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

Taking a Look at D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

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.

peace,
Keith

Gary W. Gallagher - Remembering Robert E. Lee

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

These days it seems I am spending more and more time on Youtube. Lots of my old professors from UVA and a host of other historians that I admire find their way there - either on their won accord or through the publication mechanisms of the various groups who invite them to speak. In this case, I have Washington and Lee University's post of Gary W. Gallagher's talk on Robert E. Lee from October, 2009.

Those of you familiar with the (short lived) post-war career of the former Confederate general know that he spent his remaining days as president of the old Washington University in Lexington Virginia. He taught there until his death in 1870 - and there he rests - beneath the Lee Chapel. If you are ever in Lexington, I strongly encourage you to check it out. It has been recently restored to its former glory and is quite the place for a Civil War enthusiast to visit.

Anyway...the video above (which is a tad long..but worth the time) deals with Lee in the wake of defeat. The focus...how Lee dealt with the profound degree of uncertainty in the aftermath of war. We have to keep in mind just how altered the southern states were in 1865. The physical landscape was of course shattered - but their social and economic systems were upended as well. The former Confederate chieftain played a central role in the South's coming to terms with these chilling facts.

What I find most interesting is the audience reaction to Gallagher's talk. The group gathered at the Lee Chapel are - shall we say - supporters of the Lee legend. What Gallagher has to say surprises more than a few of those in attendance.  I have to hand it to them though. They take the good and the bad about Marse Robert in stride. So good for them :)

Gallagher is one of the foremost authorities on Lee and the Lost Cause. If you want to have a look at some great books on these subjects, check out -

Lee and His General in War and Memory

The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History (with Alan Nolan)

Peace,

Keith

I Heart Technology

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I'm just doing a little experiment with my new Iphone to see how I might publish something from a remote location.

Man I love technology!

So stayed tuned for quick updates from the field. You never know what might turn up!

Peace,

Keith

The Myth of the Lost Cause, 1865-1900 by Rollin G. Osterweis

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Historians have a tendency to explain Confederate commemoration as if they were generally accepted across the nation – as if former Confederates ultimately won the war with the pen. In 1973, historian Rollin G. Osterweis attempted to explain this phenomenon. Osterweis analyzed images, literary and otherwise, of moonlight and magnolias, the “obliging old Uncle Remus,” and, the “good, gray Confederate veteran.” He observes a persistent sense of “southerness” despite a humiliating Confederate defeat and several years of infuriating Reconstruction politics. White southerners, Osterweis suggests, used these images a part of their efforts to romanticize and pay tribute to the antebellum South. He further notes, former Confederates clung fervently to a new American nationalism and, ironically, the righteous, fiercely sectional account of the Confederate States of America “[was] continually belied by the conduct of Southerners themselves.” In this way, veterans involved in Civil War commemorations seemingly connected the New South – characterized by “progress,” industry, and steadfast devotion to reunion – to a benign past that, while virtuous, inevitably gave way to modern America. In short, proponents of the New South who had shouldered muskets for the Confederacy looked to a promising future. They carefully recalled a few scattered memories that helped southerners come to terms with their greatest failure, retain a sense of regional dignity, and embrace a reunited nation.

Osterweis concludes that extensive (and nationwide) admiration of southern generalship, southern courage, and southern chivalry reinforced the myth of the superiority of southern armies in “everything except numbers and material,” thus lending credence to the Lost Cause rhetoric of the day. Ultimately, through vastly popular publications such as the Battles and Leaders series, Osterweis claims, “Yankeedom took to its heart the Lost Cause.” Northerners might have admired certain benign aspects of southern culture and even respected their former enemy’s fighting spirit. However, the implication embedded in many treatments on the Lost Cause – that former Confederates “won the war with the pen” – obscures the anxieties articulated by former Rebels clearly perceiving animosity all around them; that they in fact still fought a war with words.

Although I believe that Osterweis misses this glaring problem in postwar commemoration, the book is well worth reading. It is an important piece of the reconciliation story - one that is currently under revision. Sometimes there are a few copies available on Amazon - click HERE to grab one before they are all gone!

Peace,

Keith

Cosmic America Speaking Engagement!

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Have you got plans for the evening of March 9th - and are you gong to be in the Los Angeles area?

Mark your calendars, friends - I'll be speaking at the Civil Warriors Round Table in the West San Fernando Valley!

The topic will be Union veterans and the commemoration of their cause - which naturally will deal quite a bit with the suppression of  treason and emancipation. I would love for you to come on out and join in the conversation. Here is a LINK with all the pertinent information. See you there!

Peace,

Keith

George Henry Thomas - Not Everyone Fought For Their State

Greeting Cosmic Americans!

For this week's edition of Western Theater Wednesdays, I wanted to talk a little about Union General George Thomas.

Oh sure - I could go to great lengths to about the "Rock of Chickamauga" in terms of military acumen...but from time to time I dare to venture off the beaten path.

I would much rather point out that this particular general, a hero of the Western Theater who nevertheless does not share the same fame as some of the other big shots in the Union army, went against the Rebel grain.

As we all know, George Thomas was a Virginian. A career officer in the United States army in 1861, Thomas thought it best to honor his oath of allegiance to the United States.  Many Virginians thought him a traitor to his state and to the southern cause - even members of his own family. A few years after the Civil War (in 1870), when an US officer came to notify Thomas's sister of his death, the officer was told "my brother died in 1861" and had the door slammed in his face. Ouch.

So, loyalty has drawbacks, I suppose. Now you might find Thomas's decision surprising. The usual story about southern officers resigning their commissions and seceding along  with their states suggests that even those who loved the Union held a greater love for their native soil. This "state over country" approach -  often presented by Confederate apologists, implies that the Union of 1860 was really a tenuous collection of localities - and that nationalism as we know it had not yet developed.

I am not so sure. And officers like Thomas, as well as Winfield Scott (another Virginian who remained loyal to the Union), illustrate that national commitment often trumped local...so much so that some individuals could turn their backs on their communities and families.

Further, Thomas and Scott were not alone in their decision. Plenty of southerners remained loyal to the Stars and Stripes - many more than you might imagine. In fact, as historian James M. McPherson notes, scores of southern officers remained with the Union - officers like Tennessean David Farragut, who captured New Orleans, and North Carolinian John Gibbon, who commanded a division of the Army of the Potomac while three of his brothers fought for the Confederacy.

And of course it was George Henry Thomas who not only saved the Army of the Cumberland at Chickamauga but also kicked some Rebel ass and destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee at Nashville. I am quite sure that the citizens of the United States were pleased with Thomas's decision to stick around.

Peace,

Keith