Robert Russa Moton and the Lincoln Memorial Dedication

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

In 1922, at the unveiling of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., President Warren G. Harding noted that Lincoln ended slavery only to save the Union, not to usher in a new period of racial equality. He further noted the reconciliatory symbolism of the memorial's site - directly across the Potomac from Virginia. The event itself, as one historian has argued, became a "microcosm for the strained race relations of the day, marked by the rhetoric of good intentions and the behavior of bigotry."

And thus we have an example of an event designed for the  reconciliation minded that distanced the cause of Union from the cause of freedom. In fact there was only one speaker of color that day - Robert Russa Moton, Booker T. Washington's successor at the Tuskegee Institute. In a fashion that can only be characterized as patronizing, event coordinators had asked Moton to "speak for his race." But the final draft of his speech would have to pass the close scrutiny of those planning the event. And in the end, heavy editing of Moton's "controversial" material rendered the speech mostly benign. Here is what Moton wanted to say:

[caption id="attachment_2683" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Robert Russa Moton"][/caption]

So long as any group is denied the fullest privilege of a citizen to share both the making and the execution of the law which shapes its destiny - so long as any group does not enjoy every right and every privilege that belongs to every American citizen without regard to race, creed or color, the task for which the immortal Lincoln gave the last full measure of devotion - that task is still unfinished. 

Heated words for a racially charged decade to be sure...excised from Moton's speech. In many cases, national events such as these specifically designed to ease any sectional tensions were devoid of such troubling language - and I offer this one as an example. But I would like to remind my dear readers that such events were not typical of dedication ceremonies on the larger scale. In both the North and South, sectionally aligned events were more often than not laced with controversy.

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

Reconciliation in Grant's Memoirs

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

There are a number of ways to define the reconciliationist sentiment of general/president/citizen Ulysses S. Grant. His magnanimity at Appomattox would be a good place to start. Speaking of his Confederate prisoners, he noted: "we did not want to exult over their downfall." And there is evidence suggesting that his generous terms of surrender won him, if not admiration, at least at modicum of respect among defeated Confederates.

His 1868 presidential campaign rested on the cornerstone of reconciliation. the campaign slogan, "Let Us Have Peace," undeniably furthered the desires among many members of the Republican party to extend a hand of friendship across the Potomac. The slogan became so associated with the Grant's campaign, presidency, and life that it found a prominent place on Grant's tomb in New York.

One can find Grant's most clearly articulated vision of reconciliation in his two-volume memoirs. This enormously popular work - that restored his family's fortune after a financial disaster destroyed it - does more to promote friendship between sections than any other work in the reconciliationist literature broadly defined. “I feel that we are on the verge of a new era,” he wrote shortly before his death, “where there is to be great harmony between the Federal and Confederate. I cannot stay to be a living witness to the correctness of this prophecy; but I feel within me that it is to be so.”

But we must be careful not to accept Grant as a reconciliationst and leave it at that. It would be foolish to assume that reconciliation necessarily meant that what men had fought for was simply forgotten. Coupled with Grant’s reconciliationist bent was a steadfast devotion to the Union cause of freedom. Soon after the war, Grant acknowledged in a rousing speech honoring general Daniel Butterfield that Confederates had sowed the “germ of treason, in the vain attempt to overthrow this Government, that slavery, despotism, and sin might thrive upon its ruin.” He later affirmed in his memoirs, “the cause of the Great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery” and reminded Americans that the Confederate cause was “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”

So was Grant a reconciliationist? Without question. But one who made sure to promote reconciliation on northern terms - acknowledging that former Confederates were countrymen once again, but that they had fought with brutal determination for disunion and the preservation of slavery.

Peace,

Keith

PS - if you haven't already, be sure to check out the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

To Bind Up the Nation's Wounds: Reconciliation Reconsidered (redux)

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Reconciliation is a topic that has been very close to my heart for the last decade. Just to open things up, I want to say a few words about the intersection between national reconciliation and the veterans' efforts to commemorate the war.

Commemorative themes have intrigued historians for decades. Their conclusions can best be described by what I have called the reconciliation premise. The premise, in a nutshell, goes something like this: The overwhelming majority of Civil War veterans moved on from the war and let bygones be bygones. The commemorated the war essentially free from controversy and instead, celebrated the mutual valor of all participants. Civil War commemorations were about remembering bravery and fortitude and forgetting divisive issues such as treason and slavery.

Historian David Blight has proposed that reunion rested on the solid ground of shared racism. In short, being able to write the vexing issues of slavery and emancipation out of Civil War memory allowed the veterans to quickly forgive one another and commemorate the war on "southern terms."

Hmmmmm. Well, I can't deny that Civil War veterans, by our standards, shared the racist assumptions of most people in the 19th century. But is this what reconciliation boiled down to? While Blight and his legion of followers make a compelling argument, I believe that they obscure what was really going on.

Reading through the historical records, one can quickly see that veterans left behind a wide range of opinions on the nation, the war, and their former enemies. The proponents of the reconciliation premise would argue that any individual stirring up a sectional fuss was either an Unreconstructed Rebel or a Bloody Shirt Yank - and definitely an anachronism during the reconciliation era.

But here's the problem. Some of the most vehement, the most vocal, and yes...the most sectional, claimed to be reconciliationists at heart. Reconcilationists talked at length about treason, tyranny, slavery, and oppression. And as it turns out, their commemorative efforts were loaded with highly controversial expressions after all.

Maybe then, reconciliation was something altogether different from what historians have led us to believe. I won't give it all away here - you'll just have to stay tuned. But for now, just think of the reconciliationist commemorative ethos as a heated competition.

Most veterans saw reconciliation as a fact. Nothing less. The Union cause had been about reconciling from the very beginning - preserving the Union explicitly demanded it. Former Confederates had little choice in the matter. But the terms of this reconciliation - and how the reunited nation and the world would remember the war - were highly contested. In some ways, this winner of this battle has not yet been determined.

While many historians insist that reconciliaiton was really about forgetting, I disagree. Reconciliation was about remembering - preserving the memories that led them to war in the first place.

Peace,
Keith

For a couple of books that support the reconciliation premise (books that I argue against), see:
Race and Reunion by David Blight
Ghosts of the Confederacy by Gaines Foster

Reconciliation at Grant's Tomb

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Wrap your head around this - Ulysses S. Grant shaking hands with that rebel Robert E. Lee enshrined forever at his own tomb!!

And why not? The whole point of the war was to bring the country back together - why not show a little spirit of reconciliation? After all, Grant's campaign slogan (or rather, the Republican Party's slogan) for the election of 1868 was "Let Us Have Peace." So there you have it...peace.

But remember, Union veterans had a very clear vision of what peace and reconciliation would look like. Don't forget that. When Americans would learn the history of their greatest conflict, former Union soldiers were determined that they would learn what the war had been about. The Confederacy had fought to destroy the nation and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period.

Sure, they would say, let us have peace...let us promote reconciliation. But don't forget what happened. Even Grant himself wrote in his memoirs: "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."

(Let Us Have) Peace,
Keith

Lincoln at Tredegar Iron Works....a Second Invasion!

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So...in preparation for a talk I am giving next month about lingering Civil War animosities, I've been revisiting a few of my favorite postwar smack-downs. Here's a zinger that unfolded in Richmond, Virginia a few years back (2003)

When a statue featuring Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad was unveiled on the grounds of the old Tredegar Iron Works. Neo-Confederates responded with apoplectic fury over the idea of Lincoln once again “invading” the Confederate capital city as he had done during the final days of the war.  Virginia state delegate Richard H. Black concluded, “Putting a statue to [Lincoln] there is sort of like putting the Confederate flag at the Lincoln Memorial.” Black even went so far as to accept a request from the local Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter to seek an injunction from state Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore until they could determine the legality of placing a statue at Tredegar. Bragdon Bowling, commander of the Virginia Division, SCV, whose great-grandfather John Stephen Cannon fought for the Confederacy, saw the statue as the ultimate humiliation. Stating, “[Lincoln] sat at Jefferson Davis's desk and propped his feet up on the desk,” Bragg was clearly incensed. Together with Black, Bowling and other neo-Confederates argued that a Lincoln statue had no place in Virginia. “We've got a Lincoln Memorial not that distant," argued Bowling. "It's a huge memorial right across the Potomac. I suppose you could put a Lincoln memorial in every city of the United States. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.”

The Lincoln statue certainly accomplished one thing: a response that included some stinging acts of opposition. On the day of unveiling, New York sculptor David Frech’s statue depicting Lincoln and Tad sitting on a bench against a granite wall, those in attendance witnessed both applause and jeers. The statue was meant to convey sectional healing, yet while Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine gave a dedication address, a small plane pulling a banner reading “sic semper tyrannis” flew overhead. Invoking the Virginia state motto, “thus always to tyrants,” the words allegedly shouted by John Wilkes Booth to the audience at Ford’s Theatre after he had shot the president in 1865, sent a rather clear message. If catcalls from the audience were not enough, several offered their words to the press in attendance. “When somebody does something as ignorant as put Abe Lincoln in the capital of the Confederacy,” declared H. K. Edgerton, “how can I not come to protest it? You don't put a criminal up and call it reconciliation, and Lincoln was a war criminal on top of it.”

The previous day, about 100 members of the Virginia SCV had rallied in Richmond’s Hollywood Cemetery at the gravesite of Confederate president Jefferson Davis in protest of the Lincoln statue. There, Bragdon Bowling iterated his opposition. “They have no concept of history and how it might be the wrong place to put the statue. As a Southerner, I'm offended. You wouldn't put a statue of Winston Churchill in downtown Berlin, would you? What's next, a statue of Sherman in Atlanta?” The protest was the culmination of a yearlong battle by Confederate sympathizers, including hundreds of reenactors and SCV members. But the activity during the unveiling itself overshadowed the earlier protest. One group of protesters displayed a large Confederate Navy Jack on a hilltop overlooking the ceremony, and a few scuffles ensued when officials barred attendants from bringing Confederate flags to the ceremony. Finally, individuals such as United States Historical Society chairman Robert H. Kline and others who claimed to be “delighted that Lincoln is in Richmond again” came under intense fire from heritage groups and prominent Virginia state officials. State representative Virgil Goode, for example, called in to question the society’s non-profit status in an effort to quash fundraising activities meant to pay for the monument.

So…you think neo-Confederates have put their animosities to rest….? Not so sure on that one.

Peace,

Keith

Rebels in the National Statuary Hall Collection

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

A while back, a Twitter friend  @ZebulonPike1813 sent me a note expressing his concern over the placement of former Rebels in the National Statuary Hall and asked for my thoughts. Well - it has been a long time coming but here you go.

It seems that we have a few Rebel traitors on display. Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Joseph Wheeler all turned their backs on the United States and served the Confederacy and now they represent their states in the National Statuary Hall Collection. I am not surprised - there are those who claim that they have no place in this hall of honor. And you know what....maybe these people are right.

But here is where things get a little more complex. The reasons why these individuals are represented at a national shrine tell us quite a bit about the country's history. Davis, Lee, Wheeler (and other Rebs such as Wade Hampton) were all donated in the 1920s and 1930s - decades emblematic in some ways for a national commitment to reconciliation and unity. Now this doesn't mean the nation had forgotten the issues of the war years as some scholars might suggest, but at least a lot of state and national leaders wanted to project a spirit of harmony.

So I say leave them there - but understand how they got there. I am not in favor of removing any statue or monument depicting Confederates or their cause - simply because we can learn from them. The same goes for the naming of US military installations such as Forts Bragg and Hood - I do not believe that any new forts will be named for Rebels...but the ones that were came into being for a very specific reason: to promote national unity...for better or worse.

My suggestion is to look deeper into the meaning behind the statues instead of removing them - the timing of their placement and the event itself. Surely some folks had plenty to say when these monuments were installed.

I am quite sure that there will be some disagreement here and trust me...I am not in favor of promoting the celebration of Rebels who fought to preserve slavery. I am very concerned, however, in understanding why Americans commemorate the way they do...I seek the intentions - the actions - and the reactions...and then write it all down. Maybe I can get to the bottom of this whole reconciliation thing one of these days...stay tuned. I've got a book coming out on the subject.

Peace,

Keith

Reconciliation at Grant's Tomb

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Wrap your head around this - Ulysses S. Grant shaking hands with that rebel Robert E. Lee enshrined forever at his own tomb!!

And why not? The whole point of the war was to bring the country back together - why not show a little spirit of reconciliation? After all, Grant's campaign slogan (or rather, the Republican Party's slogan) for the election of 1868 was "Let Us Have Peace." So there you have it...peace.

But remember, Union veterans had a very clear vision of what peace and reconciliation would look like. Don't forget that. When Americans would learn the history of their greatest conflict, former Union soldiers were determined that they would learn what the war had been about. The Confederacy had fought to destroy the nation and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period.

Sure, they would say, let us have peace...let us promote reconciliation. But don't forget what happened. Even Grant himself wrote in his memoirs: "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."

(Let Us Have) Peace,
Keith