Patriotism (and the Brotherhood of Men At Arms) in John Ford's The Horse Soldiers

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I am often embarrassed to admit that there are a number of Civil War films that I still have yet to see. Sometimes, I am embarrassed to admit that I have seen one (for example: Gods and Generals). But I am happy to report that I have now added John Ford's Epic The Horse Soldiers (1959) to the arsenal. Not because I thought it was a particularly good film, but because it will give me something to talk about when I want to impress my friends at parties.

For those of you who have not seen this film -  There are a couple of things going on. First - the tense love-hate relationship between Colonel John Marlowe (John Wayne) and his prisoner, Miss Hannah Hunter of Greenbriar (Constance Towers). Second, there is the even more tense, pretty much all hate relationship between Marlowe and Major Henry Kendall (William Holden), a Union army doctor.

All of this is set in the Civil War Confederacy, behind enemy lines, so to speak - where the Union soldiers wreak havoc on the Rebel's ability to fight. Tearing up railroads, burning cotton and salt mills...you know, the stuff the Union army was great at doing.

Infused in to the war backdrop is an overtly patriotic bent. Both sides seem intently wedded to their cause. And they express this both verbally and through music - as the men of both armies march in to action singing national and otherwise patriotic songs.

But another theme runs alongside - weaving a reconciliatory thread into the story. While both sides clearly want victory - neither seems particularly hostile (emotionally) toward their enemies - well, at least the men act this way. I'll talk about the women some other day. Of course they fight gallantly - it is their duty to do so. But the film contains all the essential ingredients for a "we are all just soldiers after all" wrap up.

Take the encounter between Kendall and one of his old army buddies who had gone with the Rebs. They have a pleasant exchange, naturally, and go their separate ways to their respective causes. This type of scene in a Civil War film is about as obligatory as the one featuring an amputation. Every Civil War picture has it, you know. But the last scene in the film is really my favorite. It leaves you just plain feeling good about things - when a Rebel officer offers his regimental surgeon to look after Union wounded.

See - we can all just get along...right after we kill each other in great profusion.

There is so much more to talk about....slaves, loyal slaves, Confederate women, the transposition of the Battle of New Market (VMI Cadets...) into the Western Theater, Bill Holden's tight pants, John Wayne's acting chops....the list goes on - so I will save some stuff for a later date.

For now, I want to suggest this. Ford released The Horse Soldiers just two years before the Civil War Centennial (1961-1965). This was a commemoration that highlighted the tragedy of the brother against brother war and the spirit of reconciliation. The film is most certainly a reflection of the times on one hand - but on the other....the centennial commemorative period was (officially) devoid of problematic issues. The films highlights a few. Slavery makes more than one appearance in the film in very interesting ways....stay tuned - I will have lots to say about that later.

Peace,

Keith

Confederate Imagery in the 21st Century. Racism? Heritage? Or Just Plain Fun?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, I am once again happy to sing the praises of Twitter. This wonderful platform has allowed the reach of Cosmic America to extend all over the world - and people are talking. They want to know about the US Civil War...and as it turns out, the war's legacy too.

From the small island of Guernsey, situated smack in the middle of the English Channel, Matt (a computer graphics artist) was wondering about the problematic nature of Confederate imagery in a modern age. Is this simply a harmless nod to heritage, or does Confederate symbolism evoke America's troubling racist past?

Addressing this topic always stirs controversy - which is good I suppose. It gives me something to argue about...and I like to argue.

The Confederate Battle Flag (aka, the St. Andrews Cross) and other Confederate symbols can be used for many reasons, not all of them racist. Some folks like to fly it as a way to say "up yours" to the man. It is a symbol of rebellion, which means if you are trying to rebel against something - your school, your government, your parents, whatever...this could be for you.

It can even be used in a sort of "tongue and cheek" fashion. You know...good natured fun combined with regional pride just letting Yankees know that the good ole boys and girls down South have figured out how to let the colors fly - on bumper stickers t-shirts, and bikinis.

Others belong to the "heritage not hate" crowd. These folks insist that their ancestors who fought under this banner were fighting for their rights and protection of their homeland - an American virtue that should be applauded. They despise the Confederacy being compared to the Third Reich, and rightfully so. Confederates were not Nazis.

But here is the problem. It is hard to separate the Rebel flag from other groups. A-holes like the KKK and Nazi skinheads who drag it out whenever they want to spew hatred and racism aren't doing the heritage not hate group any favors.

But there is another problem - one that is little more complex than the simple expression of base racism. The Confederate soldiers, like it or not, were fighting to establish a democratic republic conceived on the notion of racial superiority. The Confederate cause was founded to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period. This whole "state rights as the cause of the war thing" was really a post war creation voiced by those who were trying to distance their cause from slavery.

Now, I know that there are lots of people out there who will disagree with me, but I have discussed this at length on this blog and I believe the evidence speaks for itself. so I will not go in to that right this second.

Confederate imagery is profoundly offensive to a great number of people, despite the context in which it is used. And thus I say to those of you who insist that it is a harmless symbol denoting regional pride - proceed with caution.

I highly recommend a book by John Coski called The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. He examines the multiple uses of this flag from the Lost Cause period through massive resistance in the 1950s to modern state flag controversies. If you have any further inquiries, this book should set you straight.

Peace,
Keith

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

The Defense of Washington City and the Importance of National Capitals

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

During the war, Washington City was the most heavily fortified city in the United States or the Confederacy. Indeed it was. What's more, according to the Civil War Trust website, the city was more than likely the most fortified in the world.

Surrounding the capital, there were 68 enclosed forts with 807 mounted cannon, 93 mortars and over 20 miles of rifle trenches. There were military roads, telegraph lines, storehouses, and all kinds of camps - all of which ringed the city.

But did the Rebs ever really consider taking Washington? Not likely. Sure there were a few shot at the city - such as Jubal Early's famous raid in July 1864 - but that was merely a threat, meant to relieve the pressure on Lee's army in Virginia. Other Confederates considered trying to get between Washington and the Army of the Potomac - Longstreet's famous plea to Lee during the Gettysburg campaign was exactly that sort of plan. But nothing came of it.

Any threats on Washington were really only that - threats. Meant more to make the people of the North nervous or to draw Union troops away from the principal Rebel Army operating in the East.

In wartime, taking your opponent's capital seems like a good idea. Remember the Union's early war cry...On to Richmond!!!! But there was no equivalent - On to Washington! resonating in the South. They didn't need to capture the United States capital - the Rebs only needed to wear the northern fighting spirit down to a nub - which they almost did....almost.

The truth is, the Union army didn't really need to go after Richmond, either. U.S. Grant surely knew this. He saw the Army of Northern Virginia as the life blood of the Confederacy. Destroy the army, he thought, the rest will fall in to place. Richmond was evacuated in the last days of the war when Grant began the final chase to Appomattox  -  it was not taken by force. What do you know...he was right.

Peace,

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. But I tell you what - if more people knew about the issues that unfolded during the Civil War era, they would certainly better understand the divisions of today - whether they be racial, sectional, political, whatever.

The Civil War Trust suggests that the war is the "central event in America's historical consciousness." Now, I love the CWT 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!

Peace,

Keith

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

Virginia's Private War by William Blair

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I re-read one of my favorite books this week: William Blair's Virginia's Private War: Feeding Body and Soul in the Confederacy, 1861-1865. Let me tell you why I really really love this book.

There is a school of thought in Civil War scholarship that suggests the Confederates did themselves in...that dissension at home and in the ranks meant that Confederate soldiers as well as the the white southern populace were never that on board with Confederate nationalism. The second things got a little rough for the southern cause people abandoned it wholesale.

Naturally , I think this is a load of crap. Rebels stuck it out as long as they possibly could - both on and behind the lines. They were - for the most part - completely in tune with the notion of Confederate independence...despite the hardships that they had to endure.

William Blair drives this point home. His book - a wonderful piece of scholarship that I would recommend to anyone - suggests that Confederates - actually in this case, Virginians - did not lose the war because of failed nationalism or internal conflicts.

Neither of these things work as a simple explanation for Confederate defeat – dissent existed and functioned as a catalyst for change in the Confederacy. And here's the real zinger - Confederates still supported the cause even though they often lost faith in the government. Their “sense of purpose” remained strong until finally in the winter 0f 64-65 the Union army took its toll.

The point - it was wartime. Yes people were pissed because of shortages, conscription, and all of the other things that can just make a wartime society mad -  but did they want to abandon the Confederate experiment, or did they just want a fair shake? That, I suppose is the key. You can still support your cause even if you think it is being run poorly.

Virginia's Private War focuses on three counties: Albemarle (Charlottesville), Augusta (Staunton) and Campbell (Lynchburg). These counties contained a range of plantation (slave) and grain farming - representing a wide spectrum of Virginian Confederates.  Plus, C’ville was an intellectual center, which means they were doing a lot of thinking about important issues in the vicinity of the University of Virginia (OK, Bill….lets not get carried away).

In the end, Blair credits the Union Army with victory...something that has been curiously overlooked by scholars seeking the ways the Confederates defeated themselves. As it turns out...the Rebs were defeated on the battlefield. Imagine that. Remember, even the storied Confederate George Pickett once said of defeat..."I think the Union Army had something to do with it."

Peace,
Keith

On To Richmond! Sesquicentennial Event Calendar

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I am always up for a plug! So here you go. Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and Emancipation, The On To Richmond! folks have put together a first-rate website - complete with a calendar section to fill you in on all the sesquicentennial goings-on over the next few years.

I suppose I could go on about the site and post the links myself - but they have already done a mighty fine job....so I took the liberty of copying this straight from On To Richmond!


"Few areas of the United States were affected like the Richmond Region. Richmond was “ground zero” during the Civil War -- the capital of the Confederacy and the scene of several major battles. The Richmond Region became the backdrop for a multitude of historical events that changed the face of our nation.

We invite you to visit our beautiful Virginia Civil War sites , museums, historic homes, battlefield parks, cemeteries, slave-trade sites, and interpretive trails and walking tours . Enjoy some of America’s most authentic and compelling historical experiences -- in a modern destination with world-class dining, lodging, shopping and entertainment. Start planning your trip today!"

This is worth a look my friends - Richmond should be a hotbed of sesquicentennial activity for the next few years. If you are in the area - you won't want to miss the fun. Of course, I will expect a full report. You know I am all about the experience - and I can't always get to Richmond. So if you find yourself at something and you think I need to know about it - by all means...fill me in.

Peace,

Keith