David Blight on American Oracle

Greetings Cosmic Americans - In this video, historian David Blight discusses the collision of the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement during the 1950s and 60s - the topic of his latest book, American Oracle. I strongly suggest having a look at this book - I found it interesting to read about the war during the centennial...and how things have (and in some cases) have not changed for the sesquicentennial.

Peace,
Keith

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

What Civil War Book Most Influenced You?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I speak often about the many Civil War books that I have found compelling over the years. Of course, there is Bruce Catton's body of work - my introduction to Civil War history, and David Blight's Race and Reunion - the very best book I have ever read that I disagree with. I keep these books on my short list for a variety of reasons.

But if there is one book that most influenced my thinking - at least when it comes to Confederate nationalism, Confederate identity, and how the Confederate States of America finally succumbed to defeat, I would have to give the nod to Gary W. Gallagher's Confederate War.

Before I thoroughly engaged this book, I considered Confederate defeat in terms of internal divisions. Popular national support (or lack thereof - for a multitude of reasons), popular connections to the institution of slavery, and the disconnect between civilian and military leadership all seemed problematic enough to suggest that maybe...just maybe the Rebels did themselves in.

Gallagher's book did not change my mind on the spot - but it got me thinking about the Confederate cause and how the Confederate people persevered for four years despite these things. Further investigation convinced me that the Rebels had internal troubles to spare, but were profoundly committed to independence and a slave-holding republic and were willing to sacrifice nearly everything to get it. You don't need to take my word for it - just read the book...have a look at the evidence in comparison to other works discussing Confederate defeat (Robinson's Bitter Fruits of Bondage would be a good start) and decide for yourself.

And in case you were wondering about my current thoughts on Confederate defeat - I am going to have to go with George Pickett: I am pretty sure the Union army had something to do with it.

Peace,

Keith

Remembering Race and Reunion: Ten Years Later – Some Comments on a Review

Those of you who read the web component of the Civil War Monitor this week will undoubtedly have by now seen Brian Matthew Jordan’s thoughtful and compelling look back at David W. Blight’s Race and Reunion: the Civil War in American Memory. Ten years after Race and Reunion got us all thinking about how the Civil War generation remembered the conflict, says Jordan, Blight’s work still resonates. Not so much for its power to provide the last word on Civil War memory, but rather for the groundbreaking path it so eloquently cleared for a host of those (myself included) who directed their scholarly interests toward memory studies.

Race and Reunion was one of two books that convinced me to pursue a career as a historian (I’ll let you guess what the other one was….get it right and I’ll send you an autographed 8X10). But not exactly because I thought Blight got it all right. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Like many other historians have since discovered, It surprised me that those who killed each other in great profusion for four years could not simply let “bygones be bygones” while commemorating on the pedestal of shared racism. Sure enough, the historical record resounds with bitter reflection – from both sides...often with some aspect of the fight for emancipation at the center of what can best be described as a contested commemorative ethos.

Jordan reflects not only on the significance of Blight’s work, but also on the state of the field as it has grown over the last decade, suggesting scholars – even those who have challenged Blight’s thesis – owe a great deal to this monumental achievement of intellectual history. Noting that a handful of historians (again…myself included) have reconsidered the implications of the emancipationist cause in post-war celebrations, he sees the fight for emancipation making a turn back into memory studies – not to lament its disappearance in the commemorative literature, but to do precisely the opposite – and reveal veterans’ persistent efforts to highlight this highly contentious strand of commemoration.

But Jordan’s conclusions offer a cautionary tale. By repositioning slavery at the heart of the conflict, are we running the risk of creating some sort of “morality play that we tell and re-tell in an effort to exorcise white guilt?” Perhaps – but as long as we remember that from a Union perspective, a sense of what historian Thomas J. Pressly called a “moralizing self-righteousness” pervaded the commemorative vernacular – then, remembering the emancipationist cause does not boil down to a one-dimensional “good” war but rather another way, coupled with the memory of treason, to stick it to the Rebs for trying to create a slave-holding republic.

Jordan’s own work on the trauma of the Civil War will certainly be another valued addition to the growing collection of scholarly works denoting the various ways Civil War soldiers remembered the war. Like the recent work of John Neff, who reminds us that Union veterans had a hard time forgetting a war in which so many of their comrades were killed, Jordan will undoubtedly shed light on yet another troubling roadblock to reconciliation.

From where I sit – I see a lot coming down the pike in terms of the Civil War and memory studies. I would like to see more people make the distinction (if there is indeed one) between “reunion” and “reconciliation.” Scholars, including Blight, often conflate the terms. I see them as related, but not the same thing. I grapple with this in my own upcoming book – and I would like your thoughts as well. So feel free to chime in.

Peace,
Keith

Civil War Lives: a Debriefing

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Keith

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

Upcoming Civil War Conference You Will Not Want to Miss

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

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Keith

Paul Buck and the Road to Reunion

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 talk more about historiography earlier in the twentieth century later this week...then - a trip to Gettysburg for the Civil War Institute conference! Stay tuned for that one!

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