Aren't you interested in what they might say next??

Peace,

Keith

Union Veterans, Westward Migration, and Nationalism....a Few Starting Points

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Since I’ll soon be looking at how Union veterans who migrated to the western United States commemorated the war from a new sectional perspective along an East-West orientation, rather than a North-South. I thought I would revisit some of the literature on the movement away from localism to nationalism in the broader commemorative ethos.

Analyses of a shift to an era defined by a new sense of national unity frames scholarship concerning the broader period of intensified national commemoration. Two examples of works outlining this cultural shift away from celebratory traditions steeped in localism are Michael Kammen’s Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture and John Bodnar’s Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. While Kammen admits that many Civil War veterans for a time remained “unreconciled” due in large part to “regional chauvinism” and “spasmodic bursts of Northern aggressiveness,” he suggests that, in time, “selective memory helped eventually to facilitate reconciliation.”  Bodnar frames his work in part around late-nineteenth century divisions between a growing class of entrepreneurs and ordinary people that trumped the sectional divisions embedded in disunion. Ultimately, argues Bodnar, this contest would reconfigure national traditions away from localism and ensure the “political and cultural power of the nation-state.” Further, illuminating the selective nature of memory, many scholars have amplified how people in the present shape the vestiges of the past through today’s predilections. David Lowenthal, for example, in The Past is a Foreign Country, argues that Civil War remembrances illustrate how “past discord [was] simplified or played down, making times of violent strife seem remarkably benign and orderly.”

Ideas regarding individuals’ selectivity in crafting commemorative traditions, especially in public settings, remain extremely influential. At the Southern Historical Association conference held in Richmond, Virginia, between October 31 and November 3, 2007, papers delivered by Karen L. Cox, Alisa Harrison, and Joan Marie Johnson all suggested a historical “redevelopment” at sites of historical memory along reconciliatory lines saving southern tourism from embarrassing tributes to anything recalling the contentions of war. After a brief question and answer exchange, members of the panel agreed that sectional divergence was negligible. Rather, suggested one presenter, significant resonant sectional antipathy is merely a creation of scholars who mistakenly deem post-war sectionalism important.

These are my starting points – and the literature from where I sit is problematic – to say the least. Section was profoundly important to veterans' nationalistic views in the East. My principal inquiry: how to they transpose their views in an entirely new regional setting? I think I am going to really enjoy this new project.

Peace,

Keith

The Search for Civil War Veterans in Los Angeles Is On!

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Now - since I have made the decision to write about veterans in the West, I suppose it would be a good idea to find some to write about. First step...cemeteries. I thought I would go after a couple of hard ones first. I found a few at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in, you guessed it, Hollywood (resting place of Cecil B. DeMille, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino and lots of other super famous people). There is at least one more at the Westwood Village Memorial Park (resting place of Marilyn Monroe, Jack Lemmon, Merv Griffin...really - the list goes on and on). I have got their names, states, and units in order - next step...search the archives and see if they turn up anywhere.

Perhaps the more obvious spot - slated for a trip next week - is the National Cemetery in West Los Angeles. This is on the grounds of the Old Soldiers' Home - aka the Sawtelle Veterans' Home, established in 1887. This cemetery is the resting place of many more Civil War (Union) veterans and a Civil War monument to boot. No kidding. I had lived in LA for decades before I knew there was a Civil War monument here.

Stick around - I'll keep you posted and if you have any leads...I am all ears - especially when it comes to former Confederates. I am certain that some made it here, but few have turned up so far.

Peace,

Keith

John Neff's Honoring the Civil War Dead - (his take on) the Problem With 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

Northerners and D. W. Griffith's 1915 film: The Birth of a Nation

The game is afoot! After a lot of secondary reading and a peek in to the historical record I am beginning to formulate some questions concerning D. W. Griffith's 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation.

A few things are striking me as curiously glossed over in the literature on the film - things that I believe are worthy of further inquiry. Most scholars tend to reduce the controversy surrounding this film to racial conflict. In many ways, they are absolutely correct. The film's profoundly racist depiction of black people - whether they be boot-licking sycophants, buffoons, or lustful rapists - without question incited animosity among individual blacks, groups such as the NAACP, and progressive whites.

But connected to this racial conflict is the nagging problem of sectional animosities held over from the Civil War. Only 50 years removed from Appomattox, the war was still fresh in the memories of those who had lived through it. Further, the sons and daughters of the Civil War generation remained attached to sectional interpretations of the war's causes and consequences.

Many scholars would have you believe otherwise. Historians such as David Blight and others have insisted that the memory of the war had - by the twentieth century - been reduced to a mutual celebration of valor and fortitude.

Poppycock. It is becoming apparent to me that many white northern Americans in 1915 saw the Confederate cause as an traitorous abomination and a revolt against law and order. It seems quite logical that groups and individuals would condemn a film that celebrated Confederates as patriots and applauded extra-legal organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan.

In fact - Union veterans' organizations such as the Grand Army of the Republic led the charge against the screening of The Birth of a Nation suggesting that is was "untrue to the facts of history, [did] gross injustice to prominent and patriotic men of Reconstruction times, [was] insulting to colored citizens, and [tended] to glorify mob law."

This is sectionalism pure and simple. Northerners had fought to suppress rebellion - celebrating it 50 years after the fact seemed distasteful at best. Of course, millions in the North flocked to see The Birth of a Nation - and many were surely amazed at the spectacle of this new medium. But they didn't necessarily agree with the film's message.

At any rate, being one who resolutely believes that sectionalism is a central component in the study of American conflict and American history writ large, I am going to pursue this line of reasoning and see where it takes me. My driving questions: to what degree did the contentions of the Civil War remain in the twentieth-century North? How did the war generation influence subsequent generations? In what ways did The Birth of a Nation fuel sectional fires? And finally, the real nugget...are racial conflicts and sectional conflicts interwoven in American history?

I guess we'll just have to see.
Keith