James "shoulda won in Pennsylvania" Longstreet - oy.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So last night I was checking out Youtube videos featuring the various reenactments of the Battle of Gettysburg (don't judge). My favorite part of these vids is the comments section. I love reading the comments from people - mostly Civil War buffs - from all over the world.

A lot of these comments are authored by knot heads, pure and simple. You know - the unreconstructed types screaming and yelling about how we have all been duped by the liberal intelligentsia to believe that the Confederacy was not right. I am kinda glad that these guys don't know where I live - but I have to admit - I get a kick out of reading them...and maybe even stirring the pot a little with my own two cents.

I noticed something else last night that has reinforced my belief in the power of popular culture. It seems that Confederate general James Longstreet is still doing mighty fine. As you probably know, Longstreet toppled from the Confederate pantheon after the war because he dared criticize Robert E. Lee in print. Bad move, hombre. Other former Rebels like Jubal Early made sure to remind the world that you blew it wholesale at Gettysburg and cost the CSA the war (he didn't really - but we can talk about that later).

But it looks like the Shaara novel Killer Angels and the film Gettysburg have revived the spirit and popularity of Old Pete. In short, here's what he wanted to do in Pennsylvania. After a CS victory on July 1, he wanted to move around to the right of the Union army and get between it and Washington City - forcing an engagement on ground of his choosing, insuring a tactical advantage.

Now because of this book and film, a whole lot of folks think that this move would have sealed the deal for Confederate victory and independence. YIKES - not so fast!

We have no way of knowing what would of happened had the Confederate Army disengaged after an early victory at Gettysburg (except that they would probably have lost momentum and been demoralized). So let's just stop with the "if Lee had listened to Longstreet the CSA would have won" nonsense. Why not focus on what really happened, not what might have. The truth is, Longstreet sulked, pouted, and dragged his ass around Gettysburg on July 2, which caused a big problem in terms of Lee's battle plan. Yep, Longstreet showed up late (by several hours) to the party and things didn't go so well for the Army of Northern Virginia.

Now this doesn't mean Confederate defeat was Longstreet's fault like his enemies would have you believe. I'm just sayin'...he wasn't the wise modern soldier who had the war all figured out like these elements of popular culture depict him. Hey - at least he got a statue out of the deal...which looks suspiciously like Tom Berenger. Hmmmmmmmm......

Peace,
Keith

Who Freed the Slaves?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - on to the matter at hand. Who freed the slaves? Why that's simple right? It was Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator.....right? I mean....right?

Not so fast amigos. As usual, thing can get a little more complicated when you look a little closer at the historical record. Oh sure, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation all right, which technically freed all slaves who were (as of January 1, 1863) living in states currently in rebellion. (NOTE: The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves in the border states - not to mention...the Rebs were not exactly willing to comply with the proclamation, either). As historians like James McPherson note, the Proclamation was a crucial step in a series of actions taken against the institution. But is there more to the story?

Historians like Barbara Fields and Ira Berlin think so. They talk a lot about what they refer to as "self emancipation." Yep - it's exactly what it sounds like. Slaves, not just sitting around waiting to be freed by northern politicians, simply left. That's it. They saw an opportunity and took it. Seeking freedom for themselves, these men and women walked away from the farms and plantations were they had been held in bondage and fled to Union lines. Many of them ended up in contraband camps (more on these later) and thousands would eventually join Union army USCT Units - all black (led by white officers) regiments of fighting men (more on these guys later too).

Well, I am not really one for either/or questions. Of course there is validity to both bottom up and top down analyses of emancipation. Slaves (now former slaves) took action, and, while the Emancipation Proclamation did not really free anyone on day one, it certainly changed the meaning and direction of the war.

But here's some food for thought for a Saturday morning. What about the United States Army? Don't they get any credit? Robert Gould Shaw, immortalized by the film Glory, said it best when he noted in 1863 (insert affected Boston accent here) after hearing of the Proclamation, that it was all well and good but it really made little difference. Writing his mother - "For my part I can't see what practical good it can do now. Wherever our army has been, there remain no slaves, and the proclamation won't free them where we don't go."

So, while presidential proclamations and self emancipation were significant aspects of the demise of slavery in the South, without the army...nada. Remember - the slaves held in places that saw no pronounced military presence (like Alabama and Texas) remained slaves until the end of the war.

So with that I will sign off until Monday - Please leave a comment whether you agree with me or not. I promise to be nice :)

Peace,
Keith

Know Your Rights!

OK I know...it's the title of a Clash song. But it just sort of popped into my head during this morning's run. It got me to thinking about rights - and then state rights - and then the secession crisis and the war. Really...doesn't everything lead me to think about the Civil War era? (the answer is yes, of course).

So as you probably know, a lot of neo-Confederate and Sons of Confederate Veteran types like to talk about these so-called rights a lot. Indeed - they claim that these rights were what the war was all about. Forget about all that crazy slavery stuff. Slavery as the cause of the war was, I suppose, just the invention of a bunch of wimpy tree hugging college professors. (you know - those who practice the dreaded "revisionist" history).

Well, if you are in line with our Confederate sympathizing friends, you are probably just confused. Now I'm not saying that state rights were not important, they were. But the usurpation of any state right "principle" did not cause the Civil War.

Guess what did. Now brace yourself...it was slavery. Yep - you might want to write that down and refer to it if you are still confused. You see friends, the Republican party headed by Lincoln knew that they could not interfere with slavery where it already existed, but the territories were a different story. They wanted territories and any states formed from these territories to be reserved for free labor. That means - no slavery. Slave owners could not establish slavery or take their slaves there, no matter what.

Bummer for the slave holders. And they were pretty upset about it, too. They thought Lincoln and his crew were mad abolitionists (they weren't - but more on that later). Now the real problem was a little more complex - remember, all this carrying on about slavery had to do with places outside the South. But slave holders along with most of the rest of white southern society believed that if the Republicans could successfully go after slavery in one place, then it wouldn't be long before they went after it elsewhere. That means the glorious South - and the prospect of total abolition made white people very nervous.

Does secession make a little more sense now? Southern states seceded when the white citizenry perceived an eminent attack on the cornerstone of their society - slavery. That would mean the loss of enormous wealth and the upheaval of their social structure. Whether you believe it or not (you should believe it, because it's true), every white person in the South had a stake in the institution of slavery - and many supported secession to preserve it, no matter what stories the former Rebels came up with after they lost the war.

Now, if you ever run into one of these Johnnies who insist you have been brainwashed by a bunch of revisionists, just ask them to tell you exactly which rights the southern states seceded to protect. They can name any three. Be sure to give them a few minutes to think it over (I mean....come on, let's be fair).
Keith

 

Do Americans Lack a Historical Consciousness?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Do Americans lack a historical consciousness? Well, I am starting to think so anyway - at least some of them do. Lately, I have been going full throttle with reading, writing, and discussing American history. Why not right? I went to college for a million years, why not do what I was trained to do?

At any rate, I am especially interested in engaging the public - to find out what they know...what they want to know...what they think about US history.

Twitter has been absolutely wonderful for this. Real time conversations with real people! Imagine that!! Who knew just a few short years ago that this would be how we interact?

But here's what I have discovered - people say the darndest things. Oh sure I have had some great conversations with some very knowledgeable folks. But I have also run across a sort of alarming theme. Many Americans have no sense of their own history.

Case in point: I recently stumbled upon an Obama critic who claimed that the president was the "most divisive POTUS in American history."

REALLY??? Let's see, I can think of at least one time in our history when things got just a tad stickier. You know...when Abraham Lincoln was elected, eleven states seceded from the Union, war broke out, and 620,000 people died. I would say that the political climate of the mid-nineteenth century was just a hair more fractious than things today.

The Civil War Preservation Trust suggests that the war is the "central event in America's historical consciousness." Now, I love the CWPT but I think they have missed the mark - at least for those Americans whose historical consciousness extends only as far back as their own lifetime.

Well anyway - I called the Twitter guy out and he just got all angry and defensive. Whatever - choose your battles, right?

So - that's my observation for this morning...Off I go to engage the public. The good news? I am finding more and more forums that discuss history from an informed position. Maybe all is not lost. Huzzah!

Keith

PS - if you happen to read this and think I am full of it - let me know! I welcome all comments and criticism. I know....tell me on Twitter :)

A Word or Two about the Premiere of The Birth of a Nation

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

In February, 1915, The Clansman, later titled The Birth of a Nation premiered at the Clune's Auditorium in Los Angeles. I want to say just a few words about one: the public reaction and two: how we think about this film today.

Now, if you have been paying attention, you know that the film is as racist as it can be. For example, there are scenes depicting shoeless black people dancing, eating chicken, and leering at white women while serving in the South Carolina legislature during Reconstruction. If that's not enough - there are plenty of scenes of blacks lusting after white women (who have to kill themselves to avoid being raped).

By our standards, this film is an easy target. But the usual analysis by film historians is pretty flat. It goes something like this: Yes - the film is racist but innovative at the same time. Griffith set the bar for future film makers...blah blah blah. How much longer are film scholars going to keep blathering on about the same old stuff?

Scholars of Civil War history have looked at this film too. Some of them (myself NOT included) have noted that the film was met across the (white) nation with a sort of general acceptance. White people (North and South) in 1915 seemed to agree that Reconstruction was a bad deal for the South and that blacks should have been kept in their places. Thus these white people could relate to the "heroic" KKK in the film's climax.

One reviewer at the 1915 LA premiere made a note of it. The audience applauded at scenes of whites triumphing over blacks attempting to assert their rights.

As modern observers, we have a tendency to recognize the widespread racism existing in 1915 and believe that most white people would get on board with the film's message. After all - The Birth of a Nation was a tremendous success all over the country - not just in the South.

But that may not be exactly right. Sure, white northerners were certainly racists by our standards but that didn't mean they supported the Confederate cause or the white South after the fact. Only 50 years earlier loyal citizens of the United States had fought a war to suppress a rebellion and the degeneration of law and order that the Confederate cause had represented. A film about mob rule was not necessarily a welcome thing. And just to add fuel to the fire, some of these guys who had shouldered muskets for the Union were still around to vent their anger!

And their legacy was still around too. Members of Union veterans' organizations like the GAR made sure that US citizens knew what that war had been about. And they were not about to let a Confederate interpretation take hold that easily.

Stick around friends - I'll be back to talk more about this as my research progresses.
Keith

Party Schmarty - The National Union Party

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The other day I was talking with a friend about the various political party systems in US history (by the way - the founders were not particularly fond of parties). I got to thinking...this party stuff can get confusing.

Let's have a look at the 1850s for example. You couldn't swing a dead cat around without hitting a political party. There were the Whigs - not much longer for the world but hanging around nevertheless. Then there were the Democrats - split along sectional lines into northern and southern contingents - over slavery of course. And let's not forget about the Free Soil Party - aka the Republicans...political newcomers in the 1850s but destined to make quite a splash. Even the Know Nothing Party and the Constitutional Unionists deserve a mention, despite their failure to ever really get anywhere.

So in the midst of all this partying the country sort of erupted into the greatest conflagration seen on this continent before or since. You guessed it kids - the Civil War.

Well, the Confederacy didn't really have political parties. You were either for Jeff Davis or you hated him. And there were plenty of both running around. One might imagine some sort of party system forming had the CSA lived to set one up.

Parties were alive and well in the Union. It boiled down to these basics: Republicans on one side and a kind of sketchy Democratic Party on the other, an uneasy coalition with some in favor of continuing the war and others vehemently opposed to it.

So, you might ask.....what was this National Union Party that formed in the middle of the war? The presidential election of 1864 saw the victory of a party that nobody even really talks about anymore...headed by none other than Abraham Lincoln himself.

BUT WAIT!! Wasn't honest Abe the poster child for the Republicans? Well, it turns out, the National Union Party was a clever idea cooked up by the GOP. Forming a new party without any clear association with either old party (not really - but it sounded good...) allowed for the construction of a much stronger coalition of those who favored carrying the war to Union victory. In a sense, it was tantamount to war Democrats joining forces with Republicans (Andrew Johnson, anyone?) and soundly defeating Democratic contender George McClellan.

Little Mac, former Army of the Potomac commander and arguably the most cautious man in the world, had other ideas about the war. Oh sure, he liked the Union well enough, but may very well have settled it on terms pretty much putting the Old Union right back in place.

Well I for one am glad things worked out the way they did (and so did about 3 million slaves).

So let's review. Lincoln and his crew put aside party for party's sake and actually worked with one-time political opponents to get something done - and what they got done helped a lot when it came to saving the Union.

Comments welcome,

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