home | many pasts | evidence | www.history | blackboard | reference
talking history | syllabi | students | teachers | puzzle | about us
search: go!
advanced search - go!

Back to Talking History results


Back to archive list

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:56:32 -0500
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         David Blight 
Subject:      Opening Statement from David Blight

Welcome to the Talking History Forum on the Civil War era.  The Civil
War era probably has stimulated the public's imagination about
American history more than any other subject.  Why this event, its
causes and consequences, as well as the drama of the contest of
arms itself, has exercised such a hold on our imagination might be a
first overall question worth tackling.  I encourage any and all
responses to this problem.

     In his Legacy of the Civil War (1961), Robert Penn Warren wrote:
"The Civil War is our felt history - history lived in the national
imagination."  Warren was on to something.  "Somewhere in their
bones," he continued, most Americans have a storehouse of
"lessons" drawn from the Civil War.  Exactly what those lessons
should be, and who should determine them, has been perhaps the
most contested question in American historical memory since 1863,
when Robert E. Lee retreated back into Virginia from the Gettysburg
campaign, Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to try to explain the
meaning of the war, and Frederick Douglass took a speech on the
road entitled, "The Mission of the War," in which he announced
"national regeneration" as the "sacred significance" of the war.
Among all the possible lessons, wrote Warren, is the realization that
"slavery looms up mountainously" in the story, "and cannot be talked
away."  But Warren acknowledged another lesson of equal importance
for Americans of all persuasions: "When one is happy in
forgetfulness, facts get forgotten."

     Have Americans been selectively forgetful about the meanings of
the Civil War?  When?  Where?  Who?  Why?  Indeed, what are those
most significant "lessons" that we should take from and teach about
this most divisive and transforming event in American national
experience?  What is really at stake in Civil War history and  memory -
in scholarship and in public forums?  As a culture have we been more
obsessed with than forgetful about the war?  However one wants to
approach this broad question of memory, I encourage particular
stress in this forum on the matter of the war's meanings - from 1861
to 1865, and for the several generations since in changing contexts?
What is it that makes this event endure so tenaciously in our historical
discourses of all forms?

     On both scholarly and pedagogical levels, I would also encourage
us to think about at least some of the following questions and
problems:

- How does one best explain the causes of the Civil War, underlying
and immediate?  If there is a scholarly consensus that slavery is at the
root of the war, how and why is that so?  Are economic, political, and
moral dimensions of causation at odds or should they always be
seen as overlapping?  How do we judge collective motivation on this
level?

- Was secession constitutional?  Politically and morally right or
wrong?  Why did the deep South secede?

- Why are state rights so often invoked in discussions of Civil War
causation?  What does "state rights" really mean?

- How does one best explain Union victory and Confederate defeat?

- How did the war to save the Union, and for Southern independence,
become the war to free the slaves?

- Who and what freed the slaves?  Presidential leadership?  The
Union armies?  The slaves themselves?

- Did the Civil War usher centralized, interventionist, "big government"
into American life?

- What insights and new knowledge has the new social history
brought to understanding how the Civil War was fought, how it affected
the lives of women and children, how societies and economies are
mobilized for war, and how popular the conflict really was?

- Has use of gender transformed our understanding of the Civil War
soldier?  Of women's responses to war, sacrifice, politics?

- Was the Confederacy a nation in the modern sense?  Did the
Confederacy develop a true sense of nationalism?  Or, was the
Confederacy essentially a revolutionary movement?

- Americans seem to have been deeply religious during this traumatic
experience.  How was the war interpreted in spiritual and theological
terms, North and South, during and in the wake of the war?

- What is the Civil War's greatest result?

- What is the nature of the Lost Cause tradition and why is it so
enduring in our culture?

- Have we fully reconciled from the blood and sacrifice and from the
changes brought by the Civil War?

     There are, of course, many other potential questions that can be
addressed in this forum.  These are just some samples that I have
always found important in my own teaching.  As a final idea, I would
welcome comment on many current issues in Civil War memory and
debate.  Below are merely suggestions :

- The National Park Service's efforts to bring more discussion of
slavery and broader contexts into interpretations at battlefield parks.

- Struggles over the use and meaning of Confederate symbols, such
as the flag.

- Ken Burns's documentary series, "The Civil War."

- The current motion picture, "Gods and Generals."

- The development of new museums about slavery in the United
States in several locations.

I welcome other current concerns as well, and look forward to our
discussions during the month of March.

David W. Blight

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:33:19 -0500
Reply-To:     robertm@combatic.com
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Robert Mosher 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
In-Reply-To:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Blight's posting has provided a great many questions and issues to
consider,  but while I ponder those I wonder if one more issue/question
should be included - though I am uncertain how to state it for the best use
of this forum.  Specifically, the question comes to mind in connection with
the continuing strong interest in this period and this climactic event in
American history that many Americans to this day feel compelled to dress up
in some version of the dress or military uniforms of the period and either
try to in some way relive the experience (reenactors), to recall this period
(the various sons and daughters organizations representing both south and
north), and to write and read about.  The question in my mind appears to be
along the lines of "what is it about this period that compels such
activities and what is the significance of the commitment of these people to
these various activities?

I should note that I myself reenact as a member of a Union Army regiment of
the Irish Brigade.

Robert A. Mosher

-----Original Message-----
From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War
[mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of David Blight
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:57 AM
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Opening Statement from David Blight

Welcome to the Talking History Forum on the Civil War era.  The Civil
War era probably has stimulated the public's imagination about
American history more than any other subject.  Why this event, its
causes and consequences, as well as the drama of the contest of
arms itself, has exercised such a hold on our imagination might be a
first overall question worth tackling.  I encourage any and all
responses to this problem.

     In his Legacy of the Civil War (1961), Robert Penn Warren wrote:
"The Civil War is our felt history - history lived in the national
imagination."  Warren was on to something.  "Somewhere in their
bones," he continued, most Americans have a storehouse of
"lessons" drawn from the Civil War.  Exactly what those lessons
should be, and who should determine them, has been perhaps the
most contested question in American historical memory since 1863,
when Robert E. Lee retreated back into Virginia from the Gettysburg
campaign, Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to try to explain the
meaning of the war, and Frederick Douglass took a speech on the
road entitled, "The Mission of the War," in which he announced
"national regeneration" as the "sacred significance" of the war.
Among all the possible lessons, wrote Warren, is the realization that
"slavery looms up mountainously" in the story, "and cannot be talked
away."  But Warren acknowledged another lesson of equal importance
for Americans of all persuasions: "When one is happy in
forgetfulness, facts get forgotten."

     Have Americans been selectively forgetful about the meanings of
the Civil War?  When?  Where?  Who?  Why?  Indeed, what are those
most significant "lessons" that we should take from and teach about
this most divisive and transforming event in American national
experience?  What is really at stake in Civil War history and  memory -
in scholarship and in public forums?  As a culture have we been more
obsessed with than forgetful about the war?  However one wants to
approach this broad question of memory, I encourage particular
stress in this forum on the matter of the war's meanings - from 1861
to 1865, and for the several generations since in changing contexts?
What is it that makes this event endure so tenaciously in our historical
discourses of all forms?

     On both scholarly and pedagogical levels, I would also encourage
us to think about at least some of the following questions and
problems:

- How does one best explain the causes of the Civil War, underlying
and immediate?  If there is a scholarly consensus that slavery is at the
root of the war, how and why is that so?  Are economic, political, and
moral dimensions of causation at odds or should they always be
seen as overlapping?  How do we judge collective motivation on this
level?

- Was secession constitutional?  Politically and morally right or
wrong?  Why did the deep South secede?

- Why are state rights so often invoked in discussions of Civil War
causation?  What does "state rights" really mean?

- How does one best explain Union victory and Confederate defeat?

- How did the war to save the Union, and for Southern independence,
become the war to free the slaves?

- Who and what freed the slaves?  Presidential leadership?  The
Union armies?  The slaves themselves?

- Did the Civil War usher centralized, interventionist, "big government"
into American life?

- What insights and new knowledge has the new social history
brought to understanding how the Civil War was fought, how it affected
the lives of women and children, how societies and economies are
mobilized for war, and how popular the conflict really was?

- Has use of gender transformed our understanding of the Civil War
soldier?  Of women's responses to war, sacrifice, politics?

- Was the Confederacy a nation in the modern sense?  Did the
Confederacy develop a true sense of nationalism?  Or, was the
Confederacy essentially a revolutionary movement?

- Americans seem to have been deeply religious during this traumatic
experience.  How was the war interpreted in spiritual and theological
terms, North and South, during and in the wake of the war?

- What is the Civil War's greatest result?

- What is the nature of the Lost Cause tradition and why is it so
enduring in our culture?

- Have we fully reconciled from the blood and sacrifice and from the
changes brought by the Civil War?

     There are, of course, many other potential questions that can be
addressed in this forum.  These are just some samples that I have
always found important in my own teaching.  As a final idea, I would
welcome comment on many current issues in Civil War memory and
debate.  Below are merely suggestions :

- The National Park Service's efforts to bring more discussion of
slavery and broader contexts into interpretations at battlefield parks.

- Struggles over the use and meaning of Confederate symbols, such
as the flag.

- Ken Burns's documentary series, "The Civil War."

- The current motion picture, "Gods and Generals."

- The development of new museums about slavery in the United
States in several locations.

I welcome other current concerns as well, and look forward to our
discussions during the month of March.

David W. Blight

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:04:26 -0600
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Leah M Wood 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I would like to suggest another topic for consideration: historic
preservation and the concept of "sacred space" as it pertains to Civil War
sites (structures, battlefields, cemeteries, etc.).

Leah Wood Jewett, Director
U.S. Civil War Center
URL: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:19:10 -0600
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         David Blight 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
              x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ms. Wood and others:

The idea of "sacred space" is indeed an important one.  Ed Linenthal's book, Sacred Ground, is of course a good place to begin.  But this is a concept
fraught with personal and national meanings.  What constitutes a sacred space in any culture?  Is it death and sacrifice?  Does it depend on the scope
and importance of the event?  Does it have to connect to religious concepts or at least to the idea of civil religion?  Should Civil War battlefields
be sites for the telling of the military sacrifice alone?  Or should they be sites of a much broader kind of education?  There is much at stake in
saving these sites from development and/or destruction and loss.  But in the end their significance will always be in what kinds of interpretations we
attach to them. What kinds of narratives we tell the visitors.  I grew up eagerly visiting Civil War sites.  As a high school teacher in the 1970s I
took groups of students to Gettysburg, Antietam, and Harpers Ferry from where I taught in Flint, Michigan.  The visits did have the quality of
"sacredness" and we cultivated it.  But we also, of course, very much used the sites for education and interpretation.  How we ultimately mix this
element of the sacred and the element of critical interpretation of the war is the rub.  Do we tell the story of the fight or the meaning of that
fight?  Both?

Food for thought.

D. Blight

Leah M Wood wrote:

> I would like to suggest another topic for consideration: historic
> preservation and the concept of "sacred space" as it pertains to Civil War
> sites (structures, battlefields, cemeteries, etc.).
>
> Leah Wood Jewett, Director
> U.S. Civil War Center
> URL: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:23:28 -0500
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         "Pettijohn, Patricia" 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The Civil War has traditionally been treated from the perspective of
military history rather than social history, an approach that has dominated
the interpretation of Civil War battlefields and public history sites.
Increasingly, voices from the many research areas of social history have
become major contributors to the dialogue on the Civil War, especially from
the field of African American studies. Much of this goes beyond mere
revision, and instead involves a reconsideration of the causes of the Civil
War and the significance of slavery to Civil War studies.

The appearance of web-based exhibits, and the increased availability of
digitized materials documenting the Black experience, have played a critical
role in bringing the new Civil War scholarship to the attention of the
public. The influence of the networking and digitization of primary
materials has been especially profound in increasing our understanding of
the "centrality of the institution of slavery to the interpretation of
battle sites and the Civil War." (Horton, 2001)  By making rare, fine, and
fragile works, photographs and images, ephemera and artifacts, digitally
accessible, and through the creation of online exhibits that challenge the
paradigm of Civil War historiography, the virtual reinterpretation of the
Civil War has contributed to a revolution in the National Park Service
treatment of Civil War sites such as Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

The Internet itself is an endless cabinet of curiosities, filled with
oddities and treasures, artifacts and fakes, and this seems particularly
true of the electronic Civil War. In this drawer, a letter from a soldier,
in another, a photograph. As the cost of electronic production and storage
has fallen, and the availability of scanning technologies spread, the
Internet has come to hold larger and larger amounts of data, in genealogical
databases, military records, public records, newspaper archives, and
electronic texts. Some of the best of these sites are associated with our
great national institutions, our universities, libraries, archives, and
museums, both public and private. The Library of Congress, Smithsonian
Institution, and National Park Service in particular have struggled with
issues of the meaning and interpretation of the Civil War, and in some cases
have been more successful in treating these issues online than off.

During the past forty years, an evolution in the practice of academic
history has been slow to permeate the practice of public history. This is
evident when we consider the long history of the National Museum of African
American History and Culture, a concept first proposed in 1916 by black
Civil War veterans, authorized by Congress and the President in 1929, and
still on the table in 2003.

The enduring influence of the Civil War on the national imagination inspired
the desire in African American Civil War veterans for a national
commemorative symbol, voiced three years after the great Gettysburg reunion
of 1913, and one year after the second Klan was born in Georgia. By 1929,
when the museum was finally approved, philanthropists weren't giving. The
National Memorial Commission requested that federal funds, owed since the
1870's to African American civil war soldiers, and to victims of the
Freedman's Bank collapse, be released to pay for construction of the museum.
Although there would be many large public works projects, and construction
of monumental buildings by the Works Progress Administration over the next
decade, the museum was never built. The idea of a national museum honoring
the African American contribution to the United States would not surface
again until 1968.

The reluctance of public history sites to include or generate minority
historical research and exhibitions is not unique to Black history, although
the resistance, especially to the treatment of slavery and segregation, has
been particularly strong. As history has shifted focus to include the social
history of women, Blacks, immigrants, workers, and the disenfranchised, the
rift between the nostalgic view presented by museums and living history
sites and the more inclusive perspective of social history has widened. Fath
Davis Ruffins notes, "Before 1950...most of the major public and private
museums, including the Smithsonian Institution, made no effort to collect,
preserve, or analyze any aspect of African Americans."

This entrenched resistance to mainstreaming African American history has
relented to pressure created both by the weight of academic opinion, and the
activist role of African American politicians, historians, archivists, and
museum professionals.  Perseverance, combined with excellence and
originality of curating and interpretation at venerable national shrines
like Colonial Williamsburg and the Smithsonian have enriched the historical
experience of visitors, and challenged other public history sites, by
mainstreaming African American history. Significant projects at Monticello
and Ash Lawn, although initially beset by resistance from white docents and
interpreters, have created landmark exhibits.   At all of these sites
important dialogues have begun, involving historians, curators, interpretive
staff, volunteers, and the public, about slavery, and the individual lives
of the African American slaves who lived, worked, and died at these sites.

Resistance to inclusion of African American historical narrative is both
common and insidious. Ruffins, in comparing the different fates of the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum, the National Museum of the American Indian, and
the National African American Museum, points to the continuing
incompatibility of the African American historical narrative with what she
calls "the official version of the American past."  Problems with staff
acceptance of new interpretations at Colonial Williamsburg point to some of
the issues that may be anticipated when planning a new exhibit focusing on
African American historical perspectives and material.   Gable's 1996
article despaired of the future of mainstreaming African American history at
Williamsburg, describing the white guides as "secure in an essentializing
belief that whiteness and blackness are separate categories."   In
particular, the view of slavery as a uniquely African American issue, and
the marked avoidance of the topic of slavery and the enslaved, in exhibits
where the reality of slavery lies at the very heart of the site or period,
has been challenged. This is true of Colonial sites throughout the United
States, but is especially important in understanding the tragedy and triumph
of Civil War battlefields, historic sites, and museums.

Of the many challenges to interpreting Civil War monuments and
battlegrounds, the causes and meaning of the War have proven the most
controversial. This is especially true in the South, not only because so
many battles were fought in the South, but due also to the tireless work of
the United Daughters of the Confederacy-the UDC-whose ubiquitous monuments
and plaques honor the fallen and heroic Confederate soldier in towns
throughout the South. The mission of the UDC included building monuments and
preserving graveyards in commemoration of Confederate veterans, but did not
stop there. Mildred Lewis Rutherford held a number of offices with the UDC,
notably as historian general of the UDC from 1911-1916, encompassing the
years of the Gettysburg Reunion and Civil War commemorations of 1913.

Rutherford spoke and published widely in defense of the heroic tradition of
the Confederacy, and devoted her life to establishing key tenets of the lost
cause tradition of Southern history-that secession had been both legal and
provoked, that slavery had not caused the Civil War, that slaves had been
content, that slavery was not unique to the South, but was a part of the
Colonial past, that Confederate soldiers had expressed the greater valor and
military intelligence, but had been outnumbered and betrayed, and that
plantation society had represented the highest flowering of civilization in
the New World.

Absent from Civil War public history is celebration of the Union's triumph
as the liberator of an enslaved people. Tony Horwitz quotes one Northern
re-enactor, explaining his preference for taking on the role of a
Confederate soldier, as saying, "When I play Northern, I feel like the
Russians in Afghanistan. I'm the invader, the bully." What comparison would
this re-enactor use today?   Clearly this re-enactor did not identify the
Union forces as liberators, and this demonstrates how the widespread failure
to associate the Civil War with the freeing of slaves has conspired to
elevate the mystique of the Confederacy.

excerpted from:
From Military to Social History, Civil War Studies Revisited: The Impact of
the digitization of primary materials in African American history on Civil
War studies and battle site interpretation.

Patricia Pettijohn
Research Librarian
de la Parte Institute Research Library
Florida Mental Health Institute
University of South Florida
13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd.
Tampa, Florida  33612
813.974.8400
ppettijohn@fmhi.usf.edu

    "When I get a little money, I buy books;
         and if any is left I buy food and clothes."
                 --Erasmus

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:28 -0800
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         jeffrey rinde 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
In-Reply-To:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The Confederate south was allowed to win the peace.
That's the key to the current problem. Based on recent
events in Richmond with the Lincoln statue proposal we
shall have to fight hard to show that the war was
necessary and good for the nation as a whole. I
enjoyed reading your opening statement.
--- "Pettijohn, Patricia" 
wrote:
> The Civil War has traditionally been treated from
> the perspective of
> military history rather than social history, an
> approach that has dominated
> the interpretation of Civil War battlefields and
> public history sites.
> Increasingly, voices from the many research areas of
> social history have
> become major contributors to the dialogue on the
> Civil War, especially from
> the field of African American studies. Much of this
> goes beyond mere
> revision, and instead involves a reconsideration of
> the causes of the Civil
> War and the significance of slavery to Civil War
> studies.
>
> The appearance of web-based exhibits, and the
> increased availability of
> digitized materials documenting the Black
> experience, have played a critical
> role in bringing the new Civil War scholarship to
> the attention of the
> public. The influence of the networking and
> digitization of primary
> materials has been especially profound in increasing
> our understanding of
> the "centrality of the institution of slavery to the
> interpretation of
> battle sites and the Civil War." (Horton, 2001)  By
> making rare, fine, and
> fragile works, photographs and images, ephemera and
> artifacts, digitally
> accessible, and through the creation of online
> exhibits that challenge the
> paradigm of Civil War historiography, the virtual
> reinterpretation of the
> Civil War has contributed to a revolution in the
> National Park Service
> treatment of Civil War sites such as Gettysburg and
> Vicksburg.
>
> The Internet itself is an endless cabinet of
> curiosities, filled with
> oddities and treasures, artifacts and fakes, and
> this seems particularly
> true of the electronic Civil War. In this drawer, a
> letter from a soldier,
> in another, a photograph. As the cost of electronic
> production and storage
> has fallen, and the availability of scanning
> technologies spread, the
> Internet has come to hold larger and larger amounts
> of data, in genealogical
> databases, military records, public records,
> newspaper archives, and
> electronic texts. Some of the best of these sites
> are associated with our
> great national institutions, our universities,
> libraries, archives, and
> museums, both public and private. The Library of
> Congress, Smithsonian
> Institution, and National Park Service in particular
> have struggled with
> issues of the meaning and interpretation of the
> Civil War, and in some cases
> have been more successful in treating these issues
> online than off.
>
> During the past forty years, an evolution in the
> practice of academic
> history has been slow to permeate the practice of
> public history. This is
> evident when we consider the long history of the
> National Museum of African
> American History and Culture, a concept first
> proposed in 1916 by black
> Civil War veterans, authorized by Congress and the
> President in 1929, and
> still on the table in 2003.
>
> The enduring influence of the Civil War on the
> national imagination inspired
> the desire in African American Civil War veterans
> for a national
> commemorative symbol, voiced three years after the
> great Gettysburg reunion
> of 1913, and one year after the second Klan was born
> in Georgia. By 1929,
> when the museum was finally approved,
> philanthropists weren't giving. The
> National Memorial Commission requested that federal
> funds, owed since the
> 1870's to African American civil war soldiers, and
> to victims of the
> Freedman's Bank collapse, be released to pay for
> construction of the museum.
> Although there would be many large public works
> projects, and construction
> of monumental buildings by the Works Progress
> Administration over the next
> decade, the museum was never built. The idea of a
> national museum honoring
> the African American contribution to the United
> States would not surface
> again until 1968.
>
> The reluctance of public history sites to include or
> generate minority
> historical research and exhibitions is not unique to
> Black history, although
> the resistance, especially to the treatment of
> slavery and segregation, has
> been particularly strong. As history has shifted
> focus to include the social
> history of women, Blacks, immigrants, workers, and
> the disenfranchised, the
> rift between the nostalgic view presented by museums
> and living history
> sites and the more inclusive perspective of social
> history has widened. Fath
> Davis Ruffins notes, "Before 1950...most of the
> major public and private
> museums, including the Smithsonian Institution, made
> no effort to collect,
> preserve, or analyze any aspect of African
> Americans."
>
> This entrenched resistance to mainstreaming African
> American history has
> relented to pressure created both by the weight of
> academic opinion, and the
> activist role of African American politicians,
> historians, archivists, and
> museum professionals.  Perseverance, combined with
> excellence and
> originality of curating and interpretation at
> venerable national shrines
> like Colonial Williamsburg and the Smithsonian have
> enriched the historical
> experience of visitors, and challenged other public
> history sites, by
> mainstreaming African American history. Significant
> projects at Monticello
> and Ash Lawn, although initially beset by resistance
> from white docents and
> interpreters, have created landmark exhibits.   At
> all of these sites
> important dialogues have begun, involving
> historians, curators, interpretive
> staff, volunteers, and the public, about slavery,
> and the individual lives
> of the African American slaves who lived, worked,
> and died at these sites.
>
> Resistance to inclusion of African American
> historical narrative is both
> common and insidious. Ruffins, in comparing the
> different fates of the U.S.
> Holocaust Memorial Museum, the National Museum of
> the American Indian, and
> the National African American Museum, points to the
> continuing
> incompatibility of the African American historical
> narrative with what she
> calls "the official version of the American past."
> Problems with staff
> acceptance of new interpretations at Colonial
> Williamsburg point to some of
> the issues that may be anticipated when planning a
> new exhibit focusing on
> African American historical perspectives and
> material.   Gable's 1996
> article despaired of the future of mainstreaming
> African American history at
> Williamsburg, describing the white guides as "secure
> in an essentializing
> belief that whiteness and blackness are separate
> categories."   In
> particular, the view of slavery as a uniquely
> African American issue, and
> the marked avoidance of the topic of slavery and the
> enslaved, in exhibits
> where the reality of slavery lies at the very heart
> of the site or period,
> has been challenged. This is true of Colonial sites
> throughout the United
> States, but is especially important in understanding
> the tragedy and triumph
> of Civil War battlefields, historic sites, and
> museums.
>
> Of the many challenges to interpreting Civil War
> monuments and
> battlegrounds, the causes and meaning of the War
> have proven the most
> controversial. This is especially true in the South,
> not only because so
> many battles were fought in the South, but due also
> to the tireless work of
> the United Daughters of the Confederacy-the
> UDC-whose
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:55:00 -0800
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         jeffrey rinde 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
In-Reply-To:  <3E63AAAE.A8C68EB0@amherst.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The fact that the sites are almost exclusively in the
south and that southerners have largely installed the
statues and propaganda has hurt the cause of the Union
over the years. The so-called Stonewall Jackson shrine
fits the pattern.
--- David Blight  wrote:
> Ms. Wood and others:
>
> The idea of "sacred space" is indeed an important
> one.  Ed Linenthal's book, Sacred Ground, is of
> course a good place to begin.  But this is a concept
> fraught with personal and national meanings.  What
> constitutes a sacred space in any culture?  Is it
> death and sacrifice?  Does it depend on the scope
> and importance of the event?  Does it have to
> connect to religious concepts or at least to the
> idea of civil religion?  Should Civil War
> battlefields
> be sites for the telling of the military sacrifice
> alone?  Or should they be sites of a much broader
> kind of education?  There is much at stake in
> saving these sites from development and/or
> destruction and loss.  But in the end their
> significance will always be in what kinds of
> interpretations we
> attach to them. What kinds of narratives we tell the
> visitors.  I grew up eagerly visiting Civil War
> sites.  As a high school teacher in the 1970s I
> took groups of students to Gettysburg, Antietam, and
> Harpers Ferry from where I taught in Flint,
> Michigan.  The visits did have the quality of
> "sacredness" and we cultivated it.  But we also, of
> course, very much used the sites for education and
> interpretation.  How we ultimately mix this
> element of the sacred and the element of critical
> interpretation of the war is the rub.  Do we tell
> the story of the fight or the meaning of that
> fight?  Both?
>
> Food for thought.
>
> D. Blight
>
> Leah M Wood wrote:
>
> > I would like to suggest another topic for
> consideration: historic
> > preservation and the concept of "sacred space" as
> it pertains to Civil War
> > sites (structures, battlefields, cemeteries,
> etc.).
> >
> > Leah Wood Jewett, Director
> > U.S. Civil War Center
> > URL: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/
> >
> > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
> visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
> for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
> visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
> for more resources for teaching U.S. History.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:59:44 -0800
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         jeffrey rinde 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
In-Reply-To:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The Confederacy represented a reactionary movement. It
had to fail. "States Rights" do not exist and can not.
It's just a code phrase for the right to enslave other
humans. Press on with the debate !


--- David Blight  wrote:
> Welcome to the Talking History Forum on the Civil
> War era.  The Civil
> War era probably has stimulated the public's
> imagination about
> American history more than any other subject.  Why
> this event, its
> causes and consequences, as well as the drama of the
> contest of
> arms itself, has exercised such a hold on our
> imagination might be a
> first overall question worth tackling.  I encourage
> any and all
> responses to this problem.
>
>      In his Legacy of the Civil War (1961), Robert
> Penn Warren wrote:
> "The Civil War is our felt history - history lived
> in the national
> imagination."  Warren was on to something.
> "Somewhere in their
> bones," he continued, most Americans have a
> storehouse of
> "lessons" drawn from the Civil War.  Exactly what
> those lessons
> should be, and who should determine them, has been
> perhaps the
> most contested question in American historical
> memory since 1863,
> when Robert E. Lee retreated back into Virginia from
> the Gettysburg
> campaign, Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to try
> to explain the
> meaning of the war, and Frederick Douglass took a
> speech on the
> road entitled, "The Mission of the War," in which he
> announced
> "national regeneration" as the "sacred significance"
> of the war.
> Among all the possible lessons, wrote Warren, is the
> realization that
> "slavery looms up mountainously" in the story, "and
> cannot be talked
> away."  But Warren acknowledged another lesson of
> equal importance
> for Americans of all persuasions: "When one is happy
> in
> forgetfulness, facts get forgotten."
>
>      Have Americans been selectively forgetful about
> the meanings of
> the Civil War?  When?  Where?  Who?  Why?  Indeed,
> what are those
> most significant "lessons" that we should take from
> and teach about
> this most divisive and transforming event in
> American national
> experience?  What is really at stake in Civil War
> history and  memory -
> in scholarship and in public forums?  As a culture
> have we been more
> obsessed with than forgetful about the war?  However
> one wants to
> approach this broad question of memory, I encourage
> particular
> stress in this forum on the matter of the war's
> meanings - from 1861
> to 1865, and for the several generations since in
> changing contexts?
> What is it that makes this event endure so
> tenaciously in our historical
> discourses of all forms?
>
>      On both scholarly and pedagogical levels, I
> would also encourage
> us to think about at least some of the following
> questions and
> problems:
>
> - How does one best explain the causes of the Civil
> War, underlying
> and immediate?  If there is a scholarly consensus
> that slavery is at the
> root of the war, how and why is that so?  Are
> economic, political, and
> moral dimensions of causation at odds or should they
> always be
> seen as overlapping?  How do we judge collective
> motivation on this
> level?
>
> - Was secession constitutional?  Politically and
> morally right or
> wrong?  Why did the deep South secede?
>
> - Why are state rights so often invoked in
> discussions of Civil War
> causation?  What does "state rights" really mean?
>
> - How does one best explain Union victory and
> Confederate defeat?
>
> - How did the war to save the Union, and for
> Southern independence,
> become the war to free the slaves?
>
> - Who and what freed the slaves?  Presidential
> leadership?  The
> Union armies?  The slaves themselves?
>
> - Did the Civil War usher centralized,
> interventionist, "big government"
> into American life?
>
> - What insights and new knowledge has the new social
> history
> brought to understanding how the Civil War was
> fought, how it affected
> the lives of women and children, how societies and
> economies are
> mobilized for war, and how popular the conflict
> really was?
>
> - Has use of gender transformed our understanding of
> the Civil War
> soldier?  Of women's responses to war, sacrifice,
> politics?
>
> - Was the Confederacy a nation in the modern sense?
> Did the
> Confederacy develop a true sense of nationalism?
> Or, was the
> Confederacy essentially a revolutionary movement?
>
> - Americans seem to have been deeply religious
> during this traumatic
> experience.  How was the war interpreted in
> spiritual and theological
> terms, North and South, during and in the wake of
> the war?
>
> - What is the Civil War's greatest result?
>
> - What is the nature of the Lost Cause tradition and
> why is it so
> enduring in our culture?
>
> - Have we fully reconciled from the blood and
> sacrifice and from the
> changes brought by the Civil War?
>
>      There are, of course, many other potential
> questions that can be
> addressed in this forum.  These are just some
> samples that I have
> always found important in my own teaching.  As a
> final idea, I would
> welcome comment on many current issues in Civil War
> memory and
> debate.  Below are merely suggestions :
>
> - The National Park Service's efforts to bring more
> discussion of
> slavery and broader contexts into interpretations at
> battlefield parks.
>
> - Struggles over the use and meaning of Confederate
> symbols, such
> as the flag.
>
> - Ken Burns's documentary series, "The Civil War."
>
> - The current motion picture, "Gods and Generals."
>
> - The development of new museums about slavery in
> the United
> States in several locations.
>
> I welcome other current concerns as well, and look
> forward to our
> discussions during the month of March.
>
> David W. Blight
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
> visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
> for more resources for teaching U.S. History.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:17:28 -0500
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Geoff Wickersham 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Actually, to touch on what Jeffrey has said, it's been my feeling in reading
some of the books that have been coming out lately by conservative authors
like Charles Adams (When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for
Southern Secession) and Thomas DiLorenzo (The Real Lincoln: A New Look at
Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War), serious Civil War
scholars are in danger of being hijacked by political right wing pundits who
champion the Confederacy as the solution to our nation's ills.  By this, I
do not mean a return to slavery or disunion.  I mean the typical
conservative criticism of Big Government - they want smaller less obtrusive
government, stronger state governments, fewer taxes and regulations, etc.
So, in essence, today's conservatives are yesterday's rebels!

Also, if anyone gets a chance, I've been fighting this debate on a message
board on Yahoo.com over the movie Gods and Generals for the past two weeks
now.  You might find it at www.upcomingmovies.com and search for movies by
title, find G&G, and then scroll down to the bottom for the message board.
You might be appalled at some of the stuff that's on there.  I've been
fighting a battle against some neo-Confederate thinking (I'm Corsair29) and
it's been rough but good practice at honing my arguing skills.

I look forward to discussing these topics because I teach two sections of an
elective called American Civil War to juniors and seniors in high school.
I'll share their comments on G&G later.  They'll be writing papers soon on
film and its role in history.


----- Original Message -----
From: "jeffrey rinde" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight


> The Confederacy represented a reactionary movement. It
> had to fail. "States Rights" do not exist and can not.
> It's just a code phrase for the right to enslave other
> humans. Press on with the debate !
>
>
> --- David Blight  wrote:
> > Welcome to the Talking History Forum on the Civil
> > War era.  The Civil
> > War era probably has stimulated the public's
> > imagination about
> > American history more than any other subject.  Why
> > this event, its
> > causes and consequences, as well as the drama of the
> > contest of
> > arms itself, has exercised such a hold on our
> > imagination might be a
> > first overall question worth tackling.  I encourage
> > any and all
> > responses to this problem.
> >
> >      In his Legacy of the Civil War (1961), Robert
> > Penn Warren wrote:
> > "The Civil War is our felt history - history lived
> > in the national
> > imagination."  Warren was on to something.
> > "Somewhere in their
> > bones," he continued, most Americans have a
> > storehouse of
> > "lessons" drawn from the Civil War.  Exactly what
> > those lessons
> > should be, and who should determine them, has been
> > perhaps the
> > most contested question in American historical
> > memory since 1863,
> > when Robert E. Lee retreated back into Virginia from
> > the Gettysburg
> > campaign, Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to try
> > to explain the
> > meaning of the war, and Frederick Douglass took a
> > speech on the
> > road entitled, "The Mission of the War," in which he
> > announced
> > "national regeneration" as the "sacred significance"
> > of the war.
> > Among all the possible lessons, wrote Warren, is the
> > realization that
> > "slavery looms up mountainously" in the story, "and
> > cannot be talked
> > away."  But Warren acknowledged another lesson of
> > equal importance
> > for Americans of all persuasions: "When one is happy
> > in
> > forgetfulness, facts get forgotten."
> >
> >      Have Americans been selectively forgetful about
> > the meanings of
> > the Civil War?  When?  Where?  Who?  Why?  Indeed,
> > what are those
> > most significant "lessons" that we should take from
> > and teach about
> > this most divisive and transforming event in
> > American national
> > experience?  What is really at stake in Civil War
> > history and  memory -
> > in scholarship and in public forums?  As a culture
> > have we been more
> > obsessed with than forgetful about the war?  However
> > one wants to
> > approach this broad question of memory, I encourage
> > particular
> > stress in this forum on the matter of the war's
> > meanings - from 1861
> > to 1865, and for the several generations since in
> > changing contexts?
> > What is it that makes this event endure so
> > tenaciously in our historical
> > discourses of all forms?
> >
> >      On both scholarly and pedagogical levels, I
> > would also encourage
> > us to think about at least some of the following
> > questions and
> > problems:
> >
> > - How does one best explain the causes of the Civil
> > War, underlying
> > and immediate?  If there is a scholarly consensus
> > that slavery is at the
> > root of the war, how and why is that so?  Are
> > economic, political, and
> > moral dimensions of causation at odds or should they
> > always be
> > seen as overlapping?  How do we judge collective
> > motivation on this
> > level?
> >
> > - Was secession constitutional?  Politically and
> > morally right or
> > wrong?  Why did the deep South secede?
> >
> > - Why are state rights so often invoked in
> > discussions of Civil War
> > causation?  What does "state rights" really mean?
> >
> > - How does one best explain Union victory and
> > Confederate defeat?
> >
> > - How did the war to save the Union, and for
> > Southern independence,
> > become the war to free the slaves?
> >
> > - Who and what freed the slaves?  Presidential
> > leadership?  The
> > Union armies?  The slaves themselves?
> >
> > - Did the Civil War usher centralized,
> > interventionist, "big government"
> > into American life?
> >
> > - What insights and new knowledge has the new social
> > history
> > brought to understanding how the Civil War was
> > fought, how it affected
> > the lives of women and children, how societies and
> > economies are
> > mobilized for war, and how popular the conflict
> > really was?
> >
> > - Has use of gender transformed our understanding of
> > the Civil War
> > soldier?  Of women's responses to war, sacrifice,
> > politics?
> >
> > - Was the Confederacy a nation in the modern sense?
> > Did the
> > Confederacy develop a true sense of nationalism?
> > Or, was the
> > Confederacy essentially a revolutionary movement?
> >
> > - Americans seem to have been deeply religious
> > during this traumatic
> > experience.  How was the war interpreted in
> > spiritual and theological
> > terms, North and South, during and in the wake of
> > the war?
> >
> > - What is the Civil War's greatest result?
> >
> > - What is the nature of the Lost Cause tradition and
> > why is it so
> > enduring in our culture?
> >
> > - Have we fully reconciled from the blood and
> > sacrifice and from the
> > changes brought by the Civil War?
> >
> >      There are, of course, many other potential
> > questions that can be
> > addressed in this forum.  These are just some
> > samples that I have
> > always found important in my own teaching.  As a
> > final idea, I would
> > welcome comment on many current issues in Civil War
> > memory and
> > debate.  Below are merely suggestions :
> >
> > - The National Park Service's efforts to bring more
> > discussion of
> > slavery and broader contexts into interpretations at
> > battlefield parks.
> >
> > - Struggles over the use and meaning of Confederate
> > symbols, such
> > as the flag.
> >
> > - Ken Burns's documentary series, "The Civil War."
> >
> > - The current motion picture, "Gods and Generals."
> >
> > - The development of new museums about slavery in
> > the United
> > States in several locations.
> >
> > I welcome other current concerns as well, and look
> > forward to our
> > discussions during the month of March.
> >
> > David W. Blight
> >
> > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
> > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
> > for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:44:50 EST
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Maureen Murphy 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

     I think there is another aspect that we might consider was brought up in
an article in the past year in U.S. News and World Reports. In many recent
documentaries or movies or articles there seems to be no sense of either side
being good or bad.
    The black and white of yesteryear is swept away and instead of "the blue
and the gray" we just have gray.  No more winners and losers but powerful men
on both sides to be admired.
    But if we believe in our nation and the Union as Lincoln did, it was
worth the fight.  We are a nation not a league of states. The Civil War
established this as fact. I don't think the war should be colored as gray,
red for the bloodshed perhaps, but never neutral or gray.
    If we did not have a war, and Southern congressmen did not leave and were
not allowed to return to the Congress until after Reconstruction, we would
not have the Civil War Amendments to end slavery, gain citizenship and voting
rights for all (males).  Even though the heart of these were taken away by
the U.S. Supreme Court after the war, these amendments were the basis for
Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954 and future civil rights in the 20th
century.  So the Civil War ended slavery and eventually helped gain legal
equality for all citizens a century later.
    As a high school American History teacher, we do have in our text books
and in my lesson plans, information on African American participation in the
war. We also talk about immigrant participation and women soldiers. We don't
merely concentrate on battles - although they are fascinating - but the
causes of the war and the affects it had on our nation.

Maureen Murphy
Herbert Hoover High School
Des Moines, Iowa

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:48:19 -0800
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Pete Haro 
Subject:      Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Dear Forum: To add to what Jeffrey Rinde has posted, he is right. Look no
further than the newest film Gods and Generals, which is a three and a half
hour memorial to Stonewall Jackson (and a bad one at that). Pete Haro.

----------
>From: jeffrey rinde 
>To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight
>Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2003, 4:55 PM
>

> The fact that the sites are almost exclusively in the
> south and that southerners have largely installed the
> statues and propaganda has hurt the cause of the Union
> over the years. The so-called Stonewall Jackson shrine
> fits the pattern.
> --- David Blight  wrote:
>> Ms. Wood and others:
>>
>> The idea of "sacred space" is indeed an important
>> one.  Ed Linenthal's book, Sacred Ground, is of
>> course a good place to begin.  But this is a concept
>> fraught with personal and national meanings.  What
>> constitutes a sacred space in any culture?  Is it
>> death and sacrifice?  Does it depend on the scope
>> and importance of the event?  Does it have to
>> connect to religious concepts or at least to the
>> idea of civil religion?  Should Civil War
>> battlefields
>> be sites for the telling of the military sacrifice
>> alone?  Or should they be sites of a much broader
>> kind of education?  There is much at stake in
>> saving these sites from development and/or
>> destruction and loss.  But in the end their
>> significance will always be in what kinds of
>> interpretations we
>> attach to them. What kinds of narratives we tell the
>> visitors.  I grew up eagerly visiting Civil War
>> sites.  As a high school teacher in the 1970s I
>> took groups of students to Gettysburg, Antietam, and
>> Harpers Ferry from where I taught in Flint,
>> Michigan.  The visits did have the quality of
>> "sacredness" and we cultivated it.  But we also, of
>> course, very much used the sites for education and
>> interpretation.  How we ultimately mix this
>> element of the sacred and the element of critical
>> interpretation of the war is the rub.  Do we tell
>> the story of the fight or the meaning of that
>> fight?  Both?
>>
>> Food for thought.
>>
>> D. Blight
>>
>> Leah M Wood wrote:
>>
>> > I would like to suggest another topic for
>> consideration: historic
>> > preservation and the concept of "sacred space" as
>> it pertains to Civil War
>> > sites (structures, battlefields, cemeteries,
>> etc.).
>> >
>> > Leah Wood Jewett, Director
>> > U.S. Civil War Center
>> > URL: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/
>> >
>> > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
>> visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
>> for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>>
>> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
>> visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
>> for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:56:18 -0500
Reply-To:     orvalbear@excite.com
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Karen Hall 
Subject:      Re: States Rights
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

States rights were granted in the constitution as well as the 10 amendment of the bill of rights. It is not a "Coded phrase" but granted by the founding documents of our nation. States Rights were resepceted by the Federal Government and the Supreme court (except in the matter of Slavery) until after the Civil War.

The Confederacy was in part a reactionary movement to the actions of the Federal Government in taking away the rights of the states that were granted by the Constitution. Had the Federal Government been more willing to allow the states to use the power given to the the Civil War could have been averted.

Karen Hall




 --- On Mon 03/03, jeffrey rinde < jjrinde62@YAHOO.COM > wrote:
From: jeffrey rinde [mailto: jjrinde62@YAHOO.COM]
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:59:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight

The Confederacy represented a reactionary movement. It
had to fail. "States Rights" do not exist and can not.
It's just a code phrase for the right to enslave other
humans. Press on with the debate !


--- David Blight  wrote:
> Welcome to the Talking History Forum on the Civil
> War era.  The Civil
> War era probably has stimulated the public's
> imagination about
> American history more than any other subject.  Why
> this event, its
> causes and consequences, as well as the drama of the
> contest of
> arms itself, has exercised such a hold on our
> imagination might be a
> first overall question worth tackling.  I encourage
> any and all
> responses to this problem.
>
>      In his Legacy of the Civil War (1961), Robert
> Penn Warren wrote:
> "The Civil War is our felt history - history lived
> in the national
> imagination."  Warren was on to something.
> "Somewhere in their
> bones," he continued, most Americans have a
> storehouse of
> "lessons" drawn from the Civil War.  Exactly what
> those lessons
> should be, and who should determine them, has been
> perhaps the
> most contested question in American historical
> memory since 1863,
> when Robert E. Lee retreated back into Virginia from
> the Gettysburg
> campaign, Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to try
> to explain the
> meaning of the war, and Frederick Douglass took a
> speech on the
> road entitled, "The Mission of the War," in which he
> announced
> "national regeneration" as the "sacred significance"
> of the war.
> Among all the possible lessons, wrote Warren, is the
> realization that
> "slavery looms up mountainously" in the story, "and
> cannot be talked
> away."  But Warren acknowledged another lesson of
> equal importance
> for Americans of all persuasions: "When one is happy
> in
> forgetfulness, facts get forgotten."
>
>      Have Americans been selectively forgetful about
> the meanings of
> the Civil War?  When?  Where?  Who?  Why?  Indeed,
> what are those
> most significant "lessons" that we should take from
> and teach about
> this most divisive and transforming event in
> American national
> experience?  What is really at stake in Civil War
> history and  memory -
> in scholarship and in public forums?  As a culture
> have we been more
> obsessed with than forgetful about the war?  However
> one wants to
> approach this broad question of memory, I encourage
> particular
> stress in this forum on the matter of the war's
> meanings - from 1861
> to 1865, and for the several generations since in
> changing contexts?
> What is it that makes this event endure so
> tenaciously in our historical
> discourses of all forms?
>
>      On both scholarly and pedagogical levels, I
> would also encourage
> us to think about at least some of the following
> questions and
> problems:
>
> - How does one best explain the causes of the Civil
> War, underlying
> and immediate?  If there is a scholarly consensus
> that slavery is at the
> root of the war, how and why is that so?  Are
> economic, political, and
> moral dimensions of causation at odds or should they
> always be
> seen as overlapping?  How do we judge collective
> motivation on this
> level?
>
> - Was secession constitutional?  Politically and
> morally right or
> wrong?  Why did the deep South secede?
>
> - Why are state rights so often invoked in
> discussions of Civil War
> causation?  What does "state rights" really mean?
>
> - How does one best explain Union victory and
> Confederate defeat?
>
> - How did the war to save the Union, and for
> Southern independence,
> become the war to free the slaves?
>
> - Who and what freed the slaves?  Presidential
> leadership?  The
> Union armies?  The slaves themselves?
>
> - Did the Civil War usher centralized,
> interventionist, "big government"
> into American life?
>
> - What insights and new knowledge has the new social
> history
> brought to understanding how the Civil War was
> fought, how it affected
> the lives of women and children, how societies and
> economies are
> mobilized for war, and how popular the conflict
> really was?
>
> - Has use of gender transformed our understanding of
> the Civil War
> soldier?  Of women's responses to war, sacrifice,
> politics?
>
> - Was the Confederacy a nation in the modern sense?
> Did the
> Confederacy develop a true sense of nationalism?
> Or, was the
> Confederacy essentially a revolutionary movement?
>
> - Americans seem to have been deeply religious
> during this traumatic
> experience.  How was the war interpreted in
> spiritual and theological
> terms, North and South, during and in the wake of
> the war?
>
> - What is the Civil War's greatest result?
>
> - What is the nature of the Lost Cause tradition and
> why is it so
> enduring in our culture?
>
> - Have we fully reconciled from the blood and
> sacrifice and from the
> changes brought by the Civil War?
>
>      There are, of course, many other potential
> questions that can be
> addressed in this forum.  These are just some
> samples that I have
> always found important in my own teaching.  As a
> final idea, I would
> welcome comment on many current issues in Civil War
> memory and
> debate.  Below are merely suggestions :
>
> - The National Park Service's efforts to bring more
> discussion of
> slavery and broader contexts into interpretations at
> battlefield parks.
>
> - Struggles over the use and meaning of Confederate
> symbols, such
> as the flag.
>
> - Ken Burns's documentary series, "The Civil War."
>
> - The current motion picture, "Gods and Generals."
>
> - The development of new museums about slavery in
> the United
> States in several locations.
>
> I welcome other current concerns as well, and look
> forward to our
> discussions during the month of March.
>
> David W. Blight
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please
> visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu
> for more resources for teaching U.S. History.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.


_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:13:25 -0500
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Thomas Clemens 
Subject:      southerness

I have been thinking about Dr. Blight's opening statement and the
aspects discussed here recently about the South and "winning the peace"
and their perception today and perpatrators of evil.  I just received an
email from a colleague discussing my thoughts on "Gods & Generals"
which added another dimension to the discussion.  She is a Human
Services instructor and was upset by some reviews of G &G.  Here is a
portion of her post:

 You know with the movie and so many other things of late ( the Trent
Lott affair) I have been trying to answer a question for myself that I
really have been grappling with for sometime especially since I am a
Social worker and a Southerner.  One day when you have time I would like
to get your perspective on how do I be proud of my Southern background
when there is so much negativity tied to this.  I am fiercely proud of
where I come from and I love the people of the South but I continue to
struggle with my values as a helping professional, my beliefs in
acceptance of "others" and the love of where I belong.  I am constantly
reminded of how bad the South is and has been.  Not that I am naive
enough to believe that there are problems and have been in the past.
And this makes so many people down South so much more entrenched in
their racist and separateness attitudes.


I am at a loss as to explain why any Southerner should be made to feel
ashamed of their heritage.  Clearly all states and regions have their
share of skeletons in the closet, is slavery worse than the slaughter of
Amerindians?  The exploitation of immigrants and laborers?  Certainly
modern race riots have not been limited to the South and prejudice
exists everywhere. Why must the South carry this burden of guilt?
I do not, of course, condone slavery, nor defend the institution, but
can a Southerner be proud of a past that includes these things?



Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:18:08 EST
Reply-To:     "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
Sender:       "Teaching the U.S. Civil War"
              
From:         Albert Mackey 
Subject:      The Confederacy and the Right Wing Agenda
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="part1_4c.192044f9.2b962bc0_boundary"

--part1_4c.192044f9.2b962bc0_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/4/2003 3:31:14 AM Hawaiian Standard Time,
geoffwickersham@AMERITECH.NET writes:


> Actually, to touch on what Jeffrey has said, it's been my feeling in reading
> some of the books that have been coming out lately by conservative authors
> like Charles Adams (When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case
> for
> Southern Secession) and Thomas DiLorenzo (The Real Lincoln: A New Look at
> Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War), serious Civil War
> scholars are in danger of being hijacked by political right wing pundits
> who
> champion the Confederacy as the solution to our nation's ills.  By this, I
> do not mean a return to slavery or disunion.  I mean the typical
> conservative criticism of Big Government - they want smaller less obtrusive
> government, stronger state governments, fewer taxes and regulations, etc.
> So, in essence, today's conservatives are yesterday's rebels!

--------------------
I think a dose of Emory Thomas' _The Confederacy as a Revolutionary
Experience_ might help, especially when he talks about the centralization of
power in the Confederate government.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

--part1_4c.192044f9.2b962bc0_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 3/4/2003 3:31:14 AM Hawaiian Standa=
rd Time, geoffwickersham@AMERITECH.NET writes:


Actually, to touch on what Jeff= rey has said, it's been my feeling in reading
some of the books that have been coming out lately by conservative authors like Charles Adams (When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for=
Southern Secession) and Thomas DiLorenzo (The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War), serious Civil War
scholars are in danger of being hijacked by political right wing pundits who=
champion the Confederacy as the solution to our nation's ills.  By this= , I
do not mean a return to slavery or disunion.  I mean the typical
conservative criticism of Big Government - they want smaller less obtrusive<= BR> government, stronger state governments, fewer taxes and regulations, etc. So, in essence, today's conservatives are yesterday's rebels!

--------------------
I think a dose of Emory Thomas' _The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experien= ce_ might help, especially when he talks about the centralization of power i= n the Confederate government.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_4c.192044f9.2b962bc0_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:27:06 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Robert Gudmestad Subject: States' Rights and Secession Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I have read the posts about the cause of the Civil War with interest. In = my survey classes, for instance, I treat states' rights as a serious issue = because southerners treated it as a serious issue. It was a doctrine that = can be traced, in part, to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. I assign = some writings from Civil War soldiers which do not explicitly mention = slavery as the cause for the war. I also assign "The Cornerstone Speech" = as a type of antidote. I do not, however, allow students to invoke it as a way to explain away = the paramount importance of slavery to secession. I explain states' = rights as a tool to protect slavery during 1860-61. I remind them that = without slavery there probably would not have been a Civil War. States' = rights remained a potent issue, though, as southern disaffection for the = war and the Confederate government mounted. I then try to explain how = states' rights has become a code to explain away southern complicity for = defending slavery and a buzzword for those who oppose a large federal = government. Many students do not get it and it is hard to address subtlety in a survey = class. Some students do get it, and that makes it worthwhile. Robert Gudmestad Southwest Baptist University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:41:03 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: southerness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_94.3511ae11.2b965b4f_boundary" --part1_94.3511ae11.2b965b4f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/03 9:07:05 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, clemenst@HAGERSTOWNCC.EDU writes: > I am at a loss as to explain why any Southerner should be made to feel > ashamed of their heritage. Clearly all states and regions have their > share of skeletons in the closet, is slavery worse than the slaughter of > Amerindians? The exploitation of immigrants and laborers? Certainly > modern race riots have not been limited to the South and prejudice > exists everywhere. Why must the South carry this burden of guilt? > I do not, of course, condone slavery, nor defend the institution, but > --------------- Slavery is not a southern sin. It's an American sin, our original sin. Abraham Lincoln, as usual, put it best: "Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters. "When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." [First Debate with Douglas, _Collected Works,_ Vol 3, pp. 14-15] The history of the South is far richer than the four years of the confederacy. The South gave us some of our greatest minds, our bravest warriors, our most skilled artisans, our most talented writers, and our most tireless abolitionists and civil rights workers. The slaveowners who helped write the Constitution also put slavery on the course to ultimate extinction. Considering slavery to be a positive good was an aberration. The Grimke sisters were southerners. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a southerner. Frederick Douglass was a southerner. Concerning Jim Crow and post-Civil War abuses, Dr. Blight's book _Race and Reunion_ makes it abundantly clear that it was the North and the South together who turned their backs on black progress. If the South is blamed, my thesis is that it's a function of Southern self-identification as a region apart from the rest of the country. The flap over the Confederate battle flag is an example. What other region would like to be represented by a separate flag? The rest of the country has bought into the concept of the South as a region apart. By buying into that concept the rest of the country can then feel justified in dumping their share of responsibility into that "other" region. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_94.3511ae11.2b965b4f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/4/03= 9:07:05 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, clemenst@HAGERSTOWNCC.EDU writes:


I am at a loss as to explai= n why any Southerner should be made to feel
ashamed of their heritage.  Clearly all states and regions have the= ir
share of skeletons in the closet, is slavery worse than the slaughter of
Amerindians?  The exploitation of immigrants and laborers?  Ce= rtainly
modern race riots have not been limited to the South and prejudice
exists everywhere. Why must the South carry this burden of guilt?
I do not, of course, condone slavery, nor defend the institution, but
can a Southerner be proud of a past that includes these things?

---------------
Slavery is not a southern sin.  It's an American sin, our original=20= sin.  
Abraham Lincoln, as usual, put it best:

"Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the S= outhern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slaver= y did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now= exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the= masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who= would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly=20= introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some south= ern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; wh= ile some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origi= n of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the inst= itution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satis= factory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not b= lame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all eart= hly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing in= stitution."  [First Debate with Douglas, _Collected Works,_ Vol 3, pp.=20= 14-15]

The history of the South is far richer than the four years of the confed= eracy.  The South gave us some of our greatest minds, our bravest warri= ors, our most skilled artisans, our most talented writers, and our most tire= less abolitionists and civil rights workers.  The slaveowners who helpe= d write the Constitution also put slavery on the course to ultimate extincti= on.  Considering slavery to be a positive good was an aberration.  = ;The Grimke sisters were southerners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was a so= utherner.  Frederick Douglass was a southerner.

Concerning Jim Crow and post-Civil War abuses, Dr. Blight's book _Race a= nd Reunion_ makes it abundantly clear that it was the North and the South to= gether who turned their backs on black progress.  If the South is blame= d, my thesis is that it's a function of Southern self-identification as a re= gion apart from the rest of the country. The flap over the Confederate battl= e flag is an example.  What other region would like to be represented b= y a separate flag?  The rest of the country has bought into the concept= of the South as a region apart.  By buying into that concept the rest=20= of the country can then feel justified in dumping their share of responsibil= ity into that "other" region.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_94.3511ae11.2b965b4f_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:54:58 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Peter Haro Subject: Re: southerness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Thomas: You are right to point out that every region and/or nation has "skeletons in the closet". We would all be hypocrites if this became a "bash on the south" forum. However, I think that it is worth remembering that much of what southerners love to remember or embrace about the pre-civil war south (the genteel society supposedly steeped in tradition, family and honor) was built and supported by slave labor. Furthermore, even after the abolition of slavery, the majority of southern society rushed to put in place laws and custom that would return blacks to a state of existence very similar to slavery. During the era of Jim Crow and segregation, behaviors and appearances of blacks were severly proscribed and even perceived disruption of these new rules could result in lynchings for supposed "troublemakers" or people who didn't show "proper deference". Like yourself, I too have deep roots in the south. However, one question that all southerners need to ask is, what exactly are we trying to be proud of? Are they notions of Robert E. Lee and an honorable society willing to sacrifice for a greater cause (whatever this supposedly means)or something else that is more important but difficult to acknowledge? Sincerely, Pete Haro. -------Original Message------- From: Thomas Clemens Sent: 03/04/03 08:13 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: southerness > > I have been thinking about Dr. Blight's opening statement and the aspects discussed here recently about the South and "winning the peace" and their perception today and perpatrators of evil. I just received an email from a colleague discussing my thoughts on "Gods & Generals" which added another dimension to the discussion. She is a Human Services instructor and was upset by some reviews of G &G. Here is a portion of her post: You know with the movie and so many other things of late ( the Trent Lott affair) I have been trying to answer a question for myself that I really have been grappling with for sometime especially since I am a Social worker and a Southerner. One day when you have time I would like to get your perspective on how do I be proud of my Southern background when there is so much negativity tied to this. I am fiercely proud of where I come from and I love the people of the South but I continue to struggle with my values as a helping professional, my beliefs in acceptance of "others" and the love of where I belong. I am constantly reminded of how bad the South is and has been. Not that I am naive enough to believe that there are problems and have been in the past. And this makes so many people down South so much more entrenched in their racist and separateness attitudes. I am at a loss as to explain why any Southerner should be made to feel ashamed of their heritage. Clearly all states and regions have their share of skeletons in the closet, is slavery worse than the slaughter of Amerindians? The exploitation of immigrants and laborers? Certainly modern race riots have not been limited to the South and prejudice exists everywhere. Why must the South carry this burden of guilt? I do not, of course, condone slavery, nor defend the institution, but can a Southerner be proud of a past that includes these things? Thomas G. Clemens D.A. Professor of History Hagerstown Community College This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:14:32 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" There was an interesting interview on NPR's Fresh Air on Monday, with Paul Goldberger, architecture critic for The New Yorker, discussing the design for the World Trade Center site and the public response to the proposals. It offers some interesting comments on the process of memorializing a sacred space. He compared the WTC site to Gettysburg, because both are the actual sites of death and tragedy, unlike, for instance, the Vietnam Veterans memorial, which deals very directly with issues of death and loss, but was constructed at a distance, both geographically and temporally, from the actual site of those deaths. http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?todayDate=03/03/2003 Geoff writes "Civil War scholars are in danger of being hijacked by political right wing pundits who champion the Confederacy as the solution to our nation's ills." There are several things I find interesting in the dissonance between what we believe we believe and what we actually believe. For instance, there is a very real gap between academic opinion and public opinion. Some feel this is largely generational ( I recently heard one Civil War scholar opine that everyone born before 1971 was of the "old school" and believed that secession or other ideological or economic rifts, rather than slavery, caused the CW.) The power of textbooks and their treatment of Civil War history is key to this shift. Maureen writes "As a high school American History teacher, we do have in our text books and in my lesson plans, information on African American participation in the war. We also talk about immigrant participation and women soldiers. We don't merely concentrate on battles - although they are fascinating - but the causes of the war and the affects it had on our nation." and I believe that is true, and reflects the generational change. Other folks believe that it is largely regional, i.e. that some white Southerners cling to the idea of the Confederate lost cause tradition, etc. Of course there is considerable truth in this, and cite the experience of the National Parks Service when they were flooded with letters protesting their announcement of a proposal to include a discussion of slavery at CW sites, part of an organized effort by a Southern heritage group. However, I also need to say that many Southerners are not white. In a 1994 Southern Focus Poll asking if respondents had ancestors who fought in the Civil War, and on which side they fought, 43 % of Southerners did not know, compared to 42% of Northerners who did not know. "...majorities of both southern and non-southern respondents agree that it [i.e. the Civil War] was "more about slavery than it was about states' rights or any other issue," although southern respondents are slightly more likely to disagree strongly." Even more interesting, they asked these two questions: "If I had an ancestor who fought in the Confederate Army, I would be proud that he fought for what he thought was right." and "If I had an ancestor who fought in the Confederate Army, I would be ashamed, knowing what I know about the reasons for the War." they found that "regional differences are surprisingly small for the first question and nonexistent for the second." (John Shelton Reed, South Polls: Lay My Burden of Southern History Down" Southern Cultures, Winter 2001, p. 100-103) So, as always with history, it is complicated, and any attempt to simplify is ill advised. Patricia This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:26:01 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Noonan, Ellen" Subject: importance of subject lines! Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi all, This forum is off to a vigorous start, and I'd like to remind posters to be sure to alter the subject lines of their messages to reflect the topic they are addressing--just about all of our postings so far have been marked in response to Professor Blight's opening statement rather than indicating what specific topic from his opening statement is being taken up. Many thanks! Ellen -- Ellen Noonan American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning The Graduate Center, City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7301.11 New York, NY 10016 enoonan@gc.cuny.edu http://www.ashp.cuny.edu This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:25:44 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jim Hart Subject: Re: southerness Responding to Albert Mackey's excellent remarks on Southerness. I appreciate the insights, many of which I have never thought about before. I also appreciate the inclusion of source material references for your points. Regarding the issue of the Confederate battle flag, this is an issue that comes up regularly in my home state. The interesting thing about this (to me) is that my home state is Oklahoma, which held a unique position among American states and territories during the War. Of course, Oklahoma did not exist as a state during the War, being simply a conglomeration of several "removed" tribes of Native Americans. Many of these tribes signed treaties with the Confederacy for the simple reason that Oklahoma's rivers, the major conduits of Native trade, run south. (Several Native tribes in Oklahoma contained slaveholders while others contained former slaves as tribal members.) The argument today is that our state capitol flies the flags of every nation that once occupied Oklahoma territory. A few years ago, the legislature decided to remove the Confederate flag from the capitol grounds, sparking a heated controversy. I have no doubt that only a tiny percentage of Oklahomans want the Confederate flag returned to its former spot, but they are a vocal minority and the local press is always quick to broadcast their demands. My question is how widespread across the South actually is the desire to be represented by the Confederate flag. It has been a recent issue in a couple of states, but we tend to think of these controversies as involving the whole South. It seems to me that primarily local incidents which are few in nature are caught up into the media and portrayed in such a way as to cast a negative light on an entire region. Are these controversies occurring in other states and being ignored by the national media (as is the case with Oklahoma) or are they in fact only isolated issues being cast large? Jim Hart This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:09 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: States' Rights and Secession MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2277DBCB045E08F21B7E7455" --------------2277DBCB045E08F21B7E7455 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: I am fascinated and almost overwhelmed with all the postings today. Let me just respond to a couple at this point and more later. On the state rights issue that so many have begun to discuss, it is worth remembering that the significance of state rights, like any other theory of government or political behavior, always rests in the cause to which it is employed. If one employs activist, interventionist, big government one does it for a purpose, to advance an issue or a cause. The same is true is it not for uses of theories of limited government? State rights was a method and theory employed by northerners and southerners before the Civil War, and it is having a rousing revival right now in our political culture, led by some members of our Supreme Court. So as we think about state rights as a "cause" of the Civil War we have to think about what causes it was used in the name of. Ms. Pettijohn has made an interesting case for the power of the internet. If there really is a "virtual reinterpretation" going on then is it something to take heart in or to be skeptical of? You tell me. I agree with all those who say that "slavery belongs to all of us." It was not a peculiar southern sin. But we do have to recognize that the southern states formed one of only five true slave societies in world history. They formed the Confederacy to protect a slave society and argued that it was an act of state sovereignty. Slavery is something about which we should avoid blame and seek understandings and interpretations. But it is also a subject where we should not allow tangential issues to cover it up. It is perhaps the most vexing part of our national memory. We have to confront it and work through it with knowledge. I'll try to get back later on the matter of "southerness" and the problem of the southerner under duress. I also will talk about God and Generals. I wrote a review of it last week for the popular Civil War magazine, North and South. with best, David Blight Robert Gudmestad wrote: > I have read the posts about the cause of the Civil War with interest. In my survey classes, for instance, I treat states' rights as a serious issue because southerners treated it as a serious issue. It was a doctrine that can be traced, in part, to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. I assign some writings from Civil War soldiers which do not explicitly mention slavery as the cause for the war. I also assign "The Cornerstone Speech" as a type of antidote. > > I do not, however, allow students to invoke it as a way to explain away the paramount importance of slavery to secession. I explain states' rights as a tool to protect slavery during 1860-61. I remind them that without slavery there probably would not have been a Civil War. States' rights remained a potent issue, though, as southern disaffection for the war and the Confederate government mounted. I then try to explain how states' rights has become a code to explain away southern complicity for defending slavery and a buzzword for those who oppose a large federal government. > > Many students do not get it and it is hard to address subtlety in a survey class. Some students do get it, and that makes it worthwhile. > > Robert Gudmestad > Southwest Baptist University > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------2277DBCB045E08F21B7E7455 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues:

I am fascinated and almost overwhelmed with all the postings today.  Let me just respond to a couple at this point and more later.  On the state rights issue that so many have begun to discuss, it is worth remembering that the significance of state rights, like any other theory of government or political behavior, always rests in the cause to which it is employed.  If one employs activist, interventionist, big government one does it for a purpose, to advance an issue or a cause.  The same is true is it not for uses of theories of limited government?  State rights was a method and theory employed by northerners and southerners before the Civil War, and it is having a rousing revival right now in our political culture, led by some members of our Supreme Court.  So as we think about state rights as a "cause" of the Civil War we have to think about what causes it was used in the name of.

Ms. Pettijohn has made an interesting case for the power of the internet.  If there really is a "virtual reinterpretation" going on then is it something to take heart in or to be skeptical of?  You tell me.

I agree with all those who say that "slavery belongs to all of us."  It was not a peculiar southern sin.  But we do have to recognize that the southern states formed one of only five true slave societies in world history.  They formed the Confederacy to protect a slave society and argued that it was an act of state sovereignty.  Slavery is something about which we should avoid blame and seek understandings and interpretations.  But it is also a subject where we should not allow tangential issues to cover it up.  It is perhaps the most vexing part of our national memory.  We have to confront it and work through it with knowledge.

I'll try to get back later on the matter of "southerness" and the problem of the southerner under duress.  I also will talk about God and Generals.  I wrote a review of it last week for the popular Civil War magazine, North and South.

with best,

David Blight

Robert Gudmestad wrote:

I have read the posts about the cause of the Civil War with interest.  In my survey classes, for instance, I treat states' rights as a serious issue because southerners treated it as a serious issue.  It was a doctrine that can be traced, in part, to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves.  I assign some writings from Civil War soldiers which do not explicitly mention slavery as the cause for the war.  I also assign "The Cornerstone Speech" as a type of antidote.

I do not, however, allow students to invoke it as a way to explain away the paramount importance of slavery to secession.  I explain states' rights as a tool to protect slavery during 1860-61.  I remind them that without slavery there probably would not have been a Civil War.  States' rights  remained a potent issue, though, as southern disaffection for the war and the Confederate government mounted.  I then try to explain how states' rights has become a code to explain away southern complicity for defending slavery and a buzzword for those who oppose a large federal government.

Many students do not get it and it is hard to address subtlety in a survey class.  Some students do get it, and that makes it worthwhile.

Robert Gudmestad
Southwest Baptist University

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------2277DBCB045E08F21B7E7455-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:49:36 -0500 Reply-To: robertm@combatic.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Robert Mosher Subject: A Commentary on Reenacting, Sacred Ground, and Why they fought In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The discussion so far has demonstrated the width and breadth of the challenge. I would offer a few observations and hope that as the discussion continues I will become informed enough to start moving towards answers. Reenacting: I have been a reenactor for the past two years as a member of a group depicting the 28th Massachusetts Volunteers, a regiment recruited from Boston's Irish community to become part of the Irish Brigade led by Thomas Meagher. In addition to the challenge of learning period tactics and drill we try to create a living history portrayal of this community and its participation in the civil war and in the body politic at large. At the beginning of the war, the Irish were still suffering from the attentions of Know Nothings' anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant attitudes as well as from the fact that many of the Irish immigrants were from rural peasant families now thrust into American urban communities - except for those that went directly to laborers jobs in the construction of canals and then railways. The Irish were also generally reported to be racist and anti-Negro because of the potential competition free blacks would present to Irish employment. As a result, Irish were reported to be involved in riots against abolitionists meeting in Boston and later in the Draft Riots in New York in 1863. Finally, most of the leadership of the Irish in the Union Army and an unknown number of the Irishmen in the ranks, while pro-Union, were also reportedly enlisted in the belief that it was a step towards Irish independence - probably at their own hands and possibly with US support and even participation. Such motivations would lead several thousand of these Irish veterans to attempt to invade Canada in 1866 - unsuccessfully (suggesting an even worse result if they had actually attempted to reach Ireland itself). This is a potent and difficult mix to present to the modern public - especially if you are working in the face of the grossly oversimplified modern preconceptions about the war, many already noted and described in this discussion. But to turn to a more personal note, I knew when I began that I wanted to be in a Union Army unit - an odd turn in that as a boy in the 1960s when modern interest in the war was revived, I preferred to be a Confederate in our boy's version of the war. Perhaps this was in part due to the fact that in modern reenacting - the Union men are the underdogs. It is widely reported and accepted that there are more Confederate reenactors than Union reenactors - especially in the regions of the country directly affected by the war. As a result, many Confederate reenactors will in fact play either role - or "galvanize" in the modern parlance (recalling the Confederates who as prisoners of the Union Army agreed to take the oath of allegiance and enlist to fight Indians on the frontier, that had been denuded of Army regulars called back east to fight the civil war). But in my third or fourth "reenactment" battle, my group of Union soldiers, the remnants of several units that had taken casualties and then been combined to preserve our lines - found itself behind a fence line looking at a comparably sized group of Confederates behind another fence less than 50 yards away. During a lull there were several catcalls exchanged, then they sang Dixie - waving their Confederate battle flags - and we sang Rally Round the Flag. And I realized as I participated in this, and watched those Confederate flags, that I would never be willing or able to change roles - wear gray, and shoot at people carrying the US flag - even if it was an 1860s representation of that flag. I have wondered at this reaction since because as an anti-war protestor during the Viet Nam war years, I had no real objection to those demonstrators who felt compelled to burn flags, it never troubled me to see the flag image reflected or reproduced in patches or designs or clothing etc. bolstered by a firm belief in freedom of speech and a view of the flag as a symbol - of great importance and to be respected - but not a sacred object in its own right. But in spite of this sensibility with regard to the flag, I knew I would be content to remain in Union blue for my reenacting career. I have also noticed another aspect of modern attitudes in that as I noted above my unit is portraying a unit of the Irish Brigade. This apparently makes us as a group more welcome in communities in Virginia where we annually participate in at least one Memorial Day parade in a rural Northern Virginia community - sometimes without any Confederate representation in that parade. (However, we have noted that there appear to be parallel events a day or two earlier which apparently do include Confederate reenactors.) But generally, with our green flags and our period Irish music - we are welcomed with little of even the jovial heckling that often accompanies encounters between even modern folk in blue uniforms and modern residents of the South. With regard to Sacred Ground As the battle to preserve as much of the remaining battleground as can reasonably be saved goes on here in Virginia, there clearly is a community here that shares this perception of sacred ground. Perhaps Northern communities burnt this feeling out in the late 18th/early 19th century with their burst of monument erecting at the various battlefields. The results can still be seen at Antietam, Chickamauga, and Gettysburg among others. But these places are far removed and easily forgotten as time passes. For residents of Virginia who choose to do so, one can live today with the continuing presence of the war. I myself can sit here and type this message on my laptop, knowing after thirty years living here that during the Civil War, my neighborhood played host to a Confederate Army signal station for the first year of the war, and that for a couple of years, patrols from both armies passed through and clashed in this area, and finally - with a bit of effort - I can still find and walk in some of the fortifications that defended the Northern Capitol for most of the war. Thus, if you are so inclined you can still live with the war as part of your every day life. Why The Fought On the issue of motivations for fighting the war - This is not a question to be answered quickly or easily as there are several levels of motivation involved. Politicians voted for secession - or for political candidates whose success or failure would put the country on the course for war - for a wide range of reasons but most of all because the saw no alternative. The years of compromise had left few with any desire to propose or accept a new compromise formula, and the selection of political candidates were motivated by a number of issues among which was the individual stance on slavery. Southern editorial writers reportedly in overwhelming numbers did include slavery as on issue justifying secession. The professional military caste - the officers of the regular army - appeared most influenced by their personal definition of "home" - whether it be Virginia - for Robert E. Lee then serving in Texas; while Sherman then in Louisiana as head of the military college chose to return to the army - but also in Louisiana as a businessman was Archibald Gracie of the New York Gracie family, who chose the South and raised a regiment of Alabama troops and would become a brigade commander in the Confederate Army - the Union/United States for many, or even those for whom the Army was home and they could not see taking up arms against that army/home. And finally, the average soldier who joined for any number of reasons - to save the Union, to free the slaves, to defend their homes/way of life (whether or not they acknowledged the importance of slavery to that way of life), to free Ireland. My point being that a discussion about the causes of the war that addresses motivations has to recognize the layering and interweaving that is a part of the answer. Robert A. Mosher This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:53:48 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Subject: African American Museum and the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For more information about the "forgotten museum" proposed by black Civil War vets, see http://www.nmaahc.org/documents/background/Forgotten%20Museum.pdf Patricia Pettijohn Research Librarian de la Parte Institute Research Library Florida Mental Health Institute University of South Florida 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33612 813.974.8400 ppettijohn@fmhi.usf.edu "When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." --Erasmus This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:04:23 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Brown, Joshua" Subject: Re: southerness (and public symbols) In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This forum is already raising important issues and insights thanks to David Blight and the list participants' remarks. I want to follow up on the observations about memorialization and the Confederate flag by recommending Kirk Savage's "Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and Monument in Nineteenth Century America" (Princeton, 1997). Studying the wave of monument building in the late nineteenth century, Savage's study delineates the ways that public art embodied the conflicts and unfulfilled promises of Reconstruction and demonstrated the failure to create a symbolic commemoration of the war predicated on equality (and, hence, one palpable manifestation of memory). It's a work that powerfully historicizes the continuing struggle over public symbols (in the case of the Confederate flag, one whose history is actually of more recent origin). Josh Brown =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Joshua Brown, Executive Director American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning The Graduate Center, The City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7301.09, New York, New York 10016 Tel: 212-817-1970 E-mail: JBrown@gc.cuny.edu http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ashp/jbrown http://www.ashp.cuny.edu http://www.lostmuseum.cuny.edu http://historymatters.gmu.edu This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:20:11 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Fwd: States Rights MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_boundary" --part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_alt_boundary" --part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To the editor: I believe I may have sent this to the wrong address to start with. Thanks, Albert Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To the editor:  I be= lieve I may have sent this to the wrong address to start with.

Thanks,

Albert Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_alt_boundary-- --part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: CashG79@aol.com Full-name: CashG79 Message-ID: <176.169cb6e7.2b9656d4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:21:56 EST Subject: Re: States Rights To: orvalbear@excite.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_1e8.37a175a.2b9656d4_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10581 --part2_1e8.37a175a.2b9656d4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/03 9:01:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes: > The Confederacy was in part a reactionary movement to the actions of the > Federal Government in taking away the rights of the states that were > granted by the Constitution. Had the Federal Government been more willing > to allow the states to use the power given to the the Civil War could have > ----------------- One might ask what were the specific rights that were taken away from the states? If we look at the words of the secessionists in the lower South, who were the ones who actually formed the confederacy, they didn't complain about the federal government taking away rights of states. Their complaints involved a general hostility to the institution of slavery among the Northern states, hostility among the Northern states to the Fugitive Slave Law, attempts by abolitionists to send antislavery tracts through the mail, and the proposal by the Republican Party to keep the territories free of slavery. Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederacy, told the world why the confederacy was formed: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." [Speech in Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861] This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part2_1e8.37a175a.2b9656d4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/4/03= 9:01:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes:


The Confederacy was in part= a reactionary movement to the actions of the Federal Government in taking a= way the rights of the states that were granted by the Constitution. Had the=20= Federal Government been more willing to allow the states to use the power gi= ven to the the Civil War could have been averted.


-----------------
One might ask what were the specific rights that were taken away from th= e states?

If we look at the words of the secessionists in the lower South, who wer= e the ones who actually formed the confederacy, they didn't complain about t= he federal government taking away rights of states.  Their complaints i= nvolved a general hostility to the institution of slavery among the Northern= states, hostility among the Northern states to the Fugitive Slave Law, atte= mpts by abolitionists to send antislavery tracts through the mail, and the p= roposal by the Republican Party to keep the territories free of slavery.

Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederacy, told the worl= d why the confederacy was formed:  "Our new government is founded upon=20= exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests= upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that sl= avery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal con= dition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history o= f the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.= " [Speech in Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861]
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part2_1e8.37a175a.2b9656d4_boundary-- --part1_1e8.37a175a.2b96728b_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:31:29 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: States Rights MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ac.3aee5d79.2b969151_boundary" --part1_ac.3aee5d79.2b969151_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/4/03 9:01:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time,=20 orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes: > The Confederacy was in part a reactionary movement to the actions of the=20 > Federal Government in taking away the rights of the states that were=20 > granted by the Constitution. Had the Federal Government been more willing=20 > to allow the states to use the power given to the the Civil War could have= =20 >=20 ----------------- One might ask what were the specific rights that were taken away from the=20 states? If we look at the words of the secessionists in the lower South, who were th= e=20 ones who actually formed the confederacy, they didn't complain about the=20 federal government taking away rights of states. =A0Their complaints involve= d a=20 general hostility to the institution of slavery among the Northern states,=20 hostility among the Northern states to the Fugitive Slave Law, attempts by=20 abolitionists to send antislavery tracts through the mail, and the proposal=20 by the Republican Party to keep the territories free of slavery. Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederacy, told the world wh= y=20 the confederacy was formed: =A0"Our new government is founded upon exactly t= he=20 opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the=20 great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery --=20 subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.=20 [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the=20 world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."=20 [Speech in Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861] This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_ac.3aee5d79.2b969151_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/4/03= 9:01:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes:



The Confederacy was in part= a reactionary movement to the actions of the Federal Government in taking a= way the rights of the states that were granted by the Constitution. Had the=20= Federal Government been more willing to allow the states to use the power gi= ven to the the Civil War could have been averted.




-----------------
One might ask what were the specific rights that were taken away from th= e states?

If we look at the words of the secessionists in the lower South, who wer= e the ones who actually formed the confederacy, they didn't complain about t= he federal government taking away rights of states. =A0Their complaints invo= lved a general hostility to the institution of slavery among the Northern st= ates, hostility among the Northern states to the Fugitive Slave Law, attempt= s by abolitionists to send antislavery tracts through the mail, and the prop= osal by the Republican Party to keep the territories free of slavery.

Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederacy, told the worl= d why the confederacy was formed: =A0"Our new government is founded upon exa= ctly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests up= on the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slave= ry -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condit= ion. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of t= he world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." [= Speech in Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861]
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_ac.3aee5d79.2b969151_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:32:39 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights In-Reply-To: <1e8.37a175a.2b96728b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Great quote choice ! I shall copy it to use in my classes next year and will also show it to one particularly stubborn student who will not accept slavery as the underlying and most important cause of the war. I look forward to arguing with him again ! --- Albert Mackey wrote: > To the editor: I believe I may have sent this to > the wrong address to start > with. > > Thanks, > > Albert Mackey > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 > From: CashG79@aol.com > Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:21:56 EST > Subject: Re: States Rights > To: orvalbear@excite.com > > In a message dated 3/4/03 9:01:49 AM Hawaiian > Standard Time, > orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes: > > > > The Confederacy was in part a reactionary movement > to the actions of the > > Federal Government in taking away the rights of > the states that were > > granted by the Constitution. Had the Federal > Government been more willing > > to allow the states to use the power given to the > the Civil War could have > > > > ----------------- > One might ask what were the specific rights that > were taken away from the > states? > > If we look at the words of the secessionists in the > lower South, who were the > ones who actually formed the confederacy, they > didn't complain about the > federal government taking away rights of states. > Their complaints involved a > general hostility to the institution of slavery > among the Northern states, > hostility among the Northern states to the Fugitive > Slave Law, attempts by > abolitionists to send antislavery tracts through the > mail, and the proposal > by the Republican Party to keep the territories free > of slavery. > > Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the > confederacy, told the world why > the confederacy was formed: "Our new government is > founded upon exactly the > opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- > stone rests upon the > great truth, that the negro is not equal to the > white man; that slavery -- > subordination to the superior race -- is his natural > and normal condition. > [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, > in the history of the > world, based upon this great physical, > philosophical, and moral truth." > [Speech in Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861] > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:08:53 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights In-Reply-To: <20030305003239.47573.qmail@web14301.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Great quote choice ! I shall copy it to use in my >classes next year and will also show it to one >particularly stubborn student who will not accept >slavery as the underlying and most important cause of >the war. I look forward to arguing with him again ! I find the declarations of secession (available through the Internet) equally useful. One question I have is: can this question be avoided? I'm going to be teaching a course on the rhetoric of the abolitionists, and I find my syllabus packed. Living in Texas (which sometimes has a disturbing wannabe confederate quality to it) I just don't want to have that argument. Certainly, it's an argument that ends as soon as people are presented with the primary documents--Calhoun threatening secession over slavery in 1836, the declarations of secession, the Congressional Globe debates over the gag rule--but I'd just as soon not go there at all. Is there a way of doing that without smashing students? -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "Mama's always on stage." (Arrested Development) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:58:45 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You and your students should argue over the causes and results of the war ! Your arguments will be sharpened by the exchanges and theirs will almost invariably improve if you build in time all year to do this. --- Trish Roberts-Miller wrote: > >Great quote choice ! I shall copy it to use in my > >classes next year and will also show it to one > >particularly stubborn student who will not accept > >slavery as the underlying and most important cause > of > >the war. I look forward to arguing with him again ! > > I find the declarations of secession (available > through the > Internet) equally useful. > > One question I have is: can this question be > avoided? I'm going > to be teaching a course on the rhetoric of the > abolitionists, and > I find my syllabus packed. Living in Texas (which > sometimes has a > disturbing wannabe confederate quality to it) I just > don't want to > have that argument. > > Certainly, it's an argument that ends as soon as > people are > presented with the primary documents--Calhoun > threatening secession > over slavery in 1836, the declarations of secession, > the > Congressional Globe debates over the gag rule--but > I'd just as > soon not go there at all. Is there a way of doing > that without > smashing students? > > -- > Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com > "Mama's always on stage." (Arrested Development) > > http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:20:54 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Maureen Murphy Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In reference to Patricia, I am not sure if the view of the Civil War is generational according to how old I am but the way we view history certainly does change. I graduated from college in 1971 but try to continue to learn and keep up with the times and not set my mind in concrete. I guess we really can't decide what we would have done in 1861 because we couldn't be there with our 21st century minds and experiences. If someone feels they would have been fighting on one side or the other then, I guess that says more about who they are now. But how does the Civil War affect us now? It ended slavery and the Civil War Amendments became the Civil Rights Amendments in the 20th century so the Constitution is for all Amerians. It didn't end states rights issues but it did end secession. Those results are extremely important. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:17:12 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Ken Noe Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > One question I have is: can this question be avoided? I'm going > to be teaching a course on the rhetoric of the abolitionists, and > I find my syllabus packed. Living in Texas (which sometimes has a > disturbing wannabe confederate quality to it) I just don't want to > have that argument. > > Certainly, it's an argument that ends as soon as people are > presented with the primary documents--Calhoun threatening secession > over slavery in 1836, the declarations of secession, the > Congressional Globe debates over the gag rule--but I'd just as > soon not go there at all. Is there a way of doing that without > smashing students? Avoiding the question essentially means that they'll get answers outside the classroom from all those folks who are all too eager to respond that slavery had nothing to do with the war. I've always seen it as one of my major responsibilities to address the question head on, even though I've spent my career teaching in Alabama and Georgia. Thus I present the documents and tell the students that they have the responsibilty to come to conclusions based on real evidence rather than wishful thinking. I don't mandate that they agree with me, just that they think about what they believe. One or two invariably end up glaring at me the rest of the semester, and a few others politely continue to resist the obvious. That's their right. To quote the American philosopher Bruce Springsteen, "Mama always told me not to look into the light of the sun. But Mama, that's where the fun is." Ken Noe Auburn University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:27 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: southerness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: It is hard to know where to enter these rich comments and debates. On this burden of Southerness, everyone can benefit from going back to read C. Vann Woodward's classic, The Burden of Southern History. There we find those notions of how the South became, for those who needed, the seat of America's original sins. There have been special burdens to being Southern. This is one reason why so much great literature has come from the South. One of our greatest novelists is Faulkner and perhaps our greatest short story writer, Flannery O'Connor. Indeed for some of the very best satire on the problem of southern historical consciousness and memory read O'Connor's stories. Indeed, racism and slavery are hardly the South's burden alone. One can ask why this burden and this question does persist so tenaciously in our culture though. How much does this have to do with the Confederacy and the enduring need of many to preserve its "heritage" in some form? Why do foreign tourists come to America interested so deeply in Lee, Jackson, the Confederate memorials, but rarely in U. S. Grant's background or tomb? Why does the South draw the historical imagination through nostalgia but other regions do not so much? Is it about loss? Is loss, especially the destruction of a whole civilization, simply more interesting than victory or success? Is it loss and tragedy that draws the romantic imagination of those who insist on history teaching them in epic dimensions? Is a failed crusade more compelling than success by superior "resources?" Is failed evil the most fascinating thing of all to the human imagination? And finally, reflecting off some of the comments about the Trent Lott affair, and related subjects, we do have to keep asking why race and racial division are still so politically useful in the American South? And elsewhere as well. For those who really have detested and resisted the great racial and legal changes wrought by the 1960s (Sen. Lott's target in his implosion) older images of the South and its controlled race relations have been very useful. Indeed, how much does this have to do with the current neo-Confederate revival? All uses of historical memory have to do heavily with the present - with some kind of present politics - in which they are employed. We need to remember that our current attorney general of the U. S. came into office on the heels of some very open and public displays of his own neo-Confederate heritage consciousness and embrace of state rights doctrines. So, in trying to answer Mr. Haro's very good question - what are Southeners, or anyone else for that matter, really trying to be proud of in their past - we do indeed need to look closely at this problem with our eyes open. In America, there is a tendency among almost all of us to want to have a past to be safe in, to be comfortable with if not proud of. Americans seem to believe broadly that their history is about progress and victory and success. There is a great deal of tragedy in our history that we too often sidestep - because, well, "we just don't want to go there," or it will not uplift us. George Santyana once defined a religion as "another world to live in." Sometimes our approach to the past and our need for deep myths to live by are very much the same. I'll try to respond later to more of your fascinating comments. I hope we can keep, me included, our writings to relatively short passages. with all best, David Blight Peter Haro wrote: > Dear Thomas: You are right to point out that every region and/or nation has "skeletons in the closet". We would all be hypocrites if this became a "bash on the south" forum. However, I think that it is worth remembering that much of what southerners love to remember or embrace about the pre-civil war south (the genteel society supposedly steeped in tradition, family and honor) was built and supported by slave labor. Furthermore, even after the abolition of slavery, the majority of southern society rushed to put in place laws and custom that would return blacks to a state of existence very similar to slavery. During the era of Jim Crow and segregation, behaviors and appearances of blacks were severly proscribed and even perceived disruption of these new rules could result in lynchings for supposed "troublemakers" or people who didn't show "proper deference". > > Like yourself, I too have deep roots in the south. However, one question that all southerners need to ask is, what exactly are we trying to be proud of? Are they notions of Robert E. Lee and an honorable society willing to sacrifice for a greater cause (whatever this supposedly means)or something else that is more important but difficult to acknowledge? Sincerely, Pete Haro. > -------Original Message------- > From: Thomas Clemens > Sent: 03/04/03 08:13 AM > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: southerness > > > > > I have been thinking about Dr. Blight's opening statement and the > aspects discussed here recently about the South and "winning the peace" > and their perception today and perpatrators of evil. I just received an > email from a colleague discussing my thoughts on "Gods & Generals" > which added another dimension to the discussion. She is a Human > Services instructor and was upset by some reviews of G &G. Here is a > portion of her post: > > You know with the movie and so many other things of late ( the Trent > Lott affair) I have been trying to answer a question for myself that I > really have been grappling with for sometime especially since I am a > Social worker and a Southerner. One day when you have time I would like > to get your perspective on how do I be proud of my Southern background > when there is so much negativity tied to this. I am fiercely proud of > where I come from and I love the people of the South but I continue to > struggle with my values as a helping professional, my beliefs in > acceptance of "others" and the love of where I belong. I am constantly > reminded of how bad the South is and has been. Not that I am naive > enough to believe that there are problems and have been in the past. > And this makes so many people down South so much more entrenched in > their racist and separateness attitudes. > > I am at a loss as to explain why any Southerner should be made to feel > ashamed of their heritage. Clearly all states and regions have their > share of skeletons in the closet, is slavery worse than the slaughter of > Amerindians? The exploitation of immigrants and laborers? Certainly > modern race riots have not been limited to the South and prejudice > exists everywhere. Why must the South carry this burden of guilt? > I do not, of course, condone slavery, nor defend the institution, but > can a Southerner be proud of a past that includes these things? > > Thomas G. Clemens D.A. > Professor of History > Hagerstown Community College > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:02 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marvelous quote from Springsteen via Prof. Noe! I would only add that avoidance of any important historical problem only exacerbates the problem. It leads to structured forgetting. I'd add this line from William Dean Howells: "what Americans always like is a tragedy, as long as it has a happy ending." History just can't be tidy and clean. Quite the opposite. D. Blight Ken Noe wrote: > > > > One question I have is: can this question be avoided? I'm going > > to be teaching a course on the rhetoric of the abolitionists, and > > I find my syllabus packed. Living in Texas (which sometimes has a > > disturbing wannabe confederate quality to it) I just don't want to > > have that argument. > > > > Certainly, it's an argument that ends as soon as people are > > presented with the primary documents--Calhoun threatening secession > > over slavery in 1836, the declarations of secession, the > > Congressional Globe debates over the gag rule--but I'd just as > > soon not go there at all. Is there a way of doing that without > > smashing students? > > Avoiding the question essentially means that they'll get answers outside the > classroom from all those folks who are all too eager to respond that slavery > had nothing to do with the war. I've always seen it as one of my major > responsibilities to address the question head on, even though I've spent my > career teaching in Alabama and Georgia. Thus I present the documents and tell > the students that they have the responsibilty to come to conclusions based on > real evidence rather than wishful thinking. I don't mandate that they agree > with me, just that they think about what they believe. One or two invariably > end up glaring at me the rest of the semester, and a few others politely > continue to resist the obvious. That's their right. > > To quote the American philosopher Bruce Springsteen, "Mama always told me not > to look into the light of the sun. But Mama, that's where the fun is." > > Ken Noe > Auburn University > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:37:03 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Sackett, Pamela J." Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <> Ken,=20 You made my day! I am a Jersey girl (Trentonian) living in Virginia. For the past 7 years, I have researched Brentsville, the Prince William county seat in 1861. Prince William County is the "home" of 1st/2nd Bull Run/Manassas and the Battle of Bristoe. Most of the town (and county)was destroyed, a devastation I never fully understood until I lived here and tried to research the facts in the midst. We're working to restore the 1822 Courthouse, which did survive the Civil War. My "Yankee eyes" sifting and analyzing extant historic record in this "burned out county" do cause me to bring an interesting perspective to this issue. As a writer trying to tell our local story, I wrestle with these issues daily. But, I am still formulating my response to this list. =20 Still, I had to respond to your "philosopher" comment! =20 Have you read: It Ain't No Sin to Be Glad You're ALlive, by Eric Alderman? I highly recommend this book, if you haven't. I keep this quote on my refrigerator for my 4 teens to read everyday! =20 Here's to the Glory Days! Pamela M. Sackett Brentsville, VA -----Original Message----- From: Ken Noe [mailto:noekenn@AUBURN.EDU]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:17 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:40:17 -0500 Reply-To: cpitton@ae21.org Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Charity Pitton Subject: States' rights in a shrinking world MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Over the last several months, I've been contemplating the globalization process currently bemoaned by many wishing to preserve indigenous cultures and prevent the intrusion of McDonald's, among other things, to every corner of the earth. One idea I keep coming back to is that this process is inevitable. Those who bemoan may do so all they want, but they can't prevent it. Due to factors such as more rapid and efficient transportation, the internet, and satellite communications, the world is shrinking and homogenizing, and there isn't anything to be done about it.

It struck me that these factors are probably related to other events, such as the continuing solidification of the EU. Smaller, totally independent nations are more needed when it takes days to travel from Paris to Berlin, and any communication must follow the same long route. However, when that same trip is just a few hours by plane, and the phone or internet can transmit information instantaneously, suddenly all these borders simply become headaches. Solidification makes sense because it makes life more efficient. And communities - the basis for any society/nation - are spread over larger areas than when one had to walk to speak with someone.

I remember hearing somewhere in my education that the demise of slavery was quite possibly inevitable. The idea was that it had died out and been replaced by machinery in many areas, and that would have eventually happened in the south for economic reasons, even if the Civil War had not occurred.

Is it possible that the lessening of states' rights was inevitable, due to shrinking distances? It was not as far, mentally, from Massachusetts to Tennessee as it had been during colonial times. Overland roads were established, steamboats were used on water routes, and trains crisscrossed the East. Regional differences were more annoying, and the process of homogenization was beginning. Might some of the change in attitude toward states' rights not be only idealistic, but also logistical, similar to what we see now in the EU?

I'm not sure I'm explaining my thought very clearly, but that's my best attempt.

Charity Pitton
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:28:40 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Subject: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The ways in which the states rights argument has been be employed is a good indication of the relationship between US slavery and racism. During the years of American apartheid "State rights" supported discrimination by creating state-controlled mechanisms for the distribution of federal funds. Federal funding of libraries, schools and other institutions was channeled into state agencies that then distributed funding to individual school districts, libraries, etc., which allowed the segregation of services and facilities (or the lack of services and facilities to Black folks). As for the inevitability of slavery's demise, how I hope that is true! Slavery reveals some ugly truths about human nature that I would prefer to avoid. But I don't believe that many slave owners of the era believed that slavery would end, and in fact many believed that slavery would inevitably increase, as it was adopted in the new states. Consider the rapid expansion of slavery in the central Florida area, and the role slavery played in Florida becoming a state. Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, not economic. I was touched by the e-mail forwarded by Thomas Clemens, in which a friend of his writes of her sense of the negativity and shame associated with being Southern, and asks how she can be proud of her Southern heritage. One way to be proud of Southern heritage is to reassert the complexity of that heritage-- that there were many white Southerners who were neither secessionists nor supporters of the Confederacy, that there were many white Southerners who fought for the Union (many more than the oft touted black Confederates) and others who resisted the Confederacy in other ways, and that many black Southerners resisted slavery and the Confederacy. Imagine that in creating a memorial to the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, the ideology of the neo-Patriot movement had been treated with the same respect that has been accorded to the Confederate ideology in creating Civil War memorials throughout the South. Patricia Pettijohn This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:56:39 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: As for the "inevitability" of the demise of slavery, we need to be very careful. Much scholarship has now shown conclusively that the old idea that slavery was dying anyway was nonsense. The South had its best and most lucrative cotton crop in 1860 on the eve of disunion. By 1860 the financial values in slaves as property was greater than all of America's railroads and all of its manufacturing put together. Decline may have occured as the modern world took hold in the late 19th an early 20th centuries. But slavery in North America was very robust economically by 1860 and it enjoyed its most spirited ideological defense that it had ever had. David Blight "Pettijohn, Patricia" wrote: > The ways in which the states rights argument has been be employed is a good > indication of the relationship between US slavery and racism. During the > years of American apartheid "State rights" supported discrimination by > creating state-controlled mechanisms for the distribution of federal funds. > Federal funding of libraries, schools and other institutions was channeled > into state agencies that then distributed funding to individual school > districts, libraries, etc., which allowed the segregation of services and > facilities (or the lack of services and facilities to Black folks). > > As for the inevitability of slavery's demise, how I hope that is true! > Slavery reveals some ugly truths about human nature that I would prefer to > avoid. But I don't believe that many slave owners of the era believed that > slavery would end, and in fact many believed that slavery would inevitably > increase, as it was adopted in the new states. Consider the rapid expansion > of slavery in the central Florida area, and the role slavery played in > Florida becoming a state. Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose > sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our > own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human > being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then > understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, > not economic. > > I was touched by the e-mail forwarded by Thomas Clemens, in which a friend > of his writes of her sense of the negativity and shame associated with being > Southern, and asks how she can be proud of her Southern heritage. One way to > be proud of Southern heritage is to reassert the complexity of that > heritage-- that there were many white Southerners who were neither > secessionists nor supporters of the Confederacy, that there were many white > Southerners who fought for the Union (many more than the oft touted black > Confederates) and others who resisted the Confederacy in other ways, and > that many black Southerners resisted slavery and the Confederacy. > > Imagine that in creating a memorial to the Oklahoma City federal building > bombing, the ideology of the neo-Patriot movement had been treated with the > same respect that has been accorded to the Confederate ideology in creating > Civil War memorials throughout the South. > > Patricia Pettijohn > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:35 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pearson, Tom A." Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I find the subject of sacred spaces to be fascinating. I view sacred spaces as doors between the worlds: the world of the living (the present) and the world of the dead (the past). A previous list respondent quoted Santayana on religion as "another world to live in," a quote I really like, although I think for most people, sacred spaces are "another world to visit," not live in. There appear to be two main kinds of sacred spaces: the religious sacred space, and the secular sacred space (I will confine my comments to secular sacred spaces). Each of these types of sacred space can be divided into two sub-groups: the symbolic sacred space, and the geographic sacred space. A symbolic sacred space is one not built on the site where an important event happened. It has conferred significance only initially, simply because its builders have declared that it has some connection to an important individual or event. It continues to be noted as a sacred space only if many persons visiting the site come to believe it to be one. A geographic sacred space, by contrast, has inherent significance because an important historical event occurred on that spot. A few examples may help illustrate what I mean: 1. Vietnam Memorial: A secular sacred space (sub-group symbolic). 2. Ford's Theatre: A secular sacred space (sub-group geographic). 3. The Lincoln Memorial: A secular sacred space (sub-group symbolic). 4. Gettysburg National Battlefield Park: A secular sacred space (sub-group geographic). In order to be considered a "true" secular sacred space, a site appears to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural deaths (or must commemorate such deaths). The act of dying before one's time seems to "open a door" between the world of the living and the world of the dead. This act of dying appears to "hallow" the ground, in a way that no other human action apparently can. One need only think about the "spontaneous shrines" which spring up at sites of tragedies to realize that this is true- people will erect their own shrines on such sites if the government doesn't beat them to the punch! It appears to me to generally hold true that an unnatural death which occurs in connection with a "lost cause," or "light that failed," or even for little discernible reason, infers a greater degree of "sacredness" to a space than does the sacrifice of lives in a cause which succeeds. I think that is a big part of the reason why Southern Civil War memorials are such magnets for domestic and foreign visitors- I think the South in its entirety is viewed by many persons (in most cases unconsciously) as a secular sacred space. There are some notable seeming exceptions to this observation, such as the Vietnam Memorial, which I think is inarguably a secular sacred space in spite of the fact that no one died an unnatural death on the site (although the site is of course a memorial for thousands of Americans who did die unnatural deaths in what many view as a "lost cause"). I hope these comments help someone organize his or her thoughts. They've certainly helped me organize mine. I do apologize for not "keeping it short." Tom Pearson, St. Louis Public Library -----Original Message----- From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War [mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Leah M Wood Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:04 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight I would like to suggest another topic for consideration: historic preservation and the concept of "sacred space" as it pertains to Civil War sites (structures, battlefields, cemeteries, etc.). Leah Wood Jewett, Director U.S. Civil War Center URL: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:58:57 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Allison McNeese Subject: Secession Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I, too, a transplanted Southerner, am thoroughly enjoying this discussion...and am grateful for the opportunity to participate in it. One poster made the comment that the Civil War "ended secession". I wonder if others agree? My Modern America class discussed the U.S. annexation of Hawaii in some detail last week, and in the process we talked about various current sentiments favoring Hawaiian secession. (Most of the students seemed a bit stunned to know how Hawaii actually became a U.S. possession.) By the way, although no one could top the terrific Springsteen quotation, I thought I would share my favorite quotation elicited by the Trent Lott affair (since that has come up in this discussion as well). On a local television news broadcast during the unfolding of the Lott fiasco, some citizens of Waterloo, Iowa--black and white--were interviewed about their opinions. Each of the black interviewees said, in some fashion or another, "He's got to go." The white interviewees were not as sure...one guy said, "Let the man alone. It was just a Freudian slip." Well...uh...yeah. Allison McNeese Mount Mercy College This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:52 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_34.363c5082.2b97a670_boundary" --part1_34.363c5082.2b97a670_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 7:54:21 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, ppettijohn@FMHI.USF.EDU writes: > Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose > sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our > own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human > being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then > understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, > not economic. > ------------------- This might be a good point to discuss Robert W. Fogel's work on slavery. I know his methodology has been criticized, but my question is, to what extent has his thesis about the profitability of slavery been damaged? Fogel makes the point that slavery, far from being a dying institution, was profitable. While his conclusions contrast with nineteenth century economic arguments for abolition, they also contrast with more modern day claims that slavery was on the way out anyway. I've only read small portions of _Without Cause or Contract,_ and what I've read looks pretty valid to me. I'd appreciate some more educated views on this. Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_34.363c5082.2b97a670_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03= 7:54:21 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, ppettijohn@FMHI.USF.EDU writes:


Slavery is so viscerally ho= rrifying that we lose
sight of the powerful temptation it represented.  We need to look i= nto our
own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved hu= man
being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and=20= then
understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is mora= l,
not economic.

-------------------
This might be a good point to discuss Robert W. Fogel's work on slavery.=  I know his methodology has been criticized, but my question is, to wh= at extent has his thesis about the profitability of slavery been damaged? &n= bsp;Fogel makes the point that slavery, far from being a dying institution,=20= was profitable.  While his conclusions contrast with nineteenth century= economic arguments for abolition, they also contrast with more modern day c= laims that slavery was on the way out anyway.  I've only read small por= tions of _Without Cause or Contract,_ and what I've read looks pretty valid=20= to me.  I'd appreciate some more educated views on this.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_34.363c5082.2b97a670_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:18:00 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11b.1f0d5a82.2b97a768_boundary" --part1_11b.1f0d5a82.2b97a768_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 9:03:04 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, dwblight@AMHERST.EDU writes: > Much scholarship has now shown conclusively that the old idea that > slavery was dying anyway was nonsense. --------------- I'd be interested to know who besides Fogel has been doing work in this area. This is something I need to learn more about. Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_11b.1f0d5a82.2b97a768_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03= 9:03:04 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, dwblight@AMHERST.EDU writes:


Much scholarship has now sh= own conclusively that the old idea that
slavery was dying anyway was nonsense.  


---------------
I'd be interested to know who besides Fogel has been doing work in this=20= area.  This is something I need to learn more about.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_11b.1f0d5a82.2b97a768_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:31:05 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Secession MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_79.bb9cfbf.2b97aa79_boundary" --part1_79.bb9cfbf.2b97aa79_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 9:13:24 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, amcneese@INAV.NET writes: > One poster made the comment that the Civil War "ended secession". I wonder > if others agree? My Modern America class discussed the U.S. annexation of > Hawaii in some detail last week, and in the process we talked about various > current sentiments favoring Hawaiian secession. (Most of the students > ---------------- Well, you can look at the time stamp on my email and conjecture I might have an opinion on this. : ) If any group has a good case for secession, Hawai'ians do. The Hawai'i secession movement is actually very small, though. The movement seeks the consent of Congress and the rest of the nation for the secession. Much larger is the movement for recognition of native Hawai'ians, giving them the same status as American Indians. This movement foresees no secession, but would allow a native Hawai'ian government structure much like the American Indian tribal councils. I think we have to qualify the statement about the Civil War ending secession. I believe it (and Texas v. White) ended the question of unilateral secession. Secession with consent of the other parties to the constitutional compact, though, is still valid. Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_79.bb9cfbf.2b97aa79_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03= 9:13:24 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, amcneese@INAV.NET writes:


One poster made the comment= that the Civil War "ended secession".  I wonder
if others agree?  My Modern America class discussed the U.S. annexa= tion of
Hawaii in some detail last week, and in the process we talked about vari= ous
current sentiments favoring Hawaiian secession.  (Most of the stude= nts
seemed a bit stunned to know how Hawaii actually became a U.S. possessio= n.)


----------------
Well, you can look at the time stamp on my email and conjecture I might=20= have an opinion on this.  : )

If any group has a good case for secession, Hawai'ians do.  The Haw= ai'i secession movement is actually very small, though.  The movement s= eeks the consent of Congress and the rest of the nation for the secession. &= nbsp;Much larger is the movement for recognition of native Hawai'ians, givin= g them the same status as American Indians.  This movement foresees no=20= secession, but would allow a native Hawai'ian government structure much like= the American Indian tribal councils.

I think we have to qualify the statement about the Civil War ending sece= ssion.  I believe it (and Texas v. White) ended the question of unilate= ral secession.  Secession with consent of the other parties to the cons= titutional compact, though, is still valid.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_79.bb9cfbf.2b97aa79_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:37:22 -1000 Reply-To: trishwinston@hawaii.rr.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: trishwinston@HAWAII.RR.COM Subject: Re: Secession Comments: To: Albert Mackey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >In a message dated 3/5/03 9:13:24 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, >amcneese@INAV.NET writes: > > >> One poster made the comment that the Civil War "ended secession". I wonder >> if others agree? My Modern America class discussed the U.S. annexation of >> Hawaii in some detail last week, and in the process we talked about various >> current sentiments favoring Hawaiian secession. (Most of the students >> > >---------------- >Well, you can look at the time stamp on my email and conjecture I might have >an opinion on this. : ) > >If any group has a good case for secession, Hawai'ians do. The Hawai'i >secession movement is actually very small, though. The movement seeks the >consent of Congress and the rest of the nation for the secession. Much >larger is the movement for recognition of native Hawai'ians, giving them the >same status as American Indians. This movement foresees no secession, but >would allow a native Hawai'ian government structure much like the American >Indian tribal councils. > >I think we have to qualify the statement about the Civil War ending >secession. I believe it (and Texas v. White) ended the question of >unilateral secession. Secession with consent of the other parties to the >constitutional compact, though, is still valid. > >Regards, >Al Mackey > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > ---------------------------------- If I might add to this, Hawai'ian "secession" comes in many flavors but the primary focus is on doing it within the system rather than unilaterally. The movement we hear most about is the one which would treat Hawai'ians as Native Americans. I believe Mr. Mackey is correct in pointing out that the Hawai'i separatist movement is not at all comparable to Southern rebellion. Trish Winston Aiea, Hawaii This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:09:46 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Complicating the division between symbolic and geographic sacred places is the fact that these sites often have long histories of struggle over interpretation, and have served as the location of subsequent events memorializing history. So that, while it is true that the Lincoln memorial is a symbolic sacred space of the Civil War, it is also a geographic sacred space of the civil rights movement. I am particularly interested in the ongoing struggle between opposing narratives of sacred spaces. "At Fort Sumter we can see a series of historic events, associated, first with the Civil War, then with the civil rights movement, and finally demonstrating the conflation of the Civil War and the civil rights movement. When the flag of the United States was to be returned to Fort Sumter in 1865, the symbolic nature of the event was commemorated by the appearance of the famed abolitionist orator, the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher. Although the return of the flag was praised, and the rebel flag dismissed, the choice of speaker was deemed a "taunt to the South" and "in bad taste." In 1929 the UDC erected a plaque honoring the Confederate soldiers who had defended the fort, followed in 1932 by the United States placement of a plaque honoring Union soldiers. In 1948 the Fort became a national monument, and today the fort is part of what the National Park Service calls the Fort Sumter group, along with Fort Moultrie, the Charles Pinckney Historic site, and Freedom Square, a green space that offers new interpretations in a location without the contested narratives that stick to historic places like blood. In 1961, Fort Sumter became embroiled in controversy when a Black delegate to the Civil War Centennial Commission, invited to attend the commemoration of the firing on Fort Sumter by the Confederacy, was refused admission to a Charleston hotel. In an address to the Association for the Study of Negro Life & History, historian Charles Wesley, describing the conflicts that surrounded the Centennial, began by noting that "nothing had changed in 100 years." Describing subsequent Centennial events he charged that "The National Civil War Commission and the State Commission are primarily responsible for the pageant concept with its horse and canon, its theatrical props, its grand stands with spectators who pay admissions and imbibe their refreshments amid jokes and laughter while death and suffering were depicted for their enjoyment, as if on an ancient Roman holiday in an amphitheatre," Wesley clearly conveys the sense that the celebration of Confederate victories in the Jim Crow South seemed in bad taste, and that blacks felt taunted. When President Kennedy ordered the Centennial to move its conference to the nearest U.S. Naval base, and to move their housing to military barracks for the duration, the parallels to events of 1861 seemed complete. In this story we can see how a Civil War site becomes weighted with history, and how that history becomes contested." -----Original Message----- From: Pearson, Tom A. [mailto:TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:16 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces I find the subject of sacred spaces to be fascinating. I view sacred spaces as doors between the worlds: the world of the living (the present) and the world of the dead (the past). A previous list respondent quoted Santayana on religion as "another world to live in," a quote I really like, although I think for most people, sacred spaces are "another world to visit," not live in. There appear to be two main kinds of sacred spaces: the religious sacred space, and the secular sacred space (I will confine my comments to secular sacred spaces). Each of these types of sacred space can be divided into two sub-groups: the symbolic sacred space, and the geographic sacred space. A symbolic sacred space is one not built on the site where an important event happened. It has conferred significance only initially, simply because its builders have declared that it has some connection to an important individual or event. It continues to be noted as a sacred space only if many persons visiting the site come to believe it to be one. A geographic sacred space, by contrast, has inherent significance because an important historical event occurred on that spot. A few examples may help illustrate what I mean: 1. Vietnam Memorial: A secular sacred space (sub-group symbolic). 2. Ford's Theatre: A secular sacred space (sub-group geographic). 3. The Lincoln Memorial: A secular sacred space (sub-group symbolic). 4. Gettysburg National Battlefield Park: A secular sacred space (sub-group geographic). In order to be considered a "true" secular sacred space, a site appears to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural deaths (or must commemorate such deaths). The act of dying before one's time seems to "open a door" between the world of the living and the world of the dead. This act of dying appears to "hallow" the ground, in a way that no other human action apparently can. One need only think about the "spontaneous shrines" which spring up at sites of tragedies to realize that this is true- people will erect their own shrines on such sites if the government doesn't beat them to the punch! It appears to me to generally hold true that an unnatural death which occurs in connection with a "lost cause," or "light that failed," or even for little discernible reason, infers a greater degree of "sacredness" to a space than does the sacrifice of lives in a cause which succeeds. I think that is a big part of the reason why Southern Civil War memorials are such magnets for domestic and foreign visitors- I think the South in its entirety is viewed by many persons (in most cases unconsciously) as a secular sacred space. There are some notable seeming exceptions to this observation, such as the Vietnam Memorial, which I think is inarguably a secular sacred space in spite of the fact that no one died an unnatural death on the site (although the site is of course a memorial for thousands of Americans who did die unnatural deaths in what many view as a "lost cause"). I hope these comments help someone organize his or her thoughts. They've certainly helped me organize mine. I do apologize for not "keeping it short." Tom Pearson, St. Louis Public Library -----Original Message----- From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War [mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Leah M Wood Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:04 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Opening Statement from David Blight I would like to suggest another topic for consideration: historic preservation and the concept of "sacred space" as it pertains to Civil War sites (structures, battlefields, cemeteries, etc.). Leah Wood Jewett, Director U.S. Civil War Center URL: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:54:32 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Peter Haro Subject: Re: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patricia: Can you recommend any sources that discuss Southerners who fought for the Union and their motivations? Sincerely, Pete Haro. -------Original Message------- From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Sent: 03/05/03 09:28 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride > > The ways in which the states rights argument has been be employed is a good indication of the relationship between US slavery and racism. During the years of American apartheid "State rights" supported discrimination by creating state-controlled mechanisms for the distribution of federal funds. Federal funding of libraries, schools and other institutions was channeled into state agencies that then distributed funding to individual school districts, libraries, etc., which allowed the segregation of services and facilities (or the lack of services and facilities to Black folks). As for the inevitability of slavery's demise, how I hope that is true! Slavery reveals some ugly truths about human nature that I would prefer to avoid. But I don't believe that many slave owners of the era believed that slavery would end, and in fact many believed that slavery would inevitably increase, as it was adopted in the new states. Consider the rapid expansion of slavery in the central Florida area, and the role slavery played in Florida becoming a state. Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, not economic. I was touched by the e-mail forwarded by Thomas Clemens, in which a friend of his writes of her sense of the negativity and shame associated with being Southern, and asks how she can be proud of her Southern heritage. One way to be proud of Southern heritage is to reassert the complexity of that heritage-- that there were many white Southerners who were neither secessionists nor supporters of the Confederacy, that there were many white Southerners who fought for the Union (many more than the oft touted black Confederates) and others who resisted the Confederacy in other ways, and that many black Southerners resisted slavery and the Confederacy. Imagine that in creating a memorial to the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, the ideology of the neo-Patriot movement had been treated with the same respect that has been accorded to the Confederate ideology in creating Civil War memorials throughout the South. Patricia Pettijohn This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:57:21 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Leah M Wood Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I recommend geographer Kenneth Foote's Shadowed Ground: America's Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy (University of Texas Press,1997) for an examination of how we collectively remember, and forget, certain events in our history through manipulation of the landscape (ranging from monument building and consecration of "sacred spaces" to total obliteration of a place). The United States is not alone in having a selective memory - but being a melting pot makes it all the more difficult to come to agreement regarding what is indeed the "truth." Some would argue that this is what makes us interesting. I think that in some cases debates over history are stunted, or become emotional, because those arguing have not been exposed to the idea of national identity and public memory, and continue to hang on to the notion that fact is fact (not realizing that their idea of the truth is perhaps only one version of the truth). Should units on national identity and public memory be included in Civil War history courses? Would exposing students to the idea of "contested history" help clarify issues regarding the war and its legacy? Leah W. Jewett US Civil War Center LSU This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:48:00 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Christopher Phillips Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces In-Reply-To: <51B12CA9BBA6D3118092009027936733C01934@EXSERVER.SLPL.LIB.M O.US> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_10428884==_.ALT" --=====================_10428884==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi everyone -- Tom Pearson's comments on sacred spaces suggests perhaps one of the fascinating of the Civil War's legacies: the broadened assumption of that sacred space known as "the South." As David's book makes clear, the "Lost Cause" became one of the most potent vehicles by which the Civil War created our modern definitions of region just as it made the entire South for much of the populace just as much a shrine as those many military shrines which are located coincidently in the region). But "Causes Not Lost" -- whether the adoption of a national Jim Crow racial landscape or the southern overthrow of Reconstruction -- included a broadening of southern heritage, and both apparent in modern southern identity. One need only read a few pages of Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic to recognize modern Lost Cause/Causes Not Lost shriners. One of the most curious legacies of the Civil War is that, in the end, the victorious North created a larger South than the defeated Confederacy could accomplish for itself; witness the creation of the "Border South" of Kentucky and Missouri and to some degree Maryland. John Shelton Reed discovered that of those residents of modern America who characterize themselves as being southerners, those who cling tightly to this identity live in the border South. He concludes that this stems in part from their fear of losing their regional distinctiveness at the hands of the encroachment of northern influences to which they are geographically closest and thus most susceptible. I'm not sure he's completely right; the unique Civil War history of the region likely had more influence. Yet the legacy of the Civil War works both ways, especially in the border states "South of the North and North of the South" (to use DuBois's catchy phrase). Many in those states just north of the assumed South don't want to be associated with the Confederate "shrinerism" that went on in the former slave states just as residents in the border South need to assuage a nagging insecurity of their and their state's collateral place in the Confederacy. Indeed, two schools of a north metro Cincinnati high school system, Lakota East and West, despite their physical structures being located geographically north and south of one another, assumed their respective directional designations to avoid one having to take as part of its name the word "South" Sic semper tyrannis. Just don't try to tell border southerners that they're any less southerners than those in the Deep South. Consider again Horwitz's amazement at encountering the height of Confederate identity (and racial hostility) not in Alabama, but in Kentucky. Tom's characterization of "true" secular sacred spaces being sites that appear to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural deaths or that commemorate such deaths certainly applies to the enlarged South as defined by the Civil War as a whole. The question becomes, which more "hallowed" this southern sectional memorial: death (southern men in battle), or life (the reassertion of white supremacy after the institution of slavery)? Christopher Phillips University of Cincinnati This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --=====================_10428884==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone -- Tom Pearson's comments on sacred spaces suggests perhaps one of the fascinating of the Civil War's legacies: the broadened assumption of that sacred space known as "the South."  As David's book makes clear, the "Lost Cause" became one of the most potent vehicles by which the Civil War created our modern definitions of region just as it made the entire South for much of the populace just as much a shrine as those many military shrines which are located coincidently in the region).  But "Causes Not Lost" -- whether the adoption of a national Jim Crow racial landscape or the southern overthrow of Reconstruction -- included a broadening of southern heritage, and both apparent in modern southern identity.  One need only read a few pages of Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic to recognize modern Lost Cause/Causes Not Lost shriners.
        One of the most curious legacies of the Civil War is that, in the end, the victorious North created a larger South than the defeated Confederacy could accomplish for itself; witness the creation of the "Border South" of Kentucky and Missouri and to some degree Maryland.  John Shelton Reed discovered that of those residents of modern America who characterize themselves as being southerners, those who cling tightly to this identity live in the border South.  He concludes that this stems in part from their fear of losing their regional distinctiveness at the hands of the encroachment of northern influences to which they are geographically closest and thus most susceptible.   I'm not sure he's completely right; the unique Civil War history of the region likely had more influence.  Yet the legacy of the Civil War works both ways, especially in the border states "South of the North and North of the South" (to use DuBois's catchy phrase).   Many in those states just north of the assumed South don't want to be associated with the Confederate "shrinerism" that went on in the former slave states just as residents in the border South need to assuage a nagging insecurity of their and their state=92s collateral place in the Confederacy.  Indeed, two schools of a north metro Cincinnati high school system, Lakota East and West, despite their physical structures being located geographically north and south of one another, assumed their respective directional designations to avoid one having to take as part of its name the word =93South=94  Sic semper tyrannis.  Just don't try to tell border southerners that they're any less southerners than those in the Deep South.  Consider again Horwitz's amazement at encountering the height of Confederate identity (and racial hostility) not in Alabama, but in Kentucky.
        Tom's characterization of "true" secular sacred spaces being sites that appear to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural deaths or that commemorate such deaths certainly applies to the enlarged South as defined by the Civil War as a whole.  The question becomes, which more "hallowed" this southern sectional memorial: death (southern men in battle), or life (the reassertion of white supremacy after the institution of slavery)?

Christopher Phillips
University of Cincinnati
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --=====================_10428884==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:05:14 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: southerness In-Reply-To: <3E662533.22E24056@amherst.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is Cash's excellent MIND OF THE SOUTH still in print ? I'd recommend it. --- David Blight wrote: > Colleagues: > > It is hard to know where to enter these rich > comments and debates. On this burden of > Southerness, everyone can benefit from going back to > read C. Vann Woodward's classic, The Burden of > Southern History. There we find those notions of > how the South became, for those who needed, the seat > of America's original sins. There have been special > burdens to being Southern. This is one reason why > so much great literature has come from the South. > One of our greatest novelists is Faulkner and > perhaps our greatest short story writer, Flannery > O'Connor. Indeed for some of the very best satire > on the problem of southern historical consciousness > and memory read O'Connor's stories. > > Indeed, racism and slavery are hardly the South's > burden alone. One can ask why this burden and this > question does persist so tenaciously in our culture > though. How much does this have to do with the > Confederacy and the enduring need of many to > preserve its "heritage" in some form? Why do > foreign tourists come to America interested so > deeply in Lee, Jackson, the Confederate memorials, > but rarely in U. S. Grant's background or tomb? Why > does the South draw the historical imagination > through nostalgia but other regions do not so much? > Is it about loss? Is loss, especially the > destruction of a whole civilization, simply more > interesting than victory or success? Is it loss and > tragedy that draws the romantic imagination of those > who insist on history teaching them in epic > dimensions? Is a failed crusade more compelling > than success by superior > "resources?" Is failed evil the most fascinating > thing of all to the human imagination? And finally, > reflecting off some of the comments about the Trent > Lott affair, and related subjects, we do have to > keep asking why race and racial division are still > so politically useful in the American South? And > elsewhere as well. For those who really have > detested and resisted the great racial and legal > changes wrought by the 1960s (Sen. Lott's target in > his implosion) older images of the South and its > controlled race relations have been very useful. > Indeed, how much does this have to do with the > current neo-Confederate revival? All uses of > historical memory have to do heavily with the > present - with some kind of present politics - in > which they are employed. We need to remember that > our current attorney general of the U. S. came into > office on the heels of some > very open and public displays of his own > neo-Confederate heritage consciousness and embrace > of state rights doctrines. > > So, in trying to answer Mr. Haro's very good > question - what are Southeners, or anyone else for > that matter, really trying to be proud of in their > past - we do indeed need to look closely at this > problem with our eyes open. In America, there is a > tendency among almost all of us to want to have a > past to be safe in, to be comfortable with if not > proud of. Americans seem to believe broadly that > their history is about progress and victory and > success. There is a great deal of tragedy in our > history that we too often sidestep - because, well, > "we just don't want to go there," or it will not > uplift us. George Santyana once defined a religion > as "another world to live in." Sometimes our > approach to the past and our need for deep myths to > live by are very much the same. > > I'll try to respond later to more of your > fascinating comments. I hope we can keep, me > included, our writings to relatively short passages. > > with all best, > > David Blight > > Peter Haro wrote: > > > Dear Thomas: You are right to point out that every > region and/or nation has "skeletons in the closet". > We would all be hypocrites if this became a "bash on > the south" forum. However, I think that it is worth > remembering that much of what southerners love to > remember or embrace about the pre-civil war south > (the genteel society supposedly steeped in > tradition, family and honor) was built and supported > by slave labor. Furthermore, even after the > abolition of slavery, the majority of southern > society rushed to put in place laws and custom that > would return blacks to a state of existence very > similar to slavery. During the era of Jim Crow and > segregation, behaviors and appearances of blacks > were severly proscribed and even perceived > disruption of these new rules could result in > lynchings for supposed "troublemakers" or people who > didn't show "proper deference". > > > > Like yourself, I too have deep roots in the south. > However, one question that all southerners need to > ask is, what exactly are we trying to be proud of? > Are they notions of Robert E. Lee and an honorable > society willing to sacrifice for a greater cause > (whatever this supposedly means)or something else > that is more important but difficult to acknowledge? > Sincerely, Pete Haro. > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Thomas Clemens > > Sent: 03/04/03 08:13 AM > > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > > Subject: southerness > > > > > > > > I have been thinking about Dr. Blight's opening > statement and the > > aspects discussed here recently about the South > and "winning the peace" > > and their perception today and perpatrators of > evil. I just received an > > email from a colleague discussing my thoughts on > "Gods & Generals" > > which added another dimension to the discussion. > She is a Human > > Services instructor and was upset by some reviews > of G &G. Here is a > > portion of her post: > > > > You know with the movie and so many other things > of late ( the Trent > > Lott affair) I have been trying to answer a > question for myself that I > > really have been grappling with for sometime > especially since I am a > > Social worker and a Southerner. One day when you > have time I would like > > to get your perspective on how do I be proud of my > Southern background > > when there is so much negativity tied to this. I > am fiercely proud of > > where I come from and I love the people of the > South but I continue to > > struggle with my values as a helping professional, > my beliefs in > > acceptance of "others" and the love of where I > belong. I am constantly > > reminded of how bad the South is and has been. > Not that I am naive > > enough to believe that there are problems and have > been in the past. > > And this makes so many people down South so much > more entrenched in > > their racist and separateness attitudes. > > > > I am at a loss as to explain why any Southerner > should be made to feel > > ashamed of their heritage. Clearly all states and > regions have their > > share of skeletons in the closet, is slavery worse > than the slaughter of > > Amerindians? The exploitation of immigrants and > laborers? Certainly > > modern race riots have not been limited to the > South and prejudice > > exists everywhere. Why must the South carry this > burden of guilt? > > I do not, of course, condone slavery, nor defend > the institution, but > > can a Southerner be proud of a past that includes > these things? > > > > Thomas G. Clemens D.A. > > Professor of History > > Hagerstown Community College > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at > > > > href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > > > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:18:52 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Peter Haro Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_11437_908502.1046898819054" ------=_Part_11437_908502.1046898819054 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Forum Participants: Like Professor Blight, I am fascinated by the amount of critical debate and discussion flowing from this topic. I would be interested in knowing what the forum participants think about the role of economics as a determining factor in causing the civil war. Although the title escapes me at the moment (I read it in graduate school many years ago), I remember that Eric Foner wrote a book (Free Labor, Free Soil?) dealing with the role of free labor and the preference for industrialization by the North, as a prime causal factor of war. How much weight should we give to this factor? If we had to rank, in terms of importance, the causes of the civil war, where should we begin or what issues should we address? Sincerely, Pete Haro. Original message attached. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_Part_11437_908502.1046898819054 Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; name=MESSAGE.HTML; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=MESSAGE.HTML Hi everyone -- Tom Pearson's comments on sacred spaces suggests perhaps one of the fascinating of the Civil War's legacies: the broadened assumption of that sacred space known as "the South."  As David's book makes clear, the "Lost Cause" became one of the most potent vehicles by which the Civil War created our modern definitions of region just as it made the entire South for much of the populace just as much a shrine as those many military shrines which are located coincidently in the region).  But "Causes Not Lost" -- whether the adoption of a national Jim Crow racial landscape or the southern overthrow of Reconstruction -- included a broadening of southern heritage, and both apparent in modern southern identity.  One need only read a few pages of Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic to recognize modern Lost Cause/Causes Not Lost shriners.
        One of the most curious legacies of the Civil War is that, in the end, the victorious North created a larger South than the defeated Confederacy could accomplish for itself; witness the creation of the "Border South" of Kentucky and Missouri and to some degree Maryland.  John Shelton Reed discovered that of those residents of modern America who characterize themselves as being southerners, those who cling tightly to this identity live in the border South.  He concludes that this stems in part from their fear of losing their regional distinctiveness at the hands of the encroachment of northern influences to which they are geographically closest and thus most susceptible.   I'm not sure he's completely right; the unique Civil War history of the region likely had more influence.  Yet the legacy of the Civil War works both ways, especially in the border states "South of the North and North of the South" (to use DuBois's catchy phrase).   Many in those states just north of the assumed South don't want to be associated with the Confederate "shrinerism" that went on in the former slave states just as residents in the border South need to assuage a nagging insecurity of their and their state=92s collateral place in the Confederacy.  Indeed, two schools of a north metro Cincinnati high school system, Lakota East and West, despite their physical structures being located geographically north and south of one another, assumed their respective directional designations to avoid one having to take as part of its name the word =93South=94  Sic semper tyrannis.  Just don't try to tell border southerners that they're any less southerners than those in the Deep South.  Consider again Horwitz's amazement at encountering the height of Confederate identity (and racial hostility) not in Alabama, but in Kentucky.
        Tom's characterization of "true" secular sacred spaces being sites that appear to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural deaths or that commemorate such deaths certainly applies to the enlarged South as defined by the Civil War as a whole.  The question becomes, which more "hallowed" this southern sectional memorial: death (southern men in battle), or life (the reassertion of white supremacy after the institution of slavery)?

Christopher Phillips
University of Cincinnati
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at ht= tp://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_Part_11437_908502.1046898819054-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:03 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Lloyd Benson Subject: Southerners who fought for the Union In-Reply-To: <6526508.1046897359040.JavaMail.nobody@misspiggy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pete Haro writes: >Can you recommend any sources that discuss Southerners who fought for the >Union and their motivations? Sincerely, Pete Haro. One classic work is Richard Current, _Lincoln's Loyalists_. William Freeling's new book _The South vs. the South_ also addresses this topic. One might add that a majority, and perhaps the vast majority of the African-Americans who fought for the Union were Southerners. Also, there was a fairly large contingent of Union soldiers from the midwest who had been born in the South but who had moved away from the region because of their moral qualms about slavery or because of their own Negrophobia. Eugene Berwanger's classic study _The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy_ and Philip Schwarz's recent book _MIgrants Against Slavery: Virginians and the Nation_ both provide contextual insights about why white people with Southern roots would fight for the United States. Lloyd Benson Furman This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:24:38 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Haro: Just as suggestion. William Freehling's recent The South vs. the South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War, (Oxford, 2001) is a very good place to start on this matter of Unionist Southerners. David Blight Peter Haro wrote: > Patricia: Can you recommend any sources that discuss Southerners who fought for the Union and their motivations? Sincerely, Pete Haro. > -------Original Message------- > From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" > Sent: 03/05/03 09:28 AM > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride > > > > > The ways in which the states rights argument has been be employed is a good > indication of the relationship between US slavery and racism. During the > years of American apartheid "State rights" supported discrimination by > creating state-controlled mechanisms for the distribution of federal > funds. > Federal funding of libraries, schools and other institutions was channeled > into state agencies that then distributed funding to individual school > districts, libraries, etc., which allowed the segregation of services and > facilities (or the lack of services and facilities to Black folks). > > As for the inevitability of slavery's demise, how I hope that is true! > Slavery reveals some ugly truths about human nature that I would prefer to > avoid. But I don't believe that many slave owners of the era believed that > slavery would end, and in fact many believed that slavery would inevitably > increase, as it was adopted in the new states. Consider the rapid > expansion > of slavery in the central Florida area, and the role slavery played in > Florida becoming a state. Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose > sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our > own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved > human > being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and > then > understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, > not economic. > > I was touched by the e-mail forwarded by Thomas Clemens, in which a friend > of his writes of her sense of the negativity and shame associated with > being > Southern, and asks how she can be proud of her Southern heritage. One way > to > be proud of Southern heritage is to reassert the complexity of that > heritage-- that there were many white Southerners who were neither > secessionists nor supporters of the Confederacy, that there were many > white > Southerners who fought for the Union (many more than the oft touted black > Confederates) and others who resisted the Confederacy in other ways, and > that many black Southerners resisted slavery and the Confederacy. > > Imagine that in creating a memorial to the Oklahoma City federal building > bombing, the ideology of the neo-Patriot movement had been treated with > the > same respect that has been accorded to the Confederate ideology in > creating > Civil War memorials throughout the South. > > Patricia Pettijohn > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:29:19 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics In-Reply-To: <34.363c5082.2b97a670@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1165222733==_ma============" --============_-1165222733==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" There's a great book on this subject by Mark Smith called _Debating Slavery_. It's an overview of the research on various issues. Basically, the consensus seems to be that slavery was profitable for at least some people, but only as long as cotton was booming and new land could be cleared to grow cotton. So, as was recognized at the time, slavery could function only under very specific circumstances (to not permit it to expand was to end it). There's *big* (and, I think, unresolvable) disagreement as to whether slavery was more profitable than other employment systems would have been. And there is disagreement as to just how profitable slavery really was (I think there's a fair amount of double-counting in some of that research, but I'm not an economic historian, so what do I know). There is consensus that slavery hindered the economic development of the south. There is not consensus as to just how severely it did so, and what relation it had to other things like the poor educational system, lack of urbanization, relatively weak industrial infrastructure (cause, consequence, or simply coexistent?) But I think the economic issue is sometimes a bit of a red herring. Certainly, people at the time thought that slavery was dying as an institution, and even the proslavery folks describe themselves as engaged in a kind of rearguard action against the forces of history. It's worth remembering that the south liked to present itself as the more truly English part of the US, and was distinctly Anglophile. I think slavers were genuinely upset when England outlawed slavery. And as other countries followed suit, that did put slavery in a defensive position, historically, politically, and rhetorically. >In a message dated 3/5/03 7:54:21 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, >ppettijohn@FMHI.USF.EDU writes: > >>Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose >>sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our >>own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human >>being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then >>understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, >>not economic. >> > >------------------- >This might be a good point to discuss Robert W. Fogel's work on >slavery. I know his methodology has been criticized, but my >question is, to what extent has his thesis about the profitability >of slavery been damaged? Fogel makes the point that slavery, far >from being a dying institution, was profitable. While his >conclusions contrast with nineteenth century economic arguments for >abolition, they also contrast with more modern day claims that >slavery was on the way out anyway. I've only read small portions of >_Without Cause or Contract,_ and what I've read looks pretty valid >to me. I'd appreciate some more educated views on this. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "Well I see you objecting so strongly/ to the ways of the liberal 'disease'/ And your armchair satisfaction/ as you narrow the meaning of 'free.'" (K. Wallinger) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --============_-1165222733==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: Slavery and Economics
There's a great book on this subject by Mark Smith called
_Debating Slavery_.  It's an overview of the research on various
issues.

Basically, the consensus seems to be that slavery was profitable
for at least some people, but only as long as cotton was booming
and new land could be cleared to grow cotton. So, as was recognized
at the time, slavery could function only under very specific
circumstances (to not permit it to expand was to end it).

There's *big* (and, I think, unresolvable) disagreement as to
whether slavery was more profitable than other employment systems
would have been.  And there is disagreement as to just how
profitable slavery really was (I think there's a fair amount of
double-counting in some of that research, but I'm not an economic
historian, so what do I know).

There is consensus that slavery hindered the economic development
of the south.  There is not consensus as to just how severely it
did so, and what relation it had to other things like the poor
educational system, lack of urbanization, relatively weak industrial
infrastructure (cause, consequence, or simply coexistent?)

But I think the economic issue is sometimes a bit of a red herring.
Certainly, people at the time thought that slavery was dying as
an institution, and even the proslavery folks describe themselves
as engaged in a kind of rearguard action against the forces of
history. It's worth remembering that the south liked to present
itself as the more truly English part of the US, and was distinctly
Anglophile. I think slavers were genuinely upset when England
outlawed slavery. And as other countries followed suit, that did
put slavery in a defensive position, historically, politically,
and rhetorically.


 
In a message dated 3/5/03 7:54:21 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, ppettijohn@FMHI.USF.EDU writes:
Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose
sight of the powerful temptation it represented.  We need to look into our
own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human
being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then
understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral,
not economic.


-------------------
This might be a good point to discuss Robert W. Fogel's work on slavery.  I know his methodology has been criticized, but my question is, to what extent has his thesis about the profitability of slavery been damaged?  Fogel makes the point that slavery, far from being a dying institution, was profitable.  While his conclusions contrast with nineteenth century economic arguments for abolition, they also contrast with more modern day claims that slavery was on the way out anyway.  I've only read small portions of _Without Cause or Contract,_ and what I've read looks pretty valid to me.  I'd appreciate some more educated views on this.
--
Trish Roberts-Miller        redball@mindspring.com
"Well I see you objecting so strongly/ to the ways of the
liberal 'disease'/ And your armchair satisfaction/ as you
narrow the meaning of 'free.'" (K. Wallinger)
 http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --============_-1165222733==_ma============-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:26:46 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jim Hart Subject: Slavery's Demise? The Social Side of the Question We have touched on the issue of whether slavery was on the road to extinction even had their been no war. I agree with the assertion that slavery was not fading away in the deep south. This seems to be the consensus among the group so far, but the evidence for this contention has so far been stated solely in terms of the economics of slavery. While valid, I think it is important to present the social side of the problem, as well. When Calhoun discussed the tension between the sections in 1850, he argued that all the problems between the sections could be endured except for the vital question of slavery. However, he characterized the prospect of the destruction of slavery in social, not economic, terms. Meaning that even though the emancipation represented a loss of capital to the planter, it also raised the prospect of living in a society where former slaves could be considered equals. Historian Stephen Channing argued that fear of the free black is what drove South Carolina out of the Union (1970). I wonder if a state such as South Carolina in which slaves constituted a majority of the population would ever have voluntarily consented to abolition, whatever the economics concerned. I would also recommend Edmund Morgan's masterful _American Slavery, American Freedom_ as a powerful analysis of the paradox of a people committed to freedom who enslave their fellow man. Jim Hart This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:21 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter: The book you want is Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men by Foner. Of course economics is crucial in Civil War causation. But as others have said, it is all a matter of how we develop complex and connected understandings of causation. For too many, the stress on economics is sometimes a way of de-politicizing or de-moralizing the slavery question. When southern politicians defended slavery they did so for many reasons - political, economic, moral, emotional and psychological. They were also men imbued with a culture of "honor." These all have rich literatures and historiographies to explain them. Good luck with all your reading, David Blight Peter Haro wrote: > Dear Forum Participants: Like Professor Blight, I am fascinated by the amount of critical debate and discussion flowing from this topic. I would be interested in knowing what the forum participants think about the role of economics as a determining factor in causing the civil war. Although the title escapes me at the moment (I read it in graduate school many years ago), I remember that Eric Foner wrote a book (Free Labor, Free Soil?) dealing with the role of free labor and the preference for industrialization by the North, as a prime causal factor of war. How much weight should we give to this factor? If we had to rank, in terms of importance, the causes of the civil war, where should we begin or what issues should we address? Sincerely, Pete Haro. > > Original message attached. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: MESSAGE.HTML > MESSAGE.HTML Type: Hypertext Markup Language (TEXT/HTML) > Encoding: quoted-printable This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:40 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DC0751684FAB6F49E7572AF5" --------------DC0751684FAB6F49E7572AF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Colleagues: Chris Phillips makes a very good point about how the South became larger after the war. Indeed Kentucky became much more Confederate in the wake of the war than it was during the conflict. On this matter of how to think about sacred spaces and how we commemorate them, readers will want to get Edward Linenthal's The Unfinished Bombing. It's a wonderful and poignant treatment of the Oklahoma City bombing and how it has been memorialized do quickly. Ed shows how different narratives are at stake in how people choose to establish the meaning and memory of the bombing. David Blight Christopher Phillips wrote: > Hi everyone -- Tom Pearson's comments on sacred spaces suggests > perhaps one of the fascinating of the Civil War's legacies: the > broadened assumption of that sacred space known as "the South." As > David's book makes clear, the "Lost Cause" became one of the most > potent vehicles by which the Civil War created our modern definitions > of region just as it made the entire South for much of the populace > just as much a shrine as those many military shrines which are located > coincidently in the region). But "Causes Not Lost" -- whether the > adoption of a national Jim Crow racial landscape or the southern > overthrow of Reconstruction -- included a broadening of southern > heritage, and both apparent in modern southern identity. One need > only read a few pages of Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic to > recognize modern Lost Cause/Causes Not Lost shriners. > One of the most curious legacies of the Civil War is that, in the end, > the victorious North created a larger South than the defeated > Confederacy could accomplish for itself; witness the creation of the > "Border South" of Kentucky and Missouri and to some degree Maryland. > John Shelton Reed discovered that of those residents of modern America > who characterize themselves as being southerners, those who cling > tightly to this identity live in the border South. He concludes that > this stems in part from their fear of losing their regional > distinctiveness at the hands of the encroachment of northern > influences to which they are geographically closest and thus most > susceptible. I'm not sure he's completely right; the unique Civil > War history of the region likely had more influence. Yet the legacy > of the Civil War works both ways, especially in the border states > "South of the North and North of the South" (to use DuBois's catchy > phrase). Many in those states just north of the assumed South don't > want to be associated with the Confederate "shrinerism" that went on > in the former slave states just as residents in the border South need > to assuage a nagging insecurity of their and their stateís collateral > place in the Confederacy. Indeed, two schools of a north metro > Cincinnati high school system, Lakota East and West, despite their > physical structures being located geographically north and south of > one another, assumed their respective directional designations to > avoid one having to take as part of its name the word ìSouthî Sic > semper tyrannis. Just don't try to tell border southerners that > they're any less southerners than those in the Deep South. Consider > again Horwitz's amazement at encountering the height of Confederate > identity (and racial hostility) not in Alabama, but in Kentucky. > Tom's characterization of "true" secular sacred spaces being sites > that appear to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural > deaths or that commemorate such deaths certainly applies to the > enlarged South as defined by the Civil War as a whole. The question > becomes, which more "hallowed" this southern sectional memorial: death > (southern men in battle), or life (the reassertion of white supremacy > after the institution of slavery)? > > Christopher Phillips > University of Cincinnati > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------DC0751684FAB6F49E7572AF5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Colleagues:

Chris Phillips makes a very good point about how the South became larger after the war.  Indeed Kentucky became much more Confederate in the wake of the war than it was during the conflict.  On this matter of how to think about sacred spaces and how we commemorate them, readers will want to get Edward Linenthal's The Unfinished Bombing.  It's a wonderful and poignant treatment of the Oklahoma City bombing and how it has been memorialized do quickly.  Ed shows how different narratives are at stake in how people choose to establish the meaning and memory of the bombing.

David Blight

Christopher Phillips wrote:

 Hi everyone -- Tom Pearson's comments on sacred spaces suggests perhaps one of the fascinating of the Civil War's legacies: the broadened assumption of that sacred space known as "the South."  As David's book makes clear, the "Lost Cause" became one of the most potent vehicles by which the Civil War created our modern definitions of region just as it made the entire South for much of the populace just as much a shrine as those many military shrines which are located coincidently in the region).  But "Causes Not Lost" -- whether the adoption of a national Jim Crow racial landscape or the southern overthrow of Reconstruction -- included a broadening of southern heritage, and both apparent in modern southern identity.  One need only read a few pages of Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic to recognize modern Lost Cause/Causes Not Lost shriners.
One of the most curious legacies of the Civil War is that, in the end, the victorious North created a larger South than the defeated Confederacy could accomplish for itself; witness the creation of the "Border South" of Kentucky and Missouri and to some degree Maryland.  John Shelton Reed discovered that of those residents of modern America who characterize themselves as being southerners, those who cling tightly to this identity live in the border South.  He concludes that this stems in part from their fear of losing their regional distinctiveness at the hands of the encroachment of northern influences to which they are geographically closest and thus most susceptible.   I'm not sure he's completely right; the unique Civil War history of the region likely had more influence.  Yet the legacy of the Civil War works both ways, especially in the border states "South of the North and North of the South" (to use DuBois's catchy phrase).   Many in those states just north of the assumed South don't want to be associated with the Confederate "shrinerism" that went on in the former slave states just as residents in the border South need to assuage a nagging insecurity of their and their state’s collateral place in the Confederacy.  Indeed, two schools of a north metro Cincinnati high school system, Lakota East and West, despite their physical structures being located geographically north and south of one another, assumed their respective directional designations to avoid one having to take as part of its name the word “South”  Sic semper tyrannis.  Just don't try to tell border southerners that they're any less southerners than those in the Deep South.  Consider again Horwitz's amazement at encountering the height of Confederate identity (and racial hostility) not in Alabama, but in Kentucky.
Tom's characterization of "true" secular sacred spaces being sites that appear to need to be the scene of one or more tragic, unnatural deaths or that commemorate such deaths certainly applies to the enlarged South as defined by the Civil War as a whole.  The question becomes, which more "hallowed" this southern sectional memorial: death (southern men in battle), or life (the reassertion of white supremacy after the institution of slavery)?

Christopher Phillips
University of Cincinnati
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------DC0751684FAB6F49E7572AF5-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:40:43 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Subject: Re: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Sout hern pride MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" First, I'd like to apologize for sending posts and headers that might be confusing. I will try to do a better job of referencing posts when I am responding. I certainly do not believe that the demise of slavery was inevitable, and was replying to another post in constructing that header. I am replying now to: Patricia: Can you recommend any sources that discuss Southerners who fought for the Union and their motivations? Sincerely, Pete Haro. A good book is Freehling, William W., 1935- The South vs. the South : how anti-Confederate southerners shaped the course of the Civil War / William W. Freehling. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, c2001. Freehlings' article in North & South offers a brief overview of the different Southerners who were not Confederates: Why Civil War Military History Must be Less Than 85 Percent Military, William W. Freehling vol. 5, issue 2. As a librarian I don't want to bend any copyright rules by lengthy quoting, but here is a sample: "Witness the most startling fact about the combating cultures. The title of this magazine aside, the Civil War did NOT pit the North against the South. It pitted the Confederacy, with the allegiance of most whites in eleven southern states (and a minority in four others), against the Union, with the allegiance of almost everyone in the eighteen northern states, plus the allegiance of most whites in five southern states, plus the potential allegiance of most slaves on invaded Confederate terrain." p. 15. More specific information in a forthcoming article (I heard it as a presentation) "Faithful Found Among the Faithless" by M. Shannon Mallard, in the nest issue of North & South. Other sources include Current, Richard Nelson. Lincoln's loyalists : Union soldiers from the Confederacy / Richard Nelson Current. Boston : Northeastern University Press, c1992. Southern Unionist Pamphlets and the Civil War Edited by Jon L. Wakelyn TREACHERY IN FLORIDA Pat Imbimbo N & S, vol. 3, issue 4 THE SECRET YANKEES: Thomas G. Dyer N & S vol. 3, issue 3 REASON DETHRONED Karen Gerhardt, N & S, vol. 3, issue 2 TRUE TO THE UNION James Marten, N & S, vol. 3, issue 1 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:54:48 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Fwd: States Rights In-Reply-To: <3E662646.B7864485@amherst.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Marvelous quote from Springsteen via Prof. Noe! I would only add >that avoidance of any important historical problem only exacerbates >the problem. It >leads to structured forgetting. I'd add this line from William Dean >Howells: "what Americans always like is a tragedy, as long as it >has a happy >ending." History just can't be tidy and clean. Quite the opposite. Actually, in trying to restate my question, I figured out the answer. It isn't so much avoiding controversy--actually, I always have students write on controversial subjects--but just a time constraint issue. I think the issue of how states' rights was (and often still is) code for slavery is very complicated, and there are other fish to fry in this class. I realized, though, that the solution is to keep the focus on primary texts. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "Well I see you objecting so strongly/ to the ways of the liberal 'disease'/ And your armchair satisfaction/ as you narrow the meaning of 'free.'" (K. Wallinger) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:56:50 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: States rights, the inevitability of slavery's demise and Southern pride In-Reply-To: <6526508.1046897359040.JavaMail.nobody@misspiggy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Patricia: Can you recommend any sources that discuss Southerners who >fought for the Union and their motivations? Sincerely, Pete Haro. I'm not that Patricia, but I can recommend _The South vs. The South_. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "Well I see you objecting so strongly/ to the ways of the liberal 'disease'/ And your armchair satisfaction/ as you narrow the meaning of 'free.'" (K. Wallinger) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:54:46 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Slavery's Demise? The Social Side of the Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1f0.3961cc2.2b97da36_boundary" --part1_1f0.3961cc2.2b97da36_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 11:50:40 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, jhart@NAICO.COM writes: > he characterized the > prospect of the destruction of slavery in social, not economic, terms. > Meaning that even though the emancipation represented a loss of capital to > the planter, it also raised the prospect of living in a society where > former slaves could be considered equals. ------------------- I agree completely. Charles Dew's _Apostles of Disunion_ is an excellent source on the arguments used by the secession commissioners. To a man they were concerned that the abolition of slavery would lead to equality between the races. Slavery was more than an economic system, it was a system of racial control as well, ensuring white supremacy. Typical of the mindset is that expressed by Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Kentucky, Stephen F. Hale, who in a letter to Kentucky Gov. Beriah Magoffin said, "Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?" [OR Ser. IV, vol. 1, pp. 4-11] Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1f0.3961cc2.2b97da36_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03= 11:50:40 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, jhart@NAICO.COM writes:


he characterized the
prospect of the destruction of slavery in social, not economic, terms.
Meaning that even though the emancipation represented a loss of capital=20= to
the planter, it also raised the prospect of living in a society where
former slaves could be considered equals.  


-------------------
I agree completely.  Charles Dew's _Apostles of Disunion_ is an exc= ellent source on the arguments used by the secession commissioners.  To= a man they were concerned that the abolition of slavery would lead to equal= ity between the races.  Slavery was more than an economic system, it wa= s a system of racial control as well, ensuring white supremacy.

Typical of the mindset is that expressed by Alabama's Secession Commissi= oner to Kentucky, Stephen F. Hale, who in a letter to Kentucky Gov. Beriah M= agoffin said, "Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Sout= hern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation an= d horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and= daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon te= rms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Hea= ven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black ra= ce which God himself has bestowed?"  [OR Ser. IV, vol. 1, pp. 4-11]

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1f0.3961cc2.2b97da36_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:21:44 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Slavery's Demise? The Social Side of the Question In-Reply-To: <1f0.3961cc2.2b97da36@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Our slave/caste system has long tentacles yet to be fully eradicated as the Indian/Hindu caste system and the South African/Apartheid system do. --- Albert Mackey wrote: > In a message dated 3/5/03 11:50:40 AM Hawaiian > Standard Time, jhart@NAICO.COM > writes: > > > > he characterized the > > prospect of the destruction of slavery in social, > not economic, terms. > > Meaning that even though the emancipation > represented a loss of capital to > > the planter, it also raised the prospect of living > in a society where > > former slaves could be considered equals. > > ------------------- > I agree completely. Charles Dew's _Apostles of > Disunion_ is an excellent > source on the arguments used by the secession > commissioners. To a man they > were concerned that the abolition of slavery would > lead to equality between > the races. Slavery was more than an economic > system, it was a system of > racial control as well, ensuring white supremacy. > > Typical of the mindset is that expressed by > Alabama's Secession Commissioner > to Kentucky, Stephen F. Hale, who in a letter to > Kentucky Gov. Beriah > Magoffin said, "Who can look upon such a picture > without a shudder? What > Southern man, be he slave-holder or > non-slave-holder, can without indignation > and horror contemplate the triumph of negro > equality, and see his own sons > and daughters, in the not distant future, > associating with free negroes upon > terms of political and social equality, and the > white man stripped, by the > Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to > superiority over the black > race which God himself has bestowed?" [OR Ser. IV, > vol. 1, pp. 4-11] > > Regards, > Al Mackey > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:29:38 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Sackett, Pamela J." Subject: SACRED SPACES, SOUTHERNESS & CIVILIAN ASPECTS OF THE CIVIL WAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E377.7863B46E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E377.7863B46E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am enjoying this symphony of voices and I appreciate the scholarly reference and tone of the conversation. Many a list Civil War list I have been on has been effectively "shut down" by the heightened emotion of this debate. =20 =20 For seven years, I have been immersed in the study of a town called Brentsville, Virginia which I compare to "ground zero" in the Civil War. Brentsville was the Prince William County seat in 1861, a bustling, rural court house town before Manassas was even placed on a map. In many places in Virginia, only a crossroads remains where lives once intersected. As I drive to work early on many mornings, in any given season, a mist rolls off the three runs (rivers to you Yankees) into the town overnight, reminding me of the smoke from the fires that destroyed roofs of homes and scattered the lives of those who once lived here. =20 I live around the corner from this simple, but magnificent court house structure. But my passion for American history was born (as was I) and raised in Trenton, New Jersey where George Washington was elevated to sainthood and the Civil War was presented to me from the "victors'" point of view. I hold a foreign service degree from Georgetown University and I have worked in politics on all three levels - Presidential, Congressional and local for the past 25 years. Today, as a "Yankee" (for lack of a better word), l live and work in the Brentsville community. We are trying to restore the 1822 Brentsville Courthouse that survived the Civil War. Every day, I am confronted with and continue to wrestle with the many facets and questions you all raise.=20 =20 I can only speak about my little corner of Virginia where entire towns were literally wiped off the face of the earth. There is still a deep underlying sense of such widespread devastation here that cannot be understood by Northerners until you experience it first hand. When I first came to Virginia (coming from the NJ/Bucks County, PA area where Revolutionary War era buildings still stand), I looked around for all the "Williamsburgs" in this historic state that was "Home to the Presidents." This is the part of the state that many who travel to Virginia still see - surviving historic structures. But it wasn't until I started to study the Civil War, to look for towns long gone in Virginia that I began to understand what all has been lost. =20 The only analogy that comes to my "NJ mind " (I know some of you might think those two words together to be incongruent) to explain how Virginians feel about the war is to think how you still feel years and years after your grandfather died. Your memory of him is vague and the stories about his life faded, but you speak longingly of him to someone, almost as if you didn't he would completely cease to exist. Genealogists experience this when you come to "love" relatives and embrace you never knew existed. Something within you claims them as your own for years and years after they are no longer in your midst - even if you never really knew them in the first place. This is not romanticizing, it's more basic, almost like an inalienable right to claim something that you thought you lost as your own - even though, if it's inalienable, you never really lost it to begin with. The "you would not seek me had you not found me" idea. =20 Here's a more pragmatic example: In Brentsville, the paper trail of over two centuries of local/Virginia/national history - BLUE, BLACK, GREY, MALE, FEMALE, RICH, POOR, you name it -- was used to fuel fires to keep troops warm. We have a quote from one of the soldiers of the 10th Massachusetts who notes with great reverence the signatures of famous Americans like George Washington, Lord Fairfax and John Jay on documents they observed scattered "knee deep" across the Courthouse floor. Even the Union soldier knew the value of what was to be lost! The soldier goes on to "observe" that he hopes that the next Clerk of the Court will take better care of courthouse records. (Let that soak in for a minute and realize what a national tragedy that really is -- all lost, never to be known or passed to the next generation.) =20 =20 On a more micro level, families, too, scattered, with little advance warning, diaries stopped, homes abandoned and later dismantled, Court closed for business, wills could not be proved or settled, no government existed where a citizen could go for redress if either side confiscated horses needed to plow. Every aspect of a citizen's life depended upon which color - BLUE or GREY - walked through your front door looking for lunch while your back door was swinging shut by the breakfast bunch wearing the opposite color. If it became known that you fed one group or another, your President (either one) had ordered that your house be burned on the spot. =20 =20 In Prince William County, in the circle of families that surrounded the Courthouse, there were both Northern and Confederate compatriots. Many of the Northern families came from New Jersey to farm in the 1840-50s. I have traced two families both of NJ decent who had sons in both armies. One veteran killed himself two decades later and his obituary reported that he was still despondent after the War. The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion reference a "Jersey territory" outside of Brentsville. In addition, one family who migrated from the north to farm prior to the war was tried for treason in Richmond and neighbors from Brentsville were called to testify. =20 For decades before the war, from the steps of the Courthouse, slaves were regularly sold at auction, although the majority of farmers in Prince William County at that time did not own slaves. One slave named Harriet Newby, wrote several letters from Brentsville to her husband, Dangerfield in Harper's Ferry, VIRGINIA begging for him to ask his abolitionist friends to raise the $1000 it would take to buy her freedom and that of their 8 children. Who taught her to write? How did she get the letters to her husband? Who saved the letters? Who ensured that they would be published in the Virginia State Papers? Where are the original letters today? Dangerfield Newby was a freed slave and a member of John Brown's abolitionist movement. He was killed at Harper's Ferry. Harriet and her children were sold further south. Colonel (later General) Eppa Hunton, of Brentsville, raised local troops to head to Harper's Ferry to quell any uprising. The threads weave in and out of each other...=20 =20 Yet, I have African American friends who caution me that I will never be able to tell the whole story in Brentsville, simply because IT IS a Virginia Courthouse town and all that that symbolism represents to the African American experience. In my own research I discovered that my own 4th Great Grandfather just off the boat from Wurtemburg Germany walked past this very Courthouse with the 5th NJ under Hooker's Brigade to Bristoe where he was wounded just prior to 2nd Manassas. Had he been killed there, I would not be here to write the story...whatever that will be... =20 After the war, the Courthouse again reopened for business, under provost rule. All elected officials had to sign an oath up until 1870, renouncing their entire Civil War experience in order to serve. Some could not do this, or crossed out part of the oath. Confederate General Eppa Hunton and George C. Round, a Union soldier (who relocated to the then fledgling town of Manassas after the war) both practiced law within these four walls. A young ex-slave was hanged in front of 1000 people because he allegedly murdered a farmer and his wife, a verdict that still raises doubt today. Manassas grew in stature, sometimes upon Reconstructionist smear campaigns involving even local ministers (depending upon their political persuasion). Round was eventually successful in relocating the courthouse to Manassas although it took three referendums to succeed. =20 =20 Manassas seceded from Prince William County in 1972, a political action unique to Virginia a moratorium was put in place in the past decade or so. Towns in Virginia of a certain size in Virginia could incorporate themselves as Cities and become separate political entities. =20 =20 This story is not pretty, nor is it "romantic." But there is a poetic, universal quality to the tale.=20 =20 In my observation and experience, I have come to think of the story of the Civil War as an American Diaspora. Everything scattered, people, paper, artifacts, but remnants remain. I've found Brentsville descendants across the country, each with a piece of the unfinished puzzle, whose outer borders and boundaries, much like the present day town of Brentsville are unknown. =20 =20 As I sit down each day to write, ALL of these voices speak, no one louder than the other. I struggle to accurately document the research, knowing what was lost, but believing what survives is worthy evidence of what happened. The sacred space to me is somewhere in between all of these voices and the letters I place on the page, who DO call out from that midst. I hope against hope that I am doing everyone justice, yet at the same time, I know that is impossible. =20 =20 Just as futile as it would have been to try to collect all of those bits and pieces of paper that fluttered down to earth after the World Trade Center was hit and surmise that you could tell the story of everything that happened that day. =20 =20 In conclusion, I do carry this Diaspora theme into my work to interpret what happened in this tiny once unassuming Virginia town, now to me at the heart of America's historic soul. My search for answers stretches 200 year back to the tobacco culture and to the initial land grant in this area the first in Virginia to hold a guarantee of religious freedom to the land. =20 =20 For some reason, all of these stories were scattered, yet in me now intertwined. There is a risk in putting them down on paper. For some reason a rural brick courthouse (a symbol of all that is both sacred and profane in America) miraculously survived. The question "WHY?" is almost asked by itself. But it is up to historians to take the risk to try to answer what cannot be defined. =20 =20 If I have learned anything in this research journey and subsequent trial to put what I've learned to paper, I know as sure as I know anything about the Civil War that the social history of the war MUST BE combined with military and political discussions of the subject. I also would hope that in the teaching of this subject, we encourage students to tackle the tough questions by creating environments as educators that encourage people who want to learn not only to ask questions, but to risk discovering and communicating the answers -- however difficult they may prove to be. =20 =20 Dr. Blight is educating all of us in this regard and I thank you all for creating this discussion forum. =20 Pamela Myer Sackett Past Chairman, Friends of Brentsville Courthouse Historic Centre, Inc. =20 Vice Chairman, Brentsville Historic Centre Trust This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E377.7863B46E Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am enjoying this symphony of voices and I = appreciate the scholarly reference and tone of the conversation.  Many a list Civil War list I = have been on has been effectively “shut down” by the heightened = emotion of this debate.  =

 

For seven years, I have been immersed in the study of = a town called Brentsville, = Virginia which I compare to “ground zero” in the Civil War. Brentsville was = the Prince William County seat in 1861, a bustling, rural court house town = before Manassas was even placed on a map.  In many places = in Virginia, only a crossroads remains where lives once intersected.  As I drive to work early on = many mornings, in any given season, a mist rolls off the three runs (rivers = to you Yankees) into the town overnight, reminding me of the smoke from the = fires that destroyed roofs of homes and scattered the lives of those who once lived = here.

 

I live around the corner from this simple, but = magnificent court house structure.  But my = passion for American history was born (as was I) and raised in = Trenton, = New = Jersey where George Washington was elevated to sainthood and the Civil War was = presented to me from the “victors’” point of view. I hold a foreign service degree from = Georgetown = University and I have worked in politics on all three levels – Presidential, = Congressional and local for the past 25 years. Today, as a “Yankee” (for lack = of a better word), l live and work in the Brentsville community.  We are trying to restore the = 1822 Brentsville Courthouse that survived the Civil War.  Every day, I am confronted with = and continue to wrestle with the many facets and questions you all raise. =

 

I can only speak about my little corner of = Virginia where entire towns were literally wiped off the face of the earth. There is = still a deep underlying sense of such widespread devastation here that cannot be = understood by Northerners until you experience it first hand.  When I first came to = Virginia (coming from the NJ/Bucks County, PA area where Revolutionary War era buildings = still stand), I looked around for all the “Williamsburgs” in this historic state that was “Home to the = Presidents.”  This is the part of the state = that many who travel to Virginia still see – surviving historic structures.  = But it wasn’t until I started to study the Civil War, to look for towns = long gone in Virginia that I began to understand what all has been = lost.

 

The only analogy that comes to my “NJ mind = “ (I know some of you might think those two words together to be incongruent) = to explain how Virginians feel about the war is to think how you still feel = years and years after your grandfather died.  Your memory of him is vague and the stories about his life faded, = but you speak longingly of him to someone, almost as if you didn’t he = would completely cease to exist.  Genealogists experience this when you come to “love” relatives and embrace you never knew existed.  Something within you claims = them as your own for years and years after they are no longer in your midst – = even if you never really knew them in the first place. This is not romanticizing, it’s more basic, almost like an inalienable right to claim = something that you thought you lost as your own – even though, if it’s inalienable, you never really lost it to begin with.  The “you would not seek = me had you not found me” idea.

 

Here’s a more pragmatic example:  In Brentsville, the paper trail = of over two centuries of local/Virginia/national history – BLUE, BLACK, = GREY, MALE, FEMALE, RICH, POOR, you name it -- was used to fuel fires to keep = troops warm.  We have a quote from = one of the soldiers of the 10th = Massachusetts<= /st1:place> who notes with great reverence the signatures of famous Americans like George = Washington, Lord Fairfax and John Jay on documents they observed scattered “knee = deep” across the Courthouse floor. Even the Union soldier knew the value of = what was to be lost!  The soldier = goes on to “observe” that he hopes that the next Clerk of the Court will take better care of courthouse records. (Let that soak in for a minute and realize what a = national tragedy that really is -- all lost, never to be known or passed to the next = generation.) 

 

On a more micro level, families, too, scattered, with = little advance warning, diaries stopped, homes abandoned and later dismantled, = Court closed for business, wills could not be proved or settled, no government existed where a citizen could go for redress if either side confiscated = horses needed to plow.  Every = aspect of a citizen’s life depended upon which color – BLUE or GREY = – walked through your front = door looking for lunch while your back = door was swinging shut by the breakfast bunch wearing the opposite color.  If it became known that you fed = one group or another, your President (either one) had ordered that your = house be burned on the spot.  =

 

In Prince = William = County, in the circle of families that surrounded the Courthouse, there were both = Northern and Confederate compatriots.  = Many of the Northern families came from = New = Jersey to farm in the 1840-50s.  I have traced  two families both of NJ decent who had sons in both armies.  One veteran killed himself two = decades later and his obituary reported that he was still despondent after the War.  The Official Records = of the War of the Rebellion reference a “Jersey territory” outside of Brentsville.  In addition, one family who migrated from the north to farm prior = to the war was tried for treason in Richmond and neighbors from Brentsville were called to = testify.

 

For decades before the war, from the steps of the Courthouse, = slaves were regularly sold at auction, although the majority of farmers in = Prince William = County at that time did not own slaves.  = One slave named Harriet Newby, wrote several letters from Brentsville to her husband, Dangerfield in Harper’s = Ferry, VIRGINIA begging for him to ask his abolitionist friends to raise the = $1000 it would take to buy her freedom and that of their 8 children.  Who taught her to write?  How did she get the letters to = her husband?  Who saved the letters?  Who ensured that = they would be published in the Virginia State Papers?  Where are the original letters today?  Dangerfield Newby was a freed slave and a member of John Brown’s abolitionist movement.  He was killed at = Harper’s Ferry.  Harriet and her = children were sold further south.  = Colonel (later General) Eppa Hunton, of Brentsville, raised local troops to head to Harper’s Ferry to = quell any uprising.  The threads = weave in and out of each other…

 

Yet, I have African American friends who caution me that I will = never be able to tell the whole story in Brentsville, simply because IT IS a = Virginia Courthouse town and all that that symbolism represents to the African = American experience.   In my own research I = discovered that my own 4th Great Grandfather just off the boat from Wurtemburg = Germany walked past this very Courthouse with the 5th NJ under Hooker’s = Brigade to Bristoe where he was wounded just prior to = 2nd Manassas.  Had he been killed there, I = would not be here to write the story…whatever that will = be…

 

After the war, the Courthouse again reopened for = business, under provost rule.  All = elected officials had to sign an oath up until 1870, renouncing their entire = Civil War experience in order to serve.  = Some could not do this, or crossed out part of the oath.  Confederate General Eppa Hunton and George C. Round, a Union soldier = (who relocated to the then fledgling town of = Manassas after the war) both practiced law within these four walls.  A young ex-slave was hanged in = front of 1000 people because he allegedly murdered a farmer and his wife, a = verdict that still raises doubt today.  = Manassas grew in stature, sometimes upon Reconstructionist = smear campaigns involving even local ministers (depending upon their political persuasion).  Round was = eventually successful in relocating the courthouse to Manassas although it took three referendums to succeed. 

 

Manassas seceded from Prince = William = County in 1972, a political action unique to = Virginia a moratorium was put in place in the past decade or so.  Towns in = Virginia of a certain size in Virginia could incorporate themselves as Cities and  become separate political entities.  =

 

This story is not pretty, nor is it = “romantic.”  But there is a poetic, = universal quality to the tale.

 

In my observation and experience, I have come to = think of the story of the Civil War as an American Diaspora.  Everything scattered, people, = paper, artifacts, but remnants remain.  I’ve found Brentsville descendants across the country, each = with a piece of the unfinished puzzle, whose outer borders and boundaries, much = like the present day town of Brentsville are unknown.  =

 

As I sit down each day to write, ALL of these voices = speak, no one louder than the other.  I struggle to accurately = document the research, knowing what was lost, but believing what survives is worthy = evidence of what happened.  The = sacred space to me is somewhere in between all of these voices and the letters I = place on the page, who DO call out from that midst. I hope against hope that I am = doing everyone justice, yet at the same time, I know that is impossible. 

 

Just as futile as it would have been to try to = collect all of those bits and pieces of paper that fluttered down to earth after the = World = Trade = Center was hit and surmise that you could tell the story of = everything that happened that day.  =

 

In conclusion, I do carry this Diaspora theme into my = work to interpret what happened in this tiny once unassuming = Virginia town, now to me at the heart of America’s historic soul.  My search = for answers stretches 200 year back to the tobacco culture and to the = initial land grant in this area the first in = Virginia to hold a guarantee of religious freedom to the land.  =

 

For some reason, all of these stories were scattered, = yet in me now intertwined.  There = is a risk in putting them down on paper.  = For some reason a rural brick courthouse (a symbol of all that is both = sacred and profane in America) miraculously survived. The question “WHY?” is almost asked = by itself.  But it is up to = historians to take the risk to try to answer what cannot be defined. 

 

If I have learned anything in this research journey = and subsequent trial to put what I’ve learned to paper, I know as sure = as I know anything about the Civil War that the social history of the war = MUST BE combined with military and political discussions of the subject.  I also would hope that in the = teaching of this subject, we encourage students to tackle the tough questions by = creating environments as educators that encourage people who want to learn not = only to ask questions, but to risk discovering and communicating the answers = -- however difficult they may prove to be.  

 

Dr. Blight is educating all of us in this regard and = I thank you all for creating this discussion forum.

 

Pamela Myer Sackett

Past Chairman, Friends of Brentsville Courthouse Historic Centre, Inc. 

Vice Chairman, Brentsville Historic Centre = Trust

=00 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E377.7863B46E-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:41:21 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Matthew Lavington Subject: PBS Lincoln-VHS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Dear Dr. Blight and panelists, This is truly a fascinating exchange of ideas and information! I do enjoy using primary sources with contrasting opinions with my MS-HS history students. And I thank those for their contributions herein that I may add to my CW primary sources list. However some students, sometimes will have difficulty to create historical context through this exercise. To assist with contextual development (I think I am helping) I have used the PBS Lincoln tapes. The 2-tape four hour program does require some editing/condensing. I have found the tapes useful in providing visual imagery of the time. Would anyone care to comment on the use of this particular PBS VHS set in the HS classroom? Cheers, Matthew Lavington >From: David Blight >Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" > >To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU >Subject: Re: Sacred Spaces >Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:21 -0600 > >Peter: >The book you want is Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men by Foner. Of course >economics is crucial in Civil War causation. But as others have said, it is >all a matter of how we develop complex and connected understandings of >causation. For too many, the stress on economics is sometimes a way of >de-politicizing or de-moralizing the slavery question. When southern >politicians defended slavery they did so for many reasons - political, >economic, moral, emotional and psychological. They were also men imbued >with a culture of "honor." These all have rich literatures and >historiographies to explain them. > >Good luck with all your reading, > >David Blight > >Peter Haro wrote: > > > Dear Forum Participants: Like Professor Blight, I am fascinated by the >amount of critical debate and discussion flowing from this topic. I would >be interested in knowing what the forum participants think about the role >of economics as a determining factor in causing the civil war. Although the >title escapes me at the moment (I read it in graduate school many years >ago), I remember that Eric Foner wrote a book (Free Labor, Free Soil?) >dealing with the role of free labor and the preference for >industrialization by the North, as a prime causal factor of war. How much >weight should we give to this factor? If we had to rank, in terms of >importance, the causes of the civil war, where should we begin or what >issues should we address? Sincerely, Pete Haro. > > > > Original message attached. > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: MESSAGE.HTML > > MESSAGE.HTML Type: Hypertext Markup Language (TEXT/HTML) > > Encoding: quoted-printable > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:20 -0700 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Henderson, Desiree" Subject: Civil War in American Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to add a new thread to this fascinating discussion: the role of literature in shaping conceptions of the Civil War. I am currently teaching a Civil War Literature class (I have listed some of the texts I assigned below if anyone is interested). In my class, I argue that literature played a key role in provoking the war (Uncle Tom's Cabin for example) and that American literature continues to be dominated by the Civil War (from Jeff Sharra's novels to Cold Mountain). I ask my students to consider how literature has impacted the memory of the War in America. In other words, how many contemporary ideas of the war are the product not of historical events, presidential speeches, or visits to "sacred sites," but fictional representations of the war and its participants? My general question is this: What fictional representations are most important in the construction of popular conceptions of the War? A practical question: One problem I faced putting my class together is that I could not find an anthology of Civil War literature. Does anyone know one to recommend? If none exists, what does that mean for how the Civil War is or is not being taught in English departments? Recommended reading: Here are two recent publications that have helped me in producing this class -- one primary text, the other a work of literary analysis: Kathleen Diffey, ed. To Live and Die: Collected Stories of the Civil War, 1861-76 (Duke, 2002) Elizabeth Young, Disarming the Nation: Women's Writing and the American Civil War (Chicago 1999) Here are some of the works my students are reading this semester: Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin Mary Eastman, Aunt Phillis' Cabin Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches Walt Whitman, Drum Taps poems Frances Harper, Iola Leroy Stephen Crane, Red Badge of Courage William Faulkner, stories Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain Please keep those references coming -- they are a great help to non-historians like myself. Thanks! Desiree Henderson --- Prof. Desiree Henderson Department of English University of Texas, El Paso (915) 747-6252 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:36:42 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d5.45b3243.2b982a5a_boundary" --part1_1d5.45b3243.2b982a5a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/03 4:57:31 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, Hendersonde@UTEP.EDU writes: > I could not find an anthology of Civil War literature. Does anyone know one > to recommend? Try Louis P. Masur, ed., _The Real War Will Never Get in the Books: Selections from Writers During the Civil War._ It's in paperback and can be read all the way through by a high school student. It includes selections from 14 writers including Nathaniel Hawthorne, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1d5.45b3243.2b982a5a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/5/03= 4:57:31 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, Hendersonde@UTEP.EDU writes:


I could not find an antholo= gy of Civil War literature.  Does anyone know one
to recommend?  If


Try Louis P. Masur, ed., _The Real War Will Never Get in the Books: &nbs= p;Selections from Writers During the Civil War._

It's in paperback and can be read all the way through by a high school s= tudent.  It includes selections from 14 writers including Nathaniel Haw= thorne, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1d5.45b3243.2b982a5a_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:25:11 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii How about Company Aytch by the Confederate veteran whose name I can't recall ? It's very readable and he has a dry wit and an innate fairness that will make you and your students respect him.. --- "Henderson, Desiree" wrote: > I would like to add a new thread to this > fascinating discussion: the role of > literature in shaping conceptions of the Civil War. > I am currently > teaching a Civil War Literature class (I have listed > some of the texts I > assigned below if anyone is interested). In my > class, I argue that > literature played a key role in provoking the war > (Uncle Tom's Cabin for > example) and that American literature continues to > be dominated by the Civil > War (from Jeff Sharra's novels to Cold Mountain). I > ask my students to > consider how literature has impacted the memory of > the War in America. In > other words, how many contemporary ideas of the war > are the product not of > historical events, presidential speeches, or visits > to "sacred sites," but > fictional representations of the war and its > participants? My general question is this: What > fictional representations are most > important in the construction of popular conceptions > of the War? A practical question: One problem I > faced putting my class together is that > I could not find an anthology of Civil War > literature. Does anyone know one > to recommend? If none exists, what does that mean > for how the Civil War is > or is not being taught in English departments? > Recommended reading: Here are two recent > publications that have helped me > in producing this class -- one primary text, the > other a work of literary > analysis: Kathleen Diffey, ed. To Live and Die: > Collected Stories of the Civil War, > 1861-76 (Duke, 2002) Elizabeth Young, Disarming the > Nation: Women's Writing and the American > Civil War (Chicago 1999) Here are some of the works > my students are reading this semester: Harriet > Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin Mary Eastman, Aunt > Phillis' Cabin Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches > Walt Whitman, Drum Taps poems Frances Harper, Iola > Leroy Stephen Crane, Red Badge of Courage William > Faulkner, stories Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain > Please keep those references coming -- they are a > great help to > non-historians like myself. Thanks! Desiree > Henderson > > --- > Prof. Desiree Henderson > Department of English > University of Texas, El Paso > (915) 747-6252 > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:02:10 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Pete Haro Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3129757330_198216_MIME_Part" > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3129757330_198216_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Dear Trish: Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that economics was a "red-herring" with respect to the civil war? I guess that my confusion over the more important causal factors of the civil war has to do with whether the Union was fighting to end slavery on moral or economic grounds. Certainly there were members of the Union that objected to slavery because it was morally wrong. However, my reading of different sources has led me to conclude that slavery as a moral issue was not enough to compel the Union to mobilize all of its resources and sacrifice so dearly. Racism was deeply ingrained in both the North and South and once the war had ended, de facto segregation and race riots were common occurrences in many parts of the North. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that moral reasons played the strong role that many forum participants have suggested. Your (or any) comments and suggestions would be welcome in helping me to clarify this issue. Sincerely, Pete Haro. ---------- From: Trish Roberts-Miller To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics Date: Wed, Mar 5, 2003, 1:29 PM There's a great book on this subject by Mark Smith called _Debating Slavery_. It's an overview of the research on various issues. Basically, the consensus seems to be that slavery was profitable for at least some people, but only as long as cotton was booming and new land could be cleared to grow cotton. So, as was recognized at the time, slavery could function only under very specific circumstances (to not permit it to expand was to end it). There's *big* (and, I think, unresolvable) disagreement as to whether slavery was more profitable than other employment systems would have been. And there is disagreement as to just how profitable slavery really was (I think there's a fair amount of double-counting in some of that research, but I'm not an economic historian, so what do I know). There is consensus that slavery hindered the economic development of the south. There is not consensus as to just how severely it did so, and what relation it had to other things like the poor educational system, lack of urbanization, relatively weak industrial infrastructure (cause, consequence, or simply coexistent?) But I think the economic issue is sometimes a bit of a red herring. Certainly, people at the time thought that slavery was dying as an institution, and even the proslavery folks describe themselves as engaged in a kind of rearguard action against the forces of history. It's worth remembering that the south liked to present itself as the more truly English part of the US, and was distinctly Anglophile. I think slavers were genuinely upset when England outlawed slavery. And as other countries followed suit, that did put slavery in a defensive position, historically, politically, and rhetorically. In a message dated 3/5/03 7:54:21 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, ppettijohn@FMHI.USF.EDU writes: Slavery is so viscerally horrifying that we lose sight of the powerful temptation it represented. We need to look into our own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and then understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral, not economic. ------------------- This might be a good point to discuss Robert W. Fogel's work on slavery. I know his methodology has been criticized, but my question is, to what extent has his thesis about the profitability of slavery been damaged? Fogel makes the point that slavery, far from being a dying institution, was profitable. While his conclusions contrast with nineteenth century economic arguments for abolition, they also contrast with more modern day claims that slavery was on the way out anyway. I've only read small portions of _Without Cause or Contract,_ and what I've read looks pretty valid to me. I'd appreciate some more educated views on this. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "Well I see you objecting so strongly/ to the ways of the liberal 'disease'/ And your armchair satisfaction/ as you narrow the meaning of 'free.'" (K. Wallinger) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --MS_Mac_OE_3129757330_198216_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Slavery and Economics Dear Trish: Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that economics= was a "red-herring" with respect to the civil war? I guess that m= y confusion over the more important causal factors of the civil war has to d= o with whether the Union was fighting to end slavery on moral or economic gr= ounds. Certainly there were members of the Union that objected to slavery be= cause it was morally wrong. However, my reading of different sources has led= me to conclude that slavery as a moral issue was not enough to compel the U= nion to mobilize all of its resources and sacrifice so dearly. Racism was de= eply ingrained in both the North and South and once the war had ended, de fa= cto segregation and race riots were common occurrences in many parts of the = North.  Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that moral reasons pl= ayed the strong role that many forum participants have suggested. Your (or a= ny) comments and suggestions would be welcome in helping me to clarify this = issue. Sincerely, Pete Haro.

----------
From: Trish Roberts-Miller <redball@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics
Date: Wed, Mar 5, 2003, 1:29 PM


There's a great book on this subject by Mark Smith called
_Debating Slavery_.  It's an overview of the research on various
issues.

Basically, the consensus seems to be that slavery was profitable
for at least some people, but only as long as cotton was booming
and new land could be cleared to grow cotton. So, as was recognized
at the time, slavery could function only under very specific
circumstances (to not permit it to expand was to end it).

There's *big* (and, I think, unresolvable) disagreement as to
whether slavery was more profitable than other employment systems
would have been.  And there is disagreement as to just how
profitable slavery really was (I think there's a fair amount of
double-counting in some of that research, but I'm not an economic
historian, so what do I know).

There is consensus that slavery hindered the economic development
of the south.  There is not consensus as to just how severely it
did so, and what relation it had to other things like the poor
educational system, lack of urbanization, relatively weak industrial
infrastructure (cause, consequence, or simply coexistent?)

But I think the economic issue is sometimes a bit of a red herring.
Certainly, people at the time thought that slavery was dying as
an institution, and even the proslavery folks describe themselves
as engaged in a kind of rearguard action against the forces of
history. It's worth remembering that the south liked to present
itself as the more truly English part of the US, and was distinctly
Anglophile. I think slavers were genuinely upset when England
outlawed slavery. And as other countries followed suit, that did
put slavery in a defensive position, historically, politically,
and rhetorically.


 
In a message dated 3/5/03 7:5= 4:21 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, ppettijohn@FMHI.USF= .EDU writes:
Slavery is so v= iscerally horrifying that we lose
sight of the powerful temptation it represented.  We need to look into= our
own hearts and understand all of the ways in which having an enslaved human=
being do our bidding would make our own lives easier and wealthier, and the= n
understand that the only truly powerful argument against slavery is moral,<= BR> not economic.

-------------------
This might be a good point to discuss Robert W. Fogel's work on slavery. &n= bsp;I know his methodology has been criticized, but my question is, to what = extent has his thesis about the profitability of slavery been damaged?  = ;Fogel makes the point that slavery, far from being a dying institution, was= profitable.  While his conclusions contrast with nineteenth century ec= onomic arguments for abolition, they also contrast with more modern day clai= ms that slavery was on the way out anyway.  I've only read small portio= ns of _Without Cause or Contract,_ and what I've read looks pretty valid to = me.  I'd appreciate some more educated views on this.
--
Trish Roberts-Miller       redball@mindspring.com
"Well I see you objecting so strongly/ to the ways of the liberal 'disease'/ And your armchair satisfaction/ as you
narrow the meaning of 'free.'" (K. Wallinger)
 http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/ho= mepage.html
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web= site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu f= or more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --MS_Mac_OE_3129757330_198216_MIME_Part-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:16:28 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: SACRED SPACES, SOUTHERNESS & CIVILIAN ASPECTS OF THE CIVIL WAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8273FAC908BCB44CA274E56E" --------------8273FAC908BCB44CA274E56E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Colleagues: Ms. Sackett's poignant and eloquent testimony about that courthouse in Brentsville, Va. is a telling example of the relationship we all know, but don't always feel, between the local and the national dimensions of this history. She has pointed to a classic case of what the French call a "lieux de memoire," or a site of memory. Through such sites, we learn, we feel the past, but we also find, if the sites are truly important, that they sustain conflicting and contested narratives of their meaning. All narratives and meanings are never really equal. Some we value more than others. That is both the fun and the important challenge of this problem we are trying to discuss. In some ways all historical memory is local; at least that is where it surely begins. But our tasks are ultimately as teachers, librarians, public historians, or citizens to assess both the local and larger meanings of the pasts we care about. I am very intrigued by Ms. Sackett's notion of Civil War history as a "diaspora." It surely is when we think of family ties to this history. But it is always intriguing as well how, now matter how mobile the American population becomes (moving all over the country and especially toward the "sun belt") the Civil War still has a very regional and local significance, especially in the South. There is a real sense in which history in tragic and transforming dimensions happened TO the South perhaps more than any other section. This can also be said of the vast and yet still self-conscious notion of the "West" in American experience. I'm enjoying this conversation very much, if I can only keep up with you all. David Blight "Sackett, Pamela J." wrote: > I am enjoying this symphony of voices and I appreciate the scholarly > reference and tone of the conversation.Many a list Civil War list I > have been on has been effectively ìshut downî by the heightened > emotion of this debate. > > For seven years, I have been immersed in the study of a town > called Brentsville, Virginia which I compare to ìground zeroî in the > Civil War. Brentsville was the Prince William County seat in 1861, a > bustling, rural court house town before Manassas was even placed on a > map.In many places in Virginia, only a crossroads remains where lives > once intersected.As I drive to work early on many mornings, in any > given season, a mist rolls off the three runs (rivers to you Yankees) > into the town overnight, reminding me of the smoke from the fires that > destroyed roofs of homes and scattered the lives of those who once > lived here. > > I live around the corner from this simple, but magnificent court house > structure.But my passion for American history was born (as was I) and > raised in Trenton, New Jersey where George Washington was elevated to > sainthood and the Civil War was presented to me from the ìvictorsíî > point of view. I hold a foreign service degree > from GeorgetownUniversity and I have worked in politics on all three > levels ? Presidential, Congressional and local for the past 25 years. > Today, as a ìYankeeî (for lack of a better word), l live and work in > the Brentsville community.We are trying to restore the 1822 > Brentsville Courthouse that survived the Civil War.Every day, I am > confronted with and continue to wrestle with the many facets and > questions you all raise. > > I can only speak about my little corner of Virginia where entire towns > were literally wiped off the face of the earth. There is still a deep > underlying sense of such widespread devastation here that cannot be > understood by Northerners until you experience it first hand.When I > first came to Virginia (coming from the NJ/Bucks County, PA area where > Revolutionary War era buildings still stand), I looked around for all > the ìWilliamsburgsî in this historic state that was ìHome to the > Presidents.îThis is the part of the state that many who travel > to Virginia still see ? surviving historic structures.But it wasnít > until I started to study the Civil War, to look for towns long gone in > Virginia that I began to understand what all has been lost. > > The only analogy that comes to my ìNJ mind ì (I know some of you might > think those two words together to be incongruent) to explain how > Virginians feel about the war is to think how you still feel years and > years after your grandfather died.Your memory of him is vague and the > stories about his life faded, but you speak longingly of him to > someone, almost as if you didnít he would completely cease to > exist.Genealogists experience this when you come to ìloveî relatives > and embrace you never knew existed.Something within you claims them as > your own for years and years after they are no longer in your midst ? > even if you never really knew them in the first place. This is > not romanticizing, itís more basic, almost like an inalienable right > to claim something that you thought you lost as your own ? even > though, if itís inalienable, you never really lost it to begin > with.The ìyou would not seek me had you not found meî idea. > > Hereís a more pragmatic example:In Brentsville, the paper trail of > over two centuries of local/Virginia/national history ? BLUE, BLACK, > GREY, MALE, FEMALE, RICH, POOR, you name it -- was used to fuel fires > to keep troops warm.We have a quote from one of the soldiers of the > 10thMassachusetts who notes with great reverence the signatures of > famous Americans like George Washington, Lord Fairfax and John Jay on > documents they observed scattered ìknee deepî across the Courthouse > floor. Even the Union soldier knew the value of what was to be > lost!The soldier goes on to ìobserveî that he hopes that the next > Clerk of the Court will take better care of courthouse records. (Let > that soak in for a minute and realize what a national tragedy that > really is -- all lost, never to be known or passed to the next > generation.) > > On a more micro level, families, too, scattered, with little advance > warning, diaries stopped, homes abandoned and later dismantled, Court > closed for business, wills could not be proved or settled, no > government existed where a citizen could go for redress if either side > confiscated horses needed to plow.Every aspect of a citizenís life > depended upon which color ? BLUE or GREY ? walked through > your front door looking for lunch while your back door was swinging > shut by the breakfast bunch wearing the opposite color.If it became > known that you fed one group or another, your President (either one) > had ordered that your house be burned on the spot. > > In PrinceWilliamCounty, in the circle of families that surrounded the > Courthouse, there were both Northern and Confederate compatriots.Many > of the Northern families came from New Jersey to farm in the > 1840-50s.I have traced two families both of NJ decent who had sons in > both armies.One veteran killed himself two decades later and his > obituary reported that he was still despondent after the War.The > Official Records of the War of the Rebellion reference a ìJersey > territoryî outside of Brentsville.In addition, one family who migrated > from the north to farm prior to the war was tried for treason > in Richmond and neighbors from Brentsville were called to testify. > > For decades before the war, from the steps of the Courthouse, slaves > were regularly sold at auction, although the majority of farmers > in PrinceWilliamCounty at that time did not own slaves.One slave named > Harriet Newby, wrote several letters from Brentsville to her > husband, Dangerfield in Harperís Ferry, VIRGINIA begging for him to > ask his abolitionist friends to raise the $1000 it would take to buy > her freedom and that of their 8 children.Who taught her to write?How > did she get the letters to her husband?Who saved the letters?Who > ensured that they would be published in the Virginia State > Papers?Where are the original letters today?Dangerfield Newby was a > freed slave and a member of John Brownís abolitionist movement.He was > killed at Harperís Ferry.Harriet and her children were sold further > south.Colonel (later General) EppaHunton, of Brentsville, raised local > troops to head to Harperís Ferry to quell any uprising.The threads > weave in and out of each otherÖ > > Yet, I have African American friends who caution me that I will never > be able to tell the whole story in Brentsville, simply because IT IS a > Virginia Courthouse town and all that that symbolism represents to the > African American experience.In my own research I discovered that my > own 4th Great Grandfather just off the boat from WurtemburgGermany > walked past this very Courthouse with the 5th NJ under Hookerís > Brigade toBristoe where he was wounded just prior to 2ndManassas.Had > he been killed there, I would not be here to write the storyÖwhatever > that will beÖ > > After the war, the Courthouse again reopened for business, under > provost rule.All elected officials had to sign an oath up until 1870, > renouncing their entire Civil War experience in order to serve.Some > could not do this, or crossed out part of the oath.Confederate > General EppaHunton and George C. Round, a Union soldier (who relocated > to the then fledgling town of Manassas after the war) both practiced > law within these four walls.A young ex-slave was hanged in front of > 1000 people because he allegedly murdered a farmer and his wife, a > verdict that still raises doubt today.Manassas grew in stature, > sometimes upon Reconstructionist smear campaigns involving even local > ministers (depending upon their political persuasion).Round was > eventually successful in relocating the courthouse to Manassas > although it took three referendums to succeed. > > Manassas seceded fromPrinceWilliamCounty in 1972, a political action > unique to Virginia a moratorium was put in place in the past decade or > so.Towns in Virginia of a certain size in Virginia could incorporate > themselves as Cities and become separate political entities. > > This story is not pretty, nor is it ìromantic.îBut there is a poetic, > universal quality to the tale. > > In my observation and experience, I have come to think of the story of > the Civil War as an American Diaspora.Everything scattered, people, > paper, artifacts, but remnants remain.Iíve found Brentsville > descendants across the country, each with a piece of the unfinished > puzzle, whose outer borders and boundaries, much like the present day > town of Brentsvilleare unknown. > > As I sit down each day to write, ALL of these voices speak, no one > louder than the other.I struggle to accurately document the research, > knowing what was lost, but believing what survives is worthy evidence > of what happened.The sacred space to me is somewhere in between all of > these voices and the letters I place on the page, who DO call out from > that midst. I hope against hope that I am doing everyone justice, yet > at the same time, I know that is impossible. > > Just as futile as it would have been to try to collect all of those > bits and pieces of paper that fluttered down to earth after > the WorldTradeCenter was hit andsurmise that you could tell the story > of everything that happened that day. > > In conclusion, I do carry this Diaspora theme into my work to > interpret what happened in this tiny once unassuming Virginia town, > now to me at the heart of Americaís historic soul.My search for > answers stretches 200 year back to the tobacco culture and to the > initial land grant in this area the first in Virginia to hold a > guarantee of religious freedom to the land. > > For some reason, all of these stories were scattered, yet in me now > intertwined.There is a risk in putting them down on paper.For some > reason a rural brick courthouse (a symbol of all that is both sacred > and profane in America) miraculously survived. The question ìWHY?î is > almost asked by itself.But it is up to historians to take the risk to > try to answer what cannot be defined. > > If I have learned anything in this research journey and subsequent > trial to put what Iíve learned to paper, I know as sure as I know > anything about the Civil War that the social history of the war MUST > BE combined with military and political discussions of the subject. I > also would hope that in the teaching of this subject, we encourage > students to tackle the tough questions by creating environments as > educators that encourage people who want to learn not only to ask > questions, but to risk discovering and communicating the answers -- > however difficult they may prove to be. > > Dr. Blight is educating all of us in this regard and I thank you all > for creating this discussion forum. > > Pamela Myer Sackett > > Past Chairman, Friends of Brentsville Courthouse Historic Centre, Inc. > > Vice Chairman, Brentsville Historic Centre Trust > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------8273FAC908BCB44CA274E56E Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Colleagues:

Ms. Sackett's poignant and eloquent testimony about that courthouse in Brentsville, Va. is a telling example of the relationship we all know, but don't always feel, between the local and the national dimensions of this history.  She has pointed to a classic case of what the French call a "lieux de memoire," or a site of memory.  Through such sites, we learn, we feel the past, but we also find, if the sites are truly important, that they sustain conflicting and contested narratives of their meaning.  All narratives and meanings are never really equal.  Some we value more than others.  That is both the fun and the important challenge of this problem we are trying to discuss.

In some ways all historical memory is local; at least that is where it surely begins.  But our tasks are ultimately as teachers, librarians, public historians, or citizens to assess both the local and larger meanings of the pasts we care about.  I am very intrigued by Ms. Sackett's notion of Civil War history as a "diaspora."  It surely is when we think of family ties to this history.  But it is always intriguing as well how, now matter how mobile the American population becomes (moving all over the country and especially toward the "sun belt") the Civil War still has a very regional and local significance, especially in the South.  There is a real sense in which history in tragic and transforming dimensions happened TO the South perhaps more than any other section.  This can also be said of the vast and yet still self-conscious notion of the "West" in American experience.

I'm enjoying this conversation very much, if I can only keep up with you all.

David Blight

"Sackett, Pamela J." wrote:

I am enjoying this symphony of voices and I appreciate the scholarly reference and tone of the conversation.Many a list Civil War list I have been on has been effectively “shut down” by the heightened emotion of this debate.

For seven years, I have been immersed in the study of a town called BrentsvilleVirginia which I compare to “ground zero” in the Civil War. Brentsville was the Prince William County seat in 1861, a bustling, rural court house town before Manassas was even placed on a map.In many places in Virginia, only a crossroads remains where lives once intersected.As I drive to work early on many mornings, in any given season, a mist rolls off the three runs (rivers to you Yankees) into the town overnight, reminding me of the smoke from the fires that destroyed roofs of homes and scattered the lives of those who once lived here.

I live around the corner from this simple, but magnificent court house structure.But my passion for American history was born (as was I) and raised in TrentonNew Jersey where George Washington was elevated to sainthood and the Civil War was presented to me from the “victors’” point of view. I hold a foreign service degree from GeorgetownUniversity and I have worked in politics on all three levels ­ Presidential, Congressional and local for the past 25 years. Today, as a “Yankee” (for lack of a better word), l live and work in the Brentsville community.We are trying to restore the 1822 Brentsville Courthouse that survived the Civil War.Every day, I am confronted with and continue to wrestle with the many facets and questions you all raise. 

I can only speak about my little corner of Virginia where entire towns were literally wiped off the face of the earth. There is still a deep underlying sense of such widespread devastation here that cannot be understood by Northerners until you experience it first hand.When I first came to Virginia (coming from the NJ/Bucks County, PA area where Revolutionary War era buildings still stand), I looked around for all the “Williamsburgs” in this historic state that was “Home to the Presidents.”This is the part of the state that many who travel to Virginia still see ­ surviving historic structures.But it wasn’t until I started to study the Civil War, to look for towns long gone in Virginia that I began to understand what all has been lost.

The only analogy that comes to my “NJ mind “ (I know some of you might think those two words together to be incongruent) to explain how Virginians feel about the war is to think how you still feel years and years after your grandfather died.Your memory of him is vague and the stories about his life faded, but you speak longingly of him to someone, almost as if you didn’t he would completely cease to exist.Genealogists experience this when you come to “love” relatives and embrace you never knew existed.Something within you claims them as your own for years and years after they are no longer in your midst ­ even if you never really knew them in the first place. This is not romanticizing, it’s more basic, almost like an inalienable right to claim something that you thought you lost as your own ­ even though, if it’s inalienable, you never really lost it to begin with.The “you would not seek me had you not found me” idea.

Here’s a more pragmatic example:In Brentsville, the paper trail of over two centuries of local/Virginia/national history ­ BLUE, BLACK, GREY, MALE, FEMALE, RICH, POOR, you name it -- was used to fuel fires to keep troops warm.We have a quote from one of the soldiers of the 10thMassachusetts who notes with great reverence the signatures of famous Americans like George Washington, Lord Fairfax and John Jay on documents they observed scattered “knee deep” across the Courthouse floor. Even the Union soldier knew the value of what was to be lost!The soldier goes on to “observe” that he hopes that the next Clerk of the Court will take better care of courthouse records. (Let that soak in for a minute and realize what a national tragedy that really is -- all lost, never to be known or passed to the next generation.)

On a more micro level, families, too, scattered, with little advance warning, diaries stopped, homes abandoned and later dismantled, Court closed for business, wills could not be proved or settled, no government existed where a citizen could go for redress if either side confiscated horses needed to plow.Every aspect of a citizen’s life depended upon which color ­ BLUE or GREY ­ walked through your front door looking for lunch while your back door was swinging shut by the breakfast bunch wearing the opposite color.If it became known that you fed one group or another, your President (either one) had ordered that your house be burned on the spot.

In PrinceWilliamCounty, in the circle of families that surrounded the Courthouse, there were both Northern and Confederate compatriots.Many of the Northern families came from New Jersey to farm in the 1840-50s.I have traced two families both of NJ decent who had sons in both armies.One veteran killed himself two decades later and his obituary reported that he was still despondent after the War.The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion reference a “Jersey territory” outside of Brentsville.In addition, one family who migrated from the north to farm prior to the war was tried for treason in Richmond and neighbors from Brentsville were called to testify.

For decades before the war, from the steps of the Courthouse, slaves were regularly sold at auction, although the majority of farmers in PrinceWilliamCounty at that time did not own slaves.One slave named Harriet Newby, wrote several letters from Brentsville to her husband, Dangerfield in Harper’s Ferry, VIRGINIA begging for him to ask his abolitionist friends to raise the $1000 it would take to buy her freedom and that of their 8 children.Who taught her to write?How did she get the letters to her husband?Who saved the letters?Who ensured that they would be published in the Virginia State Papers?Where are the original letters today?Dangerfield Newby was a freed slave and a member of John Brown’s abolitionist movement.He was killed at Harper’s Ferry.Harriet and her children were sold further south.Colonel (later General) EppaHunton, of Brentsville, raised local troops to head to Harper’s Ferry to quell any uprising.The threads weave in and out of each other… 

Yet, I have African American friends who caution me that I will never be able to tell the whole story in Brentsville, simply because IT IS a Virginia Courthouse town and all that that symbolism represents to the African American experience.In my own research I discovered that my own 4th Great Grandfather just off the boat from WurtemburgGermany walked past this very Courthouse with the 5th NJ under Hooker’s Brigade toBristoe where he was wounded just prior to 2ndManassas.Had he been killed there, I would not be here to write the story…whatever that will be…

After the war, the Courthouse again reopened for business, under provost rule.All elected officials had to sign an oath up until 1870, renouncing their entire Civil War experience in order to serve.Some could not do this, or crossed out part of the oath.Confederate General EppaHunton and George C. Round, a Union soldier (who relocated to the then fledgling town of Manassas after the war) both practiced law within these four walls.A young ex-slave was hanged in front of 1000 people because he allegedly murdered a farmer and his wife, a verdict that still raises doubt today.Manassas grew in stature, sometimes upon Reconstructionist smear campaigns involving even local ministers (depending upon their political persuasion).Round was eventually successful in relocating the courthouse to Manassas although it took three referendums to succeed.

Manassas seceded fromPrinceWilliamCounty in 1972, a political action unique to Virginia a moratorium was put in place in the past decade or so.Towns in Virginia of a certain size in Virginia could incorporate themselves as Cities and become separate political entities.

This story is not pretty, nor is it “romantic.”But there is a poetic, universal quality to the tale. 

In my observation and experience, I have come to think of the story of the Civil War as an American Diaspora.Everything scattered, people, paper, artifacts, but remnants remain.I’ve found Brentsville descendants across the country, each with a piece of the unfinished puzzle, whose outer borders and boundaries, much like the present day town of Brentsvilleare unknown.

As I sit down each day to write, ALL of these voices speak, no one louder than the other.I struggle to accurately document the research, knowing what was lost, but believing what survives is worthy evidence of what happened.The sacred space to me is somewhere in between all of these voices and the letters I place on the page, who DO call out from that midst. I hope against hope that I am doing everyone justice, yet at the same time, I know that is impossible.

Just as futile as it would have been to try to collect all of those bits and pieces of paper that fluttered down to earth after the WorldTradeCenter was hit andsurmise that you could tell the story of everything that happened that day.

In conclusion, I do carry this Diaspora theme into my work to interpret what happened in this tiny once unassuming Virginia town, now to me at the heart of America’s historic soul.My search for answers stretches 200 year back to the tobacco culture and to the initial land grant in this area the first in Virginia to hold a guarantee of religious freedom to the land.

For some reason, all of these stories were scattered, yet in me now intertwined.There is a risk in putting them down on paper.For some reason a rural brick courthouse (a symbol of all that is both sacred and profane in America) miraculously survived. The question “WHY?” is almost asked by itself.But it is up to historians to take the risk to try to answer what cannot be defined.

If I have learned anything in this research journey and subsequent trial to put what I’ve learned to paper, I know as sure as I know anything about the Civil War that the social history of the war MUST BE combined with military and political discussions of the subject. I also would hope that in the teaching of this subject, we encourage students to tackle the tough questions by creating environments as educators that encourage people who want to learn not only to ask questions, but to risk discovering and communicating the answers -- however difficult they may prove to be. 

Dr. Blight is educating all of us in this regard and I thank you all for creating this discussion forum.

Pamela Myer Sackett

Past Chairman, Friends of Brentsville Courthouse Historic Centre, Inc.

Vice Chairman, Brentsville Historic Centre Trust

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------8273FAC908BCB44CA274E56E-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:23:25 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Leah M Wood Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii For critical essays see Classics of Civil War Fiction, edited by David Madden and Peggy Bach (reprinted 2001, University of Alabama Press). Leah W. Jewett US Civil War Center LSU This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:35:49 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: Prof. Henderson makes a very good case here for the significance of literature in bringing and shaping the meanings of the Civil War. One text you might add would be John W. Deforest's Miss Ravenal's Conversion. Also , the writings of Ambrose Bierce are very important for their unique realism and satire. You may know these texts , but also look at Daniel Aaron's The Unwritten War, and Edmund Wilson's classic, Patriotic Gore (one of my favorite titles of all time). And finally, you will want to look at chapter 7 of my recent book, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory, entitled, "The Literature of Reunion and its Discontents." There are good anthologies of Civil War poetry, but not so much of fiction. One example of the latter is edited by Lou Masur from Oxford Univ. Press. I don't have it in front of me but I think the title is "The Real War Will Not Get into the Books," Whitman's famous line from Specimen Days. An old argument, advanced by Aaron, and to some extent by Wilson, is that the Civil War never really stimulated "the great American novel," that it did not produce our Tolstoy or our Iliad. Perhaps so. There have been thousands of works of fiction about the war, but we have to remember what happened to this story, by and large, in American literature by the late 19th and early 20th centuries - it was consumed in sentimentalism and romanticism. Thomas Nelson Page, and his many immitators (writing "darky" stories about the plantation legend) were the most popular writers about war and slavery themes by the 1890s. The place of race in why this happened is absolutely paramount. Again, see my work on this in Race and Reunion. all the best, David Blight "Henderson, Desiree" wrote: > I would like to add a new thread to this fascinating discussion: the role of > literature in shaping conceptions of the Civil War. I am currently > teaching a Civil War Literature class (I have listed some of the texts I > assigned below if anyone is interested). In my class, I argue that > literature played a key role in provoking the war (Uncle Tom's Cabin for > example) and that American literature continues to be dominated by the Civil > War (from Jeff Sharra's novels to Cold Mountain). I ask my students to > consider how literature has impacted the memory of the War in America. In > other words, how many contemporary ideas of the war are the product not of > historical events, presidential speeches, or visits to "sacred sites," but > fictional representations of the war and its participants? My general question is this: What fictional representations are most > important in the construction of popular conceptions of the War? A practical question: One problem I faced putting my class together is that > I could not find an anthology of Civil War literature. Does anyone know one > to recommend? If none exists, what does that mean for how the Civil War is > or is not being taught in English departments? Recommended reading: Here are two recent publications that have helped me > in producing this class -- one primary text, the other a work of literary > analysis: Kathleen Diffey, ed. To Live and Die: Collected Stories of the Civil War, > 1861-76 (Duke, 2002) Elizabeth Young, Disarming the Nation: Women's Writing and the American > Civil War (Chicago 1999) Here are some of the works my students are reading this semester: Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin Mary Eastman, Aunt Phillis' Cabin Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches Walt Whitman, Drum Taps poems Frances Harper, Iola Leroy Stephen Crane, Red Badge of Courage William Faulkner, stories Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain Please keep those references coming -- they are a great help to > non-historians like myself. Thanks! Desiree Henderson > > --- > Prof. Desiree Henderson > Department of English > University of Texas, El Paso > (915) 747-6252 > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:57:02 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Whitman, Torrey S." Subject: Re: Slavery as Affirmation of White Supremacy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Stephen Whitman, Mt. St. Mary's College Greetings to the forum, One illustration of the symbolic value of retaining slavery can be seen in Delaware's history. With fewer than 400 slaveholders in the state, and 92% of its black population free in 1860, Delaware's leaders resisted compensated emancipation during the Civil War, and rejected ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865. Patience Essah's __A House Divided__ links these actions to a desire to assert white supremacy unequivocally. Likewise, opposition to state-sponsored emancipation in Maryland = came within 500 votes of a majority to sustain slavery in October of = 1864, when the "abrasions" of the war had already rendered the institution = moribund. -----Original Message----- From: Albert Mackey [mailto:CashG79@AOL.COM] Sent: Wed 3/5/2003 5:54 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Cc:=09 Subject: Re: Slavery's Demise? The Social Side of the Question In a message dated 3/5/03 11:50:40 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, = jhart@NAICO.COM writes: > he characterized the > prospect of the destruction of slavery in social, not economic, terms. > Meaning that even though the emancipation represented a loss of = capital to > the planter, it also raised the prospect of living in a society where > former slaves could be considered equals. ------------------- I agree completely. Charles Dew's _Apostles of Disunion_ is an = excellent source on the arguments used by the secession commissioners. To a man = they were concerned that the abolition of slavery would lead to equality = between the races. Slavery was more than an economic system, it was a system of racial control as well, ensuring white supremacy. Typical of the mindset is that expressed by Alabama's Secession = Commissioner to Kentucky, Stephen F. Hale, who in a letter to Kentucky Gov. Beriah Magoffin said, "Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without = indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own = sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes = upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by = the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the = black race which God himself has bestowed?" [OR Ser. IV, vol. 1, pp. 4-11] Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:08:48 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Leah M Wood Subject: CW literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Other sources on literature - popular and children's (what they were reading DURING the war): The Imagined Civil War: Popular Literature of the North & South, 1861-1865 by Alice Fahs (UNC Press 2001) The Boy of Chancellorville: And Other Civil War Stories by James Alan Marten (Editor) (Oxford Univ. Press 2002) Leah W. Jewett US Civil War Center LSU This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:37:18 -0500 Reply-To: robertm@combatic.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Robert Mosher Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature - in Verse In-Reply-To: <3E676AD4.FEA94199@amherst.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Let me also suggest that we not overlook poetry of the period and later poetry about the Civil War as a source of insights. I have built a personal website (www.combatic.com - an uphill lesson in technology) that includes collected poems of and about wars throughout history. In the process of gathering material for inclusion, I have discovered an interest in poetry not seriously evident before. Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass collection provided some selections as he drew upon his own experience of the war. There is now available in paperback the collection of Herman Melville's poetry. I have listed a few items from my bibliography and two websites that I found creating similar resources on the net. (With regard to literature, I also suggest Mark Twain's "History of a Forgotten Campaign.") Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman, (c) 1921 The Modern Library, New York, The Modern Library Battle-Pieces and Aspects of the War, Civil War Poems, Herman Melville, First Da Capo Press edition 1995, New York, Da Capo Press Selected Works of Stephen Vincent Benet: Volume 1 Poetry. (2 volumes). Stephen Vincent Benet. (c) 1942 Stephen Vincent Benet, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc. New York. The Oxford Book of War Poetry, Jon Stallworthy (ed.), (c) 1984 Jon Stallworthy, New York, Oxford University Press 120 War Poems - http://website.lineone.net/~nusquam/wptitle.htm www.soldiersongs.com Robert A. Mosher This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:49 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11.be7f8f5.2b98c985_boundary" --part1_11.be7f8f5.2b98c985_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/6/2003 4:48:55 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, pkharo@EARTHLINK.NET writes: > Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that economics was a > "red-herring" with respect to the civil war? I guess that my confusion over > the more important causal factors of the civil war has to do with whether > the Union was fighting to end slavery on moral or economic grounds. -------------------- Remember, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery. The goal was to preserve the Union. Later in the war, ending slavery emerged as a war objective, but it did so because it was recognized that a) since arguments over slavery had brought on the war there could be no real peace as long as it still existed, and b) slavery represented a pillar of confederate society and ending slavery would bring the war to a swifter conclusion. Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_11.be7f8f5.2b98c985_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/6/2003 4:48:55 AM Hawaiian Standa= rd Time, pkharo@EARTHLINK.NET writes:


Could you please elaborate as t= o why you believe that economics was a "red-herring" with respect to the civ= il war? I guess that my confusion over the more important causal factors of=20= the civil war has to do with whether the Union was fighting to end slavery o= n moral or economic grounds.


--------------------
Remember, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation the Union wasn't fighting t= o end slavery.  The goal was to preserve the Union.  Later in the=20= war, ending slavery emerged as a war objective, but it did so because it was= recognized that a) since arguments over slavery had brought on the war ther= e could be no real peace as long as it still existed, and b) slavery represe= nted a pillar of confederate society and ending slavery would bring the war=20= to a swifter conclusion.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_11.be7f8f5.2b98c985_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:59:54 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Slavery as Affirmation of White Supremacy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_39.3515a74c.2b98ca7a_boundary" --part1_39.3515a74c.2b98ca7a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/6/2003 4:59:33 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, whitman@MSMARY.EDU writes: > opposition to state-sponsored emancipation in Maryland came within 500 votes > of a majority to sustain slavery in October of 1864, when > the "abrasions" of the war had already rendered the institution moribund. --------------------- In fact, it was the vote of Maryland soldiers that was critical in passing Maryland's emancipation bill. They had seen the suffering of a war caused by slavery and they wanted it ended. Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_39.3515a74c.2b98ca7a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/6/2003 4:59:33 AM Hawaiian Standa= rd Time, whitman@MSMARY.EDU writes:


opposition to state-sponsored e= mancipation in Maryland came within 500 votes of a majority to sustain slave= ry in October of 1864, when
the "abrasions" of the war had already rendered the institution moribund.

---------------------
In fact, it was the vote of Maryland soldiers that was critical in passing M= aryland's emancipation bill.  They had seen the suffering of a war caus= ed by slavery and they wanted it ended.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_39.3515a74c.2b98ca7a_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:05:10 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature - in Verse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11b.1f1a218b.2b98cbb6_boundary" --part1_11b.1f1a218b.2b98cbb6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/6/2003 6:00:25 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, robertm@COMBATIC.COM writes: > Let me also suggest that we not overlook poetry of the period and later > poetry about the Civil War as a source of insights. -------------------- Good point. Another resource is _The Columbia Book of Civil War Poetry: From Whitman to Walcott,_ edited by Richard Marius. Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_11b.1f1a218b.2b98cbb6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/6/2003 6:00:25 AM Hawaiian Standa= rd Time, robertm@COMBATIC.COM writes:


Let me also suggest that we not= overlook poetry of the period and later
poetry about the Civil War as a source of insights. 


--------------------
Good point.  Another resource is _The Columbia Book of Civil War Poetry= :  From Whitman to Walcott,_ edited by Richard Marius.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_11b.1f1a218b.2b98cbb6_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:55:57 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics In-Reply-To: <11.be7f8f5.2b98c985@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1165149132==_ma============" --============_-1165149132==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Right, I think there's an important distinction in talking about the "causes" of the Civil War. The south seceded in order to protect and preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that the Union fought in order to end slavery. Which isn't to say the abolition impulse was irrelevant for the Union forces, though. I think it's interesting that I didn't know about the importance of emancipation in the Union war effort until I read a *British* history of the US. I think there is still a silence on that issue in popular histories. >In a message dated 3/6/2003 4:48:55 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, >pkharo@EARTHLINK.NET writes: > >>Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that economics was >>a "red-herring" with respect to the civil war? I guess that my >>confusion over the more important causal factors of the civil war >>has to do with whether the Union was fighting to end slavery on >>moral or economic grounds. >> > > >-------------------- >Remember, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation the Union wasn't >fighting to end slavery. The goal was to preserve the Union. Later >in the war, ending slavery emerged as a war objective, but it did so >because it was recognized that a) since arguments over slavery had >brought on the war there could be no real peace as long as it still >existed, and b) slavery represented a pillar of confederate society >and ending slavery would bring the war to a swifter conclusion. > >Regards, >Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit >our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for >teaching U.S. History. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "I ranted to the knave and fool, But outgrew that school, Would transform the part, Fit audience found, but cannot rule My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --============_-1165149132==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: Slavery and Economics
Right, I think there's an important distinction in talking about
the "causes" of the Civil War.  The south seceded in order to
protect and preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that the Union
fought in order to end slavery.

Which isn't to say the abolition impulse was irrelevant for the
Union forces, though. I think it's interesting that I didn't know
about the importance of emancipation in the Union war effort until
I read a *British* history of the US.  I think there is still a
silence on that issue in popular histories.

In a message dated 3/6/2003 4:48:55 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, pkharo@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that economics was a "red-herring" with respect to the civil war? I guess that my confusion over the more important causal factors of the civil war has to do with whether the Union was fighting to end slavery on moral or economic grounds.


--------------------
Remember, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery.  The goal was to preserve the Union.  Later in the war, ending slavery emerged as a war objective, but it did so because it was recognized that a) since arguments over slavery had brought on the war there could be no real peace as long as it still existed, and b) slavery represented a pillar of confederate society and ending slavery would bring the war to a swifter conclusion.

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

--
Trish Roberts-Miller        redball@mindspring.com
"I ranted to the knave and fool,
But outgrew that school,
Would transform the part,
Fit audience found, but cannot rule
My fanatic heart."  (WB Yeats)

 http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --============_-1165149132==_ma============-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:22:28 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pearson, Tom A." Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think it may help persons thinking about Union support of abolition to realize that there were really two types of morality at work in the abolition issue. The first is what I call absolute morality (think John Brown): a desire to end slavery which stemmed from the conviction that the institution was a moral outrage which had to be ended immediately, whatever the cost in money and human life. The second is what I call practical morality (think President Lincoln): a conscious decision to support an immediate end to slavery in the rebelling states because it would: A) hurt the Confederacy in economic terms, B) thwart the Peace Democrats by polarizing northern abolitionists in favor of the war effort, and C) prevent foreign powers from recognizing (and possibly entering the war on the side of) the Confederacy. It's quite true that England gave serious consideration to aiding the Confederacy, and that the Peace Democrats came within a whisker on several occasions of derailing the Northern war effort. As a well-known example, Sherman's capture of Atlanta in Sept. 1864 is all that ensured that Lincoln would occupy the White House and not George McClellan, the Peace Democrat. Tom Pearson -----Original Message----- From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War [mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Trish Roberts-Miller Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:56 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics Right, I think there's an important distinction in talking about the "causes" of the Civil War. The south seceded in order to protect and preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that the Union fought in order to end slavery. Remember, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery. The goal was to preserve the Union. Later in the war, ending slavery emerged as a war objective, but it did so because it was recognized that a) since arguments over slavery had brought on the war there could be no real peace as long as it still existed, and b) slavery represented a pillar of confederate society and ending slavery would bring the war to a swifter conclusion. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:09:04 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fb.3a03f2c9.2b994b30_boundary" --part1_fb.3a03f2c9.2b994b30_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/6/2003 12:44:46 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes: > The first is what I call absolute morality (think John > Brown): a desire to end slavery which stemmed from the conviction that the > institution was a moral outrage which had to be ended immediately, whatever > the cost in money and human life. --------------------- I have a quibble with this portion. I don't think of John Brown as absolutely moral. He murdered innocents in Kansas simply for their beliefs. Maybe Elijah Lovejoy or William Henry Garrison might fit there. The second is what I call practical > > morality (think President Lincoln): a conscious decision to support an > immediate end to slavery in the rebelling states because it would: > > A) hurt the Confederacy in economic terms, > B) thwart the Peace Democrats by polarizing northern abolitionists in > favor of the war effort, and > C) prevent foreign powers from recognizing (and possibly entering the > war on the side of) the Confederacy. > > It's quite true that England gave serious consideration to aiding the > Confederacy, and that the Peace Democrats came within a whisker on several > occasions of derailing the Northern war effort. As a well-known example, > Sherman's capture of Atlanta in Sept. 1864 is all that ensured that Lincoln > would occupy the White House and not George McClellan, the Peace Democrat. ------------------- Just musing with electrons here, but I wonder if that interpretation needs to be relooked. Was the capture of Atlanta indeed the single event that guaranteed Lincoln's victory or was it just one of several? Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_fb.3a03f2c9.2b994b30_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/6/2003 12:44:46 PM Hawaiian Stand= ard Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes:


The first is what I call absolu= te morality (think John
Brown): a desire to end slavery which stemmed from the conviction that the institution was a moral outrage which had to be ended immediately, whatever<= BR> the cost in money and human life.


---------------------
I have a quibble with this portion.  I don't think of John Brown as abs= olutely moral.  He murdered innocents in Kansas simply for their belief= s.  Maybe Elijah Lovejoy or William Henry Garrison might fit there.


The second is what I call practical


morality (think President Lincoln): a conscious decision to support an
immediate end to slavery in the rebelling states because it would:

      A) hurt the Confederacy in economic terms,       B) thwart the Peace Democrats by polarizing n= orthern abolitionists in
favor of the war effort, and
      C) prevent foreign powers from recognizing (a= nd possibly entering the
war on the side of) the Confederacy.

    It's quite true that England gave serious consideration t= o aiding the
Confederacy, and that the Peace Democrats came within a whisker on several occasions of derailing the Northern war effort. As a well-known example,
Sherman's capture of Atlanta in Sept. 1864 is all that ensured that Lincoln<= BR> would occupy the White House and not George McClellan, the Peace Democrat.

-------------------
Just musing with electrons here, but I wonder if that interpretation needs t= o be relooked.  Was the capture of Atlanta indeed the single event that= guaranteed Lincoln's victory or was it just one of several?

Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_fb.3a03f2c9.2b994b30_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:21:36 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: Students thoughts on Gods and Generals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2E437.21FA9640" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2E437.21FA9640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I inadvertantly sent this to the wrong address. Sorry.=20 In response to Charity's thoughts on states' rights, they were as doomed = as the yeoman farmer, the buggy whip, the 8 track player, and BETA video = tape. I can see where she's going with it, and that might sound like = the topic for a great doctoral thesis - what if there hadn't been any = CW? Would states' rights have died a natural death by WW2? Would the = automobile and car killed it? The fact that it's still around might say = something, but some of you have mentioned that SR is a code word now for = small government. I tend to agree with that. =20 Thought #1: I took my juniors and seniors to see G&G on Feb. 21st at = 11:00 a.m. I prepped them for it a little but they were going into it = cold. They hadn't seen Gettysburg with me (unless they'd seen it on = their own which is entirely possible). At the intermission, we all = needed a break. By the end, remarks we hard to come by b/c everyone = wanted to get home and on with winter break. So, Monday, we sat and = talked about the film. A number enjoyed the film - they were struck by = the loyalty to one's state instead of one's country. They were split = down the middle on the amount of gore - some wanted a realistic action = flick ala Saving Private Ryan and others appreciated not being spattered = with blood for 4 hours. One student thought this was a Stonewall = Jackson biopic. Another asked "why didn't the movie start with the = bombing of Fort Sumter?" I couldn't answer that one. I had the same = question as well. Others, both black and white, felt that there wasn't = a complete picture of slavery represented in the movie. They qualified = their words not to say "accurate" b/c there weren't any cotton-picking = scenes in the movie, but I reminded them that the focus of the movie = wasn't on slavery. I shared with them Roger Ebert's review of the film = in which he devotes the 1st paragraph of his review lamenting the fact = that a black actor doesn't show up until 90 minutes into the film. I = also mentioned to them that other reviewers said that the movie seemed = "Southern-biased" b/c the Union lost all three battles in the film. One = of my more astute kids who knows a ton about the war retorted, "well, we = got our butts kicked in the early goings of the war, except for = Antietam. What'd they expect?" Well said, I thought to myself. = Criticisms were numerous, and I'll save them for another time so as to = not monopolize this forum. =20 Thanks for listening. Yeah for snow! 6 inches today! =20 Geoff Wickersham=20 Groves High School, gw02bps@birmingham.k12.mi.us Beverly Hills, MI=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Charity Pitton=20 To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 AM Subject: States' rights in a shrinking world Over the last several months, I've been contemplating the = globalization process currently bemoaned by many wishing to preserve = indigenous cultures and prevent the intrusion of McDonald's, among other = things, to every corner of the earth. One idea I keep coming back to is = that this process is inevitable. Those who bemoan may do so all they = want, but they can't prevent it. Due to factors such as more rapid and = efficient transportation, the internet, and satellite communications, = the world is shrinking and homogenizing, and there isn't anything to be = done about it.=20 It struck me that these factors are probably related to other events, = such as the continuing solidification of the EU. Smaller, totally = independent nations are more needed when it takes days to travel from = Paris to Berlin, and any communication must follow the same long route. = However, when that same trip is just a few hours by plane, and the phone = or internet can transmit information instantaneously, suddenly all these = borders simply become headaches. Solidification makes sense because it = makes life more efficient. And communities - the basis for any = society/nation - are spread over larger areas than when one had to walk = to speak with someone.=20 I remember hearing somewhere in my education that the demise of = slavery was quite possibly inevitable. The idea was that it had died out = and been replaced by machinery in many areas, and that would have = eventually happened in the south for economic reasons, even if the Civil = War had not occurred.=20 Is it possible that the lessening of states' rights was inevitable, = due to shrinking distances? It was not as far, mentally, from = Massachusetts to Tennessee as it had been during colonial times. = Overland roads were established, steamboats were used on water routes, = and trains crisscrossed the East. Regional differences were more = annoying, and the process of homogenization was beginning. Might some of = the change in attitude toward states' rights not be only idealistic, but = also logistical, similar to what we see now in the EU?=20 I'm not sure I'm explaining my thought very clearly, but that's my = best attempt. Charity Pitton This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site = at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2E437.21FA9640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I inadvertantly sent this to the wrong = address.=20 Sorry.
 
In response to Charity's thoughts on = states'=20 rights, they were as doomed as the yeoman farmer, the buggy whip, the 8 = track=20 player, and BETA video tape.  I can see where she's going with it, = and that=20 might sound like the topic for a great doctoral thesis - what if there = hadn't=20 been any CW?  Would states' rights have died a natural death by = WW2? =20 Would the automobile and car killed it?  The fact that it's still = around=20 might say something, but some of you have mentioned that SR is a code = word now=20 for small government.  I tend to agree with that.  =
 
Thought #1: I took my = juniors and=20 seniors to see G&G on Feb. 21st at 11:00 a.m. I prepped them for it = a little=20 but they were going into it cold.  They hadn't seen Gettysburg with = me=20 (unless they'd seen it on their own which is entirely possible).  = At the=20 intermission, we all needed a break.  By the end, remarks we hard = to come=20 by b/c everyone wanted to get home and on with winter break.  So, = Monday,=20 we sat and talked about the film.  A number enjoyed the film - they = were=20 struck by the loyalty to one's state instead of one's country.  = They were=20 split down the middle on the amount of gore - some  wanted a = realistic=20 action flick ala Saving Private Ryan and others appreciated not = being=20 spattered with blood for 4 hours.  One student thought this was a = Stonewall=20 Jackson biopic.  Another asked "why didn't the movie start with the = bombing=20 of Fort Sumter?"  I couldn't answer that one.  I had the same = question=20 as well.   Others, both black and white, felt that there = wasn't a=20 complete picture of slavery represented in the movie.  They = qualified their=20 words not to say "accurate" b/c there weren't any cotton-picking scenes = in the=20 movie, but I reminded them that the focus of the movie wasn't on = slavery. =20 I shared with them Roger Ebert's review of the film in which he devotes = the=20 1st paragraph of his review lamenting the fact that a = black=20 actor doesn't show up until 90 minutes into the film.  I also=20 mentioned to them that other reviewers said that the movie seemed=20 "Southern-biased" b/c the Union lost all three battles in the = film. =20 One of my more astute kids who knows a ton about the war retorted, = "well, we got=20 our butts kicked in the early goings of the war, except for = Antietam. =20 What'd they expect?"   Well said, I thought to = myself. =20 Criticisms were numerous, and I'll save them for another time so as to = not=20 monopolize this forum. 
 
Thanks for listening.  Yeah for = snow!  6=20 inches today! 
 
Geoff Wickersham
Groves High School,  gw02bps@birmingham.k12.mi.us=
Beverly Hills, MI
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Charity = Pitton=20
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.L= ISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 = 10:40=20 AM
Subject: States' rights in a = shrinking=20 world

Over the last = several months,=20 I've been contemplating the globalization process currently bemoaned = by many=20 wishing to preserve indigenous cultures and prevent the intrusion of=20 McDonald's, among other things, to every corner of the earth. One idea = I keep=20 coming back to is that this process is inevitable. Those who bemoan = may do so=20 all they want, but they can't prevent it. Due to factors such as more = rapid=20 and efficient transportation, the internet, and satellite = communications, the=20 world is shrinking and homogenizing, and there isn't anything to be = done about=20 it.

It struck me that these factors are probably related to = other=20 events, such as the continuing solidification of the EU. Smaller, = totally=20 independent nations are more needed when it takes days to travel from = Paris to=20 Berlin, and any communication must follow the same long route. = However, when=20 that same trip is just a few hours by plane, and the phone or internet = can=20 transmit information instantaneously, suddenly all these borders = simply become=20 headaches. Solidification makes sense because it makes life more = efficient.=20 And communities - the basis for any society/nation - are spread over = larger=20 areas than when one had to walk to speak with someone.

I = remember=20 hearing somewhere in my education that the demise of slavery was quite = possibly inevitable. The idea was that it had died out and been = replaced by=20 machinery in many areas, and that would have eventually happened in = the south=20 for economic reasons, even if the Civil War had not occurred. =

Is it=20 possible that the lessening of states' rights was inevitable, due to = shrinking=20 distances? It was not as far, mentally, from Massachusetts to = Tennessee as it=20 had been during colonial times. Overland roads were established, = steamboats=20 were used on water routes, and trains crisscrossed the East. Regional=20 differences were more annoying, and the process of homogenization was=20 beginning. Might some of the change in attitude toward states' rights = not be=20 only idealistic, but also logistical, similar to what we see now in = the EU?=20

I'm not sure I'm explaining my thought very clearly, but = that's my=20 best attempt.

Charity Pitton
This forum is sponsored = by=20 History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu=20 for more resources for teaching U.S.=20 History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C2E437.21FA9640-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:33:02 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Being an English major and a social studies minor (I know, collective gasp!), sorry, I've been adding more literature into my Civil War elective when my class went on curriculum cycle review last year. I'm rotating a series of three books every semester. I added Killer Angles by Michael Shaara (which they'll be reading this semester), Jubilee by Margaret Walker (those who actually read it last semester loved it - long but good!), and Company Aytch: A Side Show to the Big Show by Sam Watkins (which I'll do in the fall semester). In four or five years when I get to buy new books again, I'm not sure what I'll buy, but I am definitely open for suggestions. I do love my choice of textbook - McPherson's Ordeal By Fire. Battle Cry of Freedom is good but doesn't cover causes, war, and Reconstruction like I need for my course. Geoff Wickersham Groves High School Beverly Hills, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Blight" To: Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature > Colleagues: > > Prof. Henderson makes a very good case here for the significance of literature in bringing and shaping the meanings of the Civil War. One text you might add would be John W. Deforest's Miss Ravenal's Conversion. Also , the writings of Ambrose Bierce are very important for their unique realism and satire. You may know these texts , but also look at Daniel Aaron's The Unwritten War, and Edmund Wilson's classic, > Patriotic Gore (one of my favorite titles of all time). And finally, you will want to look at chapter 7 of my recent book, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory, entitled, "The Literature of Reunion and its Discontents." There are good anthologies of Civil War poetry, but not so much of fiction. One example of the latter is edited by Lou Masur from Oxford Univ. Press. I don't have it in front of me but > I think the title is "The Real War Will Not Get into the Books," Whitman's famous line from Specimen Days. > > An old argument, advanced by Aaron, and to some extent by Wilson, is that the Civil War never really stimulated "the great American novel," that it did not produce our Tolstoy or our Iliad. Perhaps so. There have been thousands of works of fiction about the war, but we have to remember what happened to this story, by and large, in American literature by the late 19th and early 20th centuries - it was consumed in > sentimentalism and romanticism. Thomas Nelson Page, and his many immitators (writing "darky" stories about the plantation legend) were the most popular writers about war and slavery themes by the 1890s. The place of race in why this happened is absolutely paramount. Again, see my work on this in Race and Reunion. > > all the best, > > David Blight > > "Henderson, Desiree" wrote: > > > I would like to add a new thread to this fascinating discussion: the role of > > literature in shaping conceptions of the Civil War. I am currently > > teaching a Civil War Literature class (I have listed some of the texts I > > assigned below if anyone is interested). In my class, I argue that > > literature played a key role in provoking the war (Uncle Tom's Cabin for > > example) and that American literature continues to be dominated by the Civil > > War (from Jeff Sharra's novels to Cold Mountain). I ask my students to > > consider how literature has impacted the memory of the War in America. In > > other words, how many contemporary ideas of the war are the product not of > > historical events, presidential speeches, or visits to "sacred sites," but > > fictional representations of the war and its participants? My general question is this: What fictional representations are most > > important in the construction of popular conceptions of the War? A practical question: One problem I faced putting my class together is that > > I could not find an anthology of Civil War literature. Does anyone know one > > to recommend? If none exists, what does that mean for how the Civil War is > > or is not being taught in English departments? Recommended reading: Here are two recent publications that have helped me > > in producing this class -- one primary text, the other a work of literary > > analysis: Kathleen Diffey, ed. To Live and Die: Collected Stories of the Civil War, > > 1861-76 (Duke, 2002) Elizabeth Young, Disarming the Nation: Women's Writing and the American > > Civil War (Chicago 1999) Here are some of the works my students are reading this semester: Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin Mary Eastman, Aunt Phillis' Cabin Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches Walt Whitman, Drum Taps poems Frances Harper, Iola Leroy Stephen Crane, Red Badge of Courage William Faulkner, stories Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain Please keep those references coming -- they are a great help to > > non-historians like myself. Thanks! Desiree Henderson > > > > --- > > Prof. Desiree Henderson > > Department of English > > University of Texas, El Paso > > (915) 747-6252 > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:57:02 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Sackett, Pamela J." Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Another practical example of this duality of conscience re: slavery that is rarely talked about or studied is the role the established churches played in this debate.=20 The Presbyterian Church split NORTH/SOUTH on this issue, a division that continued well into the 20th Century.=20 Pamela Myer Sackett Vice Chairman, Brentsville Historic Trust <> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:01:43 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pearson, Tom A." Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Pearson, Tom A. Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:22 PM To: 'Teaching the U.S. Civil War' Subject: RE: Slavery and Economics I think it may help persons thinking about Union support of abolition to realize that there were really two types of morality at work in the abolition issue. The first is what I call absolute morality (think John Brown): a desire to end slavery which stemmed from the conviction that the institution was a moral outrage which had to be ended immediately, whatever the cost in money and human life. The second is what I call practical morality (think President Lincoln): a conscious decision to support an immediate end to slavery in the rebelling states because it would: A) hurt the Confederacy in economic terms, B) thwart the Peace Democrats by polarizing northern abolitionists in favor of the war effort, and C) prevent foreign powers from recognizing (and possibly entering the war on the side of) the Confederacy. It's quite true that England gave serious consideration to aiding the Confederacy, and that the Peace Democrats came within a whisker on several occasions of derailing the Northern war effort. As a well-known example, Sherman's capture of Atlanta in Sept. 1864 is all that ensured that Lincoln would occupy the White House and not George McClellan, the Peace Democrat. Tom Pearson -----Original Message----- From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War [mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Trish Roberts-Miller Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:56 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics Right, I think there's an important distinction in talking about the "causes" of the Civil War. The south seceded in order to protect and preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that the Union fought in order to end slavery. Remember, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery. The goal was to preserve the Union. Later in the war, ending slavery emerged as a war objective, but it did so because it was recognized that a) since arguments over slavery had brought on the war there could be no real peace as long as it still existed, and b) slavery represented a pillar of confederate society and ending slavery would bring the war to a swifter conclusion. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:41:40 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jack Ehmer Subject: Re: Company Aytch MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cc.19792f3f.2b998b14_boundary" --part1_cc.19792f3f.2b998b14_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have just started this book. The author was Samuel Rush Watkins, a private in Tennessee's "Maury's Grays". I find Sam Watkin's candor and relative objectivity to be a quite refreshing change from the self-serving memoirs of some of the high ranking officers (Sam Grant excepted). I was also surprised to find "Cold Mountain" to be quite anti-Confederate in tone. Jack Ehmer Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:25:11 -0800 From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature How about Company Aytch by the Confederate veteran whose name I can't recall ? It's very readable and he has a dry wit and an innate fairness that will make you and your students respect him.. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_cc.19792f3f.2b998b14_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have just started this book. The author was Samuel R= ush Watkins, a private in Tennessee's "Maury's Grays".  I find Sam Watk= in's candor and relative objectivity to be a quite refreshing change from th= e self-serving memoirs of some of the high ranking officers (Sam Grant excep= ted).

I was also surprised to find "Cold Mountain" to be quite anti-Confederate in= tone.

Jack Ehmer


Date:    Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:25:11 -0800
From:    jeffrey rinde <jjrinde62@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature

How about Company Aytch by the Confederate veteran
whose name I can't recall ? It's very readable and he
has a dry wit and an innate fairness that will make
you and your students respect him..
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_cc.19792f3f.2b998b14_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:18:57 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Ruth Samuels Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html

Thanks for raising the question of literature and its relation to such a violent history, a matter I study and teach as both a theoretical and historical one.  Good suggestions have been made in this thread.

There are some less obvious sources of Civil War narratives as well. One that I read before I understood that it was a Civil War elegy is Elizabeth Phelps's enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar.  This very much shows the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those left behind when a loved one dies.
 
Another possible way of thinking about the topic is through Augusta Evans account of the war from the point of view of a southern woman in Macaria.  This bestselling novel could still appear as a kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause.
 
In Who Would Have Thought It?  Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the war as an element of a story that ranges from the western United States to Washington D.C.
 
I'm quite fond of the works of EDEN Southworth.  In the two novels published together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she presents women dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves intensely romantic and sensational stories together with the conflicts that loyalty to Virginia and loyalty to the south might present.
 
I write about this a bit in an essay called "Women at War" that's in the recent Cambridge UP volume on 19th century American Women Writers (ed. Dale Bauer and Philip Gould).
 
I'm also fascinated by the thread on sacred spaces.  I'm following up on this concept in the relation of Civil War iconography to political cartoons and photography.  The forthcoming book is called "Facing America: Cultural Iconography and the Civil War" and I'm absorbed in what I would now call, after reading this series of threads, as the face as a sacred space.  That of course would invoke Abraham Lincoln, but it also includes the circulation of faces that the Civil War at once accompanied and provoked.
 
Another long post!
 
Best, Shirley Samuels
(English Dept., Cornell University)


The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:47:39 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------22C4698FAC6F491926B523E8" --------------22C4698FAC6F491926B523E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am grateful for Ruch Samuels's wonderful suggestions about approaches to Civil War literature. It is certainly true that uses of the war come up in myriad ways in literature and in film, poetry and song. On the matter of high school students' reactions to God and Generals in Michigan and elsewhere: I found the responses very interesting. How aware are young people of the differences between sheer enterainment and the politics of a movie such as this? The responses indicated seem to indicate that they are quite astute on this question. Gods and Generals is a paen to the Lost Cause by any stretch of the imagination. It is the Stonewall Jackson story in all its pathos. But there is a politics to this film that should not be ignored. It does seem to be Mr. Maxwell's effort to ressurect the neo-Confederate tradition. Its defenders can claim accuracy of detail if they choose. But when Jackson says to his trusted slave, Lewis, that he (Jackson) and Lee would prefer to free the slaves and arm them in late 1862 we know we are witnessing something besides an effort at accuracy. And all the blather about state rights and defense of homeland in the beginning just avoids utterly most of the real causes at the root of secession. This film gives us the fight without much of its larger meanings. It's largely the neo-Confederate tradition's favorite fantasy - what if Stonewall had lived....... My best to you all for the weekend. David Blight Ruth Samuels wrote: > > > Thanks for raising the question of literature and its relation to such > a violent history, a matter I study and teach as both a theoretical > and historical one. Good suggestions have been made in this thread. > There are some less obvious sources of Civil War narratives as well. > One that I read before I understood that it was a Civil War elegy is > Elizabeth Phelps's enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar. This very > much shows the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those left > behind when a loved one dies. Another possible way of thinking about > the topic is through Augusta Evans account of the war from the point > of view of a southern woman in Macaria. This bestselling novel could > still appear as a kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause. In > Who Would Have Thought It? Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the war as > an element of a story that ranges from the western United States to > Washington D.C. I'm quite fond of the works of EDEN Southworth. In > the two novels published together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she > presents women dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves intensely > romantic and sensational stories together with the conflicts that > loyalty to Virginia and loyalty to the south might present. I write > about this a bit in an essay called "Women at War" that's in the > recent Cambridge UP volume on 19th century American Women Writers (ed. > Dale Bauer and Philip Gould). I'm also fascinated by the thread on > sacred spaces. I'm following up on this concept in the relation of > Civil War iconography to political cartoons and photography. The > forthcoming book is called "Facing America: Cultural Iconography and > the Civil War" and I'm absorbed in what I would now call, after > reading this series of threads, as the face as a sacred space. That > of course would invoke Abraham Lincoln, but it also includes the > circulation of faces that the Civil War at once accompanied and > provoked. Another long post! Best, Shirley Samuels(English Dept., > Cornell University) > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* This forum is > sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------22C4698FAC6F491926B523E8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am grateful for Ruch Samuels's wonderful suggestions about approaches to Civil War literature.  It is certainly true that uses of the war come up in myriad ways in literature and in film, poetry and song.

On the matter of high school students' reactions to God and Generals in Michigan and elsewhere:  I found the responses very interesting.  How aware are young people of the differences between sheer enterainment and the politics of a movie such as this?  The responses indicated seem to indicate that they are quite astute on this question.  Gods and Generals is a paen to the Lost Cause by any stretch of the imagination.  It is the Stonewall Jackson story in all its pathos.  But there is a politics to this film that should not be ignored.  It does seem to be Mr. Maxwell's effort to ressurect the neo-Confederate tradition.  Its defenders can claim accuracy of detail if they choose.  But when Jackson says to his trusted slave, Lewis, that he (Jackson) and Lee would prefer to free the slaves and arm them in late 1862 we know we are witnessing something besides an effort at accuracy.  And all the blather about state rights and defense of homeland in the beginning just avoids utterly most of the real causes at the root of secession.  This film gives us the fight without much of its larger meanings.  It's largely the neo-Confederate tradition's favorite fantasy - what if Stonewall had lived.......

My best to you all for the weekend.

David Blight

Ruth Samuels wrote:

 

Thanks for raising the question of literature and its relation to such a violent history, a matter I study and teach as both a theoretical and historical one.  Good suggestions have been made in this thread.
There are some less obvious sources of Civil War narratives as well. One that I read before I understood that it was a Civil War elegy is Elizabeth Phelps's enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar.  This very much shows the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those left behind when a loved one dies. Another possible way of thinking about the topic is through Augusta Evans account of the war from the point of view of a southern woman in Macaria.  This bestselling novel could still appear as a kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause. In Who Would Have Thought It?  Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the war as an element of a story that ranges from the western United States to Washington D.C. I'm quite fond of the works of EDEN Southworth.  In the two novels published together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she presents women dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves intensely romantic and sensational stories together with the conflicts that loyalty to Virginia and loyalty to the south might present. I write about this a bit in an essay called "Women at War" that's in the recent Cambridge UP volume on 19th century American Women Writers (ed. Dale Bauer and Philip Gould). I'm also fascinated by the thread on sacred spaces.  I'm following up on this concept in the relation of Civil War iconography to political cartoons and photography.  The forthcoming book is called "Facing America: Cultural Iconography and the Civil War" and I'm absorbed in what I would now call, after reading this series of threads, as the face as a sacred space.  That of course would invoke Abraham Lincoln, but it also includes the circulation of faces that the Civil War at once accompanied and provoked. Another long post! Best, Shirley Samuels(English Dept., Cornell University)



The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------22C4698FAC6F491926B523E8-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:08:21 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pearson, Tom A." Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Al, While I see the point you are trying to make about John Brown, I think your argument somewhat misses my point, which was not that Brown was a moral man in some absolute sense, but that he acted as he did because he believed that slavery was such an egregious moral outrage that any actions he took to bring it to an immediate end were justifiable by his lights. My argument doesn't say that Brown was right to take the actions he did- merely that his belief that slavery had to be ended NOW superceded in his mind any qualms he might feel about taking violent action to produce the desired result. I also see your point about the capture of Atlanta, and think it's an argument you might be able to win. McPherson argues in his recent Antietam book that Union victory in that battle, and Lincoln's subsequent issuance of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, almost certainly helped the Republicans maintain a majority in Congress in the 1862 elections and forestalled official English recognition of the Confederacy . But that doesn't change my main point: that Lincoln, unlike Brown, acted to end slavery not from a firmly held belief that slavery was an absolute moral outrage, but because he saw that making the end of slavery an official Union war objective would help achieve his own real, absolute objective: preservation of the Union. Thanks for responding. I love reading (and participating in) well-mannered debates in forums like this. Tom Pearson -----Original Message----- From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War [mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Albert Mackey Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:09 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics In a message dated 3/6/2003 12:44:46 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes: The first is what I call absolute morality (think John Brown): a desire to end slavery which stemmed from the conviction that the institution was a moral outrage which had to be ended immediately, whatever the cost in money and human life. --------------------- I have a quibble with this portion. I don't think of John Brown as absolutely moral. He murdered innocents in Kansas simply for their beliefs. Maybe Elijah Lovejoy or William Henry Garrison might fit there. The second is what I call practical morality (think President Lincoln): a conscious decision to support an immediate end to slavery in the rebelling states because it would: A) hurt the Confederacy in economic terms, B) thwart the Peace Democrats by polarizing northern abolitionists in favor of the war effort, and C) prevent foreign powers from recognizing (and possibly entering the war on the side of) the Confederacy. It's quite true that England gave serious consideration to aiding the Confederacy, and that the Peace Democrats came within a whisker on several occasions of derailing the Northern war effort. As a well-known example, Sherman's capture of Atlanta in Sept. 1864 is all that ensured that Lincoln would occupy the White House and not George McClellan, the Peace Democrat. ------------------- Just musing with electrons here, but I wonder if that interpretation needs to be relooked. Was the capture of Atlanta indeed the single event that guaranteed Lincoln's victory or was it just one of several? Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:19:19 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_26.3613f1dd.2b9c6f27_boundary" --part1_26.3613f1dd.2b9c6f27_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/7/2003 3:20:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes: > While I see the point you are trying to make about John Brown, I think your > argument somewhat misses my point, which was not that Brown was a moral man > in some absolute sense, but that he acted as he did because he believed > that > slavery was such an egregious moral outrage that any actions he took to > bring it to an immediate end were justifiable by his lights. -------------- No, I got the point. As I said in my post it was just a quibble on my part that any identification of Brown with "absolute morality" is a misnomer no matter what the purpose. I don't challenge your conclusion, though. > I also see your point about the capture of Atlanta, and think it's an > argument you might be able to win. --------------- I was just musing at the keyboard and am not willing to advance that case. I was just running it up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted, so to speak. I thought it might be a springboard to some additional discussion. Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_26.3613f1dd.2b9c6f27_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/7/2003 3:20:32 PM Hawaiian Standa= rd Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes:


While I see the point you are t= rying to make about John Brown, I think your
argument somewhat misses my point, which was not that Brown was a moral man<= BR> in some absolute sense, but that he acted as he did because he believed that=
slavery was such an egregious moral outrage that any actions he took to
bring it to an immediate end were justifiable by his lights.


--------------
No, I got the point.  As I said in my post it was just a quibble on my=20= part that any identification of Brown with "absolute morality" is a misnomer= no matter what the purpose.  I don't challenge your conclusion, though= .


I also see your point about the= capture of Atlanta, and think it's an
argument you might be able to win.


---------------
I was just musing at the keyboard and am not willing to advance that case.&n= bsp; I was just running it up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted, so to s= peak.  I thought it might be a springboard to some additional discussio= n.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey


This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_26.3613f1dd.2b9c6f27_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:27:18 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September = 1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in October = in the Shenandoah helped as well. The threat to Washington D.C. was = finally gone. Also, there was the victory that started it all for = Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August. Even though Petersburg hadn't = fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the Union = was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, = and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =20 Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able to = find an answer. Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and = Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =20 Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=20 Geoff Wickersham=20 Groves High School=20 Beverly Hills, MI=20 P.S. I think I'll find some neat phrase/song lyric to end my emails with = like a number of you have. =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Albert Mackey=20 To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 5:19 AM Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics In a message dated 3/7/2003 3:20:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, = TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes: While I see the point you are trying to make about John Brown, I = think your argument somewhat misses my point, which was not that Brown was a = moral man in some absolute sense, but that he acted as he did because he = believed that slavery was such an egregious moral outrage that any actions he took = to bring it to an immediate end were justifiable by his lights. -------------- No, I got the point. As I said in my post it was just a quibble on my = part that any identification of Brown with "absolute morality" is a = misnomer no matter what the purpose. I don't challenge your conclusion, = though. I also see your point about the capture of Atlanta, and think it's = an argument you might be able to win.=20 --------------- I was just musing at the keyboard and am not willing to advance that = case. I was just running it up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted, = so to speak. I thought it might be a springboard to some additional = discussion. Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site = at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don't forget that not only Sherman's = victory in=20 Atlanta in September 1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at = Cedar=20 Creek in October in the Shenandoah helped as well.  The threat to=20 Washington D.C. was finally gone.  Also, there was the victory that = started=20 it all for Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August.  Even though = Petersburg=20 hadn't fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the = Union=20 was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, = and=20 Lincoln was able to secure re-election. 
 
Here's a question for everyone, and = one to=20 which I haven't been able to find an answer.  Is there a = difference=20 between Peace Democrat and Copperhead or are they interchangeable = terms? =20
 
Take care, and I hope everyone had a = restful=20 weekend.
 
Geoff Wickersham
Groves High School
Beverly Hills, MI
 
P.S. I think I'll find some neat = phrase/song=20 lyric to end my emails with like a number of you have.  =
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Albert = Mackey=20
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.L= ISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 = 5:19=20 AM
Subject: Re: Slavery and = Economics

In a message dated 3/7/2003 3:20:32 PM Hawaiian = Standard=20 Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US=20 writes:


While I see the point you are trying to make about John = Brown, I=20 think your
argument somewhat misses my point, which was not that = Brown=20 was a moral man
in some absolute sense, but that he acted as he = did=20 because he believed that
slavery was such an egregious moral = outrage that=20 any actions he took to
bring it to an immediate end were = justifiable by=20 his lights.


--------------
No, I got the point.  As I = said in=20 my post it was just a quibble on my part that any identification of = Brown with=20 "absolute morality" is a misnomer no matter what the purpose.  I = don't=20 challenge your conclusion, though.


I also see your point about the capture of Atlanta, and = think=20 it's an
argument you might be able to win.


---------------
I was just musing at the = keyboard and am=20 not willing to advance that case.  I was just running it up the = flagpole=20 to see if anyone saluted, so to speak.  I thought it might be a=20 springboard to some additional discussion.

Best Regards,
Al=20 Mackey


This forum is sponsored by History=20 Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu = for more=20 resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:22:21 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: Gods and Generals negative comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2E636.88E7A4A0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2E636.88E7A4A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, I've had some time to sit and digest some of the negative comments = from my kids, and they'll be writing their papers soon - as soon as I = finish their slave narrative analyses. First, a little about my class = and my school: this is a semester long junior/ senior elective - I = usually average about 3 classes a year, 20-25 kids per class. I take = 10-15 on a voluntary field trip to Gettysburg and Antietam every year = (maybe every other year next year), with side field trips to graveyards, = Underground RR houses and churches in the Detroit area, and weather = permitting, some re-enactments nearby. I have a wide range of abilities = in the class (as do we all) so I get some amazing papers and comments = and not-so-amazing papers and comments. So, when I give you their = comments, I usually give you the best ones. =20 Overall, I think we all felt the movie was way too long. A couple kids = mentioned that they would sit through a long movie if it was better, = mentioning a couple like Braveheart, Green Mile, and a few other 3-hour = flicks that we're so enjoyable you didn't notice that you hadn't moved = from your seat until you stood up (and then your feet/back/butt = complained!). They though a few of the scenes should have been cut = (like the Xmas scene, the cuddling scenes with Stonewall and his wife, = the interaction with Chamberlain and his wife, interaction with = Stonewall and the little girl,etc.) though they understood that the = scenes were in there for character development. I think I mentioned this = before but one of the kids said that this seemed like a Stonewall = biopic, similar to Hoffa, Michael Collins, or the like. A few students = wanted a little more comic relief - having been teased by the = Confederate crew that was shown to us sporadically. Given the battle = scenes, I understand their need for relief. A few students who knew = about the timeline of the war asked about the jump from January to = December 1862. I wondered where was the Peninsula Campaign and Antietam = as well. (I've always felt that there needs to be a comparable = movie/book for Antietam like Killer Angels/Gettysburg because the battle = is that important. Given that it's still the bloodiest single day in = American history, its importance is even more relevant today. And as a = major shift/turning point in the war, I might argue that Antietam is = more important than Gettysburg. But that's another issue.) One student = got indignant when Stonewall's black cook, Lewis, wanted to fight = against the Yankee invaders. He didn't feel that was an accurate = portrayal. I told him I didn't know for sure, but in the gamut of human = experience, almost anything's possible. =20 From a movie standpoint, some of the more astute kids picked out = recycled scenes (one thing that I had been looking for b/c I really = noticed them in Gettysburg and I didn't see any in G&G). Also, a couple = kids picked out some of the same faces of reeanctors popping up in shots = all over again in different uniforms - I had to explain how that one = worked with the filming of real reenactors in the fall of 2001. Others = felt that Jeff Daniels looked older than his role in Gettysburg (which = he is) and there couldn't be much done about that, and that if Maxwell = waits another ten years in between movies, Daniels will probably not be = able to reprise his role as Chamberlain. I also had the usual comments = about military tactics - "Why do they march like that?" "Have them = scatter and run!" or about the artillery "Why was it that Stonewall was = able to stay up on his horse when at other times regiments were getting = shredded when the artillery was raining down on them?" All in all, they = were good kids - they didn't expect to see Saving Private Ryan Meets the = Fast and the Furious. They knew there weren't going to be any sex = scenes or car chases. And they humored me if they thought it was really = bad. =20 My personal thoughts - besides those shared by Dr. Blight - were:=20 1. The movie should have started with the beginning of the war - Fort = Sumter, April 12, 1861, 4:30 a.m. - instead of with Bobby Lee turning = down the command of the Union army (quickly followed by Virginia's = secession vote after Lincoln's call for troops). Right then, I knew = what I was in for. =20 2. Did they ever resolve that story line about the two Confederate boys = from Fredericksburg who went off to fight the war? I thought we saw one = of them again but wasn't sure. =20 3. There wasn't enough Robert Duvall in this to satisfy me. I thought = Sheen was an awful Lee (helped along by poor writing), so I was looking = for a more able replacement. =20 4. The scriptwriting was.... I'm searching for the right = word...horrendous. Yes, mid 19th Century speech doesn't sound the same, = but I think when we take mid 19th Century written speech and put it in = the mouths of modern actors, they can't pull it off. Those famous lines = we all know, "He's lost his left, I've lost my right", I believe were = written and not spoken initially but we cannot be certain. Gettysburg = has the same flaws and some of the lines sound so bad. I was really = hoping and praying that someone other than Maxwell had written this = movie. Unfortunately, my prayers weren't answered. =20 5. This movie doesn't do justice to the book which was far more balanced = than this cutting of the movie is. The 6 1/2 hour DVD version released = this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll reserve judgement on that = until I see it. =20 6. Where was the whole Hancock storyline? I found that one entertaining = as well. Sad to have missed it. =20 7. I was pleased to see that the action sequences were much more = realistic than Gettysburg (walking up in formation to a loaded Union = cannon or let me stand here so you can smack me with the butt of your = rifle). The boys looked like they were running instead of walking at = Manassas and Chancellorsville. =20 I think I've given us enough food for thought for one day. Time to go = grade papers. Take care.=20 Geoff Wickersham=20 Groves High School=20 Beverly Hills, MI=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: David Blight=20 To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20 Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature I am grateful for Ruch Samuels's wonderful suggestions about = approaches to Civil War literature. It is certainly true that uses of = the war come up in myriad ways in literature and in film, poetry and = song.=20 On the matter of high school students' reactions to God and Generals = in Michigan and elsewhere: I found the responses very interesting. How = aware are young people of the differences between sheer enterainment and = the politics of a movie such as this? The responses indicated seem to = indicate that they are quite astute on this question. Gods and Generals = is a paen to the Lost Cause by any stretch of the imagination. It is = the Stonewall Jackson story in all its pathos. But there is a politics = to this film that should not be ignored. It does seem to be Mr. = Maxwell's effort to ressurect the neo-Confederate tradition. Its = defenders can claim accuracy of detail if they choose. But when Jackson = says to his trusted slave, Lewis, that he (Jackson) and Lee would prefer = to free the slaves and arm them in late 1862 we know we are witnessing = something besides an effort at accuracy. And all the blather about = state rights and defense of homeland in the beginning just avoids = utterly most of the real causes at the root of secession. This film = gives us the fight without much of its larger meanings. It's largely = the neo-Confederate tradition's favorite fantasy - what if Stonewall had = lived.......=20 My best to you all for the weekend.=20 David Blight=20 Ruth Samuels wrote:=20 =20 Thanks for raising the question of literature and its relation to = such a violent history, a matter I study and teach as both a theoretical = and historical one. Good suggestions have been made in this thread.=20 There are some less obvious sources of Civil War narratives as well. = One that I read before I understood that it was a Civil War elegy is = Elizabeth Phelps's enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar. This very = much shows the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those left = behind when a loved one dies. Another possible way of thinking about the = topic is through Augusta Evans account of the war from the point of view = of a southern woman in Macaria. This bestselling novel could still = appear as a kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause. In Who = Would Have Thought It? Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the war as an = element of a story that ranges from the western United States to = Washington D.C. I'm quite fond of the works of EDEN Southworth. In the = two novels published together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she = presents women dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves intensely = romantic and sensational stories together with the conflicts that = loyalty to Virginia and loyalty to the south might present. I write = about this a bit in an essay called "Women at War" that's in the recent = Cambridge UP volume on 19th century American Women Writers (ed. Dale = Bauer and Philip Gould). I'm also fascinated by the thread on sacred = spaces. I'm following up on this concept in the relation of Civil War = iconography to political cartoons and photography. The forthcoming book = is called "Facing America: Cultural Iconography and the Civil War" and = I'm absorbed in what I would now call, after reading this series of = threads, as the face as a sacred space. That of course would invoke = Abraham Lincoln, but it also includes the circulation of faces that the = Civil War at once accompanied and provoked. Another long post! Best, = Shirley Samuels(English Dept., Cornell University) -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* This forum = is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site = at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History.=20 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2E636.88E7A4A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, I've had some time to sit and = digest some of=20 the negative comments from my kids, and they'll be writing their papers = soon -=20 as soon as I finish their slave narrative analyses.  First,=20 a little about my class and my school: this is a semester long = junior/=20 senior elective - I usually average about 3 classes a year, 20-25 kids = per=20 class.  I take 10-15 on a voluntary field trip to Gettysburg and = Antietam=20 every year (maybe every other year next year), with side field trips to=20 graveyards, Underground RR houses and churches in the Detroit area, and = weather=20 permitting, some re-enactments nearby.  I have a wide range of = abilities in=20 the class (as do we all) so I get some amazing papers and comments and=20 not-so-amazing papers and comments. So, when I give you their = comments, I=20 usually give you the best ones. 
 
Overall, I=20 think we all felt the movie was way too long.  A couple kids = mentioned that=20 they would sit through a long movie if it was better, mentioning a = couple like=20 Braveheart, Green Mile, and a few other 3-hour flicks = that=20 we're so enjoyable you didn't notice that you hadn't moved from your = seat until=20 you stood up (and then your feet/back/butt complained!).  They = though a few=20 of the scenes should have been cut (like the Xmas scene, the cuddling = scenes=20 with Stonewall and his wife, the interaction with Chamberlain and his = wife,=20 interaction with Stonewall and the little girl,etc.) though they = understood that=20 the scenes were in there for character development. I think I mentioned = this=20 before but one of the kids said that this seemed like a Stonewall = biopic,=20 similar to Hoffa, Michael Collins, or the like.  = A few=20 students wanted a little more comic relief - having been teased by the=20 Confederate crew that was shown to us sporadically.  Given the = battle=20 scenes, I understand their need for relief.  A few students who = knew about=20 the timeline of the war asked about the jump from January to December=20 1862.  I wondered where was the Peninsula Campaign and Antietam as=20 well.  (I've always felt that there needs to be a comparable = movie/book for=20 Antietam like Killer Angels/Gettysburg because the battle is = that=20 important.  Given that it's still the bloodiest single day in = American=20 history, its importance is even more relevant today.  And as a = major=20 shift/turning point in the war, I might argue that Antietam is more = important=20 than Gettysburg.  But that's another issue.) One student got = indignant=20 when Stonewall's black cook, Lewis, wanted to fight against the Yankee=20 invaders.  He didn't feel that was an accurate portrayal.  I = told him=20 I didn't know for sure, but in the gamut of human experience, almost = anything's=20 possible. 
 
From a movie standpoint, some of the = more astute=20 kids picked out recycled scenes = (one thing=20 that I had been looking for b/c I really noticed them in Gettysburg and = I didn't=20 see any in G&G).  Also, a couple kids picked out some of the = same faces=20 of reeanctors popping up in shots all over again in different uniforms - = I had=20 to explain how that one worked with the filming of real reenactors in = the fall=20 of 2001.  Others felt that Jeff Daniels looked older than his role = in=20 Gettysburg (which he is) and there couldn't be much done about that, and = that if=20 Maxwell waits another ten years in between movies, Daniels will probably = not be=20 able to reprise his role as Chamberlain.  I also had the usual = comments=20 about military tactics - "Why do they march like that?" "Have them = scatter and=20 run!" or about the artillery "Why was it that Stonewall was able to = stay up=20 on his horse when at other times regiments were getting = shredded when=20 the artillery was raining down on them?"  All in all, they were = good kids -=20 they didn't expect to see Saving Private Ryan Meets the Fast and the = Furious.  They knew there weren't going to be any sex scenes = or car=20 chases.  And they humored me if they thought it was really = bad. =20
 
My personal thoughts - besides those = shared by Dr.=20 Blight - were: 
1. The movie should have started = with the=20 beginning of the war - Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861, 4:30 a.m. - instead = of with=20 Bobby Lee turning down the command of the Union army (quickly followed = by=20 Virginia's secession vote after Lincoln's call for troops).  Right = then, I=20 knew what I was in for. 
2. Did they ever resolve that story = line about the=20 two Confederate boys from Fredericksburg who went off to fight the = war?  I=20 thought we saw one of them again but wasn't sure. 
3. There wasn't enough Robert Duvall in = this to=20 satisfy me.  I thought Sheen was an awful Lee (helped along by poor = writing), so I was looking for a more able replacement.  =
4. The scriptwriting was.... I'm = searching for the=20 right word...horrendous.  Yes, mid 19th Century speech doesn't = sound the=20 same, but I think when we take mid 19th Century written speech and put = it in the=20 mouths of modern actors, they can't pull it off.  Those famous = lines we all=20 know, "He's lost his left, I've lost my right", I believe were written = and not=20 spoken initially but we cannot be certain.  Gettysburg has = the=20 same flaws and some of the lines sound so bad.  I was really hoping = and=20 praying that someone other than Maxwell had written this movie. =20 Unfortunately, my prayers weren't answered. 
5. This movie doesn't do justice to the = book which=20 was far more balanced than this cutting of the movie is.  The 6 1/2 = hour=20 DVD version released this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll = reserve=20 judgement on that until I see it. 
6. Where was the whole Hancock = storyline?  I=20 found that one entertaining as well.  Sad to have missed it. =20
7. I was pleased to see that the action = sequences=20 were much more realistic than Gettysburg (walking up in = formation to a=20 loaded Union cannon or let me stand here so you can smack me with the = butt of=20 your rifle).  The boys looked like they were running instead of = walking at=20 Manassas and Chancellorsville. 
 
I think I've given us enough food for = thought for=20 one day.  Time to go grade papers.  Take care.
 
Geoff Wickersham
Groves High School
Beverly Hills, MI
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 David=20 Blight
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.L= ISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 = 5:47=20 PM
Subject: Re: Civil War in = American=20 Literature

I am grateful for Ruch Samuels's wonderful suggestions = about=20 approaches to Civil War literature.  It is certainly true that = uses of=20 the war come up in myriad ways in literature and in film, poetry and = song.=20

On the matter of high school students' reactions to God and = Generals in=20 Michigan and elsewhere:  I found the responses very = interesting. =20 How aware are young people of the differences between sheer = enterainment and=20 the politics of a movie such as this?  The responses indicated = seem to=20 indicate that they are quite astute on this question.  Gods and = Generals=20 is a paen to the Lost Cause by any stretch of the imagination.  = It is the=20 Stonewall Jackson story in all its pathos.  But there is a = politics to=20 this film that should not be ignored.  It does seem to be Mr. = Maxwell's=20 effort to ressurect the neo-Confederate tradition.  Its defenders = can=20 claim accuracy of detail if they choose.  But when Jackson says = to his=20 trusted slave, Lewis, that he (Jackson) and Lee would prefer to free = the=20 slaves and arm them in late 1862 we know we are witnessing something = besides=20 an effort at accuracy.  And all the blather about state rights = and=20 defense of homeland in the beginning just avoids utterly most of the = real=20 causes at the root of secession.  This film gives us the fight = without=20 much of its larger meanings.  It's largely the neo-Confederate=20 tradition's favorite fantasy - what if Stonewall had lived.......=20

My best to you all for the weekend.=20

David Blight=20

Ruth Samuels wrote:=20

 =20

Thanks for raising the question of literature and its relation to = such a=20 violent history, a matter I study and teach as both a theoretical = and=20 historical one.  Good suggestions have been made in this = thread.=20
There are some less obvious sources of Civil War narratives as = well. One=20 that I read before I understood that it was a Civil War elegy is = Elizabeth=20 Phelps's enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar.  This very = much shows=20 the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those left behind = when a=20 loved one dies. Another possible way of thinking about the = topic is=20 through Augusta Evans account of the war from the point of view of a = southern woman in Macaria.  This bestselling novel could still = appear=20 as a kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause. In Who = Would Have=20 Thought It?  Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the war as an = element of a=20 story that ranges from the western United States to Washington = D.C. I'm=20 quite fond of the works of EDEN Southworth.  In the two novels=20 published together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she presents = women=20 dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves intensely romantic and = sensational stories together with the conflicts that loyalty to = Virginia and=20 loyalty to the south might present. I write about this a bit in = an=20 essay called "Women at War" that's in the recent Cambridge UP volume = on 19th=20 century American Women Writers (ed. Dale Bauer and Philip = Gould). I'm=20 also fascinated by the thread on sacred spaces.  I'm following = up on=20 this concept in the relation of Civil War iconography to political = cartoons=20 and photography.  The forthcoming book is called "Facing = America:=20 Cultural Iconography and the Civil War" and I'm absorbed in what I = would now=20 call, after reading this series of threads, as the face as a sacred=20 space.  That of course would invoke Abraham Lincoln, but it = also=20 includes the circulation of faces that the Civil War at once = accompanied and=20 provoked. Another long post! Best, Shirley Samuels(English = Dept.,=20 Cornell University)



The new MSN 8: smart = spam=20 protection and 2 months FREE* This forum is sponsored by History=20 Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu = for=20 more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is = sponsored=20 by History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu=20 for more resources for teaching U.S. History. = This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2E636.88E7A4A0-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:10:52 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: John Sacher Subject: Teaching the Civil War Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to improve my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few questions: I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. Jewett inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War. Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to them, it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single semester. Thoughts? John Sacher Emporia State University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:36:55 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Victoria Bynum Organization: Southwest Texas State University Subject: Re: Southerners who fought for the Union MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=------------D4B15600413125D076EF2360 --------------D4B15600413125D076EF2360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am enjoying this forum very much, but am concerned that the subject of Southern unionism has been passed over too lightly, particularly since it sheds so much light on questions about southern "pride" and "shame" concerning the Confederate past. Many Southerners who revere the Confederacy as the symbol of their white heritage have no idea that their own ancestors may have opposed secession, and may only grudgingly or temporarily supported the Confederacy, if at all. By the same token, white Southerners who do not take pride in the Confederacy, and thus wonder how they can take pride in their Southern heritage, may be too narrowly conflating Southern whiteness with the Confederate elite. To appreciate how diverse the Civil War South truly was in terms of region, culture, and class, as well as race, one might consult John Inscoe and Robert Kenser, eds., Enemies of the Country, Daniel Sutherland, ed., Guerrillas, Unionists, and Violence, Kenneth Noe and Shannon Wilson, eds., The Civil War in Appalachia. There are also a host of regional studies on white southern dissent during the Civil War: my own on NC and Mississippi, David Williams's on Georgia, Richard McCaslin's on Texas, Margaret Storey's on Alabama, to name only a few (my apologies to those authors I have failed to mention.) When we move beyond North vs South, and beyond the battlefield, the dynamics of Southern society are complex indeed, with the voices of slaves, nonslaveholders, and women often taking center stage. The history of southern dissent--for so long either ignored, buried or dengrated--is currently enjoying quite a renaissance. Sincerely, Vikki Bynum This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------D4B15600413125D076EF2360 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am enjoying this forum very much, but am concerned that the subject of Southern unionism has been passed over too lightly, particularly since it sheds so much light on questions about southern "pride" and "shame" concerning the Confederate past. Many Southerners who revere the Confederacy as the symbol of their white heritage have no idea that their own ancestors may have opposed secession, and may only grudgingly or temporarily supported the Confederacy, if at all. By the same token, white Southerners who do not take pride in the Confederacy, and thus wonder how they can take pride in their Southern heritage, may be too narrowly conflating Southern whiteness with the Confederate elite. To appreciate how diverse the Civil War South truly was in terms of region, culture, and class, as well as race, one might consult John Inscoe and Robert Kenser, eds., Enemies of the Country, Daniel Sutherland, ed., Guerrillas, Unionists, and Violence, Kenneth Noe and Shannon Wilson, eds., The Civil War in Appalachia. There are also a host of regional studies on white southern dissent during the Civil War: my own on NC and Mississippi, David Williams's on Georgia, Richard McCaslin's on Texas, Margaret Storey's on Alabama, to name only a few (my apologies to those authors I have failed to mention.)
    When we move beyond North vs South, and beyond the battlefield, the dynamics of Southern society are complex indeed, with the voices of slaves, nonslaveholders, and women often taking center stage. The history of southern dissent--for so long either ignored, buried or dengrated--is currently enjoying quite a renaissance.

Sincerely,
Vikki Bynum
  This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------D4B15600413125D076EF2360-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:51:06 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Chris Martin Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2E65C.141C8BB0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2E65C.141C8BB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 5. This movie doesn't do justice to the book which was far more balanced = than this cutting of the movie is. The 6 1/2 hour DVD version released = this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll reserve judgement on that = until I see it.=20 I am not sure if this has been mentioned in this forum yet or not, = so I'll go ahead and put the information forward. According to a = reenactor who was involved in G&G and is a member of an academic = listserv I'm on, Maxwell did film Antietam, some of Jackson's Valley = campaigns, the Seven Days and 2nd Bull Run. Somehow, all of those = battles ended up on the cutting room floor prior to the release of the = movie. This is the principal reason that Maxwell announced immediately = there would be a 6-6 1/2 hr DVD release this fall and all of these = battles that didn't make the version released for the movies will be = included in the DVD release. However I'm still left wondering why the = Peninsula campaign was left out entirely and why we saw Fredericksburg = from the perspective of Chamberlain.=20 I would have to disagree with your students concerning the scenes = involving Jackson's relationship with the little girl. IMHO, it didn't = add to character development at all, there's no real substantial change = in Jackson because of this relationship. The little girl died, he cried, = and shortly thereafter he's dead. I was left wondering, "What exactly = was that part for?" Perhaps it was to show Jackson's humanity, as is = that rather contrived scene with the conversation at Chancellorsville = between Jackson and his cook, but I'd already gotten the point well = before that. IMHO the storyline with the little girl should have been = cut and Antietam added back in. I'm impressed with your students ability to recognize the same = reenactors appearing in multiple scenes. I'm told there's a scene with = Union reenactors retreating with smiles on their faces after a sound = whipping by the Confederates, but I didn't notice this at all.=20 Yes, there were some southern African Americans that did support the = Confederacy and were willing to fight for it, or support those who were = doing the fighting. Many of these people were slaves and simply had no = choice, but some did volunteer. I'd recommend three books on this topic, = "Black Southerners in Confederate Armies" by J.H. Segars (ed.); "Black = Confederates" by J.H. Segars and also "Forgotten Confederates: An = Anthology About Black Southerners, vol. 14" by Charles K. Barrow. Some = historians have estimated perhaps as many as 50,000 African Americans = served the Confederacy, although I think this estimate may be high and = I'd wonder about how many may have left their service of the CSA after = hearing news that Lincoln redefined Union aims with the Emancipation = Proclamation and they could likely be free if the Union won the war. = Prior to that I could reasonably see southern African Americans not = believing that the war would necessarily result in their freedom, so = they'd rather fight for their states. =20 Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't = allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea = either, but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed = forces, including approximately 25% of the CSA ordinance department. (Of = course their roles could probably at best be compared to the manual = labor roles given to African Americans during WW II by the US Armed = forces, loading arms.)=20 Regards, Chris Martin Department of History & Art History George Mason University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2E65C.141C8BB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

5. This movie doesn't do justice to the = book which=20 was far more balanced than this cutting of the movie is.  The 6 1/2 = hour=20 DVD version released this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll = reserve=20 judgement on that until I see it. 
 
    I am not sure if = this has been=20 mentioned in this forum yet or not, so I'll go ahead and put the = information=20 forward. According to a reenactor who was involved in G&G = and is a=20 member of an academic listserv I'm on, Maxwell did film Antietam, = some of=20 Jackson's Valley campaigns, the Seven Days and 2nd Bull Run. Somehow, = all of=20 those battles ended up on the cutting room floor prior to the release of = the=20 movie. This is the principal reason that Maxwell announced immediately = there=20 would be a 6-6 1/2 hr DVD release this fall and all of these battles = that didn't=20 make the version released for the movies will be included in = the DVD=20 release. However I'm still left wondering why the Peninsula campaign was = left=20 out entirely and why we saw Fredericksburg from the perspective of = Chamberlain.=20
    I would have to = disagree with=20 your students concerning the scenes involving Jackson's relationship = with the=20 little girl. IMHO, it didn't add to character development at all, = there's no=20 real substantial change in Jackson because of this relationship. The = little girl=20 died, he cried, and shortly thereafter he's dead. I was left wondering, = "What=20 exactly was that part for?" Perhaps it was to show Jackson's humanity, = as is=20 that rather contrived scene with the conversation at=20 Chancellorsville between Jackson and his cook, but I'd already = gotten the=20 point well before that. IMHO the storyline with the little girl should = have been=20 cut and Antietam added back in.
    I'm impressed with = your students=20 ability to recognize the same reenactors appearing in multiple = scenes. I'm=20 told there's a scene with Union reenactors retreating with smiles on = their faces=20 after a sound whipping by the Confederates, but=20 I didn't notice this at all. 
    Yes, there were some = southern African Americans that did support the Confederacy = and were=20 willing to fight for it, or support those who were doing the fighting. = Many of=20 these people were slaves and simply had no choice, but some did = volunteer. I'd=20 recommend three books on this topic, "Black Southerners in Confederate = Armies"=20 by J.H. Segars (ed.); "Black Confederates" by J.H. Segars and also = "Forgotten=20 Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners, vol. 14" by Charles = K.=20 Barrow. Some historians have estimated perhaps as many as 50,000 African = Americans served the Confederacy, although I think this estimate may be = high and=20 I'd wonder about how many may have left their service of the CSA after = hearing=20 news that Lincoln redefined Union aims with the Emancipation = Proclamation and=20 they could likely be free if the Union won the war. Prior to that I = could=20 reasonably see southern African Americans not believing that the = war would=20 necessarily result in their freedom, so they'd rather fight for their = states.=20  
     Most weren't = official=20 soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern = generals=20 weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were nominally at = least, in=20 the Confederate armed forces, including approximately 25% of the CSA = ordinance=20 department. (Of course their roles could probably at best be compared to = the=20 manual labor roles given to African Americans during WW II by the = US Armed=20 forces, loading arms.)
Regards,
Chris Martin
Department of History & Art=20 History
George Mason University =
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2E65C.141C8BB0-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:35:01 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jack Ehmer Subject: Re: Copperheads versus Peace Democrats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_63.199d979d.2b9d8c15_boundary" --part1_63.199d979d.2b9d8c15_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Let me try to answer this question as one who was raised in a small town in Eastern Ohio that was founded by Quakers who fled from Virginia and the Carolinas to get away from slavery and where "Copperhead" was still a dirty word in the 50's and Underground Railroad Stations were hallowed places. The Peace Democrats opposed the war and were more than willing to see the South walk, but drew the line at actually sabotaging the war effort. Copperheads were willing to damage the war effort by any means necessary, including encouraging desertion and freeing Confederate prisoners of war. Most of the Copperheads were from Southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and most had originated from the South. Jack Ehmer In a message dated 3/9/2003 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, LISTSERV@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU writes: > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:27:18 -0500 > From: Geoff Wickersham > Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September = > 1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in October = > in the Shenandoah helped as well. The threat to Washington D.C. was = > finally gone. Also, there was the victory that started it all for = > Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August. Even though Petersburg hadn't = > fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the Union = > was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, = > and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =20 > > Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able to = > find an answer. Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and = > Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =20 > > Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=20 > > Geoff Wickersham=20 > Groves High School=20 > Beverly Hills, MI=20 > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_63.199d979d.2b9d8c15_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let me try to answer this qu= estion as one who was raised in a small town in Eastern Ohio that was founde= d by Quakers who fled from Virginia and the Carolinas to get away from slave= ry and where "Copperhead" was still a dirty word in the 50's and Underground= Railroad Stations were hallowed places. The Peace Democrats opposed the war= and were more than willing to see the South walk, but drew the line at actu= ally sabotaging the war effort. Copperheads were willing to damage the war e= ffort by any means necessary, including encouraging desertion and freeing Co= nfederate prisoners of war. Most of the Copperheads were from Southern Ohio,= Indiana and Illinois and most had originated from the South.

Jack Ehmer

In a message dated 3/9/2003 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, LISTSERV@ASHP= .LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU writes:

Date:   Sun, 9 Mar 20= 03 11:27:18 -0500
From:   Geoff Wickersham <geoffwickersham@AMERITECH.NET>
Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=3D_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September =3D
1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in October=20= =3D
in the Shenandoah helped as well.  The threat to Washington D.C. was=20= =3D
finally gone.  Also, there was the victory that started it all for =3D<= BR> Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August.  Even though Petersburg hadn't=20= =3D
fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the Union =3D was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, =3D and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =3D20

Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able to =3D<= BR> find an answer.  Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and =3D Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =3D20

Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=3D20

Geoff Wickersham=3D20
Groves High School=3D20
Beverly Hills, MI=3D20


This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_63.199d979d.2b9d8c15_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:32:27 -0500 Reply-To: robertm@combatic.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Robert Mosher Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments In-Reply-To: <006801c2e685$fd866f40$02efa4d8@CJ> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2E68B.C385E590" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2E68B.C385E590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As I often do when something I read raises questions in my mind and the need to respond, I have turned to the dictionary to establish definitions. I have therefore mined the following from the Oxford Universal Dictionary: Honor/Honour – (Middle English) – among its definitions as a noun: “a source or cause of honour; one who or that which does credit (1568); among its definitions as a verb “to hold in honour, respect highly; to reverence, worship; to regard or treat with honour. Honourable/honorable – worthy of being honored entitled to respect, esteem, reverence. The question of what was honourable conduct in the eyes of the men (and women) on both sides in the American Civil War is obviously crucial to understanding why they made the choices they made and did what they did – or did not do. Of course, we can only look at what they were willing to record with regard to the thoughts and motivations that lay behind those decisions and actions – and what others recorded as to whether those decisions/actions of others were “honorable.” We can certainly agree from our 21st Century vantage point that any efforts or actions that resulted in the defense of slavery must be considered dishonorable. Regardless of the reason stated – whether it was to defend one’s home state, way of life, etc. – that action had the result of defending slavery. There is, however, another issue with regard to honor in the Civil War that is crucial to our discussion – the question of honorable conduct on the battlefield. Such a judgment, in particular, is one that is perhaps best left to those who were there. Was the conduct of the Confederate soldier honorable? Certainly, their bravery cannot be doubted, nor can their perseverance – while there were many in the South who fell away from the “cause” during the war. There remained a hard core of the Confederate Army that stayed with the colors to the end. There were, nevertheless, incidents during the war that raise serious questions about the conduct of at least some members of the Confederate Army – the massacre of US Colored Troops at Fort Pillow for example when the Confederates refused to accept the surrender of Black Union soldiers. There were also incidents involving the conduct of Union Army troops. But ultimately, I think the issue of whether or not the Confederate soldier was honorable was resolved for us in 1865. As the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia processed to lay down its arms and colors in formal surrender, Brigadier General Joshua Chamberlain, commanding the Union Army formations witnessing the surrender gave the order for “present arms” thus rendering “honors” to the surrendering Confederate soldiers. Robert A. Mosher This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2E68B.C385E590 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As I often do when something I = read raises questions in my mind and the need to respond, I have turned to the = dictionary to establish definitions.  = I have therefore mined the following from the Oxford Universal = Dictionary:

 

Honor/Honour  – (Middle English) – among its = definitions as a noun:  “a source or cause of = honour; one who or that which does credit (1568); among its definitions as a verb = “to hold in honour, respect highly; to reverence, worship; to regard or treat with = honour.

 

Honourable/honorable – = worthy of being honored entitled to respect, esteem, reverence.

 

The question of what was = honourable conduct in the eyes of the men (and women) on both sides in the American Civil = War is obviously crucial to understanding why they made the choices they made = and did what they did – or did not do.  Of course, we can only look at what they were willing to record with regard = to the thoughts and motivations that lay behind those decisions and actions – and what others = recorded as to whether those decisions/actions of others were = “honorable.”

 

We can certainly agree from our = 21st Century vantage point that any efforts or actions that resulted in the = defense of slavery must be considered dishonorable.  Regardless of the reason stated – whether it = was to defend one’s home state, way of life, etc. – that action had the = result of defending slavery.

 

There is, however, another issue = with regard to honor in the Civil War that is crucial to our discussion = – the question of honorable conduct on the battlefield.  Such a judgment, in particular, is one that is = perhaps best left to those who were there.  = Was the conduct of the Confederate soldier honorable?  Certainly, their bravery cannot be doubted, nor can = their perseverance – while there were many in the South who fell away from the = “cause” during the war.  There remained a = hard core of the Confederate Army that stayed with the colors to the end.  There were, nevertheless, = incidents during the war that raise serious questions about the conduct of at least some = members of the Confederate Army – the massacre of US Colored Troops at = Fort Pillow for example when the Confederates refused to accept the surrender of Black = Union soldiers.  There were also incidents involving the conduct of Union Army troops.  But ultimately, I think the issue of whether or not = the Confederate soldier was honorable was resolved for us in 1865.  As the Confederate Army of = Northern Virginia processed to lay down its arms and colors in formal surrender, Brigadier General Joshua Chamberlain, commanding the Union Army = formations witnessing the surrender gave the order for “present arms” = thus rendering “honors” to the surrendering Confederate soldiers.

 

Robert A. Mosher     <= /p>

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2E68B.C385E590-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:52:15 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics In-Reply-To: <003701c2e658$c0d6ac40$42dcfea9@temp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Geoff Wickersham wrote: > Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in > Atlanta in September 1864 but also Sheridan's defeat > of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in October in the > Shenandoah helped as well. The threat to Washington > D.C. was finally gone. Also, there was the victory > that started it all for Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay > in August. Even though Petersburg hadn't fallen b/c > of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that > the Union was finally on the road to victory, the > Copperheads lost their steam, and Lincoln was able > to secure re-election. > > Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I > haven't been able to find an answer. Is there a > difference between Peace Democrat and Copperhead or > are they interchangeable terms? > > Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful > weekend. > > Geoff Wickersham > Groves High School > Beverly Hills, MI > > P.S. I think I'll find some neat phrase/song lyric > to end my emails with like a number of you have. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Albert Mackey > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 5:19 AM > Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics > > > In a message dated 3/7/2003 3:20:32 PM Hawaiian > Standard Time, TPearson@SLPL.LIB.MO.US writes: > > > > While I see the point you are trying to make > about John Brown, I think your > argument somewhat misses my point, which was not > that Brown was a moral man > in some absolute sense, but that he acted as he > did because he believed that > slavery was such an egregious moral outrage that > any actions he took to > bring it to an immediate end were justifiable by > his lights. > > > -------------- > No, I got the point. As I said in my post it was > just a quibble on my part that any identification of > Brown with "absolute morality" is a misnomer no > matter what the purpose. I don't challenge your > conclusion, though. > > > > I also see your point about the capture of > Atlanta, and think it's an > argument you might be able to win. > > > --------------- > I was just musing at the keyboard and am not > willing to advance that case. I was just running it > up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted, so to > speak. I thought it might be a springboard to some > additional discussion. > > Best Regards, > Al Mackey > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:35:15 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jim Hart Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments As a teaching resource for the motivation of soldiers to fight in the first place and how they conducted themselves on the battlefield, I don't believe you can do better than James McPherson's _For Cause and Comrades_. A more dated work, but still worth the effort, is Reid Mitchell's _Civil War Soldiers: Their Expectations and Experiences_. Finally, I would also consult Gerald Linderman's _Embattled Courage_. All excellent works in my opinion. On the subject of battlefied tactics, I would like to toss a book out for discussion. I wondered if anyone had an opinion on Grady McWhiney & Perry Jamieson's controversial _Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics_. I consider it an important work (whether or not we agree with his conclusions) and would like to incorporate it into the classroom, but have not been able to decide how to discuss it. For my part, I do agree with his conclusions that the Confederacy's tendency to be the attacker cost it manpower it could not afford to lose, but also believe there were no good alternatives available to them. Thanks, Jim Hart This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:41:43 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Southerners who fought for the Union MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5FE2FD19791FFDDC679A968F" --------------5FE2FD19791FFDDC679A968F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: I would just add one older book to Victorian Bynum's wonderful reminder of the rich literature on southern unionism and dissent. Carl Degler's The Other South is still very much worth reading. Also go back and look at Wilbur Cash's classic The Mind of the South from 1940. My own favorite post-war dissenter is John Singleton Mosby. I wrote about him in Race and Reunion. There is a new book out about his post-war life as well. The title escapes me at the moment. Thanks so much for this reminder about southern complexity. David Blight Victoria Bynum wrote: > I am enjoying this forum very much, but am concerned that the subject > of Southern unionism has been passed over too lightly, particularly > since it sheds so much light on questions about southern "pride" and > "shame" concerning the Confederate past. Many Southerners who revere > the Confederacy as the symbol of their white heritage have no idea > that their own ancestors may have opposed secession, and may only > grudgingly or temporarily supported the Confederacy, if at all. By the > same token, white Southerners who do not take pride in the > Confederacy, and thus wonder how they can take pride in their Southern > heritage, may be too narrowly conflating Southern whiteness with the > Confederate elite. To appreciate how diverse the Civil War South truly > was in terms of region, culture, and class, as well as race, one might > consult John Inscoe and Robert Kenser, eds., Enemies of the Country, > Daniel Sutherland, ed., Guerrillas, Unionists, and Violence, Kenneth > Noe and Shannon Wilson, eds., The Civil War in Appalachia. There are > also a host of regional studies on white southern dissent during the > Civil War: my own on NC and Mississippi, David Williams's on Georgia, > Richard McCaslin's on Texas, Margaret Storey's on Alabama, to name > only a few (my apologies to those authors I have failed to mention.) > When we move beyond North vs South, and beyond the battlefield, > the dynamics of Southern society are complex indeed, with the voices > of slaves, nonslaveholders, and women often taking center stage. The > history of southern dissent--for so long either ignored, buried or > dengrated--is currently enjoying quite a renaissance. > > Sincerely, > Vikki Bynum > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web > site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching > U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------5FE2FD19791FFDDC679A968F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues:

I would just add one older book to Victorian Bynum's wonderful reminder of the rich literature on southern unionism and dissent.  Carl Degler's The Other South is still very much worth reading.  Also go back and look at Wilbur Cash's classic The Mind of the South from 1940.  My own favorite post-war dissenter is John Singleton Mosby.  I wrote about him in Race and Reunion.  There is a new book out about his post-war life as well.  The title escapes me at the moment.  Thanks so much for this reminder about southern complexity.

David Blight

Victoria Bynum wrote:

 I am enjoying this forum very much, but am concerned that the subject of Southern unionism has been passed over too lightly, particularly since it sheds so much light on questions about southern "pride" and "shame" concerning the Confederate past. Many Southerners who revere the Confederacy as the symbol of their white heritage have no idea that their own ancestors may have opposed secession, and may only grudgingly or temporarily supported the Confederacy, if at all. By the same token, white Southerners who do not take pride in the Confederacy, and thus wonder how they can take pride in their Southern heritage, may be too narrowly conflating Southern whiteness with the Confederate elite. To appreciate how diverse the Civil War South truly was in terms of region, culture, and class, as well as race, one might consult John Inscoe and Robert Kenser, eds., Enemies of the Country, Daniel Sutherland, ed., Guerrillas, Unionists, and Violence, Kenneth Noe and Shannon Wilson, eds., The Civil War in Appalachia. There are also a host of regional studies on white southern dissent during the Civil War: my own on NC and Mississippi, David Williams's on Georgia, Richard McCaslin's on Texas, Margaret Storey's on Alabama, to name only a few (my apologies to those authors I have failed to mention.)
    When we move beyond North vs South, and beyond the battlefield, the dynamics of Southern society are complex indeed, with the voices of slaves, nonslaveholders, and women often taking center stage. The history of southern dissent--for so long either ignored, buried or dengrated--is currently enjoying quite a renaissance.

Sincerely,
Vikki Bynum
  This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------5FE2FD19791FFDDC679A968F-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:47:22 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------01B994B1B8AEA3CDD46CC70F" --------------01B994B1B8AEA3CDD46CC70F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those who want to digest some hilarious excerpts of terrible reviews of Gods and Generals see yesterday's New York Times. The movie has really been slammed all over. My own review comes out later this week in North and South magazine. David Blight Geoff Wickersham wrote: > Well, I've had some time to sit and digest some of the negative > comments from my kids, and they'll be writing their papers soon - as > soon as I finish their slave narrative analyses. First, a little > about my class and my school: this is a semester long junior/ senior > elective - I usually average about 3 classes a year, 20-25 kids per > class. I take 10-15 on a voluntary field trip to Gettysburg and > Antietam every year (maybe every other year next year), with side > field trips to graveyards, Underground RR houses and churches in the > Detroit area, and weather permitting, some re-enactments nearby. I > have a wide range of abilities in the class (as do we all) so I get > some amazing papers and comments and not-so-amazing papers and > comments. So, when I give you their comments, I usually give you the > best ones. Overall, I think we all felt the movie was way too long. A > couple kids mentioned that they would sit through a long movie if it > was better, mentioning a couple like Braveheart, Green Mile, and a few > other 3-hour flicks that we're so enjoyable you didn't notice that you > hadn't moved from your seat until you stood up (and then your > feet/back/butt complained!). They though a few of the scenes should > have been cut (like the Xmas scene, the cuddling scenes with Stonewall > and his wife, the interaction with Chamberlain and his wife, > interaction with Stonewall and the little girl,etc.) though they > understood that the scenes were in there for character development. I > think I mentioned this before but one of the kids said that this > seemed like a Stonewall biopic, similar to Hoffa, Michael Collins, or > the like. A few students wanted a little more comic relief - having > been teased by the Confederate crew that was shown to us > sporadically. Given the battle scenes, I understand their need for > relief. A few students who knew about the timeline of the war asked > about the jump from January to December 1862. I wondered where was > the Peninsula Campaign and Antietam as well. (I've always felt that > there needs to be a comparable movie/book for Antietam like Killer > Angels/Gettysburg because the battle is that important. Given that > it's still the bloodiest single day in American history, its > importance is even more relevant today. And as a major shift/turning > point in the war, I might argue that Antietam is more important than > Gettysburg. But that's another issue.) One student got indignant when > Stonewall's black cook, Lewis, wanted to fight against the Yankee > invaders. He didn't feel that was an accurate portrayal. I told him > I didn't know for sure, but in the gamut of human experience, almost > anything's possible. From a movie standpoint, some of the more astute > kids picked out recycled scenes (one thing that I had been looking for > b/c I really noticed them in Gettysburg and I didn't see any in G&G). > Also, a couple kids picked out some of the same faces of reeanctors > popping up in shots all over again in different uniforms - I had to > explain how that one worked with the filming of real reenactors in the > fall of 2001. Others felt that Jeff Daniels looked older than his > role in Gettysburg (which he is) and there couldn't be much done about > that, and that if Maxwell waits another ten years in between movies, > Daniels will probably not be able to reprise his role as Chamberlain. > I also had the usual comments about military tactics - "Why do they > march like that?" "Have them scatter and run!" or about the artillery > "Why was it that Stonewall was able to stay up on his horse when at > other times regiments were getting shredded when the artillery was > raining down on them?" All in all, they were good kids - they didn't > expect to see Saving Private Ryan Meets the Fast and the Furious. > They knew there weren't going to be any sex scenes or car chases. And > they humored me if they thought it was really bad. My personal > thoughts - besides those shared by Dr. Blight - were:1. The movie > should have started with the beginning of the war - Fort Sumter, April > 12, 1861, 4:30 a.m. - instead of with Bobby Lee turning down the > command of the Union army (quickly followed by Virginia's secession > vote after Lincoln's call for troops). Right then, I knew what I was > in for.2. Did they ever resolve that story line about the two > Confederate boys from Fredericksburg who went off to fight the war? I > thought we saw one of them again but wasn't sure.3. There wasn't > enough Robert Duvall in this to satisfy me. I thought Sheen was an > awful Lee (helped along by poor writing), so I was looking for a more > able replacement.4. The scriptwriting was.... I'm searching for the > right word...horrendous. Yes, mid 19th Century speech doesn't sound > the same, but I think when we take mid 19th Century written speech and > put it in the mouths of modern actors, they can't pull it off. Those > famous lines we all know, "He's lost his left, I've lost my right", I > believe were written and not spoken initially but we cannot be > certain. Gettysburg has the same flaws and some of the lines sound so > bad. I was really hoping and praying that someone other than Maxwell > had written this movie. Unfortunately, my prayers weren't answered.5. > This movie doesn't do justice to the book which was far more balanced > than this cutting of the movie is. The 6 1/2 hour DVD version > released this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll reserve > judgement on that until I see it.6. Where was the whole Hancock > storyline? I found that one entertaining as well. Sad to have missed > it.7. I was pleased to see that the action sequences were much more > realistic than Gettysburg (walking up in formation to a loaded Union > cannon or let me stand here so you can smack me with the butt of your > rifle). The boys looked like they were running instead of walking at > Manassas and Chancellorsville. I think I've given us enough food for > thought for one day. Time to go grade papers. Take care. Geoff > WickershamGroves High SchoolBeverly Hills, MI > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Blight > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:47 PM > Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature > I am grateful for Ruch Samuels's wonderful suggestions > about approaches to Civil War literature. It is certainly > true that uses of the war come up in myriad ways in > literature and in film, poetry and song. > > On the matter of high school students' reactions to God and > Generals in Michigan and elsewhere: I found the responses > very interesting. How aware are young people of the > differences between sheer enterainment and the politics of a > movie such as this? The responses indicated seem to > indicate that they are quite astute on this question. Gods > and Generals is a paen to the Lost Cause by any stretch of > the imagination. It is the Stonewall Jackson story in all > its pathos. But there is a politics to this film that > should not be ignored. It does seem to be Mr. Maxwell's > effort to ressurect the neo-Confederate tradition. Its > defenders can claim accuracy of detail if they choose. But > when Jackson says to his trusted slave, Lewis, that he > (Jackson) and Lee would prefer to free the slaves and arm > them in late 1862 we know we are witnessing something > besides an effort at accuracy. And all the blather about > state rights and defense of homeland in the beginning just > avoids utterly most of the real causes at the root of > secession. This film gives us the fight without much of its > larger meanings. It's largely the neo-Confederate > tradition's favorite fantasy - what if Stonewall had > lived....... > > My best to you all for the weekend. > > David Blight > > Ruth Samuels wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for raising the question of literature and its > > relation to such a violent history, a matter I study and > > teach as both a theoretical and historical one. Good > > suggestions have been made in this thread. > > There are some less obvious sources of Civil War > > narratives as well. One that I read before I understood > > that it was a Civil War elegy is Elizabeth Phelps's > > enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar. This very much > > shows the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those > > left behind when a loved one dies. Another possible way of > > thinking about the topic is through Augusta Evans account > > of the war from the point of view of a southern woman in > > Macaria. This bestselling novel could still appear as a > > kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause. In Who > > Would Have Thought It? Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the > > war as an element of a story that ranges from the western > > United States to Washington D.C. I'm quite fond of the > > works of EDEN Southworth. In the two novels published > > together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she presents > > women dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves > > intensely romantic and sensational stories together with > > the conflicts that loyalty to Virginia and loyalty to the > > south might present. I write about this a bit in an essay > > called "Women at War" that's in the recent Cambridge UP > > volume on 19th century American Women Writers (ed. Dale > > Bauer and Philip Gould). I'm also fascinated by the thread > > on sacred spaces. I'm following up on this concept in the > > relation of Civil War iconography to political cartoons > > and photography. The forthcoming book is called "Facing > > America: Cultural Iconography and the Civil War" and I'm > > absorbed in what I would now call, after reading this > > series of threads, as the face as a sacred space. That of > > course would invoke Abraham Lincoln, but it also includes > > the circulation of faces that the Civil War at once > > accompanied and provoked. Another long post! Best, Shirley > > Samuels(English Dept., Cornell University) > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit > > our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more > > resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our > Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources > for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------01B994B1B8AEA3CDD46CC70F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those who want to digest some hilarious excerpts of terrible reviews of Gods and Generals see yesterday's New York Times.  The movie has really been slammed all over.  My own review comes out later this week in North and South magazine.

David Blight

Geoff Wickersham wrote:

Well, I've had some time to sit and digest some of the negative comments from my kids, and they'll be writing their papers soon - as soon as I finish their slave narrative analyses.  First, a little about my class and my school: this is a semester long junior/ senior elective - I usually average about 3 classes a year, 20-25 kids per class.  I take 10-15 on a voluntary field trip to Gettysburg and Antietam every year (maybe every other year next year), with side field trips to graveyards, Underground RR houses and churches in the Detroit area, and weather permitting, some re-enactments nearby.  I have a wide range of abilities in the class (as do we all) so I get some amazing papers and comments and not-so-amazing papers and comments. So, when I give you their comments, I usually give you the best ones. Overall, I think we all felt the movie was way too long.  A couple kids mentioned that they would sit through a long movie if it was better, mentioning a couple like Braveheart, Green Mile, and a few other 3-hour flicks that we're so enjoyable you didn't notice that you hadn't moved from your seat until you stood up (and then your feet/back/butt complained!).  They though a few of the scenes should have been cut (like the Xmas scene, the cuddling scenes with Stonewall and his wife, the interaction with Chamberlain and his wife, interaction with Stonewall and the little girl,etc.) though they understood that the scenes were in there for character development. I think I mentioned this before but one of the kids said that this seemed like a Stonewall biopic, similar to Hoffa, Michael Collins, or the like.  A few students wanted a little more comic relief - having been teased by the Confederate crew that was shown to us sporadically.  Given the battle scenes, I understand their need for relief.  A few students who knew about the timeline of the war asked about the jump from January to December 1862.  I wondered where was the Peninsula Campaign and Antietam as well.  (I've always felt that there needs to be a comparable movie/book for Antietam like Killer Angels/Gettysburg because the battle is that important.  Given that it's still the bloodiest single day in American history, its importance is even more relevant today.  And as a major shift/turning point in the war, I might argue that Antietam is more important than Gettysburg.  But that's another issue.) One student got indignant when Stonewall's black cook, Lewis, wanted to fight against the Yankee invaders.  He didn't feel that was an accurate portrayal.  I told him I didn't know for sure, but in the gamut of human experience, almost anything's possible. From a movie standpoint, some of the more astute kids picked out recycled scenes (one thing that I had been looking for b/c I really noticed them in Gettysburg and I didn't see any in G&G).  Also, a couple kids picked out some of the same faces of reeanctors popping up in shots all over again in different uniforms - I had to explain how that one worked with the filming of real reenactors in the fall of 2001.  Others felt that Jeff Daniels looked older than his role in Gettysburg (which he is) and there couldn't be much done about that, and that if Maxwell waits another ten years in between movies, Daniels will probably not be able to reprise his role as Chamberlain.  I also had the usual comments about military tactics - "Why do they march like that?" "Have them scatter and run!" or about the artillery "Why was it that Stonewall was able to stay up on his horse when at other times regiments were getting shredded when the artillery was raining down on them?"  All in all, they were good kids - they didn't expect to see Saving Private Ryan Meets the Fast and the Furious.  They knew there weren't going to be any sex scenes or car chases.  And they humored me if they thought it was really bad. My personal thoughts - besides those shared by Dr. Blight - were:1. The movie should have started with the beginning of the war - Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861, 4:30 a.m. - instead of with Bobby Lee turning down the command of the Union army (quickly followed by Virginia's secession vote after Lincoln's call for troops).  Right then, I knew what I was in for.2. Did they ever resolve that story line about the two Confederate boys from Fredericksburg who went off to fight the war?  I thought we saw one of them again but wasn't sure.3. There wasn't enough Robert Duvall in this to satisfy me.  I thought Sheen was an awful Lee (helped along by poor writing), so I was looking for a more able replacement.4. The scriptwriting was.... I'm searching for the right word...horrendous.  Yes, mid 19th Century speech doesn't sound the same, but I think when we take mid 19th Century written speech and put it in the mouths of modern actors, they can't pull it off.  Those famous lines we all know, "He's lost his left, I've lost my right", I believe were written and not spoken initially but we cannot be certain.  Gettysburg has the same flaws and some of the lines sound so bad.  I was really hoping and praying that someone other than Maxwell had written this movie.  Unfortunately, my prayers weren't answered.5. This movie doesn't do justice to the book which was far more balanced than this cutting of the movie is.  The 6 1/2 hour DVD version released this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll reserve judgement on that until I see it.6. Where was the whole Hancock storyline?  I found that one entertaining as well.  Sad to have missed it.7. I was pleased to see that the action sequences were much more realistic than Gettysburg (walking up in formation to a loaded Union cannon or let me stand here so you can smack me with the butt of your rifle).  The boys looked like they were running instead of walking at Manassas and Chancellorsville. I think I've given us enough food for thought for one day.  Time to go grade papers.  Take care. Geoff WickershamGroves High SchoolBeverly Hills, MI  
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Civil War in American Literature
 I am grateful for Ruch Samuels's wonderful suggestions about approaches to Civil War literature.  It is certainly true that uses of the war come up in myriad ways in literature and in film, poetry and song.

On the matter of high school students' reactions to God and Generals in Michigan and elsewhere:  I found the responses very interesting.  How aware are young people of the differences between sheer enterainment and the politics of a movie such as this?  The responses indicated seem to indicate that they are quite astute on this question.  Gods and Generals is a paen to the Lost Cause by any stretch of the imagination.  It is the Stonewall Jackson story in all its pathos.  But there is a politics to this film that should not be ignored.  It does seem to be Mr. Maxwell's effort to ressurect the neo-Confederate tradition.  Its defenders can claim accuracy of detail if they choose.  But when Jackson says to his trusted slave, Lewis, that he (Jackson) and Lee would prefer to free the slaves and arm them in late 1862 we know we are witnessing something besides an effort at accuracy.  And all the blather about state rights and defense of homeland in the beginning just avoids utterly most of the real causes at the root of secession.  This film gives us the fight without much of its larger meanings.  It's largely the neo-Confederate tradition's favorite fantasy - what if Stonewall had lived.......

My best to you all for the weekend.

David Blight

Ruth Samuels wrote:

 

Thanks for raising the question of literature and its relation to such a violent history, a matter I study and teach as both a theoretical and historical one.  Good suggestions have been made in this thread.
There are some less obvious sources of Civil War narratives as well. One that I read before I understood that it was a Civil War elegy is Elizabeth Phelps's enormously popular novel The Gates Ajar.  This very much shows the effect of the war at home -- the effect on those left behind when a loved one dies. Another possible way of thinking about the topic is through Augusta Evans account of the war from the point of view of a southern woman in Macaria.  This bestselling novel could still appear as a kind of rabble rouser... for the southern cause. In Who Would Have Thought It?  Maria Ruiz de Burton takes on the war as an element of a story that ranges from the western United States to Washington D.C. I'm quite fond of the works of EDEN Southworth.  In the two novels published together as Britomarte, or the Man Hater, she presents women dressing as men to fight in battle and weaves intensely romantic and sensational stories together with the conflicts that loyalty to Virginia and loyalty to the south might present. I write about this a bit in an essay called "Women at War" that's in the recent Cambridge UP volume on 19th century American Women Writers (ed. Dale Bauer and Philip Gould). I'm also fascinated by the thread on sacred spaces.  I'm following up on this concept in the relation of Civil War iconography to political cartoons and photography.  The forthcoming book is called "Facing America: Cultural Iconography and the Civil War" and I'm absorbed in what I would now call, after reading this series of threads, as the face as a sacred space.  That of course would invoke Abraham Lincoln, but it also includes the circulation of faces that the Civil War at once accompanied and provoked. Another long post! Best, Shirley Samuels(English Dept., Cornell University)



The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------01B994B1B8AEA3CDD46CC70F-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:54:32 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Copperheads versus Peace Democrats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1039586103E2EC59B9D56690" --------------1039586103E2EC59B9D56690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think Jack Ehmer has helped us out here a good deal. A Peace Democrat was a politician or a voter who supported McClellan in '64, opposed emancipation, and wished for a negotiated peace. A "copperhead," in common usage, was a person who willingly organized to subvert the Union war effort. Now, exactly what constituted such behavior is an open question and, of course, led to arrests and trials such as that of Vallandingham. David Blight Jack Ehmer wrote: > Let me try to answer this question as one who was raised in a small > town in Eastern Ohio that was founded by Quakers who fled from > Virginia and the Carolinas to get away from slavery and where > "Copperhead" was still a dirty word in the 50's and Underground > Railroad Stations were hallowed places. The Peace Democrats opposed > the war and were more than willing to see the South walk, but drew the > line at actually sabotaging the war effort. Copperheads were willing > to damage the war effort by any means necessary, including encouraging > desertion and freeing Confederate prisoners of war. Most of the > Copperheads were from Southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and most had > originated from the South. > > Jack Ehmer > > In a message dated 3/9/2003 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, > LISTSERV@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU writes: > > >> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:27:18 -0500 >> From: Geoff Wickersham >> Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics >> >> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >> >> ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset="iso-8859-1" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> >> Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September >> = >> 1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in >> October = >> in the Shenandoah helped as well. The threat to Washington D.C. was >> = >> finally gone. Also, there was the victory that started it all for = >> >> Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August. Even though Petersburg >> hadn't = >> fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the >> Union = >> was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their >> steam, = >> and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =20 >> >> Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able >> to = >> find an answer. Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and = >> Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =20 >> >> Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=20 >> >> Geoff Wickersham=20 >> Groves High School=20 >> Beverly Hills, MI=20 > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------1039586103E2EC59B9D56690 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think Jack Ehmer has helped us out here a good deal.  A Peace Democrat was a politician or a voter who supported McClellan in '64, opposed emancipation, and wished for a negotiated peace.  A "copperhead," in common usage, was a person who willingly organized to subvert the Union war effort.  Now, exactly what constituted such behavior is an open question and, of course, led to arrests and trials such as that of Vallandingham.

David Blight

Jack Ehmer wrote:

Let me try to answer this question as one who was raised in a small town in Eastern Ohio that was founded by Quakers who fled from Virginia and the Carolinas to get away from slavery and where "Copperhead" was still a dirty word in the 50's and Underground Railroad Stations were hallowed places. The Peace Democrats opposed the war and were more than willing to see the South walk, but drew the line at actually sabotaging the war effort. Copperheads were willing to damage the war effort by any means necessary, including encouraging desertion and freeing Confederate prisoners of war. Most of the Copperheads were from Southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and most had originated from the South.

Jack Ehmer

In a message dated 3/9/2003 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, LISTSERV@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU writes:
 

Date:   Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:27:18 -0500
From:   Geoff Wickersham <geoffwickersham@AMERITECH.NET>
Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September =
1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in October =
in the Shenandoah helped as well.  The threat to Washington D.C. was =
finally gone.  Also, there was the victory that started it all for =
Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August.  Even though Petersburg hadn't =
fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the Union =
was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, =
and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =20

Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able to =
find an answer.  Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and =
Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =20

Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=20

Geoff Wickersham=20
Groves High School=20
Beverly Hills, MI=20

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------1039586103E2EC59B9D56690-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:21:21 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Christopher Phillips Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. in the Attic in class. I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed feelings about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division class on The Civil War and American Memory. On his invitation, I observed his and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an impression as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my skepticism of its value in the classroom. On the positive, it was clear that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized the power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, and powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and southern memory and identity. However, I saw something more troubling in the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their reading of the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were representative of southerners as a whole. With Kentucky being their most tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying right across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that the book merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described southerners rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome of the war and its aftermath." I fear that the students' preconceived notions on the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those "hardcore" southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of southerners' views of the war. As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and especially one taught outside the South. And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series of H-South posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of the same reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book. Both play into stereotypical impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the prevailing prejudice about the region. For a fuller review of Horwitz's book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's review of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe. Christopher Phillips University of Cincinnati At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time >to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to improve >my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of >you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see >my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few >questions: > >I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. Jewett >inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the >classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? > >I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War. > Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do >you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go >through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History >of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was >disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to them, >it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are >racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. > >It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and >a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you >found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the >chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley >of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? > >Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and >Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won >the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single >semester. Thoughts? > >John Sacher >Emporia State University > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:16 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Sackett, Pamela J." Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just finished a fantastic book called A YEAR IN THE SOUTH by Stephen Ash. This book follows four Southerners -- 3 men and one woman (in four different parts of the South) through the seasons of the year -- 1865. His primary sources were diaries, but he also has an impressive bibliography. =20 What I liked about the book is that it reads like a novel. I would highly recommend this book to any student studying the impact of the war upon the South. Age range of appeal would be from middle school on up to adult. =20 Also there is another new book just out called SURVIVING THE CONFEDERACY I also recommend. =20 Pamela Myer Sackett Vice Chairman, Brentsville Historic Centre Trust Brentsville, VA -----Original Message----- From: John Sacher [mailto:Sacherjo@ESUMAIL.EMPORIA.EDU]=20 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 12:11 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Teaching the Civil War Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to improve my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few questions: I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. Jewett inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War. Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to them, it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single semester. Thoughts? John Sacher Emporia State University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:49:50 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Sackett, Pamela J." Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E71C.AF1CD79E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E71C.AF1CD79E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I also recommend that the next film contract John Williams to do the soundtrack. There were no stirring tunes to hum or rouse emotion IMHO. I still put on the music from the PATRIOT every time I "do battle" for a cause here in my home county. =20 Pamela Sackett Brentsville, VA =20 -----Original Message----- From: Chris Martin [mailto:CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET]=20 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 4:51 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments =20 5. This movie doesn't do justice to the book which was far more balanced than this cutting of the movie is. The 6 1/2 hour DVD version released this fall may be truer to the book, but I'll reserve judgement on that until I see it.=20 =20 I am not sure if this has been mentioned in this forum yet or not, so I'll go ahead and put the information forward. According to a reenactor who was involved in G&G and is a member of an academic listserv I'm on, Maxwell did film Antietam, some of Jackson's Valley campaigns, the Seven Days and 2nd Bull Run. Somehow, all of those battles ended up on the cutting room floor prior to the release of the movie. This is the principal reason that Maxwell announced immediately there would be a 6-6 1/2 hr DVD release this fall and all of these battles that didn't make the version released for the movies will be included in the DVD release. However I'm still left wondering why the Peninsula campaign was left out entirely and why we saw Fredericksburg from the perspective of Chamberlain.=20 I would have to disagree with your students concerning the scenes involving Jackson's relationship with the little girl. IMHO, it didn't add to character development at all, there's no real substantial change in Jackson because of this relationship. The little girl died, he cried, and shortly thereafter he's dead. I was left wondering, "What exactly was that part for?" Perhaps it was to show Jackson's humanity, as is that rather contrived scene with the conversation at Chancellorsville between Jackson and his cook, but I'd already gotten the point well before that. IMHO the storyline with the little girl should have been cut and Antietam added back in. I'm impressed with your students ability to recognize the same reenactors appearing in multiple scenes. I'm told there's a scene with Union reenactors retreating with smiles on their faces after a sound whipping by the Confederates, but I didn't notice this at all.=20 Yes, there were some southern African Americans that did support the Confederacy and were willing to fight for it, or support those who were doing the fighting. Many of these people were slaves and simply had no choice, but some did volunteer. I'd recommend three books on this topic, "Black Southerners in Confederate Armies" by J.H. Segars (ed.); "Black Confederates" by J.H. Segars and also "Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners, vol. 14" by Charles K. Barrow. Some historians have estimated perhaps as many as 50,000 African Americans served the Confederacy, although I think this estimate may be high and I'd wonder about how many may have left their service of the CSA after hearing news that Lincoln redefined Union aims with the Emancipation Proclamation and they could likely be free if the Union won the war. Prior to that I could reasonably see southern African Americans not believing that the war would necessarily result in their freedom, so they'd rather fight for their states. =20 Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces, including approximately 25% of the CSA ordinance department. (Of course their roles could probably at best be compared to the manual labor roles given to African Americans during WW II by the US Armed forces, loading arms.)=20 Regards, Chris Martin Department of History & Art History George Mason University=20 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E71C.AF1CD79E Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I also recommend that the next film contract John Williams to do the soundtrack.  There were no stirring tunes to hum or rouse emotion IMHO.  I still put on the music from = the PATRIOT every time I “do battle” for a cause here in my home = county.

 

Pamela = Sackett

Brentsville, = VA

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Chris Martin = [mailto:CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, = 2003 4:51 PM
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Re: Gods and = Generals negative comments

 

5. This movie doesn't do = justice to the book which was far more balanced than this cutting of the movie = is.  The 6 1/2 hour DVD version released this fall may be truer to the book, = but I'll reserve judgement on that until I see = it. 

 

    I am not = sure if this has been mentioned in this forum yet or not, so I'll go ahead and = put the information forward. According to a reenactor who was involved in = G&G and is a member of an academic listserv I'm on, Maxwell did = film Antietam, some of Jackson's Valley campaigns, the Seven Days and 2nd = Bull Run. Somehow, all of those battles ended up on the cutting room floor prior = to the release of the movie. This is the principal reason that Maxwell = announced immediately there would be a 6-6 1/2 hr DVD release this fall and all of = these battles that didn't make the version released for the = movies will be included in the DVD release. However I'm still left wondering why the = Peninsula campaign was left out entirely and why we saw Fredericksburg from the = perspective of Chamberlain.

    I would = have to disagree with your students concerning the scenes involving Jackson's relationship with the little girl. IMHO, it didn't add to character = development at all, there's no real substantial change in Jackson because of this relationship. The little girl died, he cried, and shortly thereafter = he's dead. I was left wondering, "What exactly was that part for?" = Perhaps it was to show Jackson's humanity, as is that rather contrived scene with = the conversation at Chancellorsville between Jackson and his cook, but = I'd already gotten the point well before that. IMHO the storyline with the = little girl should have been cut and Antietam added back = in.

    I'm = impressed with your students ability to recognize the same reenactors = appearing in multiple scenes. I'm told there's a scene with Union reenactors = retreating with smiles on their faces after a sound whipping by = the Confederates, but I didn't notice this at = all. 

    Yes, = there were some southern African Americans that did support the = Confederacy and were willing to fight for it, or support those who were doing the = fighting. Many of these people were slaves and simply had no choice, but some did volunteer. I'd recommend three books on this topic, "Black = Southerners in Confederate Armies" by J.H. Segars (ed.); "Black = Confederates" by J.H. Segars and also "Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About = Black Southerners, vol. 14" by Charles K. Barrow. Some historians have = estimated perhaps as many as 50,000 African Americans served the Confederacy, = although I think this estimate may be high and I'd wonder about how many may have = left their service of the CSA after hearing news that Lincoln redefined Union = aims with the Emancipation Proclamation and they could likely be free if = the Union won the war. Prior to that I could reasonably see southern African Americans not believing that the war would necessarily result in their = freedom, so they'd rather fight for their states. =  

     = Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and = most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they = were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces, including = approximately 25% of the CSA ordinance department. (Of course their roles could = probably at best be compared to the manual labor roles given to African = Americans during WW II by the US Armed forces, loading arms.) =

Regards,<= /o:p>

Chris = Martin

Department of History & = Art History

George Mason University =

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History.=00 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E71C.AF1CD79E-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:48:45 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Robert J. Safransky" Subject: Re: Copperheads versus Peace Democrats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030907010804000106040606" --------------030907010804000106040606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Friends - I have read several emails about the copperheads and must ask everyone to wait and do some research on them. I first heard about the copperheads in the middle fifties from my history professor at Marquette University. He wrote a book entitled, The Copperheads in the Middle West, Frank L. Clement, The University of Chicago Press, 1960. He also has written articles about the copperheads and they are in various journals. Dr. Klement has 20 pictures of Copperheads and cartoons about them and their opposition to the war. The book flap has some insights into the anti-copperhead beliefs and I quote it: "The history of opposition to Lincoln's administration in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and other midwestern states has been one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Civil War. Modern historians have invariably looked on "Copperheadism" as a pro-southern and even treasonable movement - accepting as fact the Republican propaganda of the time. Now historian Frank Klement challenges and substantially revises this view by showing that Copperheadism was more than a political position. It was a complex movement compounded of soecioeconomic, religious, and sectional interests - a conservative protest against the changes which the war was bringing to America. Mr. Klement's interpretation links the Copperheads with the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian agrarian tradition, with Negrophobia, and with western sectional hostility to eastern business enterprise and New England Puritanism. He sees Copperheads as the forerunner of the postwar Granger and Populist movements. Describing at the outset the background of the Copperhead sentiment in the Middle West, the author follows the course and political fate of the movement during and after the Civil War. He discusses the opposition to government coercion during the secession crisis; the antiwar mood that grew with Democratic victories during the congressional election of 1862; the high tide of Copperheadism reached by 1863 in the state legislatures; and the course of the peace movement from 1861 to 1864. He shows how infringements on freedom of speech and press, arbitrary arrests, and the draft excited fierce protests from many groups in addition to Democrats and were largely responsible for the beginnings of secret societies. One of Mr. Klement's most striking conclusions reveals that charges of subversion against such societies as the Sons of Liberty and the mythical Golden Circle were entirely products of wartime hysteria and of Republican efforts to discredit the Democrats." Dr. Klement in the Biographical Essay at the close of the book discusses where and how he did his research. He stated that he had thirtyfive pages of printed secondary sources. However, his study is based almost entirely upon primary sources. If you want to understand the Copperheads and what they stood for during the Civil War and afterwards, I would recommend that one find this book and read it. Dr. Klement's book will reward you with some insights into our history. David Blight wrote: > I think Jack Ehmer has helped us out here a good deal. A Peace > Democrat was a politician or a voter who supported McClellan in '64, > opposed emancipation, and wished for a negotiated peace. A > "copperhead," in common usage, was a person who willingly organized to > subvert the Union war effort. Now, exactly what constituted such > behavior is an open question and, of course, led to arrests and trials > such as that of Vallandingham. > > David Blight > > Jack Ehmer wrote: > >> Let me try to answer this question as one who was raised in a small >> town in Eastern Ohio that was founded by Quakers who fled from >> Virginia and the Carolinas to get away from slavery and where >> "Copperhead" was still a dirty word in the 50's and Underground >> Railroad Stations were hallowed places. The Peace Democrats opposed >> the war and were more than willing to see the South walk, but drew >> the line at actually sabotaging the war effort. Copperheads were >> willing to damage the war effort by any means necessary, including >> encouraging desertion and freeing Confederate prisoners of war. Most >> of the Copperheads were from Southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and >> most had originated from the South. >> >> Jack Ehmer >> >> In a message dated 3/9/2003 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, >> LISTSERV@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU writes: >> >> >>> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:27:18 -0500 >>> From: Geoff Wickersham >>> Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics >>> >>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >>> >>> ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0 >>> Content-Type: text/plain; >>> charset="iso-8859-1" >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> >>> Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September = >>> 1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in >>> October = >>> in the Shenandoah helped as well. The threat to Washington D.C. was = >>> finally gone. Also, there was the victory that started it all for = >>> Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August. Even though Petersburg hadn't = >>> fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the Union = >>> was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, = >>> and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =20 >>> >>> Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able >>> to = >>> find an answer. Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and = >>> Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =20 >>> >>> Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=20 >>> >>> Geoff Wickersham=20 >>> Groves High School=20 >>> Beverly Hills, MI=20 >>> >> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site >> at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. >> History. >> > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------030907010804000106040606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Friends -
I have read several emails about the copperheads and must ask everyone to wait and do some research on them.  I first heard about the copperheads in the middle fifties from my history professor at Marquette University.  He wrote a book entitled, The Copperheads in the Middle West, Frank L. Clement, The University of Chicago Press, 1960.   He also has written articles about the copperheads and they are in various journals. Dr. Klement has 20 pictures of Copperheads  and cartoons about them and their opposition to the war.
The book flap has some insights into the anti-copperhead beliefs and I quote it:
 "The history of opposition to Lincoln's administration in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and other midwestern states has been one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Civil War.  Modern historians have invariably looked on "Copperheadism" as a  pro-southern and even treasonable movement - accepting as fact the Republican propaganda of the time.
Now historian Frank Klement challenges and substantially revises this view by showing that Copperheadism was more than a political position.  It was a complex movement compounded of soecioeconomic, religious, and sectional interests - a conservative protest against the changes which the war was bringing to America.  Mr. Klement's interpretation links the Copperheads with the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian agrarian tradition, with Negrophobia, and with western sectional hostility to eastern business enterprise and New England Puritanism.  He sees Copperheads as the forerunner of the postwar Granger and Populist movements.
Describing at the outset the background of the Copperhead sentiment in the Middle West, the author follows the course and political fate of the movement during and after the Civil War.  He discusses the opposition to government coercion during the secession crisis; the antiwar mood that grew with Democratic victories during the congressional election of 1862; the high tide of Copperheadism reached by 1863 in the state legislatures; and the course of the peace movement from 1861 to 1864.  He shows how infringements on freedom of speech and press, arbitrary arrests, and the draft excited fierce protests from many groups in addition to Democrats and were largely responsible for the beginnings of secret societies.  One of Mr. Klement's most striking conclusions reveals that charges of subversion against such societies as the Sons of Liberty and the mythical Golden Circle were entirely products of wartime hysteria and of Republican efforts to discredit the Democrats."


Dr. Klement in the Biographical Essay at the close of the book discusses  where and how he did his research.  He stated that he had thirtyfive pages of printed secondary sources.  However, his study is based almost entirely upon primary sources.

If you want to understand the Copperheads and what they stood for during the Civil War and afterwards, I would recommend that one find this book and read it.  Dr. Klement's book  will reward you with some insights into our history.


David Blight wrote:
I think Jack Ehmer has helped us out here a good deal.  A Peace Democrat was a politician or a voter who supported McClellan in '64, opposed emancipation, and wished for a negotiated peace.  A "copperhead," in common usage, was a person who willingly organized to subvert the Union war effort.  Now, exactly what constituted such behavior is an open question and, of course, led to arrests and trials such as that of Vallandingham.

David Blight

Jack Ehmer wrote:

Let me try to answer this question as one who was raised in a small town in Eastern Ohio that was founded by Quakers who fled from Virginia and the Carolinas to get away from slavery and where "Copperhead" was still a dirty word in the 50's and Underground Railroad Stations were hallowed places. The Peace Democrats opposed the war and were more than willing to see the South walk, but drew the line at actually sabotaging the war effort. Copperheads were willing to damage the war effort by any means necessary, including encouraging desertion and freeing Confederate prisoners of war. Most of the Copperheads were from Southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and most had originated from the South.

Jack Ehmer

In a message dated 3/9/2003 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, LISTSERV@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU writes:
 

Date:   Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:27:18 -0500
From:   Geoff Wickersham <geoffwickersham@AMERITECH.NET>
Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C2E62E.D7CE49A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don't forget that not only Sherman's victory in Atlanta in September =
1864 but also Sheridan's defeat of Jubal Early at Cedar Creek in October =
in the Shenandoah helped as well.  The threat to Washington D.C. was =
finally gone.  Also, there was the victory that started it all for =
Lincoln - taking Mobile Bay in August.  Even though Petersburg hadn't =
fallen b/c of a variety of factors, it seemed to appear that the Union =
was finally on the road to victory, the Copperheads lost their steam, =
and Lincoln was able to secure re-election. =20

Here's a question for everyone, and one to which I haven't been able to =
find an answer.  Is there a difference between Peace Democrat and =
Copperhead or are they interchangeable terms? =20

Take care, and I hope everyone had a restful weekend.=20

Geoff Wickersham=20
Groves High School=20
Beverly Hills, MI=20

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.


This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------030907010804000106040606-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:04:04 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Noonan, Ellen" Subject: Copperheads in The Lost Museum Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3130146244_768352_MIME_Part" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3130146244_768352_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi all, Thanks for the lively and wide-ranging discussion so far. I wanted to weigh in with an online resource recommendation. The American Social History Project (City University of New York) and the Center for History and New Media (George Mason University) have not only created History Matters, we're developing another large-scale Web site for teaching US history called The Lost Museum: Exploring Antebellum American Life and Culture. Located at http://www.lostmuseum.cuny.edu it's still a work in progress, but I urge people to check it out: you can see introductory movies, explore the 3-D re-creation of two rooms from P.T. Barnum's American Museum (more rooms to come), search the Archive of primary source materials, and stop by the Classroom for lesson plans and teaching strategies. The site contains many materials relating to the Civil War and the years leading up to it, including the 1864 Copperhead plot to burn down several public buildings in New York City (including the American Museum). We are eager to hear about how teachers might already be using or would in the future use this site. Again, it's a work in progress with more rooms, materials, and lessons to be added. I also wanted to notify subscribers in the New York City area that ASHP is sponsoring a public seminar on The Civil War in New York City: From Print to Pixels on Wednesday March 26 from 6-8 pm at the Martin Segal Theatre, CUNY Graduate Center (365 Fifth Avenue, between 34th and 35th streets). Presenters will include Kevin Baker, author of the novel Paradise Alley, historian Jeanie Attie, author of Patriotic Toil: Northern Women and the American Civil War, and Andrea Ades Vasquez, project director of The Lost Museum (that's the pixels part!). The event is free, but arrive early to make sure you get a seat. Ellen -- Ellen Noonan American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning The Graduate Center, City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7301.11 New York, NY 10016 enoonan@gc.cuny.edu http://www.ashp.cuny.edu This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --MS_Mac_OE_3130146244_768352_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Copperheads in The Lost Museum Hi all,

Thanks for the lively and wide-ranging discussion so far. I wanted to = weigh in with an online resource recommendation.

The American Social History Project (City University of New York) and = the Center for History and New Media (George Mason University) have not = only created History Matters, we're developing another large-scale Web = site for teaching US history called The Lost Museum: Exploring = Antebellum American Life and Culture. Located at = http://www.lostmuseum.cuny.edu it's still a work in progress, but I = urge people to check it out: you can see introductory movies, explore = the 3-D re-creation of two rooms from P.T. Barnum's American Museum = (more rooms  to come), search the Archive of primary source = materials, and stop by the Classroom for lesson plans and teaching = strategies. The site contains many materials relating to the Civil War = and the years leading up to it, including the 1864 Copperhead plot to = burn down several public buildings in New York City (including the = American Museum). We are eager to hear about how teachers might already = be using or would in the future use this site.  Again, it's a work = in progress with more rooms, materials, and lessons to be added.

I also wanted to notify subscribers in the New York City area that ASHP = is sponsoring a public seminar on The Civil War in New York City: From = Print to Pixels on Wednesday March 26 from 6-8 pm at the Martin Segal = Theatre, CUNY Graduate Center (365 Fifth Avenue, between 34th and 35th = streets). Presenters will include Kevin Baker, author of the novel = Paradise Alley, historian Jeanie Attie, author of Patriotic = Toil:
Northern Women and the American Civil War
, and Andrea Ades Vasquez, = project director of The Lost Museum (that's the pixels part!). = The event is free, but arrive early to make sure you get a seat.

Ellen
--
Ellen Noonan
American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning
The Graduate Center, City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7301.11
New York, NY  10016
enoonan@gc.cuny.edu
http://www.ashp.cuny.edu
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --MS_Mac_OE_3130146244_768352_MIME_Part-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:13 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7b.c1c2585.2b9e3775_boundary" --part1_7b.c1c2585.2b9e3775_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/10/2003 4:37:15 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, jhart@NAICO.COM writes: Jim Hart writes: > On the subject of battlefied tactics, I would like to toss a book out for > discussion. I wondered if anyone had an opinion on Grady McWhiney & Perry > Jamieson's controversial _Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics_. ----------------- Jamieson's portion on tactics was excellent. I thought McWhiney's thesis about Celtic heritage affecting the way the south fought was off the deep end. It presupposes that officers educated in warfare would simply jettison all that education and respond to some sort of . . . what? Instinct? Channeling of Celtic ancestors? Feeling in their bones resulting from their DNA? Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_7b.c1c2585.2b9e3775_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/10/2003 4:37:15 AM Hawaiian Stand= ard Time, jhart@NAICO.COM writes:

Jim Hart writes:


On the subject of battlefied ta= ctics, I would like to toss a book out for
discussion.  I wondered if anyone had an opinion on Grady McWhiney &= ; Perry
Jamieson's controversial _Attack and Die:  Civil War Military Tactics_.=


-----------------
Jamieson's portion on tactics was excellent.  I thought McWhiney's thes= is about Celtic heritage affecting the way the south fought was off the deep= end.  It presupposes that officers educated in warfare would simply je= ttison all that education and respond to some sort of . . . what?  Inst= inct?   Channeling of Celtic ancestors?  Feeling in their bon= es resulting from their DNA?

Best Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_7b.c1c2585.2b9e3775_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:51:28 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Southerners who fought for the Union MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1cb.4be91d2.2b9e38b0_boundary" --part1_1cb.4be91d2.2b9e38b0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/10/2003 4:48:32 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, dwblight@AMHERST.EDU writes: Dr. Blight wrote: > I would just add one older book to Victorian Bynum's wonderful reminder of > the rich literature on southern unionism and dissent. Carl Degler's The > Other South is still very much worth reading. Also go back and look at > Wilbur Cash's classic The Mind of the South from 1940. My own favorite > post-war dissenter is John Singleton Mosby. I wrote about him in Race and > Reunion. There is a new book out about his post-war life as well. The > title escapes me at the moment. Thanks so much for this reminder about > southern complexity. ------------ Another recent book is William W. Freehling's _The South vs. The South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War._ Mosby was very candid about the centrality of slavery in bringing on the war. His memoirs are a rich resource. Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1cb.4be91d2.2b9e38b0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/10/2003 4:48:32 AM Hawaiian Stand= ard Time, dwblight@AMHERST.EDU writes:

Dr. Blight wrote:


I would just add one older book= to Victorian Bynum's wonderful reminder of the rich literature on southern=20= unionism and dissent.  Carl Degler's The Other South is still very much= worth reading.  Also go back and look at Wilbur Cash's classic The Min= d of the South from 1940.  My own favorite post-war dissenter is John S= ingleton Mosby.  I wrote about him in Race and Reunion.  There is=20= a new book out about his post-war life as well.  The title escapes me a= t the moment.  Thanks so much for this reminder about southern complexi= ty.


------------
Another recent book is William W. Freehling's _The South vs. The South: = ; How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War._

Mosby was very candid about the centrality of slavery in bringing on the war= .  His memoirs are a rich resource.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_1cb.4be91d2.2b9e38b0_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:15:05 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jeanie Attie Subject: Popular Uses of "Cooperhead" In-Reply-To: <3E6CB538.A92C96AC@amherst.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3130150505_487280_MIME_Part" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3130150505_487280_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I' found the explanations of Peace Democrat/Copperhead useful. But I'd add something about the popular uses of the term that might complicate those distinctions a bit. In my research--on women at the northern homefront--I found term "Copperhead" used to describe more general anti-Republican sentiment, as well ethnic and class distinctions. Below info from sources I cited in my book (Patriotic Toil): Homefront women, who corresponded with the United State Sanitary Commission (USSC)--explaining the paltry contributions of their communities--used the phrase to characterize a diffuse political sentiment: "Our own immediate vicinity is very much tinctured with Copperheadism," Others remarked on communities that were "entirely of the Copperhead persuasion," or "decidedly Coppery." Also found similar uses of the term from canvassers, hired by the USSC to tour towns and raise supplies. One Sanitary agent, William Hobart Hadley, described his efforts by explicitly linking "Copperhead" with Irish, drinking, noting in one town, he found himself at "a public house" and not "a copperhead rumhole!" Finally, USSC publication, The Bulletin, claimed to make inroads in generating support, even in "nests of copperheadism." Has anyone found similar evidence? I'd be curious. Sincerely, Jeanie Attie This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --MS_Mac_OE_3130150505_487280_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Popular Uses of "Cooperhead"
I' found the explanations of Peace Democrat/Copperhead useful.  But &n= bsp;I'd add something about the popular uses of the term that might complica= te those distinctions a bit.  In my research--on women at the northern = homefront--I found term "Copperhead" used to describe more general= anti-Republican sentiment, as well ethnic and class distinctions.  Bel= ow info from sources I cited in my book (Patriotic Toil):

Homefront women, who corresponded with the United State Sanitary Commission= (USSC)--explaining the paltry contributions of their communities--used the = phrase to characterize a diffuse political sentiment:
   "Our own immediate vicinity is very much tinctured = with Copperheadism,"

Others remarked on communities that were "entirely of the Copperhead p= ersuasion," or "decidedly Coppery."


Also found similar uses of the term from canvassers, hired by the USSC to t= our towns and raise supplies.  One Sanitary agent, William Hobart Hadle= y, described his efforts by explicitly linking "Copperhead" with I= rish, drinking, noting in one town,  he found himself at "a public= house" and not "a copperhead rumhole!"  
  
Finally, USSC publication, The Bulletin, claimed to make inroads in = generating support, even in "nests of copperheadism."

Has anyone found similar evidence?  I'd be curious.

Sincerely,
    Jeanie Attie
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --MS_Mac_OE_3130150505_487280_MIME_Part-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:38:24 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Robert J. Safransky" Subject: Re: Popular Uses of "Cooperhead" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000505030905070905080108" --------------000505030905070905080108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might wish to refer to articles written by Frank L. Klement or his book , Copperheads in the Midwest, University of Chicago Press, 1960. Jeanie Attie wrote: > > I' found the explanations of Peace Democrat/Copperhead useful. But > I'd add something about the popular uses of the term that might > complicate those distinctions a bit. In my research--on women at the > northern homefront--I found term "Copperhead" used to describe more > general anti-Republican sentiment, as well ethnic and class > distinctions. Below info from sources I cited in my book (Patriotic > Toil): > > Homefront women, who corresponded with the United State Sanitary > Commission (USSC)--explaining the paltry contributions of their > communities--used the phrase to characterize a diffuse political > sentiment: > "Our own immediate vicinity is very much tinctured with > Copperheadism," > > Others remarked on communities that were "entirely of the Copperhead > persuasion," or "decidedly Coppery." > > Also found similar uses of the term from canvassers, hired by the USSC > to tour towns and raise supplies. One Sanitary agent, William Hobart > Hadley, described his efforts by explicitly linking "Copperhead" with > Irish, drinking, noting in one town, he found himself at "a public > house" and not "a copperhead rumhole!" > > Finally, USSC publication, The Bulletin, claimed to make inroads in > generating support, even in "nests of copperheadism." > > Has anyone found similar evidence? I'd be curious. > > Sincerely, > Jeanie Attie This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources > for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------000505030905070905080108 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might wish to refer to articles written by Frank L. Klement or his book , Copperheads in the Midwest, University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Jeanie Attie wrote:
Popular Uses of "Cooperhead"
I' found the explanations of Peace Democrat/Copperhead useful.  But  I'd add something about the popular uses of the term that might complicate those distinctions a bit.  In my research--on women at the northern homefront--I found term "Copperhead" used to describe more general anti-Republican sentiment, as well ethnic and class distinctions.  Below info from sources I cited in my book (Patriotic Toil):

Homefront women, who corresponded with the United State Sanitary Commission (USSC)--explaining the paltry contributions of their communities--used the phrase to characterize a diffuse political sentiment:
   "Our own immediate vicinity is very much tinctured with Copperheadism,"

Others remarked on communities that were "entirely of the Copperhead persuasion," or "decidedly Coppery."


Also found similar uses of the term from canvassers, hired by the USSC to tour towns and raise supplies.  One Sanitary agent, William Hobart Hadley, described his efforts by explicitly linking "Copperhead" with Irish, drinking, noting in one town,  he found himself at "a public house" and not "a copperhead rumhole!"  
  
Finally, USSC publication, The Bulletin, claimed to make inroads in generating support, even in "nests of copperheadism."

Has anyone found similar evidence?  I'd be curious.

Sincerely,
    Jeanie Attie
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------000505030905070905080108-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:49:21 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Robert J. Safransky" Subject: Re: Popular Uses of "Cooperhead" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040706050302020206080204" --------------040706050302020206080204 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Jeannie - I just went to Google and typed in : Frank L. Klement - and got a listing of his books and articles on Copperheads which where published up through 1998. Also, go to Marquette University's web site as it has a lot of information on him. Use Google and type in - Frank L. Klement, Historian - you will find some material you might use in your classes. A former Klement student, Robert J. Safransky Jeanie Attie wrote: > > I' found the explanations of Peace Democrat/Copperhead useful. But > I'd add something about the popular uses of the term that might > complicate those distinctions a bit. In my research--on women at the > northern homefront--I found term "Copperhead" used to describe more > general anti-Republican sentiment, as well ethnic and class > distinctions. Below info from sources I cited in my book (Patriotic > Toil): > > Homefront women, who corresponded with the United State Sanitary > Commission (USSC)--explaining the paltry contributions of their > communities--used the phrase to characterize a diffuse political > sentiment: > "Our own immediate vicinity is very much tinctured with > Copperheadism," > > Others remarked on communities that were "entirely of the Copperhead > persuasion," or "decidedly Coppery." > > Also found similar uses of the term from canvassers, hired by the USSC > to tour towns and raise supplies. One Sanitary agent, William Hobart > Hadley, described his efforts by explicitly linking "Copperhead" with > Irish, drinking, noting in one town, he found himself at "a public > house" and not "a copperhead rumhole!" > > Finally, USSC publication, The Bulletin, claimed to make inroads in > generating support, even in "nests of copperheadism." > > Has anyone found similar evidence? I'd be curious. > > Sincerely, > Jeanie Attie This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources > for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------040706050302020206080204 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Jeannie -
I just went to Google and typed in :  Frank L. Klement - and got a listing of his books and articles on Copperheads which where published up through 1998.
Also, go to Marquette University's web site as it has a lot of information on him.
Use Google and type in - Frank L. Klement, Historian -  you will find some material you might use in your classes.
A former Klement student,
Robert J. Safransky

Jeanie Attie wrote:
Popular Uses of "Cooperhead"
I' found the explanations of Peace Democrat/Copperhead useful.  But  I'd add something about the popular uses of the term that might complicate those distinctions a bit.  In my research--on women at the northern homefront--I found term "Copperhead" used to describe more general anti-Republican sentiment, as well ethnic and class distinctions.  Below info from sources I cited in my book (Patriotic Toil):

Homefront women, who corresponded with the United State Sanitary Commission (USSC)--explaining the paltry contributions of their communities--used the phrase to characterize a diffuse political sentiment:
   "Our own immediate vicinity is very much tinctured with Copperheadism,"

Others remarked on communities that were "entirely of the Copperhead persuasion," or "decidedly Coppery."


Also found similar uses of the term from canvassers, hired by the USSC to tour towns and raise supplies.  One Sanitary agent, William Hobart Hadley, described his efforts by explicitly linking "Copperhead" with Irish, drinking, noting in one town,  he found himself at "a public house" and not "a copperhead rumhole!"  
  
Finally, USSC publication, The Bulletin, claimed to make inroads in generating support, even in "nests of copperheadism."

Has anyone found similar evidence?  I'd be curious.

Sincerely,
    Jeanie Attie
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------040706050302020206080204-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:58:14 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Slavery and Economics In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Dear Trish: Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that >economics was a "red-herring" with respect to the civil war? I guess >that my confusion over the more important causal factors of the >civil war has to do with whether the Union was fighting to end >slavery on moral or economic grounds. Certainly there were members >of the Union that objected to slavery because it was morally wrong. >However, my reading of different sources has led me to conclude that >slavery as a moral issue was not enough to compel the Union to >mobilize all of its resources and sacrifice so dearly. Racism was >deeply ingrained in both the North and South and once the war had >ended, de facto segregation and race riots were common occurrences >in many parts of the North. Therefore, I find it difficult to >believe that moral reasons played the strong role that many forum >participants have suggested. Your (or any) comments and suggestions >would be welcome in helping me to clarify this issue. Sincerely, >Pete Haro. Sorry to have taken so long to get back to this. I think I said it's sometimes a bit of a red herring, meaning that the discussion about the general situation of slavery ends up following the one trail of whether (and how) profitable slavery was and to whom. To say that slavery was doomed is not necessarily to say it was *economically* doomed. The slave states were becoming increasingly isolated politically, in that more and more countries were abandoning slavery. Given that the south wanted to maintain an ethos of being more cultured than the north and various other places, this was a problem. One thing that people always remark on in regard to southern discourse re slavery is just how unbelievably defensive it was. But, also, I'd say that the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery on any grounds. There may have been people who fought on the Union side to end slavery (and my understanding is that there is a lot of disagreement as to just how many), but the Union fought to preserve the Union. (Hugh Brogan makes the case that the anti-slavery folks turned the Union tide, and that the Emancipation Proclamation increased the number of people who volunteered, especially among African-Americans who then performed crucial tasks. I can imagine something like that could be true--that a small number of sufficiently devoted people could make the difference--but I don't know enough military history to know.) To say that slavery caused the war is not to say that the Union fought to end slavery. It is to say that the slave states seceded in order to protect and preserve slavery. Specifically, they were in a deep terror that slavery would be restricted to the existing slave states-- that it would not be permitted to expand. And they believed that would be its death knell--politically, morally, and economically. It's worth remembering that the evidence is that slavery was not in the south's overall best economic interest, and that a number of people believed that at the time. So, there is evidence that many proslavery folks were committed to slavery even though they believed it was not in their own economic best interest. Finally, lots of folks who were anti-slavery were very racist. So, the fact that some people were racist doesn't mean they couldn't therefore have been anti-slavery. (One thing that is often troubling about reading many abolitionist writings, in fact, is just how racist some of it is.) -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "I ranted to the knave and fool, But outgrew that school, Would transform the part, Fit audience found, but cannot rule My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:16:32 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Mark Bingham Subject: Re: Gods and Generals negative comments While I have not read Jamieson's work on tactics, I would highly reccomend looking at as many different soldier's diaries and letters as possible as much of what is believed (especially in the Civil War Reenacting world and on film) fails to appreciate the complexity of combat (i.e. the frequent occurance of soldiers fighting prone, the fact that most movements on the field were conducted at the double-quick, the use of sharpshooter battalions in the Confederate Army, the use of skirmishers in both armies, the frequent occurance of soldiers entrenching or building breastworks, etc..). Sorry I don't have the authors for these since I'm not at home. Some great reads are: Inside the Army of the Potomac-The letters of Capt. Francis Donaldson, 118th PA Infantry Brothers In Gray Letters to Amanda Hard Marching Every Day-The letters of Wilbur Fiske, 2nd VT Infantry There are many more than just these three, plus they give an outstanding look at the daily life of the soldiers. Cheers, Mark Bingham This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:59:17 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Peter Haro Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the "southern mainstream view" of the civil war that you are refering to? While you are right to suggest that Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to help develop his book, I'm not sure that Horwitz is entirely wrong in his portrayal of a south unwilling to accept the outcome of the war. Recent political events have demonstrated that much of what the confederacy represented (segregation, states' rights) seems to be very much in favor with certain leaders in Washington. We had a former Senate majority leader who was able to assert on more than one occassion that segregation was perhaps the best course for our country and a current President who feels that states should have to rely more on themselves than the federal government for a variety of different social and economic problems. Based on this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about an unrepentant South (or at least one enamored of a nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? Sincerely, Pete Haro. -------Original Message------- From: Christopher Phillips Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > > I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. in the Attic in class. I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed feelings about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division class on The Civil War and American Memory. On his invitation, I observed his and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an impression as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my skepticism of its value in the classroom. On the positive, it was clear that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized the power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, and powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and southern memory and identity. However, I saw something more troubling in the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their reading of the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were representative of southerners as a whole. With Kentucky being their most tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying right across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that the book merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described southerners rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome of the war and its aftermath." I fear that the students' preconceived notions on the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those "hardcore" southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of southerners' views of the war. As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and especially one taught outside the South. And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series of H-South posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of the same reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book. Both play into stereotypical impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the prevailing prejudice about the region. For a fuller review of Horwitz's book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's review of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe. Christopher Phillips University of Cincinnati At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time >to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to improve >my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of >you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see >my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few >questions: > >I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. Jewett >inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the >classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? > >I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War. > Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do >you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go >through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History >of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was >disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to them, >it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are >racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. > >It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and >a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you >found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the >chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley >of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? > >Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and >Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won >the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single >semester. Thoughts? > >John Sacher >Emporia State University > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:51:00 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: <995037.1047336249975.JavaMail.nobody@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The recent book DIXIE by the southern journalist Curtis Wilkie is relevant to some of the issues brought up in Peter Haro's query. Some southerners who grew up after WW2 can not bring themselves to criticize the apartheid they grew up with. Wilkie can and does but he shows some understanding for those who can't - like the senator from Mississippi. --- Peter Haro wrote: > Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the > "southern mainstream view" of the civil war that you > are refering to? While you are right to suggest that > Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to > help develop his book, I'm not sure that Horwitz is > entirely wrong in his portrayal of a south unwilling > to accept the outcome of the war. > > Recent political events have demonstrated that much > of what the confederacy represented (segregation, > states' rights) seems to be very much in favor with > certain leaders in Washington. We had a former > Senate majority leader who was able to assert on > more than one occassion that segregation was perhaps > the best course for our country and a current > President who feels that states should have to rely > more on themselves than the federal government for a > variety of different social and economic problems. > Based on this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about > an unrepentant South (or at least one enamored of a > nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? > Sincerely, Pete Haro. > -------Original Message------- > From: Christopher Phillips > Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > > > > > I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the > use of Confeds. in the > Attic in class. I haven't used the book myself, as > I have mixed feelings > about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in > his upper-division class > on The Civil War and American Memory. On his > invitation, I observed his > and the students' discussion of the book and came > away with an impression > as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, > furthering my > skepticism of its value in the classroom. On the > positive, it was clear > that these students (all junior or senior history > majors) recognized the > power of the Civil War among those southerners whom > Horwitz studied, and > powerful role of race within their varied constructs > of the war and > southern memory and identity. However, I saw > something more troubling in > the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio > students to their reading of > the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's > characters were > representative of southerners as a whole. With > Kentucky being their most > tangible vision of the South (either because of or > despite it lying right > across the Ohio River), several of the students made > comments that the > book > merely confirmed their impressions of, as one > student described > southerners > rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't > accept the outcome of > the > war and its aftermath." I fear that the students' > preconceived notions on > the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance > on those "hardcore" > southerners who, in reality, might be out of the > mainstream of > southerners' > views of the war. As such, I will continue to be > reluctant (though I > haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college > class and especially > one > taught outside the South. > And despite suggestions to the contrary > offered in a series of > H-South > posts on teaching the South, I am similarly > skeptical of using the movie > "O > Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history > class for many of the > same > reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book. Both > play into > stereotypical > impressions of the South and thus confirm more than > deny much of the > prevailing prejudice about the region. For a fuller > review of Horwitz's > book as neither southern sociology or history, see > Fitz Brundage's review > of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I > believe. > > Christopher Phillips > University of Cincinnati > > At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote: > >Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I > wish I had more time > >to read and respond). I'm following this > discussion mainly to improve > >my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like > to thank those of > >you who've sent in the long list of Civil War > literature. I can see > >my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, > I have a few > >questions: > > > >I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. > Earlier Leah W. Jewett > >inquired both whether and how such issues > should/can be brought into the > >classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? > > > >I agree on the importance of memory in the > discussion of the Civil War. > > Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into > their courses. Do > >you start with it or end with it or try to > integrate it as you go > >through the course? I've used Confederates in the > Attic in a History > >of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy > the book, I was > >disappointed by the students' reactions. They > liked it, but to them, > >it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white > southerners are > >racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go > much beyond that. > > > >It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is > both a goldmine and > >a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. > Have any of you > >found a good way to help your students separate the > wheat from the > >chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers > and Rubin's Valley > >of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? > > > >Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or > "Civil War and > >Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it > gets to the "who won > >the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of > material for a single > >semester. Thoughts? > > > >John Sacher > >Emporia State University > > > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at > >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources > for teaching U.S. > History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at > href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:40:53 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Chris Martin Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wanted to inform anyone who may be interested that the Society of Military History at their annual conference, this year held in Knoxville, TN, will have a panel discussion on teaching the Civil War on Saturday May 3rd from 9-11 am. The panel is chaired by Paul A Cimbala of Fordham Univ. Joining him on the panel will be Stephen V Ash, Univ. of TN; Lesley Jill Gordon, Univ. of Akron; Earl J Hess, Lincoln Memorial Univ. and Elizabeth D. Leonard of Colby College. The conference general registration is $100 and $50 for students prior to April 5, 2003. A one day registration is $40 prior to April 5, 2003. The schedule for the conference can be found at http://web.utk.edu/~csws/smh_panels.htm. Even if you only find one session you'd like to go to, Knoxville is a great town to visit and spend a weekend and I can vouch that the SMH is a great organization for those of us interested in military history, the OAH and AHA ignore military history as a general rule it seems. Regards, Chris Martin Department of History & Art History George Mason University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:36:27 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: Black Confederates (Was Gods and Generals negative comments) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_143.c443478.2b9f081b_boundary" --part1_143.c443478.2b9f081b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2003 12:16:52 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET writes: Chris Martin wrote: > Some historians have estimated perhaps as many as 50,000 African Americans > served the Confederacy, although I think this estimate may be high and I'd > wonder about how many may have left their service of the CSA after hearing > news that Lincoln redefined Union aims with the Emancipation Proclamation > and they could likely be free if the Union won the war. --------------------- 50,000 is probably wrong by several decimal points. Robert K. Krick conducted an extensive study of confederate military records. Lest anyone think Krick, who recently retired as the Chief Historian of the Fredericksburg National Battlefield, is a raving Yankee, he named his son, also a Civil War historian with the National Park Service, Robert E. Lee Krick. Krick studied the service records for about 200,000 confederate soldiers and found, in his words, "six, or twelve at the very most" black confederate soldiers. [Jason H. Silverman and Susan R. Silverman, "Blacks in Gray: Myth or Reality?" _North and South_ Magazine, Vol 5, No. 3, Apr 2002, p. 42] Likewise, James M. McPherson, Joseph Glatthaar, and Edward Bearrs have scoffed at the idea of tens of thousands of black confederate soldiers. While there were undoubtedly blacks who fought for the confederacy, their actual numbers are far less than some would have us believe. Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_143.c443478.2b9f081b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/9/2003 12:16:52 PM Hawaiian Stand= ard Time, CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET writes:

Chris Martin wrote:

Some historians have estimated=20= perhaps as many as 50,000 African Americans served the Confederacy, although= I think this estimate may be high and I'd wonder about how many may have le= ft their service of the CSA after hearing news that Lincoln redefined Union=20= aims with the Emancipation Proclamation and they could likely be free if the= Union won the war.

---------------------
50,000 is probably wrong by several decimal points.  Robert K. Krick co= nducted an extensive study of confederate military records.  Lest anyon= e think Krick, who recently retired as the Chief Historian of the Fredericks= burg National Battlefield, is a raving Yankee, he named his son, also a Civi= l War historian with the National Park Service, Robert E. Lee Krick.  K= rick studied the service records for about 200,000 confederate soldiers and=20= found, in his words, "six, or twelve at the very most" black confederate sol= diers.  [Jason H. Silverman and Susan R. Silverman, "Blacks in Gray:&nb= sp; Myth or Reality?" _North and South_ Magazine, Vol 5, No. 3, Apr 2002, p.= 42]

Likewise, James M. McPherson, Joseph Glatthaar, and Edward Bearrs have scoff= ed at the idea of tens of thousands of black confederate soldiers.  Whi= le there were undoubtedly blacks who fought for the confederacy, their actua= l numbers are far less than some would have us believe.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_143.c443478.2b9f081b_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:44:49 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Leah M Wood Subject: unrepentant South MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Certainly there is "an" unrepetant South, but there is also a South that could care less about the war, and a host of other Souths. I laughed out loud when I read Confederates in the Attic - mostly because the individuals were so outlandish. I think that the book's purpose - and its worth - is in its portrayal of that group of individuals who are still wrapped up in the war and their own fantasy of a different outcome. A significant number of people fit into this group, but even so, this cast of characters can not be mistaken as representatives of the South as a whole. Leah W. Jewett US Civil War Center LSU This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:00:28 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Pete Haro Subject: Re: unrepentant South Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Dear Leah: Then who or what is this "South as a whole" that everyone keeps referring to? Speaking as a Southerner, I must have blinders on because I haven't seen much evidence of their existence lately. Please elaborate. Sincerely, Pete Haro. ---------- >From: Leah M Wood >To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU >Subject: unrepentant South >Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2003, 6:44 AM > > Certainly there is "an" unrepetant South, but there is also a South that > could care less about the war, and a host of other Souths. I laughed out > loud when I read Confederates in the Attic - mostly because the individuals > were so outlandish. I think that the book's purpose - and its worth - is in > its portrayal of that group of individuals who are still wrapped up in the > war and their own fantasy of a different outcome. A significant number of > people fit into this group, but even so, this cast of characters can not be > mistaken as representatives of the South as a whole. > > Leah W. Jewett > US Civil War Center > LSU > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:27:35 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Leah M Wood Subject: Re: unrepentant South MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii < Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Christopher Phillips Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: <995037.1047336249975.JavaMail.nobody@thecount.psp.pas.eart hlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_2920188==_.ALT" --=====================_2920188==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Peter and others -- I've been caught using indefinite language. I meant to suggest by using the elusive term, "southern mainstream thought," even if such an animal exists, that it is itself an imprecise commodity. I apologize for not being clear in that sense. I'm not suggesting that Horwitz's characters are far-fetched, much less that they don't exist. Clearly, they are not and they do. But to use his book to teach the South is as fraught with hazards as using Uncle Tom's Cabin to characterize the realities of antebellum life or "Gods and Generals" as a definitive glimpse into the southern perspective on the war and slavery. This is not to say that many white southerners do not share the racial or historical perspectives of Horwitz's subjects. Clearly, many do; Horwitz's people, unlike Stowe's, are real, as are the incidents he witnessed and conversations he recorded. And your employment of Trent Lott is appropriate, but do "Segs" (the Republican party's private -- and far too seemly affectionate, in my book -- term for former/current segregationists) represent the wider notions of southern politicians, much less the public as a whole? Even the most egregious of the "Segs" such as George Wallace and even Strom himself changed their political stances about racial segregation and certainly in many historians' opinions, those changed stances were/are genuine. If we use Lott as an example for all, then we much conclude that such political stances are uniformly disingenuous. More important, can we lump all white southern politicians, regardless of party affiliation, such as George W. Bush or Democrats such as John Edwards or Zell Miller, into the same category as Lott? This is unwise and certainly extreme. Questions linger about Horwitz's book, left unanswered by its lack of citations or secondary sources (other than an acknowledgment to Peter Applebome, author of Dixie Rising). Did he meet any southerners who distinctly did not share the thoughts and ideology of the characters in his book? Certainly, many of them exist; live and work in any city or town in the South and you'll interact with many of them. Are the perspectives of heritage and race limited to those born and raised in the South, or do they apply to transplants as well, many of them having lived in the South for most of their lives? Has the rise of the Sunbelt changed these perspectives at all, or does Horwitz's "Gone With the Window" South identify only the most "diehard" of the neo-Confederates? The Ohioan, Rob Hodge, certainly defies the larger group in his inability to identify precisely why he became so fascinated with the Confederate mystique; does this signify something larger. If Rose Sanders and her students aptly characterize the attitudes of black southerners toward the war and its aftermath, why do/did so many black southerners support the maintenance of the Confederate flag on state flags? These sorts of questions lead me to be reluctant to use Horwitz's book in classes, perhaps with the exception of advanced students. The point is, is the book better used for our own insights into the complexities of southern heritage and race relations or for instruction for often largely uninitiated and impressionable high school and college students. In that, we much be judicious and a look at Fitz Brundage's review in the GHQ is instructive. Christopher Phillips University of Cincinnati At 02:59 PM 3/10/03 -0800, you wrote: >Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the "southern mainstream view" of >the civil war that you are refering to? While you are right to suggest that >Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to help develop his book, >I'm not sure that Horwitz is entirely wrong in his portrayal of a south >unwilling to accept the outcome of the war. > >Recent political events have demonstrated that much of what the confederacy >represented (segregation, states' rights) seems to be very much in favor >with certain leaders in Washington. We had a former Senate majority leader >who was able to assert on more than one occassion that segregation was >perhaps the best course for our country and a current President who feels >that states should have to rely more on themselves than the federal >government for a variety of different social and economic problems. Based on >this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about an unrepentant South (or at least >one enamored of a nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? Sincerely, >Pete Haro. >-------Original Message------- >From: Christopher Phillips >Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM >To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU >Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > >> >> I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. in the >Attic in class. I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed feelings >about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division class >on The Civil War and American Memory. On his invitation, I observed his >and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an impression >as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my >skepticism of its value in the classroom. On the positive, it was clear >that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized the >power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, and >powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and >southern memory and identity. However, I saw something more troubling in >the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their reading of >the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were >representative of southerners as a whole. With Kentucky being their most >tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying right >across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that the >book >merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described >southerners >rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome of >the >war and its aftermath." I fear that the students' preconceived notions on >the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those "hardcore" >southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of >southerners' >views of the war. As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I >haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and especially >one >taught outside the South. > And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series of >H-South >posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the movie >"O >Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of the >same >reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book. Both play into >stereotypical >impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the >prevailing prejudice about the region. For a fuller review of Horwitz's >book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's review >of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe. > >Christopher Phillips >University of Cincinnati > >At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >>Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time >>to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to improve >>my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of >>you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see >>my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few >>questions: >> >>I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. Jewett >>inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the >>classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? >> >>I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War. >> Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do >>you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go >>through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History >>of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was >>disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to them, >>it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are >>racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. >> >>It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and >>a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you >>found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the >>chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley >>of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? >> >>Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and >>Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won >>the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single >>semester. Thoughts? >> >>John Sacher >>Emporia State University >> >>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >>http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. >History. > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu for >more resources for teaching U.S. History. >> > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --=====================_2920188==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter and others -- I've been caught using indefinite language.  I meant to suggest by using the elusive term, "southern mainstream thought," even if such an animal exists, that it is itself an imprecise commodity.  I apologize for not being clear in that sense.
        I'm not suggesting that Horwitz's characters are far-fetched, much less that they don't exist.  Clearly, they are not and they do.  But to use his book to teach the South is as fraught with hazards as using Uncle Tom's Cabin to characterize the realities of antebellum life or "Gods and Generals" as a definitive glimpse into the southern perspective on the war and slavery.  This is not to say that many white southerners do not share the racial or historical perspectives of Horwitz's subjects.  Clearly, many do; Horwitz's people, unlike Stowe's, are real, as are the incidents he witnessed and conversations he recorded.  And your employment of Trent Lott is appropriate, but do "Segs" (the Republican party's private -- and far too seemly affectionate, in my book -- term for former/current segregationists) represent the wider notions of southern politicians, much less the public as a whole?  Even the most egregious of the "Segs" such as George Wallace and even Strom himself changed their political stances about racial segregation and certainly in many historians' opinions, those changed stances were/are genuine.  If we use Lott as an example for all, then we much conclude that such political stances are uniformly disingenuous.  More important, can we lump all white southern politicians, regardless of party affiliation, such as George W. Bush or Democrats such as John Edwards or Zell Miller, into the same category as Lott?  This is unwise and certainly extreme.
        Questions linger about Horwitz's book, left unanswered by its lack of citations or secondary sources (other than an acknowledgment to Peter Applebome, author of Dixie Rising).  Did he meet any southerners who distinctly did not share the thoughts and ideology of the characters in his book?  Certainly, many of them exist; live and work in any city or town in the South and you'll interact with many of them.  Are the perspectives of heritage and race limited to those born and raised in the South, or do they apply to transplants as well, many of them having lived in the South for most of their lives?  Has the rise of the Sunbelt changed these perspectives at all, or does Horwitz's "Gone With the Window" South identify only the most "diehard" of the neo-Confederates?  The Ohioan, Rob Hodge, certainly defies the larger group in his inability to identify precisely why he became so fascinated with the Confederate mystique; does this signify something larger.  If Rose Sanders and her students aptly characterize the attitudes of black southerners toward the war and its aftermath, why do/did so many black southerners support the maintenance of the Confederate flag on state flags?  These sorts of questions lead me to be reluctant to use Horwitz's book in classes, perhaps with the exception of advanced students.  The point is, is the book better used for our own insights into the complexities of southern heritage and race relations or for instruction for often largely uninitiated and impressionable high school and college students.  In that, we much be judicious and a look at Fitz Brundage's review in the GHQ is instructive.

Christopher Phillips
University of Cincinnati

At 02:59 PM 3/10/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the "southern mainstream view" of
>the civil war that you are refering to? While you are right to suggest that
>Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to help develop his book,
>I'm not sure that Horwitz is entirely wrong in his portrayal of a south
>unwilling to accept the outcome of the war.
>
>Recent political events have demonstrated that much of what the confederacy
>represented (segregation, states' rights) seems to be very much in favor
>with certain leaders in Washington. We had a former Senate majority leader
>who was able to assert on more than one occassion that segregation was
>perhaps the best course for our country and a current President who feels
>that states should have to rely more on themselves than the federal
>government for a variety of different social and economic problems. Based on
>this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about an unrepentant South (or at least
>one enamored of a nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? Sincerely,
>Pete Haro.
>-------Original Message-------
>From: Christopher Phillips <phillicr@EMAIL.UC.EDU>
>Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM
>To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War
>
>>
>> I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. in the
>Attic in class.  I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed feelings
>about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division class
>on The Civil War and American Memory.  On his invitation, I observed his
>and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an impression
>as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my
>skepticism of its value in the classroom.  On the positive, it was clear
>that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized the
>power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, and
>powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and
>southern memory and identity.  However, I saw something more troubling in
>the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their reading of
>the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were
>representative of southerners as a whole.  With Kentucky being their most
>tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying right
>across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that the
>book
>merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described
>southerners
>rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome of
>the
>war and its aftermath."  I fear that the students' preconceived notions on
>the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those "hardcore"
>southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of
>southerners'
>views of the war.  As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I
>haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and especially
>one
>taught outside the South.
>        And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series of
>H-South
>posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the movie
>"O
>Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of the
>same
>reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book.  Both play into
>stereotypical
>impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the
>prevailing prejudice about the region.  For a fuller review of Horwitz's
>book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's review
>of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe.
>
>Christopher Phillips
>University of Cincinnati
>
>At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote:
>>Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time
>>to read and respond).  I'm following this discussion mainly to improve
>>my Civil War and Reconstruction course.  I'd like to thank those of
>>you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature.  I can see
>>my syllabus expanding.  Based on my teaching focus, I have a few
>>questions:
>>
>>I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces.  Earlier Leah W. Jewett
>>inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the
>>classroom.  Has anyone found a good way to do this?
>>
>>I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War.
>> Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses.  Do
>>you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go
>>through the course?  I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History
>>of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was
>>disappointed by the students' reactions.  They liked it, but to them,
>>it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are
>>racist.  Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that.
>>
>>It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and
>>a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material.  Have any of you
>>found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the
>>chaff?  Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley
>>of the Shadow in your course? If so, how?
>>
>>Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and
>>Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won
>>the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single
>>semester.  Thoughts?
>>
>>John Sacher
>>Emporia State University
>>
>>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>>http:/= /historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
>History.
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
><a target=3D_blank
>href=3D"http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historyma= tters.gmu.edu</a> for
>more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>>
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>http://his= torymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --=====================_2920188==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:56:16 -0500 Reply-To: orvalbear@excite.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Karen Hall Subject: Re: unrepentant South MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Many people see the problem of the south and the Civil War as a problem because they assume that many southerners wish salvery were still in exsistance and that by talking about the confederate side of the war automatically brings up race relations. It is difficult to seperate these in some minds. I think that those who are proud of their southern heritage are offten seen as bigots and so it is a difficult subject for those who veiw the south as a bed of racial injustice and rednecks. Karen Hall North Carolina --- On Tue 03/11, Leah M Wood < lwood@LSU.EDU > wrote: From: Leah M Wood [mailto: lwood@LSU.EDU] To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:27:35 -0600 Subject: Re: unrepentant South < Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: William Mugleston Subject: Re-Enactors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E7FA.19D95930" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E7FA.19D95930 Content-Type: text/plain On the subject of re-enactors, I am currently teaching a Civil War course at a neighboring college. Two weeks ago we had a re-enactor visit, and it was very enlightening for all the students, as well as their instructor! Far from being someone still carrying the flag for North or South, he in fact gave us a choice as to how he should dress (the students voted Confederate-not too surprising, since we are in Georgia). He is a professor of Communication at the college in question. When asked the inevitable question as to why he did all this, he grew pensive and replied in words to this effect: "I have researched my family thoroughly and have ancestors who fought on both sides. And I respect both sides. One thing Civil War soldiers wanted was not to be forgotten. And we should not forget them. I honor them equally-for their bravery and courage, even though we may not agree with one or another of the causes for which they fought." A good history lesson for my students, I thought. Bill Mugleston Floyd College, Rome, GA This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E7FA.19D95930 Content-Type: text/html

On the subject of re-enactors, I am currently teaching a Civil War course at a neighboring college.  Two weeks ago we had a re-enactor visit, and it was very enlightening for all the students, as well as their instructor!  Far from being someone still carrying the flag for North or South, he in fact gave us a choice as to how he should dress (the students voted Confederate-not too surprising, since we are in Georgia).  He is a professor of Communication at the college in question. 

 

When asked the inevitable question as to why he did all this, he grew pensive and replied in words to this effect:  "I have researched my family thoroughly and have ancestors who fought on both sides.  And I respect both sides.  One thing Civil War soldiers wanted was not to be forgotten.  And we should not forget them.  I honor them equally-for their bravery and courage, even though we may not agree with one or another of the causes for which they fought."  A good history lesson for my students, I thought.

 

Bill Mugleston

Floyd College, Rome, GA

 

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E7FA.19D95930-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:28:15 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8E7691441D56281BDEF4F95C" --------------8E7691441D56281BDEF4F95C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: I want to weigh in on just a couple of issues in these many, many interesting postings. First, on the matter of "black Confederates," those alleged numbers in the thousands are simply way over-imagined. This entire idea of black Confederates has arisen in the 1990s as part of the neo-Confederate revival, largely in public history and not in scholarship. I think it is, in part, part of a larger, if fringe, attempt to legitimize the Confederacy and its symbols in our multi-cultural and multi-racial age. If you can demonstrate some kind of black loyalty to the Confederacy, not only do you have to power to shock and outrage the alleged "politically corrent" "multiculturalists" (favorite terms by some on the neo-Confederate and Lynn Cheney side of historical debates, but you lend its cause a certain weight of constitutionalism rather than racism. Again, like all major debates over memory, this is very much about our present and not much at all about historical evidence. Second, on teaching Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic: I have taught the book in an upper level seminar on Civil War memory and in a public history course. It worked very well both times. I do not teach it at all to give students some kind of comprehensive picture of the South or Southerners. We need to remember that this book is in the genre of a travel book, and it is written by a journalist, a brilliant one I think. He is a participant observer; he does not make overall claims about a Southern psyche like a Wilbur Cash did 60 years ago or the way John Shelton Reed does based on polling data and survey research. I would not teach Horwitz for the purpose of a single portrayal of the South. But it is a marvelous window into a particular kind of Civil War, and for that matter, national consciousness and enthusiasm about history. It also is a window into a particular 1990s variety of American race tension. I wonder if this issue of Southern identity hasn't almost been spent here. It is a huge and important topic and one that derives from a very rich literature in history and fiction. I welcome all comments and ideas. But I would hope we can keep moving to other matters as well. There is simply no question that there are many many Souths and all kinds of Southerners of many colors and backgrounds. The journal , Southern Cultures, has been a very good place to follow these matters in recent years. Subscribe if you haven't already. I wonder if when those of you who teach, at whatever level, the Civil War era - if you find that students still come to us with a degree of nostalgia about this topic (expecting great stories of drama and sacrifice and heroes). Or, if they are ready to see this event in truly tragic terms, a brutal, horrifying and transforming long-term experience in which America nearly destroyed itself as a national entity? Do they come to you wanting the story to feed them progress and glory? Heroism all around? Do they grasp the place of emancipation at the heart of the war's many meanings? Do they see the war as a soldiers' experience or a war about fundamental ideas? Maybe they don't come to us with much of any knowledge and therefore we shape them. But it always fascinates me to know how young people do gain certain perceptions and assumptions about American history before we ever teach them. At what age, indeed, can American kids grasp a real sense of tragedy? I know these are hopelessly broad and leading questions, but I am just wondering out loud. with all best, David Blight Christopher Phillips wrote: > Hi Peter and others -- I've been caught using indefinite language. I > meant to suggest by using the elusive term, "southern mainstream > thought," even if such an animal exists, that it is itself an > imprecise commodity. I apologize for not being clear in that sense. > I'm not suggesting that Horwitz's characters are far-fetched, much > less that they don't exist. Clearly, they are not and they do. But > to use his book to teach the South is as fraught with hazards as using > Uncle Tom's Cabin to characterize the realities of antebellum life or > "Gods and Generals" as a definitive glimpse into the southern > perspective on the war and slavery. This is not to say that many > white southerners do not share the racial or historical perspectives > of Horwitz's subjects. Clearly, many do; Horwitz's people, unlike > Stowe's, are real, as are the incidents he witnessed and conversations > he recorded. And your employment of Trent Lott is appropriate, but do > "Segs" (the Republican party's private -- and far too seemly > affectionate, in my book -- term for former/current segregationists) > represent the wider notions of southern politicians, much less the > public as a whole? Even the most egregious of the "Segs" such as > George Wallace and even Strom himself changed their political stances > about racial segregation and certainly in many historians' opinions, > those changed stances were/are genuine. If we use Lott as an example > for all, then we much conclude that such political stances are > uniformly disingenuous. More important, can we lump all white > southern politicians, regardless of party affiliation, such as George > W. Bush or Democrats such as John Edwards or Zell Miller, into the > same category as Lott? This is unwise and certainly extreme. > Questions linger about Horwitz's book, left unanswered by its lack of > citations or secondary sources (other than an acknowledgment to Peter > Applebome, author of Dixie Rising). Did he meet any southerners who > distinctly did not share the thoughts and ideology of the characters > in his book? Certainly, many of them exist; live and work in any city > or town in the South and you'll interact with many of them. Are the > perspectives of heritage and race limited to those born and raised in > the South, or do they apply to transplants as well, many of them > having lived in the South for most of their lives? Has the rise of > the Sunbelt changed these perspectives at all, or does Horwitz's "Gone > With the Window" South identify only the most "diehard" of the > neo-Confederates? The Ohioan, Rob Hodge, certainly defies the larger > group in his inability to identify precisely why he became so > fascinated with the Confederate mystique; does this signify something > larger. If Rose Sanders and her students aptly characterize the > attitudes of black southerners toward the war and its aftermath, why > do/did so many black southerners support the maintenance of the > Confederate flag on state flags? These sorts of questions lead me to > be reluctant to use Horwitz's book in classes, perhaps with the > exception of advanced students. The point is, is the book better used > for our own insights into the complexities of southern heritage and > race relations or for instruction for often largely uninitiated and > impressionable high school and college students. In that, we much be > judicious and a look at Fitz Brundage's review in the GHQ is > instructive. > > Christopher Phillips > University of Cincinnati > > At 02:59 PM 3/10/03 -0800, you wrote: > >Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the "southern mainstream > view" of > >the civil war that you are refering to? While you are right to > suggest that > >Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to help develop his > book, > >I'm not sure that Horwitz is entirely wrong in his portrayal of a > south > >unwilling to accept the outcome of the war. > > > >Recent political events have demonstrated that much of what the > confederacy > >represented (segregation, states' rights) seems to be very much in > favor > >with certain leaders in Washington. We had a former Senate majority > leader > >who was able to assert on more than one occassion that segregation > was > >perhaps the best course for our country and a current President who > feels > >that states should have to rely more on themselves than the federal > >government for a variety of different social and economic problems. > Based on > >this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about an unrepentant South (or at > least > >one enamored of a nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? > Sincerely, > >Pete Haro. > >-------Original Message------- > >From: Christopher Phillips > >Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM > >To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > >Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > > > >> > >> I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. > in the > >Attic in class. I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed > feelings > >about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division > class > >on The Civil War and American Memory. On his invitation, I observed > his > >and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an > impression > >as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my > >skepticism of its value in the classroom. On the positive, it was > clear > >that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized > the > >power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, > and > >powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and > >southern memory and identity. However, I saw something more > troubling in > >the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their > reading of > >the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were > >representative of southerners as a whole. With Kentucky being their > most > >tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying > right > >across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that > the > >book > >merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described > >southerners > >rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome > of > >the > >war and its aftermath." I fear that the students' preconceived > notions on > >the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those > "hardcore" > >southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of > >southerners' > >views of the war. As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I > > >haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and > especially > >one > >taught outside the South. > > And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series > of > >H-South > >posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the > movie > >"O > >Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of > the > >same > >reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book. Both play into > >stereotypical > >impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the > >prevailing prejudice about the region. For a fuller review of > Horwitz's > >book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's > review > >of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe. > > > >Christopher Phillips > >University of Cincinnati > > > >At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote: > >>Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more > time > >>to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to > improve > >>my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of > >>you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see > > >>my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few > >>questions: > >> > >>I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. > Jewett > >>inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into > the > >>classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? > >> > >>I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil > War. > >> Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do > >>you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go > >>through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a > History > >>of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was > >>disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to > them, > >>it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are > >>racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. > > >> > >>It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and > > >>a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you > >>found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the > >>chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's > Valley > >>of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? > >> > >>Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and > >>Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won > > >>the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single > > >>semester. Thoughts? > >> > >>John Sacher > >>Emporia State University > >> > >>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web > site at > >>http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > >History. > > > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at > > >href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for > >more resources for teaching U.S. History. > >> > > > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at > >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------8E7691441D56281BDEF4F95C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues:

I want to weigh in on just a couple of issues in these many, many interesting postings.  First, on the matter of "black Confederates," those alleged numbers in the thousands are simply way over-imagined.  This entire idea of black Confederates has arisen in the 1990s as part of the neo-Confederate revival, largely in public history and not in scholarship.  I think it is, in part, part of a larger, if fringe, attempt to legitimize the Confederacy and its symbols in our multi-cultural and multi-racial age.  If you can demonstrate some kind of black loyalty to the Confederacy, not only do you have to power to shock and outrage the alleged "politically corrent" "multiculturalists" (favorite terms by some on the neo-Confederate and Lynn Cheney side of historical debates, but you lend its cause a certain weight of constitutionalism rather than racism.  Again, like all major debates over memory, this is very much about our present and  not much at all about historical evidence.

Second, on teaching Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic:  I have taught the book in an upper level seminar on Civil War memory and in a public history course.  It worked very well both times.  I do not teach it at all to give students some kind of comprehensive picture of the South or Southerners.  We need to remember that this book is in the genre of a travel book, and it is written by a journalist, a brilliant one I think.  He is a participant observer; he does not make overall claims about a Southern psyche like a Wilbur Cash did 60 years ago or the way John Shelton Reed does based on polling data and survey research.  I would not teach Horwitz for the purpose of a single portrayal of the South.  But it is a marvelous window into a particular kind of Civil War, and for that matter, national consciousness and enthusiasm about history.  It also is a window into a particular 1990s variety of American race tension.

I wonder if this issue of Southern identity hasn't almost been spent here.  It is a huge and important topic and one that derives from a very rich literature in history and fiction.  I welcome all comments and ideas.  But I  would hope we can keep moving to other matters as well.  There is simply no question that there are many many Souths and all kinds of Southerners of many colors and backgrounds.  The journal , Southern Cultures, has been a very good place to follow these matters in recent years.  Subscribe if you haven't already.

I wonder if when those of you who teach, at whatever level, the Civil War era - if you find that students still come to us with a degree of nostalgia about this topic (expecting great stories of drama and sacrifice and heroes).  Or, if they are ready to see this event in truly tragic terms, a brutal, horrifying and transforming long-term experience in which America nearly destroyed itself as a national entity?  Do they come to you wanting the story to feed them progress and glory?  Heroism all around?  Do they grasp the place of emancipation at the heart of the war's many meanings?  Do they see the war as a soldiers' experience or a war about fundamental ideas?  Maybe they don't come to us with much of any knowledge and therefore we shape them.  But it always fascinates me to know how young people do gain certain perceptions and assumptions about American history before we ever teach them.  At what age, indeed, can American kids grasp a real sense of tragedy?  I know these are hopelessly broad and leading questions, but I am just wondering out loud.

with all best,

David Blight

Christopher Phillips wrote:

 Hi Peter and others -- I've been caught using indefinite language.  I meant to suggest by using the elusive term, "southern mainstream thought," even if such an animal exists, that it is itself an imprecise commodity.  I apologize for not being clear in that sense.
I'm not suggesting that Horwitz's characters are far-fetched, much less that they don't exist.  Clearly, they are not and they do.  But to use his book to teach the South is as fraught with hazards as using Uncle Tom's Cabin to characterize the realities of antebellum life or "Gods and Generals" as a definitive glimpse into the southern perspective on the war and slavery.  This is not to say that many white southerners do not share the racial or historical perspectives of Horwitz's subjects.  Clearly, many do; Horwitz's people, unlike Stowe's, are real, as are the incidents he witnessed and conversations he recorded.  And your employment of Trent Lott is appropriate, but do "Segs" (the Republican party's private -- and far too seemly affectionate, in my book -- term for former/current segregationists) represent the wider notions of southern politicians, much less the public as a whole?  Even the most egregious of the "Segs" such as George Wallace and even Strom himself changed their political stances about racial segregation and certainly in many historians' opinions, those changed stances were/are genuine.  If we use Lott as an example for all, then we much conclude that such political stances are uniformly disingenuous.  More important, can we lump all white southern politicians, regardless of party affiliation, such as George W. Bush or Democrats such as John Edwards or Zell Miller, into the same category as Lott?  This is unwise and certainly extreme.
Questions linger about Horwitz's book, left unanswered by its lack of citations or secondary sources (other than an acknowledgment to Peter Applebome, author of Dixie Rising).  Did he meet any southerners who distinctly did not share the thoughts and ideology of the characters in his book?  Certainly, many of them exist; live and work in any city or town in the South and you'll interact with many of them.  Are the perspectives of heritage and race limited to those born and raised in the South, or do they apply to transplants as well, many of them having lived in the South for most of their lives?  Has the rise of the Sunbelt changed these perspectives at all, or does Horwitz's "Gone With the Window" South identify only the most "diehard" of the neo-Confederates?  The Ohioan, Rob Hodge, certainly defies the larger group in his inability to identify precisely why he became so fascinated with the Confederate mystique; does this signify something larger.  If Rose Sanders and her students aptly characterize the attitudes of black southerners toward the war and its aftermath, why do/did so many black southerners support the maintenance of the Confederate flag on state flags?  These sorts of questions lead me to be reluctant to use Horwitz's book in classes, perhaps with the exception of advanced students.  The point is, is the book better used for our own insights into the complexities of southern heritage and race relations or for instruction for often largely uninitiated and impressionable high school and college students.  In that, we much be judicious and a look at Fitz Brundage's review in the GHQ is instructive.

Christopher Phillips
University of Cincinnati

At 02:59 PM 3/10/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the "southern mainstream view" of
>the civil war that you are refering to? While you are right to suggest that
>Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to help develop his book,
>I'm not sure that Horwitz is entirely wrong in his portrayal of a south
>unwilling to accept the outcome of the war.
>
>Recent political events have demonstrated that much of what the confederacy
>represented (segregation, states' rights) seems to be very much in favor
>with certain leaders in Washington. We had a former Senate majority leader
>who was able to assert on more than one occassion that segregation was
>perhaps the best course for our country and a current President who feels
>that states should have to rely more on themselves than the federal
>government for a variety of different social and economic problems. Based on
>this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about an unrepentant South (or at least
>one enamored of a nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? Sincerely,
>Pete Haro.
>-------Original Message-------
>From: Christopher Phillips <phillicr@EMAIL.UC.EDU>
>Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM
>To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War
>
>>
>> I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. in the
>Attic in class.  I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed feelings
>about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division class
>on The Civil War and American Memory.  On his invitation, I observed his
>and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an impression
>as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my
>skepticism of its value in the classroom.  On the positive, it was clear
>that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized the
>power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, and
>powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and
>southern memory and identity.  However, I saw something more troubling in
>the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their reading of
>the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were
>representative of southerners as a whole.  With Kentucky being their most
>tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying right
>across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that the
>book
>merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described
>southerners
>rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome of
>the
>war and its aftermath."  I fear that the students' preconceived notions on
>the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those "hardcore"
>southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of
>southerners'
>views of the war.  As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I
>haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and especially
>one
>taught outside the South.
>        And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series of
>H-South
>posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the movie
>"O
>Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of the
>same
>reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book.  Both play into
>stereotypical
>impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the
>prevailing prejudice about the region.  For a fuller review of Horwitz's
>book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's review
>of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe.
>
>Christopher Phillips
>University of Cincinnati
>
>At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote:
>>Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time
>>to read and respond).  I'm following this discussion mainly to improve
>>my Civil War and Reconstruction course.  I'd like to thank those of
>>you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature.  I can see
>>my syllabus expanding.  Based on my teaching focus, I have a few
>>questions:
>>
>>I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces.  Earlier Leah W. Jewett
>>inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the
>>classroom.  Has anyone found a good way to do this?
>>
>>I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War.
>> Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses.  Do
>>you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go
>>through the course?  I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History
>>of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was
>>disappointed by the students' reactions.  They liked it, but to them,
>>it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are
>>racist.  Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that.
>>
>>It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and
>>a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material.  Have any of you
>>found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the
>>chaff?  Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley
>>of the Shadow in your course? If so, how?
>>
>>Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and
>>Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won
>>the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single
>>semester.  Thoughts?
>>
>>John Sacher
>>Emporia State University
>>
>>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>>http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
>History.
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
><a target=_blank
>href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu</a> for
>more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>>
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------8E7691441D56281BDEF4F95C-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:36:14 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Re-Enactors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------03567EAC3D2ED8A2433DDC3F" --------------03567EAC3D2ED8A2433DDC3F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Mugleston: Your reenactor did give a very interesting answer to the inevitable question. He wishes to honor all the soldiers who fought, and as the thousands of post-war reminiscencs prove, they did not want to be forgotten indeed. But my only caution is that students not be encouraged to lose their imaginations entirely in the process of finding and claining honor for all the soldiers (by whatever means). Sometimes in that formula is a recipe for ignoring the causes and consequences of the war altogether. I am not suggesting that you would ever let your students do this. But sometimes in the sheer details of representing the authenticity of soldiers and battle and camp we cannot even see what they fought for or against - beyond the battlefield and over the horizon of the camp fires and the loud slamming of a musket firing. David Blight William Mugleston wrote: > On the subject of re-enactors, I am currently teaching a Civil War > course at a neighboring college. Two weeks ago we had a re-enactor > visit, and it was very enlightening for all the students, as well as > their instructor! Far from being someone still carrying the flag for > North or South, he in fact gave us a choice as to how he should dress > (the students voted Confederate-not too surprising, since we are > in Georgia). He is a professor of Communication at the college in > question. > > When asked the inevitable question as to why he did all this, he grew > pensive and replied in words to this effect: "I have researched my > family thoroughly and have ancestors who fought on both sides. And I > respect both sides. One thing Civil War soldiers wanted was not to be > forgotten. And we should not forget them. I honor them equally-for > their bravery and courage, even though we may not agree with one or > another of the causes for which they fought." A good history lesson > for my students, I thought. > > Bill Mugleston > > FloydCollege, Rome, GA > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------03567EAC3D2ED8A2433DDC3F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Mugleston:

Your reenactor did give a very interesting answer to the inevitable question.  He wishes to honor all the soldiers who fought, and as the thousands of post-war reminiscencs prove, they did not want to be forgotten indeed.  But my only caution is that students not be encouraged to lose their imaginations entirely in the process of finding and claining honor for all the soldiers (by whatever means).  Sometimes in that formula is a recipe for ignoring the causes and consequences of the war altogether.  I am not suggesting that you would ever let your students do this.  But sometimes in the sheer details of representing the authenticity of soldiers and battle and camp we cannot even see what they fought for or against - beyond the battlefield and over the horizon of the camp fires and the loud slamming of a musket firing.

David Blight

William Mugleston wrote:

On the subject of re-enactors, I am currently teaching a Civil War course at a neighboring college.  Two weeks ago we had a re-enactor visit, and it was very enlightening for all the students, as well as their instructor!  Far from being someone still carrying the flag for North or South, he in fact gave us a choice as to how he should dress (the students voted Confederate-not too surprising, since we are in Georgia).  He is a professor of Communication at the college in question. 

When asked the inevitable question as to why he did all this, he grew pensive and replied in words to this effect:  "I have researched my family thoroughly and have ancestors who fought on both sides.  And I respect both sides.  One thing Civil War soldiers wanted was not to be forgotten.  And we should not forget them.  I honor them equally-for their bravery and courage, even though we may not agree with one or another of the causes for which they fought."  A good history lesson for my students, I thought.

Bill Mugleston

FloydCollegeRomeGA

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------03567EAC3D2ED8A2433DDC3F-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:33:09 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: The Schoeneckers Subject: Fw: RE:Copperheads vs.Peace Democrats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C2E7DB.23194D30" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C2E7DB.23194D30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: The Schoeneckers=20 To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERVE.CUNY.EDU=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:43 PM Subject: RE:Copperheads vs.Peace Democrats David, you further clarified Peace Democrats and "Copperheads" for me, = but I have one more question. Would people in 1864 actually refer to an = individual as a Peace Democrat? I am writing a historical novel of that = era, and am constantly checking social as well as political correctness = of the time. Mary F. Schoenecker This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C2E7DB.23194D30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: The=20 Schoeneckers
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: RE:Copperheads vs.Peace Democrats

David, you further clarified Peace = Democrats and=20 "Copperheads" for me, but I have one more question.  Would people = in 1864=20 actually refer to an individual as a Peace Democrat?  I am writing = a=20 historical novel of that era, and am constantly checking social as well = as=20 political correctness of the time.
Mary F. = Schoenecker
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C2E7DB.23194D30-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:56:16 -0700 Reply-To: jel@creolewest.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Julie Eshelman-Lee Organization: CREOLE WEST PRODUCTIONS Subject: Re: unrepentant South In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C2E7CD.9B160A20" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C2E7CD.9B160A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please excuse this tome . . . the discussion within this group has provoked me to share; not necessarily specific to the topics of the Civil War addressed in this forum, but an overall impression of its causes and effects from a more intimate sense . . . To be descendants of family in the South and to be proud of our ancestors requires the same understanding one must reach looking beyond mistakes of humanity in general. Our understanding, however, directs more immediate acts which today, in our 21st century perspective, we cannot fathom! My personal experience draws me to both sides of the =93Southern issue=94 where slavery was the lifeblood of our wealth and prosperity. Attaining a sense of personal rationalization or resolution for these behaviors has proven fruitless. Descended from wealthy planters in Pointe Coup=E9e Parish, Louisiana, (some the wealthiest in = the South) who had long term relationships and families with free women of color, (and slaves, later freed) where the free people of color families followed the footsteps of the patriarch and, too, were wealthy planters and large slave owners. This pattern and its impact lay within us (my family) today. Fighting for principles which they intellectually knew had been in jeopardy for quite some time before the Civil War, their loyalties remained to their =93home=94, the Confederate cause. However, anxious to get back to a life for their families knowing they would have to adapt to what was ahead, not knowing the enormity of what was ahead. After loss of financial wealth after the American Civil War, our family was forced to redefine themselves within a midst of marginalization and lack of freedoms, actually loss of freedoms. Overall, the family fragmented, for self preservation , each experiencing discrimination and humiliation as we all found our place in a society =93white and black=94 =96 choosing which group to cling where = we could best thrive and maintain some semblance of the nuclear family unit. We =93lost our souls=94 in the process. We come to the 21st = century with lessons of our past, understanding what happened and the wisdoms to not repeat, and to rise well above the mistakes of our ancestors! =20 I am honored to participate in this listserv and to have the opportunity to learn from the scholars, historians, and educators involved with this group on =93Civil War=94. I come to this place to = learn from all of you as a relatively new historian in Louisiana history. I come as a descendant of those who participated, perpetuated and contributed to what we are all addressing today. To them I hold no anger or resentment. Because without whom I would not be here today-- still very proud of the South, Louisiana, and the ability to do with what we have learned from our past. My personal journey brought me to a place to do something viable with all the research, study and contemplation and the sense of noblesse oblige with which my heritage brings. =20 Developing enhanced history curriculums for middle school students in Louisiana seemed to be the place to start. With the prospect of starting their curious and impressionable lives understanding what happened and why in their 21st century perspectives with the goal of providing an understanding and appreciation for today, education is the vehicle. Living in communities where they share a common history with those of all =91complexions=92 who share a silent = pain from the acts and/or oppression of their ancestors. Feeling a sense of responsibility; however rationally knowing they are not responsible.=20 The opportunity to move on and really embrace the South they feel today, where from my experience, I, too, see a much smaller group of =91bigots=92 or those holding onto past institutions of = centuries ago. In Louisiana, I feel a real renaissance of feelings and thinking, and am proud to be part. With each positive direction a contagious following can occur- step-by-step. Each step is as important as the previous toward this goal. The opportunity for our students =96 secondary and postsecondary =96 to interact and have access to wisdom and expertise offered through forums such as =93History Matters=94 opens their doors = of knowledge and understanding! Thank you for the opportunity to express . . . looking forward to learning from more discussion. Respectfully, Julie Eshelman-Lee jel@creolewest.com This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C2E7CD.9B160A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Please excuse this tome . . . the discussion within this group has provoked me to share; not = necessarily specific to the topics of the Civil War addressed in this forum, but an = overall impression of its causes and effects from a more intimate sense . . = .

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = To be descendants of family in the South and to be proud of our ancestors requires the same = understanding one must reach looking beyond mistakes of humanity in general.=A0 Our understanding, however, = directs more immediate acts which today, in our 21st century perspective, we cannot = fathom!

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = My personal experience draws me to both sides of the “Southern issue” where slavery was the lifeblood of our wealth and prosperity. Attaining a sense of personal rationalization or resolution for these behaviors has proven fruitless. Descended from wealthy planters in Pointe = Coup=E9e Parish, Louisiana, (some the wealthiest in the South) who had = long term relationships and families with free women of color, (and slaves, later = freed) where the free people of color families followed the footsteps of the = patriarch and, too, were wealthy planters and large slave owners.=A0 This pattern and its impact lay = within us (my family) today.=A0 Fighting for = principles which they intellectually knew had been in jeopardy for quite some time before = the Civil War, their loyalties remained to their “home”, the Confederate cause.=A0 However, = anxious to get back to a life for their families knowing they would have to adapt = to what was ahead, not knowing the enormity of what was ahead.=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = After loss of financial wealth after the American Civil War, our family was forced to redefine = themselves within a midst of marginalization and lack of freedoms, actually loss of freedoms.=A0 Overall, the family fragmented, for self preservation , each experiencing discrimination and humiliation as we all found our place in a society “white and black” – choosing which group to cling where we could best = thrive and maintain some semblance of the nuclear family unit.=A0 We “lost our souls” in = the process.=A0 We come to the 21st = century with lessons of our past, understanding what happened and the wisdoms to = not repeat, and to rise well above the mistakes of our ancestors!=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = I am honored to participate in this listserv and to have the opportunity to learn from the scholars, historians, and educators involved with this group on “Civil War”.=A0 I come to this = place to learn from all of you as a relatively new historian in = Louisiana history.=A0 = I come as a descendant of those who participated, perpetuated and = contributed to what we are all addressing today.=A0 = To them I hold no anger or resentment.=A0 Because without whom I would not be here today-- still very proud = of the South, Louisiana, and=A0 the = ability to do with what we have learned from our past.=A0 My personal journey brought me to a place to do something viable = with all the research, study and contemplation and the sense of noblesse oblige with which my heritage brings.=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Developing enhanced history curriculums for middle school students in = Louisiana seemed to be the place to start.=A0 With the prospect of starting = their curious and impressionable lives understanding what happened and why in their = 21st century perspectives with the goal of providing an understanding and appreciation for today, education is the vehicle.=A0 Living in communities where they = share a common history with those of all ‘complexions’ who share a = silent pain from the acts and/or oppression of their ancestors.=A0 Feeling a sense of responsibility; = however rationally knowing they are not responsible.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = The opportunity to move on and really embrace the South they feel today, where from my experience, I, = too, see a much smaller group of ‘bigots’ or those holding onto past institutions of centuries ago.=A0 = In Louisiana, I feel a real renaissance of feelings and = thinking, and am proud to be part.=A0 With = each positive direction a contagious following can occur- step-by-step.=A0 Each step is as important as the = previous toward this goal.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = The opportunity for our students – secondary and postsecondary – to interact and have access = to wisdom and expertise offered through forums such as “History Matters” opens their doors of knowledge and = understanding!

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Thank you for the opportunity to express . . . looking forward to learning from more = discussion.

Respectfully,

Julie Eshelman-Lee

jel@creolewest.com

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C2E7CD.9B160A20-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:53:51 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: The Lincoln Statue in Richmond MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005F_01C2E7EE.CAFB6160" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C2E7EE.CAFB6160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, taking Dr. Blight's lead on starting a new topic, I'll ask = everyone's opinion on what many have probably already heard about - the = Lincoln statue being unveiled in Richmond on April 5th. I have heard = Lincoln compared unfavorably to Osama Bin Laden (see copy of letter to = Richmond Times Dispatch below) in this regard which is, of course, one = extreme example, but it seems AL is unwanted here in Richmond by a = number of people. I, for one, am going to be keeping a close eye on = this unveiling. Edward Smith, the director of the American Studies = program at American U., hopes to bring about some conciliation between = North and South with this statue - if what I have read is true. I hope = it does, though I don't know how. =20 Thanks for the clarification from everyone on the feedback on the = copperhead/Peace Democrat issue. My students were also excited that I = shared their comments with all of you on this forum and were anxious for = feedback. I'm going to share with them some of the choicer NY Times = quotes later. =20 Geoff Wickersham=20 Groves High School=20 Beverly Hills, MI=20 "Could I have been anyone other than me?" Dave Matthews=20 Jan 11, 2003 Editor, Times-Dispatch: I would like to address the possible placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond. Nothing could be more outrageous and offensive to Virginians. Lincoln was responsible for the military invasion of the South, the destruction of homes and farms, and the murder and deliberate starvation of civilians and prisoners of war. His documented atrocities committed against Southern civilians by the Union army are a fact of history we cannot change. He violated every rule of morality, the Constitution, and warfare. Erecting Lincoln's statue in Richmond is the equivalent of erecting one to Osama bin Laden in New York. Please respect our heritage and family members who died protecting our homeland by appealing to the Yankees behind this atrocity to keep Lincoln out of Richmond. Rick Minson.=20 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C2E7EE.CAFB6160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, taking Dr. Blight's lead on starting a = new topic,=20 I'll ask everyone's opinion on what many have probably already heard = about - the=20 Lincoln statue being unveiled in Richmond on April 5th.  I have = heard=20 Lincoln compared unfavorably to Osama Bin Laden (see copy of letter to = Richmond=20 Times Dispatch below) in this regard which is, of course, one extreme = example,=20 but it seems AL is unwanted here in Richmond by a number of = people.  I, for=20 one, am going to be keeping a close eye on this unveiling.  Edward = Smith,=20 the director of the American Studies program at American U., hopes to = bring=20 about some conciliation between North and South with this statue - if = what I=20 have read is true.  I hope it does, though I don't know how. =20
 
Thanks for the clarification from everyone on = the=20 feedback on the copperhead/Peace Democrat issue.  My students were = also=20 excited that I shared their comments with all of you on this forum and = were=20 anxious for feedback.  I'm going to share with them some of the = choicer NY=20 Times quotes later. 
 
Geoff Wickersham
Groves High School
Beverly Hills, MI
 
"Could I have been anyone other than me?" = Dave Matthews=20
 
Jan 11, 2003

Editor, Times-Dispatch: I would like to address = the=20 possible placement
of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond. = Nothing could=20 be more
outrageous and offensive to Virginians. Lincoln was = responsible for=20 the
military invasion of the South, the destruction of homes and = farms,=20 and
the murder and deliberate starvation of civilians and prisoners = of=20 war.
His documented atrocities committed against Southern civilians = by=20 the
Union army are a fact of history we cannot change. He violated=20 every
rule of morality, the Constitution, and warfare. Erecting=20 Lincoln's
statue in Richmond is the equivalent of erecting one to = Osama bin=20 Laden
in New York.

Please respect our heritage and family = members who=20 died protecting our
homeland by appealing to the Yankees behind this = atrocity=20 to keep
Lincoln out of Richmond. Rick Minson.
 
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C2E7EE.CAFB6160-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:23:59 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pettijohn, Patricia" Subject: My 15 percents worth MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Recently, the editor of North & South reassured readers that no more than 15 percent of the articles published would be concerned with non-military aspects of the Civil War. I believe he was motivated by a desire to keep the most vocal and loyal of his subscribers. I interpret this as meaning that, despite changes in teaching the Civil War, popular interest in Civil War history is still concerned primarily with military history. I confess that I am a 15 percenter. My interest in the Civil War is almost entirely concerned with the social and public history of the Civil War. I am particularly interested in the way that the historic sites, museums, memorials and symbols of the Civil War continue to play a role in race relations and class conflicts. So, I was fascinated by the comparison of Lincoln and Osama Bin Laden; when I went to a petition site opposing the statue, I found a comparison of Lincoln and Hitler. The irony of this, for me, is that I often find myself struggling to avoid offending someone by comparison, and try to avoid, for example, comparing the Fire Eaters and the early leaders of the Nazi party, although the comparison is sorely tempting, and in some cases revealing. In a recent discussion of the avoidance of slavery in discussing the Civil War, I recommended the film The Nasty Girl, about a young German woman who explores the role of her own home town during WW II, because I felt there were some obvious parallels between the shame and secrecy surrounding German anti-Semitism and the holocaust, and US racism and slavery. Well, suffice it to say I'll never make that analogy again! My favorite quote on the Richmond statue brouhaha is this one: He (a local politician, Richard Black (R-32)) said a law exists in Virginia that forbids the mixing of Union and Confederate monuments at the same location. Black consulted staff of Attorney General Jerry Kilgore to see if that law could be used to block the statue, but found that it couldn't due to loopholes including that the property is leased. "It's not a tested law," Black said. I especially appreciate the punch line. Patricia Pettijohn This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:31:43 -0200 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Donna Sharer Subject: Re: Re-Enactors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_4911.25ad.5ccb This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_4911.25ad.5ccb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is there much information on conscientious objectors during the Civil War? (I'm particularly interested in Quaker / Mennonite.) What forms of draft resistance are documented other than the draft riots in NYC? Thanks D. Sharer This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ----__JNP_000_4911.25ad.5ccb Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Is there much information on conscientious objectors during the Civil= =20 War?  (I'm particularly interested in Quaker / Mennonite.)  What = forms=20 of draft resistance are documented other than the draft riots in NYC? = =20
 
Thanks
 
D. Sharer
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ----__JNP_000_4911.25ad.5ccb-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:22:50 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Robert J. Safransky" Subject: Re: Re-Enactors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080704080900010209080300" --------------080704080900010209080300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Suggest you might Frank L.Klement's works on Copperheads. Donna Sharer wrote: > > > Is there much information on conscientious objectors during the Civil > War? (I'm particularly interested in Quaker / Mennonite.) What forms > of draft resistance are documented other than the draft riots in NYC? > > > > Thanks > > > > D. Sharer > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------080704080900010209080300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Suggest you might Frank L.Klement's works on Copperheads.

Donna Sharer wrote:
 
Is there much information on conscientious objectors during the Civil War?  (I'm particularly interested in Quaker / Mennonite.)  What forms of draft resistance are documented other than the draft riots in NYC? 
 
Thanks
 
D. Sharer
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------080704080900010209080300-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:48:44 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Re-Enactors In-Reply-To: <20030311.233521.204.3.dalsharer@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > >Is there much information on conscientious objectors during the >Civil War? (I'm particularly interested in Quaker / Mennonite.) >What forms of draft resistance are documented other than the draft >riots in NYC? > >Thanks > >D. Sharer >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web >site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for >teaching U.S. History. I know that John Muir went to Canada--his biographers tend to skim over it pretty quickly,, but it does seem he was avoiding the draft. I don't know how many others did something similar. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "I ranted to the knave and fool, But outgrew that school, Would transform the part, Fit audience found, but cannot rule My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:27:03 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: James Beeghley Subject: Civil War Lesson Plans Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi, Looking for some good Civil War lesson plans for middle school aged students. Especially any that will integrate technology into the lesson. Thanks, Jim Beeghley This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:44:49 +0000 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: mark bingham Subject: Re: Richmond Statue- Two opposing views from Editorial 1/2003 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Having lived in Richmond for 6 months before I headed to grad school, I can agree first hand with Geoff that it is a very touchy subject there. Here are two competing views from the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorials in January 2003 that I think might be interesting (sorry about the length but these are worth it): The placement of the Lincoln statue at Tredegar Iron Works will do nothing but cause more problems than any good that will ever come out of it. My family has lived here in Virginia since 1620, and I am appalled at the very idea of a Lincoln statue being placed anywhere within the Commonwealth of Virginia, much less in Richmond. If the statue is placed there, I for one will never set foot on the grounds of Tredegar Iron Works ever again, and no more donations will come forth from me or any member of my family to the United States Historical Society, the National Park Service, or anyone else who has anything to do with this travesty. Yes, I believe in telling the truth about the War Between the States, and the museums and the Historical Society are a very important part of our culture. But this statue does not belong in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I accept the fact that Lincoln did visit Richmond at Rocketts Landing after the fall of the Confederacy in April, 1865, but we do not need this fact shoved down our throats. If the Historical Society wanted to do some good in the field of education it would insist that the truth be told in the classrooms all across the Commonwealth instead of half-truths leaving out the impact of the war on the millions of people who not only fought on the battlefields but suffered greatly while trying to save their homes and way of life. Michael Kendrick-Chesterfield,VA And the opposing view: In this post 9/11 world, where patriotism runs deep in our veins once again, I don't know of a single person who is ashamed to call himself an American. This being said, how could anyone oppose erecting a monument to the leader who made it possible for us Virginians to continue to call ourselves Americans in 2003? As Abraham Lincoln took the reins of this torn country a mammoth task lay ahead: how to reunite a country that seemed so intent on parting ways. However, after four years of untold bloodshed and suffering on both sides, Lincoln emerged the victor, winning the admiration of Northerners and the respect of many Southerners alike. Like any victorious leader he felt a desire to visit the home of his adversary. So it came that Lincoln visited our smoldering city on Tuesday, April 4, 1865, only 11 days before his death. This was one of the first times in his presidency of death and destruction that he could reflect on what he had accomplished. As he walked the two miles from Rocketts Landing to the Confederate White House and sat at Jefferson Davis' desk, one can only imagine what ran through his mind. Maybe a sense of relief, a somber feeling of respect for his Southern countrymen who fought so long and hard for a cause he never could understand, or maybe just a momentary sense of peace knowing he had preserved the Union for future generations. I do not discredit the sacrifices our noble Southern brothers made in this horrible war for one second, I admire soldiers and citizens North and South with equal enthusiasm. But the bottom line is, I love our country and all it stands for, and if it were not for Abraham Lincoln's firm resolve we might not have a united country to be proud of. I would be honored to have a monument to his credit in our beautiful city. Chris Scruggs-Chesterfield, VA _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:50:08 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Christopher Phillips Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: <3E6E46DF.B7F39158@amherst.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed The posts on black Confederates prompts me to recommend what may be the best scholarly book on the subject, if in only one (albeit important and perhaps representative) locale: Ervin Jordan's Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia. Jordan, a librarian/archivist at UVa, spent a great deal of time and effort identifying as many of these individuals as possible and found that, yes, a number had fought for the Confederacy and even received pensions from the state afterwards for their service. Many neo-Confederates, along with conservative columnist Walter E. Williams, himself an African American, have trumpeted these figures as proof positive of the veracity of the "happy slave" depictions of the Old South. But Jordan also concludes from his findings that the numbers of such black Confederate combatants are so small (especially as compared with those black Virginians who fought for the Union) and their motivations for doing so varied widely. Such hard data helps many (including myself) to conclude that the brouhaha surrounding Black Confederates amounts to a tempest in a teapot. Christopher Phillips University of Cincinnati This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:00:44 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: William Mugleston Subject: Re: Re-Enactors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8B0.8A097940" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8B0.8A097940 Content-Type: text/plain You are exactly right, Dr. Blight. Thanks for the cautionary note! BTW, I think you're doing a very good job riding herd on this on-line free-for-all. ---Bill M. -----Original Message----- From: David Blight [mailto:dwblight@AMHERST.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:36 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Re-Enactors Mr. Mugleston: Your reenactor did give a very interesting answer to the inevitable question. He wishes to honor all the soldiers who fought, and as the thousands of post-war reminiscencs prove, they did not want to be forgotten indeed. But my only caution is that students not be encouraged to lose their imaginations entirely in the process of finding and claining honor for all the soldiers (by whatever means). Sometimes in that formula is a recipe for ignoring the causes and consequences of the war altogether. I am not suggesting that you would ever let your students do this. But sometimes in the sheer details of representing the authenticity of soldiers and battle and camp we cannot even see what they fought for or against - beyond the battlefield and over the horizon of the camp fires and the loud slamming of a musket firing. David Blight William Mugleston wrote: On the subject of re-enactors, I am currently teaching a Civil War course at a neighboring college. Two weeks ago we had a re-enactor visit, and it was very enlightening for all the students, as well as their instructor! Far from being someone still carrying the flag for North or South, he in fact gave us a choice as to how he should dress (the students voted Confederate-not too surprising, since we are in Georgia). He is a professor of Communication at the college in question. When asked the inevitable question as to why he did all this, he grew pensive and replied in words to this effect: "I have researched my family thoroughly and have ancestors who fought on both sides. And I respect both sides. One thing Civil War soldiers wanted was not to be forgotten. And we should not forget them. I honor them equally-for their bravery and courage, even though we may not agree with one or another of the causes for which they fought." A good history lesson for my students, I thought. Bill Mugleston FloydCollege, Rome, GA This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8B0.8A097940 Content-Type: text/html

You are exactly right, Dr. Blight.  Thanks for the cautionary note!  BTW, I think you're doing a very good job riding herd on this on-line free-for-all.    ---Bill M.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Blight [mailto:dwblight@AMHERST.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:36 PM
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Re: Re-Enactors

 

Mr. Mugleston:

Your reenactor did give a very interesting answer to the inevitable question.  He wishes to honor all the soldiers who fought, and as the thousands of post-war reminiscencs prove, they did not want to be forgotten indeed.  But my only caution is that students not be encouraged to lose their imaginations entirely in the process of finding and claining honor for all the soldiers (by whatever means).  Sometimes in that formula is a recipe for ignoring the causes and consequences of the war altogether.  I am not suggesting that you would ever let your students do this.  But sometimes in the sheer details of representing the authenticity of soldiers and battle and camp we cannot even see what they fought for or against - beyond the battlefield and over the horizon of the camp fires and the loud slamming of a musket firing.

David Blight

William Mugleston wrote:

On the subject of re-enactors, I am currently teaching a Civil War course at a neighboring college.  Two weeks ago we had a re-enactor visit, and it was very enlightening for all the students, as well as their instructor!  Far from being someone still carrying the flag for North or South, he in fact gave us a choice as to how he should dress (the students voted Confederate-not too surprising, since we are in Georgia).  He is a professor of Communication at the college in question. 

When asked the inevitable question as to why he did all this, he grew pensive and replied in words to this effect:  "I have researched my family thoroughly and have ancestors who fought on both sides.  And I respect both sides.  One thing Civil War soldiers wanted was not to be forgotten.  And we should not forget them.  I honor them equally-for their bravery and courage, even though we may not agree with one or another of the causes for which they fought."  A good history lesson for my students, I thought.

Bill Mugleston

FloydCollege, Rome, GA

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8B0.8A097940-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:37:36 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Ken Noe Subject: Black Confederates In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030312103301.009fb5a0@email.uc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'd like to echo Christopher Phillips' and others' remarks on this subject, and especially their linkage of the topic to modern politics. Several years ago, I gave a talk on a Southern Unionist that was attended accidentally by some leading neo-Confederates. They were quite polite, actually. What I remember most are their cars. They were easy to pick out in the parking lot for the two bumper stickers on each, one supporting the battle flag, and the other supporting Pat Buchanan's presidential hopes. The issue of black Confederates works the same way I think, being more about modern politics than historical accuracy. It is a cudgel to use to make larger public points about the supposed non-racial basis of modern neo-Confederatism. For the record I have run across two accounts of a very few black Confederates in my research, a few engaged in a skirmish in Kentucky, and a reference to a few in a Louisiana regiment. Fifty thousand armed and loyal black Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field army. I think that more than a few people would have noticed that. Ken Noe Auburn University Quoting Christopher Phillips : > The posts on black Confederates prompts me to recommend what may be the > best scholarly book on the subject, if in only one (albeit important and > perhaps representative) locale: Ervin Jordan's Black Confederates and > Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia. Jordan, a librarian/archivist at UVa, > spent a great deal of time and effort identifying as many of these > individuals as possible and found that, yes, a number had fought for the > Confederacy and even received pensions from the state afterwards for their > service. Many neo-Confederates, along with conservative columnist Walter > E. Williams, himself an African American, have trumpeted these figures as > proof positive of the veracity of the "happy slave" depictions of the Old > South. But Jordan also concludes from his findings that the numbers of > such black Confederate combatants are so small (especially as compared with > those black Virginians who fought for the Union) and their motivations for > doing so varied widely. Such hard data helps many (including myself) to > conclude that the brouhaha surrounding Black Confederates amounts to a > tempest in a teapot. > > Christopher Phillips > University of Cincinnati > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:02:19 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Chris Martin Subject: Re: Black Confederates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0062_01C2E897.9D77B910" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C2E897.9D77B910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ken Noe" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: Black Confederates Fifty thousand armed and loyal black > Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field army. = I think > that more than a few people would have noticed that. >=20 > Ken Noe > Auburn University I don't think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, = suggests 50,000 official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did I = state in my previous post that most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar = were armed, I indicated quite the contrary, "Most weren't official = soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern = generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were = nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, = what I should have written was that they were in engaged in activities = that supported the armed forces of the CSA.=20 I think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts = as "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military = historians, myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current field = of specialty, WW II, historians such as this are referred to as "rivet = counters." To use an example from G&G, the African American cook should = properly be counted as someone who did support the Confederate army (at = least in deed), and not in a small way either. Unless it's fed, clothed = and armed properly, an army's effectiveness degrades and without proper = arms, it's useless. Hence the oft cited quote about military = professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles of these = people need to be examined extensively, for without people such as these = African Americans serving as cooks or those in the ordinance department = loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor shipping food, arms, = clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use slave labor = for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves available on = Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby = likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and other = important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the = available white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed = forces. To give importance to only those who served their country in any war = in an armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the homefront, = the armed soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and in many = cases through out history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a prime reason = why one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without Rosie the = Riveter, the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing but fodder = for German, Japanese and Italian guns. Regards, Chris Martin Department of History & Art History George Mason University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C2E897.9D77B910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Noe" <noekenn@AUBURN.EDU>
To: <CIVILWARFORUM@ashp.listserv.cuny.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37=20 AM
Subject: Black = Confederates

Fifty thousand armed and loyal = black
>=20 Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field = army.  I=20 think
> that more than a few people would have noticed = that.
>=20
> Ken Noe
> Auburn University
 
    I don't think any = even semi=20 legitimate historian, Segars included, suggests 50,000 official armed = African=20 Americans for the CSA. Nor did I state in my previous post that most of = the=20 50,000 suggested by Segar were armed, I indicated quite = the=20 contrary, "Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress = wouldn't=20 allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea = either,=20 but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In=20 retrospect, what I should have written was that they were in engaged in=20 activities that supported the armed forces of the = CSA. 
     I think we're = engaged in=20 an extremely limited view of what counts as "serving the CSA," = which is a=20 trap that I find many military historians, myself included on occasion, = fall=20 into. In my current field of specialty, WW II, historians such = as this=20 are referred to as "rivet counters."
     To use an = example from=20 G&G, the African American cook should properly be counted as someone = who did=20 support the Confederate army (at least in deed), and not in a small way=20 either. Unless it's fed, clothed and armed properly, an army's=20 effectiveness degrades and without proper arms, it's useless. Hence the = oft=20 cited quote about military professionals studying logistics. The=20 motivations and roles of these people need to be examined extensively, = for=20 without people such as these African Americans serving as cooks or those = in the=20 ordinance department loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor = shipping=20 food, arms, clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use = slave=20 labor for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves = available on=20 Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby = likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and = other=20 important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the = available=20 white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed=20 forces.
    To give importance = to only those=20 who served their country in any war in an armed capacity is an = injustice.=20 Without those on the homefront, the armed soldiers wouldn't be able to = fight=20 very long, and in many cases through out history, logistics, or lack = thereof, is=20 a prime reason why one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without = Rosie=20 the Riveter, the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing but = fodder for=20 German, Japanese and Italian guns.
 
Regards,
Chris Martin
Department of History & Art=20 History
George Mason = University
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C2E897.9D77B910-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:43:13 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Christopher Phillips Subject: Re: Black Confederates In-Reply-To: <006501c2e8c1$870c7d30$13eea4d8@CJ> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_13293836==_.ALT" --=====================_13293836==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I suppose that Chris Martin has a point about narrow or wide definitions for black Confederate servicepeople, but by logical extension we can similarly employ his widened definition of those African Americans who served the CSA ("To give importance to only those who served their country in any war in an armed capacity is an injustice") to anyone who aided the cause, South or North, black or white. By broadening his definition to the homefront, he's distilled the definition to a point where it is moot. Thus, weren't the contributions of white midwestern farmers or the dissent of white non-slaveholding yeoman farmers more important to the war's outcome as those few black body servants who cooked and cleaned for their officer masters in the field? Shouldn't we also then make the point that black "contrabands" ultimately sealed the CSA's demise by denying it the same vital labor that those black servicepeople provided the CSA, whether directly in the field or indirectly on the homefront, or by providing the same as laborers to the northern armies? Ken Noe's point is both instructive and dead right: making claims for the broad existence or, more wildly, the historical importance of black Confederates is "more about modern politics than historical accuracy. It is a cudgel to use to make larger public points about the supposed non-racial basis of modern neo-Confederatism." Chris Phillips University of Cincinnati At 01:02 PM 03/12/2003, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ken Noe" <noekenn@AUBURN.EDU> >To: ><CIVILWARFORUM@ashp.listserv.cuny.edu> >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM >Subject: Black Confederates > >Fifty thousand armed and loyal black > > Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field army. I > think > > that more than a few people would have noticed that. > > > > Ken Noe > > Auburn University > > I don't think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, > suggests 50,000 official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did I > state in my previous post that most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar were > armed, I indicated quite the contrary, "Most weren't official soldiers > because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern generals > weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were nominally at > least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, what I should > have written was that they were in engaged in activities that supported > the armed forces of the CSA. > I think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts as > "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military historians, > myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current field of specialty, > WW II, historians such as this are referred to as "rivet counters." > To use an example from G&G, the African American cook should > properly be counted as someone who did support the Confederate army (at > least in deed), and not in a small way either. Unless it's fed, clothed > and armed properly, an army's effectiveness degrades and without proper > arms, it's useless. Hence the oft cited quote about military > professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles of these > people need to be examined extensively, for without people such as these > African Americans serving as cooks or those in the ordinance department > loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor shipping food, arms, > clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use slave labor > for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves available on > Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby > likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and other > important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the > available white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed forces. > To give importance to only those who served their country in any war > in an armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the homefront, the > armed soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and in many cases > through out history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a prime reason why > one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without Rosie the Riveter, > the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing but fodder for German, > Japanese and Italian guns. > >Regards, >Chris Martin >Department of History & Art History >George Mason University >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --=====================_13293836==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I suppose that Chris Martin has a point about narrow or wide definitions for black Confederate servicepeople, but by logical extension we can similarly employ his widened definition of those African Americans who served the CSA ("To give importance to only those who served their country in any war in an armed capacity is an injustice") to anyone who aided the cause, South or North, black or white.  By broadening his definition to the homefront, he's distilled the definition to a point where it is moot.   Thus, weren't the contributions of white midwestern farmers or the dissent of white non-slaveholding yeoman farmers more important to the war's outcome as those few black body servants who cooked and cleaned for their officer masters in the field?  Shouldn't we also then make the point that black "contrabands" ultimately sealed the CSA's demise by denying it the same vital labor that those black servicepeople provided the CSA, whether directly in the field or indirectly on the homefront, or by providing the same as laborers to the northern armies?  Ken Noe's point is both instructive and dead right:  making claims for the broad existence or, more wildly, the historical importance of black Confederates is "more about modern politics than historical accuracy. It is a cudgel to use to make larger public points about the supposed non-racial basis of modern neo-Confederatism."

Chris Phillips
University of Cincinnati

At 01:02 PM 03/12/2003, you wrote:
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Noe" <noekenn@AUBURN.EDU>
To: <CIVILWARFORUM@ashp.lis= tserv.cuny.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM
Subject: Black Confederates

Fifty thousand armed and loyal black
> Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field army.  I think
> that more than a few people would have noticed that.
>
> Ken Noe
> Auburn University
 
    I don't think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, suggests 50,000 official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did I state in my previous post that most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar were armed, I indicated quite the contrary, "Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, what I should have written was that they were in engaged in activities that supported the armed forces of the CSA.
     I think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts as "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military historians, myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current field of specialty, WW II, historians such as this are referred to as "rivet counters."
     To use an example fro= m G&G, the African American cook should properly be counted as someone who did support the Confederate army (at least in deed), and not in a small way either. Unless it's fed, clothed and armed properly, an army's effectiveness degrades and without proper arms, it's useless. Hence the oft cited quote about military professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles of these people need to be examined extensively, for without people such as these African Americans serving as cooks or those in the ordinance department loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor shipping food, arms, clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use slave labor for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves available on Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and other important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the available white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed forces.
    To give importance to only those who served their country in any war in an armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the homefront, the armed soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and in many cases through out history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a prime reason why one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without Rosie the Riveter, the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing but fodder for German, Japanese and Italian guns.
 
Regards,
Chris Martin
Department of History & Art History
George Mason University
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://history= matters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --=====================_13293836==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:00:09 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Randall Jimerson Subject: Re: Black Confederates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8C9.9A3D0FDE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8C9.9A3D0FDE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am afraid that Chris Martin's argument misses the crucial point in counting African-Americans who "supported" the Confederate cause by serving as butlers, cooks, servants, or laborers. To the extent that they served in the army it was almost entirely by compulsion - they were slaves, after all, not free blacks who chose to support the Confederate military. To say otherwise makes a mockery of those civilians who have served voluntarily to support a war effort. Overwhelming evidence points to the decision by slaves to resist or escape in most cases that opportunity presented itself. =20 Randall Jimerson Western Washington University =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Chris Martin [mailto:CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:02 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Black Confederates =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ken Noe" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: Black Confederates =20 Fifty thousand armed and loyal black > Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field army. I think > that more than a few people would have noticed that. >=20 > Ken Noe > Auburn University =20 I don't think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, suggests 50,000 official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did I state in my previous post that most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar were armed, I indicated quite the contrary, "Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, what I should have written was that they were in engaged in activities that supported the armed forces of the CSA.=20 I think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts as "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military historians, myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current field of specialty, WW II, historians such as this are referred to as "rivet counters." To use an example from G&G, the African American cook should properly be counted as someone who did support the Confederate army (at least in deed), and not in a small way either. Unless it's fed, clothed and armed properly, an army's effectiveness degrades and without proper arms, it's useless. Hence the oft cited quote about military professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles of these people need to be examined extensively, for without people such as these African Americans serving as cooks or those in the ordinance department loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor shipping food, arms, clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use slave labor for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves available on Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and other important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the available white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed forces. To give importance to only those who served their country in any war in an armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the homefront, the armed soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and in many cases through out history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a prime reason why one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without Rosie the Riveter, the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing but fodder for German, Japanese and Italian guns. =20 Regards, Chris Martin Department of History & Art History George Mason University This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8C9.9A3D0FDE Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am afraid that Chris = Martin’s argument misses the crucial point in counting African-Americans who = “supported” the Confederate cause by serving as butlers, cooks, servants, or = laborers. To the extent that they served in the army it was almost entirely by = compulsion – they were slaves, after all, not free blacks who chose to support the Confederate military. To say otherwise makes a mockery of those = civilians who have served voluntarily to support a war effort. Overwhelming evidence = points to the decision by slaves to resist or escape in most cases that = opportunity presented itself.

 

Randall Jimerson

Western Washington= University=

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Chris Martin [mailto:CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, March = 12, 2003 10:02 AM
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Re: Black = Confederates

 

 

----- Original Message = -----

From: "Ken Noe" = <noekenn@AUBURN.EDU>

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, = 2003 11:37 AM

Subject: Black = Confederates

 

Fifty thousand armed and = loyal black
> Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field = army.  I think
> that more than a few people would have noticed that.
>
> Ken Noe
> Auburn University

 

    I don't = think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, suggests 50,000 = official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did I state in my previous post that = most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar were armed, I indicated = quite the contrary, "Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about = the idea either, but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, what I should have written was that they = were in engaged in activities that supported the armed forces of the = CSA. 

     I = think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts as = "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military historians, = myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current field of specialty, = WW II, historians such as this are referred to as "rivet = counters."

     To = use an example from G&G, the African American cook should properly be = counted as someone who did support the Confederate army (at least in deed), and not = in a small way either. Unless it's fed, clothed and armed properly, an = army's effectiveness degrades and without proper arms, it's useless. Hence the = oft cited quote about military professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles of these people need to be examined extensively, = for without people such as these African Americans serving as cooks or those = in the ordinance department loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor = shipping food, arms, clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use = slave labor for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves = available on Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and = other important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the = available white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed = forces.

    To give importance to only those who served their country in any war in an = armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the homefront, the armed = soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and in many cases through out = history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a prime reason why one side wins. To use = a 20th century example, without Rosie the Riveter, the "Greatest = Generation" would have been nothing but fodder for German, Japanese and = Italian guns.

 

Regards,

Chris = Martin

Department of History & = Art History

George Mason = University

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at = http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. = History.=00 This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E8C9.9A3D0FDE-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:31:53 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Fw: RE:Copperheads vs.Peace Democrats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1B3FBDFC75D92A925B5553AB" --------------1B3FBDFC75D92A925B5553AB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ms. Schoenecker: On the matter of Peace Democrats and exactly when the term is being used, see Michael Vorenberg's splendid recent book, FIRST FREEDOM, which is all about the coming of the 13th Amendment and the election of 1864. It will help you with this kind of novelist's details. Sometimes I envy novelists their range of license. Does that envy ever work the other way? Probably not, or you wouldn't be a novelist, eh? David Blight The Schoeneckers wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: The Schoeneckers > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERVE.CUNY.EDUSent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 > 1:43 PMSubject: RE:Copperheads vs.Peace Democrats > David, you further clarified Peace Democrats and "Copperheads" for > me, but I have one more question. Would people in 1864 actually refer > to an individual as a Peace Democrat? I am writing a historical novel > of that era, and am constantly checking social as well as political > correctness of the time.Mary F. SchoeneckerThis forum is sponsored by > History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------1B3FBDFC75D92A925B5553AB Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ms. Schoenecker:

On the matter of Peace Democrats and exactly when the term is being used, see Michael Vorenberg's splendid recent book, FIRST FREEDOM, which is all about the coming of the 13th Amendment and the election of 1864.  It will help you with this kind of novelist's details.  Sometimes I envy novelists their range of license.  Does  that envy ever work the other way?  Probably not, or you wouldn't be a novelist, eh?

David Blight

The Schoeneckers wrote:

 
----- Original Message ----- To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERVE.CUNY.EDUSent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:43 PMSubject: RE:Copperheads vs.Peace Democrats
 David, you further clarified Peace Democrats and "Copperheads" for me, but I have one more question.  Would people in 1864 actually refer to an individual as a Peace Democrat?  I am writing a historical novel of that era, and am constantly checking social as well as political correctness of the time.Mary F. SchoeneckerThis forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------1B3FBDFC75D92A925B5553AB-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:47:19 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Richmond Statue- Two opposing views from Editorial 1/2003 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: Well... I am reluctant to enter the discussion of the Lincoln monument in Richmond, but I will. I have many friends in Richmond, at the NPS where I have lectured, and especially at the Museum of the Confederacy where I have done a great deal of research. Richmond's struggle with Civil War history demonstrates over and again that all memory is local. I don't remember the precise origins of this Lincoln monument, sitting with his son as I recall. But it clearly represents a real historical episode that has altogether "national" meaning. It is also a gesture toward ultimate reconciliation of North and South. One way of looking at this is if Gettysburg itself, site of a major Union victory, became a place of sectional reunion, and even of honoring Confederates in the 20th century, then perhaps it is time to put Lincoln's image, the image of a victorious and even magnanimous United States in the former Confederate capital. As in many previous Richmond controversies - the Arthur Ashe statue, the river wall with Lee's image, etc., this is an issue for Richmonders and Virginians to really decide. But thousands of tourists and history enthusiasts come to Richmond from the nation and the world. They are attracted to the "Confederate" monuments and sites. But at Tredegar and the new NPS visitors' center, they are quite rightly trying to tell the story of the whole war, the war that saved the Union and freed the slaves, as well as that war in which Virginians fought to protect their homes. Richmond is a city with great significance in our NATIONAL history, and not only in relation to the American Revolution. If Gettysburg has the Peace Light Memorial, then why not Lincoln at Tredegar? That Lincoln statue, if used well and interpreted effectively, might help visitors learn a good deal about the MEANING of the war, and not only its huge SACRIFICES. Both questions are closely related. I am for continued reconciliation from this our most divisive experience, but reconciliation with broad knowledge and learning at its root. Carefully, David Blight mark bingham wrote: > Having lived in Richmond for 6 months before I headed to grad school, I can > agree first hand with Geoff that it is a very touchy subject there. Here > are two competing views from the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorials in > January 2003 that I think might be interesting (sorry about the length but > these are worth it): > > The placement of the Lincoln statue at Tredegar Iron Works will do nothing > but cause more problems than any good that will ever come out of it. My > family has lived here in Virginia since 1620, and I am appalled at the very > idea of a Lincoln statue being placed anywhere within the Commonwealth of > Virginia, much less in Richmond. If the statue is placed there, I for one > will never set foot on the grounds of Tredegar Iron Works ever again, and no > more donations will come forth from me or any member of my family to the > United States Historical Society, the National Park Service, or anyone else > who has anything to do with this travesty. > Yes, I believe in telling the truth about the War Between the States, and > the museums and the Historical Society are a very important part of our > culture. But this statue does not belong in the Commonwealth of Virginia. > I accept the fact that Lincoln did visit Richmond at Rocketts Landing after > the fall of the Confederacy in April, 1865, but we do not need this fact > shoved down our throats. If the Historical Society wanted to do some good > in the field of education it would insist that the truth be told in the > classrooms all across the Commonwealth instead of half-truths leaving out > the impact of the war on the millions of people who not only fought on the > battlefields but suffered greatly while trying to save their homes and way > of life. > Michael Kendrick-Chesterfield,VA > > And the opposing view: > In this post 9/11 world, where patriotism runs deep in our veins once again, > I don't know of a single person who is ashamed to call himself an American. > This being said, how could anyone oppose erecting a monument to the leader > who made it possible for us Virginians to continue to call ourselves > Americans in 2003? As Abraham Lincoln took the reins of this torn country a > mammoth task lay ahead: how to reunite a country that seemed so intent on > parting ways. However, after four years of untold bloodshed and suffering > on both sides, Lincoln emerged the victor, winning the admiration of > Northerners and the respect of many Southerners alike. > Like any victorious leader he felt a desire to visit the home of his > adversary. So it came that Lincoln visited our smoldering city on Tuesday, > April 4, 1865, only 11 days before his death. This was one of the first > times in his presidency of death and destruction that he could reflect on > what he had accomplished. As he walked the two miles from Rocketts Landing > to the Confederate White House and sat at Jefferson Davis' desk, one can > only imagine what ran through his mind. Maybe a sense of relief, a somber > feeling of respect for his Southern countrymen who fought so long and hard > for a cause he never could understand, or maybe just a momentary sense of > peace knowing he had preserved the Union for future generations. > I do not discredit the sacrifices our noble Southern brothers made in this > horrible war for one second, I admire soldiers and citizens North and South > with equal enthusiasm. But the bottom line is, I love our country and all > it stands for, and if it were not for Abraham Lincoln's firm resolve we > might not have a united country to be proud of. I would be honored to have > a monument to his credit in our beautiful city. > Chris Scruggs-Chesterfield, VA > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:39:44 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Butler, Kevin Dwayne (UMC-Student)" Subject: Re: Black Confederates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 IA0KDQoJLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0gDQoJRnJvbTogQ2hyaXMgTWFydGluIFtt YWlsdG86Q0pNQVJUSU4wNEBTVEFSUE9XRVIuTkVUXSANCglTZW50OiBXZWQgMy8xMi8yMDAzIDEy OjAyIFBNIA0KCVRvOiBDSVZJTFdBUkZPUlVNQEFTSFAuTElTVFNFUlYuQ1VOWS5FRFUgDQoJQ2M6 IA0KCVN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBCbGFjayBDb25mZWRlcmF0ZXMNCgkNCgkNCgkgDQoJLS0tLS0gT3Jp Z2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCgkgDQoJIA0KCSANCgkgICAgIE5vciBkaWQgSSBzdGF0ZSBp biBteSBwcmV2aW91cyBwb3N0IHRoYXQgbW9zdCBvZiB0aGUgNTAsMDAwIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBieSBT ZWdhciB3ZXJlICAgICAgIFRvIHVzZSBhbiBleGFtcGxlIGZyb20gRyZHLCB0aGUgQWZyaWNhbiBB bWVyaWNhbiBjb29rIHNob3VsZCBwcm9wZXJseSBiZSBjb3VudGVkIGFzIHNvbWVvbmUgd2hvIGRp ZCBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBDb25mZWRlcmF0ZSBhcm15IChhdCBsZWFzdCBpbiBkZWVkKSwgYW5kIG5v dCBpbiBhIHNtYWxsIHdheSBlaXRoZXIuICAgICANCgkgVGhlIG1vdGl2YXRpb25zIGFuZCByb2xl cyBvZiB0aGVzZSBwZW9wbGUgbmVlZCB0byBiZSBleGFtaW5lZCBleHRlbnNpdmVseSwgZm9yIHdp dGhvdXQgcGVvcGxlIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGhlc2UgQWZyaWNhbiBBbWVyaWNhbnMgc2VydmluZyBhcyBj b29rcyBvciB0aG9zZSBpbiB0aGUgb3JkaW5hbmNlIGRlcGFydG1lbnQgbG9hZGluZyB0cmFpbnMg b3Igb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGRvaW5nIG1hbnVhbCBsYWJvciBzaGlwcGluZyBmb29kLCBhcm1zLCBjbG90 aGluZyBldGMuLCB0aGUgQ29uZmVkZXJhY3kgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBlaXRoZXIgaGFkIHRvIHVzZSBz bGF2ZSBsYWJvciBmb3IgdGhlc2Ugam9icywgICANCgkgDQoJIA0KCVVzZSBzbGF2ZSBsYWJvciBm b3IgdGhlc2Ugam9icyBpcyBleGFjdGx5IHdoYXQgdGhlIENvbmZlZGVyYWN5IGRpZCBhcyBtb3N0 IG9mIHRoZXNlIGNvb2tzIGFuZCB0aG9zZSBsb2FkaW5nIHRyYWlucyBhbmQgYm9keSBzZXJ2YW50 cyBldGMuLCB3ZXJlIGluIGZhY3Qgc2xhdmVzIGNvbXBlbGxlZCB0byB3b3JrLiAgTm90IGZyZWUg dm9sdW50ZWVycy4NCgkgDQoJSy4gQnV0bGVyDQoJIA0KCSANCg0KVGhpcyBmb3J1bSBpcyBzcG9u c29yZWQgYnkgSGlzdG9yeSBNYXR0ZXJzLS1wbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgb3VyIFdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0 dHA6Ly9oaXN0b3J5bWF0dGVycy5nbXUuZWR1IGZvciBtb3JlIHJlc291cmNlcyBmb3IgdGVhY2hp bmcgVS5TLiBIaXN0b3J5Lg0K ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:52:52 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Black Confederates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------470DF3C114F1D4E5CC7F7834" --------------470DF3C114F1D4E5CC7F7834 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Colleagues: As I tried to say yesterday, I agree entirely with those here who claim and show that the "black Confederates" issue is way blown out of proportion for present day ends and purposes. Neo-Confederates need this issue as a stick to beat away at what they perceive as "political correctness" - defined usually as whatever position we don't agree with or have no patience for. They also need it for the same reason that candidate George W. Bush needed to find so many brown and black people to go up on that stage at the Republican national convention in 2000. He needed cover for some deeper agendas and realities that are not very well-hidden. Pardon my partisanship but the analogy just popped into my mind.. David Blight Randall Jimerson wrote: > I am afraid that Chris Martinís argument misses the crucial point in > counting African-Americans who ìsupportedî the Confederate cause by > serving as butlers, cooks, servants, or laborers. To the extent that > they served in the army it was almost entirely by compulsion ? they > were slaves, after all, not free blacks who chose to support the > Confederate military. To say otherwise makes a mockery of those > civilians who have served voluntarily to support a war effort. > Overwhelming evidence points to the decision by slaves to resist or > escape in most cases that opportunity presented itself. > > Randall Jimerson > > WesternWashingtonUniversity > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Martin [mailto:CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:02 AM > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: Re: Black Confederates > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Noe" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM > Subject: Black Confederates > Fifty thousand armed and loyal black > > > Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field > army. I think > > that more than a few people would have noticed that. > > > > Ken Noe > > Auburn University > I don't think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, > suggests 50,000 official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did > I state in my previous post that most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar > were armed, I indicated quite the contrary, "Most weren't official > soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern > generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were > nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, > what I should have written was that they were in engaged in activities > that supported the armed forces of the CSA. > I think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts > as "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military > historians, myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current > field of specialty, WW II, historians such as this are referred to as > "rivet counters." > To use an example from G&G, the African American cook should > properly be counted as someone who did support the Confederate army > (at least in deed), and not in a small way either. Unless it's fed, > clothed and armed properly, an army's effectiveness degrades and > without proper arms, it's useless. Hence the oft cited quote about > military professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles > of these people need to be examined extensively, for without people > such as these African Americans serving as cooks or those in the > ordinance department loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor > shipping food, arms, clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either > had to use slave labor for these jobs, theoretically reducing the > amount of slaves available on Southern plantations to do manual labor > required for farming and thereby likely reducing the level of food > available as well as cotton and other important items, or use white > laborers to do these jobs, reducing the available white population > that could be conscripted into the CSA armed forces. > To give importance to only those who served their country in any > war in an armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the > homefront, the armed soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and > in many cases through out history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a > prime reason why one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without > Rosie the Riveter, the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing > but fodder for German, Japanese and Italian guns. > Regards, > Chris Martin > Department of History & Art History > George Mason University > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site > at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. > History.This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our > Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for > teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------470DF3C114F1D4E5CC7F7834 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Colleagues:

As I tried to say yesterday, I agree entirely with those here who claim and show that the "black Confederates" issue is way blown out of proportion for present day ends and purposes.  Neo-Confederates need this issue as a stick to beat away at what they perceive as "political correctness" - defined usually as whatever position we don't agree with or have no patience for.  They also need it for the same reason that candidate George W. Bush needed to find so many brown and black people to go up on that stage at the Republican national convention in 2000.  He needed cover for some deeper agendas and realities that are not very well-hidden.  Pardon my partisanship but the analogy just popped into my mind..

David Blight

Randall Jimerson wrote:

I am afraid that Chris Martin’s argument misses the crucial point in counting African-Americans who “supported” the Confederate cause by serving as butlers, cooks, servants, or laborers. To the extent that they served in the army it was almost entirely by compulsion ­ they were slaves, after all, not free blacks who chose to support the Confederate military. To say otherwise makes a mockery of those civilians who have served voluntarily to support a war effort. Overwhelming evidence points to the decision by slaves to resist or escape in most cases that opportunity presented itself.

Randall Jimerson

WesternWashingtonUniversity

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Martin [mailto:CJMARTIN04@STARPOWER.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:02 AM
To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Re: Black Confederates

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Noe" <noekenn@AUBURN.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM
Subject: Black Confederates
Fifty thousand armed and loyal black

> Confederates, however, would have comprised an an entire field army.  I think
> that more than a few people would have noticed that.
>
> Ken Noe
> Auburn University
    I don't think any even semi legitimate historian, Segars included, suggests 50,000 official armed African Americans for the CSA. Nor did I state in my previous post that most of the 50,000 suggested by Segar were armed, I indicated quite the contrary, "Most weren't official soldiers because the CSA Congress wouldn't allow it and most southern generals weren't too thrilled about the idea either, but they were nominally at least, in the Confederate armed forces." In retrospect, what I should have written was that they were in engaged in activities that supported the armed forces of the CSA. 
     I think we're engaged in an extremely limited view of what counts as "serving the CSA," which is a trap that I find many military historians, myself included on occasion, fall into. In my current field of specialty, WW II, historians such as this are referred to as "rivet counters."
     To use an example from G&G, the African American cook should properly be counted as someone who did support the Confederate army (at least in deed), and not in a small way either. Unless it's fed, clothed and armed properly, an army's effectiveness degrades and without proper arms, it's useless. Hence the oft cited quote about military professionals studying logistics. The motivations and roles of these people need to be examined extensively, for without people such as these African Americans serving as cooks or those in the ordinance department loading trains or otherwise doing manual labor shipping food, arms, clothing etc., the Confederacy would have either had to use slave labor for these jobs, theoretically reducing the amount of slaves available on Southern plantations to do manual labor required for farming and thereby likely reducing the level of food available as well as cotton and other important items, or use white laborers to do these jobs, reducing the available white population that could be conscripted into the CSA armed forces.
    To give importance to only those who served their country in any war in an armed capacity is an injustice. Without those on the homefront, the armed soldiers wouldn't be able to fight very long, and in many cases through out history, logistics, or lack thereof, is a prime reason why one side wins. To use a 20th century example, without Rosie the Riveter, the "Greatest Generation" would have been nothing but fodder for German, Japanese and Italian guns.
Regards,
Chris Martin
Department of History & Art History
George Mason University
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------470DF3C114F1D4E5CC7F7834-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:57:00 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Matthew R. Hershey" Subject: Re: Civil War Lesson Plans In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Beeghley: You should take a look at a book titled _The Civil War on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites_, published by Scholarly Resources. It is packaged with a CD-ROM that provides direct links to all of the sites reviewed in the book. I think you would find it quite useful. The first edition was published in Fall 2000; a new edition, with up-to-date links and new reviews, will be available in September 2003. Matthew R. Hershey Senior Acquisitions Editor Scholarly Resources, Inc. 104 Greenhill Avenue Wilmington, DE 19805-1897 E-mail: mhershey@scholarly.com Phone: 1-800-772-8937 Fax: 302-654-3871 -----Original Message----- From: Teaching the U.S. Civil War [mailto:CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of James Beeghley Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:27 AM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Civil War Lesson Plans Hi, Looking for some good Civil War lesson plans for middle school aged students. Especially any that will integrate technology into the lesson. Thanks, Jim Beeghley This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:30:10 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Pearson, Tom A." Subject: Re: Black Confederates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Chris and others, I think this discussion of "Black Confederates" needs a dose of statistics. First of all, I hope you will agree that only a free black person above the age of consent could willingly serve the Confederacy- a slave by definition does not willingly serve, and a child isn't capable of making an informed choice. So, let's look at the 1860 census, using census data supplied by the University of Virginia (have a look at their impressive website at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/ ). In 1860, there were 132,405 free blacks total in all the soon-to-be Confederate states combined. Of these, 62,787 were free black males. Of that number, 31,197 were free black males between the ages of 15-59. Now, given even the lax standards of the Confederate Army by war's end, there simply weren't 50,000 free black men of military age available in the entire Confederacy to serve as armed soldiers. Yes, I did hear you say that no one believes that the majority of the oft-quoted "50,000 blacks who served the Confederacy" were armed soldiers. But was a free black laborer in a state like Alabama or Georgia "choosing to serve the Confederacy" when he or she chose to accept employment as a cook, laundress, or manual laborer from the CSA government? It seems to me that he or she in fact was choosing to eat rather than starve (remember, moving to a free state was not an option for most free black persons in the South during the War- travel was restricted). Finally, it must be pointed out that the vast majority of the "blacks who served the Confederacy" were slaves. They had to be- the vast majority of black persons in the states of the Confederacy were slaves (nearly 4 million in 1860, versus the 132,405 free blacks figure quoted above). Some slaves were hired out by their masters as laborers, cooks, etc., while some slaves were impressed into Confederate service in times of crisis by the CSA government. I for one, however, refuse to accept any argument which presupposes that a slave in the service of the Confederacy in any capacity, military or civilian, was a "willing, loyal" worker for the Confederate cause. Why do I think this? Because time and again during the Civil War, whenever a Union Army moved into an area previously occupied by a Confederate Army, countless "blacks who served the Confederacy" voted with their feet and crossed over into Union lines. Tom Pearson This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:02:39 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Matthew Penrod Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In response to your inquiry about teaching this subject matter to students and their initial views of it: I'm not a teacher but I'm a ranger with the National Park Service who manages an extensive education program at Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial in Virginia. I work with many teachers and thousands of students of all ages every year and so I guess I can speak to their readiness to deal with the hard issues of this history. What I find more than anything is a large amount of ignorance in the lower elementary level grades so not much bias at all. But with the 10th graders there is definite bias. They have, to varying degrees, already made up their minds about so many of the key issues regarding slavery, causes of the war, etc. For example: I was leading a group of 25 students. We had reached a point when we were to talk extensively about the role slavery played in the secession crisis and before we got into it I asked for a show of hands of who thought defending slavery was the primary cause for southern secession. Only one student raised her hand. Aside from the one student who thought it was about conflict caused by industrialization every other student thought it was about states rights. Interestingly, not one of those students could articulate his or her reasoning for believing that. Still, they believed it. Something is wrong in our culture if such a ratio is commonplace. Those 10th graders go through a two month long program in which they study this subject along with many others relevant to the life of Robert E. Lee. By the end of those two months most have amended their original beliefs but I worry about the persistence of their original bias. With the younger students though it is very different. They are as open-minded and willing to accept the truth as anyone you will find. In fact, it is incredibly refreshing dealing with 4th - 7th grade students because they are at that age when they don't want to hear BS - they want to hear the truth, and they CAN handle it. I'm still struck by the parent chaperoning one of our 4th grade groups. While walking from one part of the house to another a boy asked his mother (probably for verification) if slavery truly was the cause for the Civil War. She immediately began hemming and hawing and telling him, "Well, you know, it wasn't as simple as that, there were all these other things, yadda yadda yadda..." And I thought: How early we teach our children to rationalize the truth out of history. Matthew Penrod David Blight To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Sent by: "Teaching the U.S. cc: Civil War" Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War 03/11/03 02:28 PM CST Please respond to "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Colleagues: I want to weigh in on just a couple of issues in these many, many interesting postings. First, on the matter of "black Confederates," those alleged numbers in the thousands are simply way over-imagined. This entire idea of black Confederates has arisen in the 1990s as part of the neo-Confederate revival, largely in public history and not in scholarship. I think it is, in part, part of a larger, if fringe, attempt to legitimize the Confederacy and its symbols in our multi-cultural and multi-racial age. If you can demonstrate some kind of black loyalty to the Confederacy, not only do you have to power to shock and outrage the alleged "politically corrent" "multiculturalists" (favorite terms by some on the neo-Confederate and Lynn Cheney side of historical debates, but you lend its cause a certain weight of constitutionalism rather than racism. Again, like all major debates over memory, this is very much about our present and not much at all about historical evidence. Second, on teaching Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic: I have taught the book in an upper level seminar on Civil War memory and in a public history course. It worked very well both times. I do not teach it at all to give students some kind of comprehensive picture of the South or Southerners. We need to remember that this book is in the genre of a travel book, and it is written by a journalist, a brilliant one I think. He is a participant observer; he does not make overall claims about a Southern psyche like a Wilbur Cash did 60 years ago or the way John Shelton Reed does based on polling data and survey research. I would not teach Horwitz for the purpose of a single portrayal of the South. But it is a marvelous window into a particular kind of Civil War, and for that matter, national consciousness and enthusiasm about history. It also is a window into a particular 1990s variety of American race tension. I wonder if this issue of Southern identity hasn't almost been spent here. It is a huge and important topic and one that derives from a very rich literature in history and fiction. I welcome all comments and ideas. But I would hope we can keep moving to other matters as well. There is simply no question that there are many many Souths and all kinds of Southerners of many colors and backgrounds. The journal , Southern Cultures, has been a very good place to follow these matters in recent years. Subscribe if you haven't already. I wonder if when those of you who teach, at whatever level, the Civil War era - if you find that students still come to us with a degree of nostalgia about this topic (expecting great stories of drama and sacrifice and heroes). Or, if they are ready to see this event in truly tragic terms, a brutal, horrifying and transforming long-term experience in which America nearly destroyed itself as a national entity? Do they come to you wanting the story to feed them progress and glory? Heroism all around? Do they grasp the place of emancipation at the heart of the war's many meanings? Do they see the war as a soldiers' experience or a war about fundamental ideas? Maybe they don't come to us with much of any knowledge and therefore we shape them. But it always fascinates me to know how young people do gain certain perceptions and assumptions about American history before we ever teach them. At what age, indeed, can American kids grasp a real sense of tragedy? I know these are hopelessly broad and leading questions, but I am just wondering out loud. with all best, David Blight Christopher Phillips wrote: Hi Peter and others -- I've been caught using indefinite language. I meant to suggest by using the elusive term, "southern mainstream thought," even if such an animal exists, that it is itself an imprecise commodity. I apologize for not being clear in that sense. I'm not suggesting that Horwitz's characters are far-fetched, much less that they don't exist. Clearly, they are not and they do. But to use his book to teach the South is as fraught with hazards as using Uncle Tom's Cabin to characterize the realities of antebellum life or "Gods and Generals" as a definitive glimpse into the southern perspective on the war and slavery. This is not to say that many white southerners do not share the racial or historical perspectives of Horwitz's subjects. Clearly, many do; Horwitz's people, unlike Stowe's, are real, as are the incidents he witnessed and conversations he recorded. And your employment of Trent Lott is appropriate, but do "Segs" (the Republican party's private -- and far too seemly affectionate, in my book -- term for former/current segregationists) represent the wider notions of southern politicians, much less the public as a whole? Even the most egregious of the "Segs" such as George Wallace and even Strom himself changed their political stances about racial segregation and certainly in many historians' opinions, those changed stances were/are genuine. If we use Lott as an example for all, then we much conclude that such political stances are uniformly disingenuous. More important, can we lump all white southern politicians, regardless of party affiliation, such as George W. Bush or Democrats such as John Edwards or Zell Miller, into the same category as Lott? This is unwise and certainly extreme. Questions linger about Horwitz's book, left unanswered by its lack of citations or secondary sources (other than an acknowledgment to Peter Applebome, author of Dixie Rising). Did he meet any southerners who distinctly did not share the thoughts and ideology of the characters in his book? Certainly, many of them exist; live and work in any city or town in the South and you'll interact with many of them. Are the perspectives of heritage and race limited to those born and raised in the South, or do they apply to transplants as well, many of them having lived in the South for most of their lives? Has the rise of the Sunbelt changed these perspectives at all, or does Horwitz's "Gone With the Window" South identify only the most "diehard" of the neo-Confederates? The Ohioan, Rob Hodge, certainly defies the larger group in his inability to identify precisely why he became so fascinated with the Confederate mystique; does this signify something larger. If Rose Sanders and her students aptly characterize the attitudes of black southerners toward the war and its aftermath, why do/did so many black southerners support the maintenance of the Confederate flag on state flags? These sorts of questions lead me to be reluctant to use Horwitz's book in classes, perhaps with the exception of advanced students. The point is, is the book better used for our own insights into the complexities of southern heritage and race relations or for instruction for often largely uninitiated and impressionable high school and college students. In that, we much be judicious and a look at Fitz Brundage's review in the GHQ is instructive. Christopher Phillips University of Cincinnati At 02:59 PM 3/10/03 -0800, you wrote: >Dear Professor Phillips: What exactly is the "southern mainstream view" of >the civil war that you are refering to? While you are right to suggest that >Horwitz should have drawn on a larger population to help develop his book, >I'm not sure that Horwitz is entirely wrong in his portrayal of a south >unwilling to accept the outcome of the war. > >Recent political events have demonstrated that much of what the confederacy >represented (segregation, states' rights) seems to be very much in favor >with certain leaders in Washington. We had a former Senate majority leader >who was able to assert on more than one occassion that segregation was >perhaps the best course for our country and a current President who feels >that states should have to rely more on themselves than the federal >government for a variety of different social and economic problems. Based on >this, why do Horowitz's suggestions about an unrepentant South (or at least >one enamored of a nostalgic, antebelum past) seem so far-fetched? Sincerely, >Pete Haro. >-------Original Message------- >From: Christopher Phillips >Sent: 03/10/03 07:21 AM >To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU >Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > >> >> I'd like to respond to John Sacher's query on the use of Confeds. in the >Attic in class. I haven't used the book myself, as I have mixed feelings >about it, but one of my Ph.D. students used it in his upper-division class >on The Civil War and American Memory. On his invitation, I observed his >and the students' discussion of the book and came away with an impression >as mixed as that of my own impressions of the book, furthering my >skepticism of its value in the classroom. On the positive, it was clear >that these students (all junior or senior history majors) recognized the >power of the Civil War among those southerners whom Horwitz studied, and >powerful role of race within their varied constructs of the war and >southern memory and identity. However, I saw something more troubling in >the responses of largely urban, southern Ohio students to their reading of >the book, in that they assumed that Horwitz's characters were >representative of southerners as a whole. With Kentucky being their most >tangible vision of the South (either because of or despite it lying right >across the Ohio River), several of the students made comments that the >book >merely confirmed their impressions of, as one student described >southerners >rather callously, "ignorant hillbillies who can't accept the outcome of >the >war and its aftermath." I fear that the students' preconceived notions on >the South were only reinforced by Horwitz's reliance on those "hardcore" >southerners who, in reality, might be out of the mainstream of >southerners' >views of the war. As such, I will continue to be reluctant (though I >haven't ruled it out) to use the book in a college class and especially >one >taught outside the South. > And despite suggestions to the contrary offered in a series of >H-South >posts on teaching the South, I am similarly skeptical of using the movie >"O >Brother Where Art Thou?" in any southern history class for many of the >same >reasons I have resisted using Horwitz's book. Both play into >stereotypical >impressions of the South and thus confirm more than deny much of the >prevailing prejudice about the region. For a fuller review of Horwitz's >book as neither southern sociology or history, see Fitz Brundage's review >of it in the Georgia Historical Review, Fall 1999, I believe. > >Christopher Phillips >University of Cincinnati > >At 11:10 AM 3/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >>Thanks for all the great posts so far (although I wish I had more time >>to read and respond). I'm following this discussion mainly to improve >>my Civil War and Reconstruction course. I'd like to thank those of >>you who've sent in the long list of Civil War literature. I can see >>my syllabus expanding. Based on my teaching focus, I have a few >>questions: >> >>I'm interested in the issue of sacred spaces. Earlier Leah W. Jewett >>inquired both whether and how such issues should/can be brought into the >>classroom. Has anyone found a good way to do this? >> >>I agree on the importance of memory in the discussion of the Civil War. >> Again, I'm wondering how people bring this into their courses. Do >>you start with it or end with it or try to integrate it as you go >>through the course? I've used Confederates in the Attic in a History >>of the South class here (Kansas), and while I enjoy the book, I was >>disappointed by the students' reactions. They liked it, but to them, >>it just reinforced their prior knowledge that white southerners are >>racist. Try as I might, they were reluctant to go much beyond that. >> >>It's been mentioned earlier that the internet is both a goldmine and >>a travesty in terms of Civil War-related material. Have any of you >>found a good way to help your students separate the wheat from the >>chaff? Have any of you successfully employed Ayers and Rubin's Valley >>of the Shadow in your course? If so, how? >> >>Do other teachers out there teach "Civil War" or "Civil War and >>Reconstruction"? I prefer the latter because it gets to the "who won >>the peace" question, but it makes for a lot of material for a single >>semester. Thoughts? >> >>John Sacher >>Emporia State University >> >>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >>http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. >History. > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu">http://historymatters.gmu.edu for >more resources for teaching U.S. History. >> > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:29:04 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Greg Kaster Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: <3E6E46DF.B7F39158@amherst.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war at this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what they see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting and killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the war as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by the ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee as a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than Grant, Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at the time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to put it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief counseling--that word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. Greg Kaster Chair, Department of History Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter, MN 56082 (507)-933-7431 gkaster@gac.edu This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:40:56 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: Richmond Statue- Two opposing views from Editorial 1/2003 In-Reply-To: <3E6FAAE6.D3F9F599@amherst.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lincoln was warmly welcomed in Richmond by the freedmen. They were by and large native Virginians and certainly were southerners. Virginians who don't recognize that need to be educated. It's doable. --- David Blight wrote: > Colleagues: > > Well... I am reluctant to enter the discussion of > the Lincoln monument in Richmond, but I will. I > have many friends in Richmond, at the NPS where I > have lectured, and especially at the Museum of the > Confederacy where I have done a great deal of > research. Richmond's struggle with Civil War > history > demonstrates over and again that all memory is > local. I don't remember the precise origins of this > Lincoln monument, sitting with his son as I > recall. But it clearly represents a real historical > episode that has altogether "national" meaning. It > is also a gesture toward ultimate > reconciliation of North and South. One way of > looking at this is if Gettysburg itself, site of a > major Union victory, became a place of sectional > reunion, and even of honoring Confederates in the > 20th century, then perhaps it is time to put > Lincoln's image, the image of a victorious and even > magnanimous United States in the former Confederate > capital. As in many previous Richmond controversies > - the Arthur Ashe statue, the river wall with > Lee's image, etc., this is an issue for Richmonders > and Virginians to really decide. But thousands of > tourists and history enthusiasts come to > Richmond from the nation and the world. They are > attracted to the "Confederate" monuments and sites. > But at Tredegar and the new NPS visitors' > center, they are quite rightly trying to tell the > story of the whole war, the war that saved the Union > and freed the slaves, as well as that war in > which Virginians fought to protect their homes. > Richmond is a city with great significance in our > NATIONAL history, and not only in relation to the > American Revolution. If Gettysburg has the Peace > Light Memorial, then why not Lincoln at Tredegar? > That Lincoln statue, if used well and interpreted > effectively, might help visitors learn a good deal > about the MEANING of the war, and not only its huge > SACRIFICES. Both questions are closely > related. I am for continued reconciliation from > this our most divisive experience, but > reconciliation with broad knowledge and learning at > its root. > > Carefully, > > David Blight > > mark bingham wrote: > > > Having lived in Richmond for 6 months before I > headed to grad school, I can > > agree first hand with Geoff that it is a very > touchy subject there. Here > > are two competing views from the Richmond > Times-Dispatch editorials in > > January 2003 that I think might be interesting > (sorry about the length but > > these are worth it): > > > > The placement of the Lincoln statue at Tredegar > Iron Works will do nothing > > but cause more problems than any good that will > ever come out of it. My > > family has lived here in Virginia since 1620, and > I am appalled at the very > > idea of a Lincoln statue being placed anywhere > within the Commonwealth of > > Virginia, much less in Richmond. If the statue is > placed there, I for one > > will never set foot on the grounds of Tredegar > Iron Works ever again, and no > > more donations will come forth from me or any > member of my family to the > > United States Historical Society, the National > Park Service, or anyone else > > who has anything to do with this travesty. > > Yes, I believe in telling the truth about the War > Between the States, and > > the museums and the Historical Society are a very > important part of our > > culture. But this statue does not belong in the > Commonwealth of Virginia. > > I accept the fact that Lincoln did visit Richmond > at Rocketts Landing after > > the fall of the Confederacy in April, 1865, but we > do not need this fact > > shoved down our throats. If the Historical > Society wanted to do some good > > in the field of education it would insist that the > truth be told in the > > classrooms all across the Commonwealth instead of > half-truths leaving out > > the impact of the war on the millions of people > who not only fought on the > > battlefields but suffered greatly while trying to > save their homes and way > > of life. > > Michael Kendrick-Chesterfield,VA > > > > And the opposing view: > > In this post 9/11 world, where patriotism runs > deep in our veins once again, > > I don't know of a single person who is ashamed to > call himself an American. > > This being said, how could anyone oppose erecting > a monument to the leader > > who made it possible for us Virginians to continue > to call ourselves > > Americans in 2003? As Abraham Lincoln took the > reins of this torn country a > > mammoth task lay ahead: how to reunite a country > that seemed so intent on > > parting ways. However, after four years of untold > bloodshed and suffering > > on both sides, Lincoln emerged the victor, winning > the admiration of > > Northerners and the respect of many Southerners > alike. > > Like any victorious leader he felt a desire to > visit the home of his > > adversary. So it came that Lincoln visited our > smoldering city on Tuesday, > > April 4, 1865, only 11 days before his death. > This was one of the first > > times in his presidency of death and destruction > that he could reflect on > > what he had accomplished. As he walked the two > miles from Rocketts Landing > > to the Confederate White House and sat at > Jefferson Davis' desk, one can > > only imagine what ran through his mind. Maybe a > sense of relief, a somber > > feeling of respect for his Southern countrymen who > fought so long and hard > > for a cause he never could understand, or maybe > just a momentary sense of > > peace knowing he had preserved the Union for > future generations. > > I do not discredit the sacrifices our noble > Southern brothers made in this > > horrible war for one second, I admire soldiers and > citizens North and South > > with equal enthusiasm. But the bottom line is, I > love our country and all > > it stands for, and if it were not for Abraham > Lincoln's firm resolve we > > might not have a united country to be proud of. I > would be honored to have > > a monument to his credit in our beautiful city. > > Chris Scruggs-Chesterfield, VA > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months > FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:23:45 -0500 Reply-To: robertm@combatic.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Robert Mosher Subject: Re: Gods and Generals In-Reply-To: <20030313004056.80225.qmail@web14311.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having finally seen Gods and Generals, I thought I would offer my observations. My first reaction (other than a little cheer when the 28th Massachusetts Volunteers national color appeared as backdrop for the title sequence) was that 10 years was a long time between the making of Gettysburg and its PRE-quel - Gods and Generals and I wonder if they shouldn't have just recast a number of additional roles beyond Duvall as Lee and moving Lang into the role of Jackson. This time it seemed that it wasn't only the reenactors who were looking a little well-fed and greyhaired. As to the story line - frankly it should be retitled slightly "Gods and Generals, A Victorian Romance of the Lost Cause, or The Southern Gospel of St Thomas." The only coherent story line that could be followed was Jackson's and frankly a film about Jackson would be shorter and a lot more interesting and entertaining. I did find it curious that the Southern characters tended to be given the stilted florid Victorian dialogue that has been previously noted while by comparison the Northerners tended to speak almost in a modern fashion. I found the depiction of both slaves and freedmen was pretty much as previously discussed though no one had noted (to my recollection) the speech by the one female slave who tells General Hancock in Fredericksburg that though she is attached to the house in which she is living and to the white family of her master - she does want to die free and wants her children to be free. Of course, she had also by then shown up three Yankees to be rather disreputable louts when she is able to intimidate them by her well-dressed presence (with her children by her side) to not loot her master's house. Shades of Miss Scarlett. The attack at Marye's Heights (Fredericksburg) was fairly well depicted (I had already been told that the Director refused to leave the one green flag where it belonged - in the center of the line with the 28th Massachusetts because his star was over with the 69th New York and of course there had to be a green flag there in the movie even if there wasn't one there in the original attack). I was also disappointed in the rather one-sided depiction of the Irish - apparently Cobb's Legion's Irishmen came to America to fight for freedom (and get to stand behind the stone wall) but no one knows why the Irish who march across the open ground up the heights chose to be there. As with a number of the films and books that have been discussed, using this film in the classroom would require putting it within a contextual framework. Robert A. Mosher This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:17:45 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jim Hart Subject: Gods and Generals, the Book I haven't seen the film version of Gods & Generals, but I have read the book. I am curious to hear the group's reactions to Shaara's actual treatment of the war and of the book's potential as classroom material. I felt the book, as opposed to the movie, was fairly evenly portrayed and did not overly romanticize the South. The major impression I carried away from the book was a sense of tragedy, bewilderment on both sides that secession became an actual fact, and complete inability on the part of the highest commanders of the Union army in the East (not the field generals, but men like McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker). I suppose it is typical of Hollywood (or Turner in this case) that a book that was worthy of an endorsement by James McPherson has evidently been poorly translated into film. One other thought, I have always wondered about McDowell's ability as a commander. If he had not been relieved after Bull Run and given further time to season his troops, I wonder if he would have been able to avoid the mistakes his successors made and make a successful push on Richmond. What if's are not the normal field for historians (nor should they be), but I can't help wondering. Jim Hart This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:20:55 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: I find Greg Kaster's and Mathew Penrod's statements fascinating and troubling but not surprising. This is the kind of broad Civil War memory that most Americans still want - valor, sacrifice, noble heroes on both sides, blunted ideology if any at all, and a Reconstruction where... "why didn't they just get over it already." What do we do about this? Just keep trying, keep teaching, keep searching for ways to help young people know that history is about ideas as well as drama, and that race can be talked about openly without someone feeling condemned. We also need to help them realize that it is all right to make some judgements about the past - that an everyone was right, no one was wrong approach to the past will never help us learn much that is valuable. And the comment about our therapeutic age is interesting. When memory comes up, perhaps we are a culture now that is conditioned to demand some kind of healing no matter what, a dissolution of difference. Many of us are trained to teach the conflicts, or at least by instinct that is how we see historical reality. Many people live their daily lives around conflict and want history to be a story that gives them ORDER and COHESION and RESOLUTION. A good story, a good movie, a good experience. We simply have to teach against the grains, and that is what so many of you are doing. I applaud. I have an out of town lecture trip tonight, returning tomorrow. I may not be back on until pm sometime Friday. David Blight Greg Kaster wrote: > In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions > about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil > War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war at > this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen > years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of > whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what they > see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting and > killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the war > as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave > society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they > usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's > end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made > reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by the > ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee as > a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of > him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than Grant, > Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick > Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are > generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis > would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even > irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an > ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at the > time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to put > it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but > I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters > seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief counseling--that > word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for > victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of > Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of > bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological > history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite > knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. > > Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war > to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to > mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of > course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The > last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how > their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of > the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better > understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by > Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and > the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on > either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new > understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or > even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. > > Greg Kaster > Chair, Department of History > Gustavus Adolphus College > St. Peter, MN 56082 > > (507)-933-7431 > gkaster@gac.edu > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:17:07 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "(Dr) Carole E. Adams" Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030312151456.02809a40@gac.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks to all for a very fruitful discussion. Re college teaching: Florida has an odd history as a southern state, but I have nevertheless found many students accepting Lost Cause myths. I have included Civ War and Reconstruction historiography in a couple of my MA classes, and have found in *some* students an unthinking acceptance of popular myths. Worse, I have found that many students conflate bad history (of the Dunning school, e.g.) and history with an interpretive thesis (which they call "bias"). Thus, I have had students say things to the effect that maybe the Dunning school "went too far in one direction," but that present-day historians are "going too far" in the other direction (i.e. toward integrating black history and emancipation into the narrative). A few even used the term "politically correct" to characterize such works as Leon Litwak's _Been in the Storm_. I have found that I have to do a lot of analysis about the difference between having a particular approach (grounded in the sources) and doing bad history (not examining relevant sources, not attempting to go beyond one's prejudices, etc.). Carole Adams Carole Elizabeth Adams, PhD History and Women's Studies University of Central Florida Orlando FL 32816-1350 4000 Central Florida Blvd This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:41:15 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Matthew Penrod Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii My opinion to what David Blight wrote about teaching "against the grains:" I absolutely agree. It's just that I think we need to catch students at a much earlier age than college. I have an eight year old boy and he is becoming more and more aware of history and I know I have a responsibility to teach him properly - which means how to think critically about events past and present. I absolutely detest feelgood history. No, not everyone was a good guy. History isn't only supposed to be about facts it is also about values, it is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. When we abandon teaching values and critical thinking we surrender our children to the tide of public opinion. Waiting until college is too late. It must be done as early as third and fourth grade. And like I said, I believe the kids can handle the ugliness in our history. They want to learn right from wrong. They want to do and be better than those who live or have lived immoral lives. Matthew Penrod David Blight To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Sent by: "Teaching the U.S. cc: Civil War" Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War 03/13/03 10:20 AM CST Please respond to "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Colleagues: I find Greg Kaster's and Mathew Penrod's statements fascinating and troubling but not surprising. This is the kind of broad Civil War memory that most Americans still want - valor, sacrifice, noble heroes on both sides, blunted ideology if any at all, and a Reconstruction where... "why didn't they just get over it already." What do we do about this? Just keep trying, keep teaching, keep searching for ways to help young people know that history is about ideas as well as drama, and that race can be talked about openly without someone feeling condemned. We also need to help them realize that it is all right to make some judgements about the past - that an everyone was right, no one was wrong approach to the past will never help us learn much that is valuable. And the comment about our therapeutic age is interesting. When memory comes up, perhaps we are a culture now that is conditioned to demand some kind of healing no matter what, a dissolution of difference. Many of us are trained to teach the conflicts, or at least by instinct that is how we see historical reality. Many people live their daily lives around conflict and want history to be a story that gives them ORDER and COHESION and RESOLUTION. A good story, a good movie, a good experience. We simply have to teach against the grains, and that is what so many of you are doing. I applaud. I have an out of town lecture trip tonight, returning tomorrow. I may not be back on until pm sometime Friday. David Blight Greg Kaster wrote: > In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions > about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil > War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war at > this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen > years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of > whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what they > see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting and > killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the war > as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave > society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they > usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's > end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made > reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by the > ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee as > a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of > him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than Grant, > Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick > Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are > generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis > would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even > irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an > ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at the > time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to put > it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but > I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters > seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief counseling--that > word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for > victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of > Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of > bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological > history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite > knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. > > Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war > to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to > mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of > course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The > last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how > their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of > the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better > understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by > Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and > the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on > either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new > understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or > even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. > > Greg Kaster > Chair, Department of History > Gustavus Adolphus College > St. Peter, MN 56082 > > (507)-933-7431 > gkaster@gac.edu > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:08:09 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Christopher Phillips Subject: Re: Gods and Generals, the Book In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jim Hart's insight on Jeff Shaara's book and the poor screen adaptation of it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who saw Turner's Gettysburg. Both of Maxwell/Turner's apples fell far from the Shaaras' tree. The same thing happened with the adaptation of the Killer Angels, but in a different way. G&G is clearly an apologetic adaptation, much more than was Gettysburg, and the latter held but a glimmer of the storyline that makes The Killer Angels such a remarkable book. The question, I suppose, is why? Was Ted Turner rewarding his Atlanta hardcore constituency for supporting the first mediocre movie (and southerners for helping to make him fabulously wealthy) and thus the undinted Lost Cause portrayal, or did criticisms of the first movie as having lacked the vital personalism of The Killer Angels and a focus on the Yankees and the 20th Maine (as in the book) drive an overly personalized, nearly exclusively Confederate G&G? Chris Phillips University of Cincinnati At 10:17 AM 3/13/03 -0500, you wrote: >I haven't seen the film version of Gods & Generals, but I have read the >book. I am curious to hear the group's reactions to Shaara's actual >treatment of the war and of the book's potential as classroom material. I >felt the book, as opposed to the movie, was fairly evenly portrayed and did >not overly romanticize the South. The major impression I carried away from >the book was a sense of tragedy, bewilderment on both sides that secession >became an actual fact, and complete inability on the part of the highest >commanders of the Union army in the East (not the field generals, but men >like McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker). I suppose it is typical of >Hollywood (or Turner in this case) that a book that was worthy of an >endorsement by James McPherson has evidently been poorly translated into >film. > >One other thought, I have always wondered about McDowell's ability as a >commander. If he had not been relieved after Bull Run and given further >time to season his troops, I wonder if he would have been able to avoid the >mistakes his successors made and make a successful push on Richmond. What >if's are not the normal field for historians (nor should they be), but I >can't help wondering. Jim Hart > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:35:56 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Greg Kaster Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I agree with Matthew Penrod's comments regarding teaching history to young children. Currently I am consulting for a small-press biography series aimed at K-3 readers. I've been struck by how watered down, general, and, yes, boring these lives of Washington, Lincoln, and the like are. One justification on the part of the publisher involves the need to keep the language simple. That said, I've also been impressed by the editor's willingness to incorporate at least some complexity. For example, the draft version of the Lincoln bio. celebrated him as an "abolitionist" whose Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. The revised version speaks instead of how the proclamation changed the meaning of the war. And I think they've changed the subtitle from "Lawyer, President, Abolitionist" to "Lawyer, President, Emancipator" (not that the new word is unproblematic). I found helpful and insightful David Blight's comment about how we live our lives around conflict which may explain why so many people--including our students, whose lives are often filled with uncertainty and instability due to family crises and the like--wish for an orderly history that brings "resolution." Greg Kaster At 11:41 AM 3/13/2003 -0600, Matthew Penrod wrote: >My opinion to what David Blight wrote about teaching "against the grains:" >I absolutely agree. It's just that I think we need to catch students at a >much earlier age than college. I have an eight year old boy and he is >becoming more and more aware of history and I know I have a responsibility >to teach him properly - which means how to think critically about events >past and present. I absolutely detest feelgood history. No, not everyone >was a good guy. History isn't only supposed to be about facts it is also >about values, it is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. >When we abandon teaching values and critical thinking we surrender our >children to the tide of public opinion. Waiting until college is too late. >It must be done as early as third and fourth grade. And like I said, I >believe the kids can handle the ugliness in our history. They want to >learn right from wrong. They want to do and be better than those who live >or have lived immoral lives. > >Matthew Penrod > > > > > > David Blight > To: > CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Sent by: "Teaching the U.S. cc: > Civil War" Subject: Re: > Teaching the Civil War > V.CUNY.EDU> > > > 03/13/03 10:20 AM CST > Please respond to "Teaching > the U.S. Civil War" > > > > > > >Colleagues: > >I find Greg Kaster's and Mathew Penrod's statements fascinating and >troubling but not surprising. This is the kind of broad Civil War memory >that most >Americans still want - valor, sacrifice, noble heroes on both sides, >blunted ideology if any at all, and a Reconstruction where... "why didn't >they >just get over it already." > >What do we do about this? Just keep trying, keep teaching, keep searching >for ways to help young people know that history is about ideas as well as >drama, and that race can be talked about openly without someone feeling >condemned. We also need to help them realize that it is all right to make >some >judgements about the past - that an everyone was right, no one was wrong >approach to the past will never help us learn much that is valuable. And >the >comment about our therapeutic age is interesting. When memory comes up, >perhaps we are a culture now that is conditioned to demand some kind of >healing no matter what, a dissolution of difference. Many of us are >trained to teach the conflicts, or at least by instinct that is how we see >historical reality. Many people live their daily lives around conflict and >want history to be a story that gives them ORDER and COHESION and >RESOLUTION. A good story, a good movie, a good experience. We simply have >to teach against the grains, and that is what so many of you are doing. I >applaud. > >I have an out of town lecture trip tonight, returning tomorrow. I may not >be back on until pm sometime Friday. > >David Blight > >Greg Kaster wrote: > > > In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions > > about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil > > War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war >at > > this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen > > years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of > > whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what >they > > see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting >and > > killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the >war > > as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave > > society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they > > usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's > > end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made > > reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by >the > > ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee >as > > a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of > > him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than >Grant, > > Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick > > Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are > > generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis > > would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even > > irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an > > ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at >the > > time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to >put > > it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but > > I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters > > seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief >counseling--that > > word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for > > victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of > > Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of > > bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological > > history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite > > knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. > > > > Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war > > to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to > > mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of > > course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The > > last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how > > their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of > > the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better > > understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by > > Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and > > the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on > > either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new > > understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or > > even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. > > > > Greg Kaster > > Chair, Department of History > > Gustavus Adolphus College > > St. Peter, MN 56082 > > > > (507)-933-7431 > > gkaster@gac.edu > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at >http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:12:54 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Sackett, Pamela J." Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good luck trying to catch the students at an earlier age than college. I would be happy if my own Virginia educated children were even taught "feel good" history. All they are taught is how to answer the questions correctly for the state SOL (Standards of Learning) tests. To do this, they also require up to two weeks' class time to "review" possible questions, so no new material is covered. My 11th grader studied WWI in one week -- Tuesday and Thursday 90 minute blocks. I train my children how to THINK about history at the dinner table! I'm sorry to spout off about this subject, but this is a VERY BIG worry of mine and I'm in the "history" field. Pamela Myer Sackett Vice Chair, Brentsville Historic Center Trust =20 -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Penrod [mailto:Matthew_Penrod@NPS.GOV]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:41 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War My opinion to what David Blight wrote about teaching "against the grains:" I absolutely agree. It's just that I think we need to catch students at a much earlier age than college. I have an eight year old boy and he is becoming more and more aware of history and I know I have a responsibility to teach him properly - which means how to think critically about events past and present. I absolutely detest feelgood history. No, not everyone was a good guy. History isn't only supposed to be about facts it is also about values, it is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. When we abandon teaching values and critical thinking we surrender our children to the tide of public opinion. Waiting until college is too late. It must be done as early as third and fourth grade. And like I said, I believe the kids can handle the ugliness in our history. They want to learn right from wrong. They want to do and be better than those who live or have lived immoral lives. Matthew Penrod David Blight To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Sent by: "Teaching the U.S. cc: Civil War" Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War 03/13/03 10:20 AM CST Please respond to "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Colleagues: I find Greg Kaster's and Mathew Penrod's statements fascinating and troubling but not surprising. This is the kind of broad Civil War memory that most Americans still want - valor, sacrifice, noble heroes on both sides, blunted ideology if any at all, and a Reconstruction where... "why didn't they just get over it already." What do we do about this? Just keep trying, keep teaching, keep searching for ways to help young people know that history is about ideas as well as drama, and that race can be talked about openly without someone feeling condemned. We also need to help them realize that it is all right to make some judgements about the past - that an everyone was right, no one was wrong approach to the past will never help us learn much that is valuable. And the comment about our therapeutic age is interesting. When memory comes up, perhaps we are a culture now that is conditioned to demand some kind of healing no matter what, a dissolution of difference. Many of us are trained to teach the conflicts, or at least by instinct that is how we see historical reality. Many people live their daily lives around conflict and want history to be a story that gives them ORDER and COHESION and RESOLUTION. A good story, a good movie, a good experience. We simply have to teach against the grains, and that is what so many of you are doing. I applaud. I have an out of town lecture trip tonight, returning tomorrow. I may not be back on until pm sometime Friday. David Blight Greg Kaster wrote: > In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions > about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil > War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war at > this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen > years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of > whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what they > see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting and > killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the war > as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave > society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they > usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's > end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made > reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by the > ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee as > a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of > him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than Grant, > Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick > Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are > generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis > would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even > irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an > ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at the > time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to put > it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but > I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters > seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief counseling--that > word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for > victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of > Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of > bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological > history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite > knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. > > Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war > to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to > mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of > course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The > last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how > their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of > the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better > understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by > Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and > the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on > either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new > understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or > even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. > > Greg Kaster > Chair, Department of History > Gustavus Adolphus College > St. Peter, MN 56082 > > (507)-933-7431 > gkaster@gac.edu > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:51:08 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Paul S Rykken Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War Comments: To: David Blight Thanks to Professor Blight for articulating an important point about dealing with controversial issues. I teach in a high school in central Wisconsin with a 20% American Indian population (HoChunk tribe), and we confront this issue continually. Many of our white students simply feel that we need to "get over it already" when it comes to studying the troubling aspects of white-native relationships from history. We need to take stands about right and wrong without condemning. I'm reminded of Howard Zinn's book "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train." The advice concerning "teaching against the grain" is right on! That's our job. Paul S Rykken Black River Falls, Wisconsin This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:26:31 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "Whitman, Torrey S." Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War -- "Against the Grain Assignments" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RnJvbTogIFN0ZXBoZW4gV2hpdG1hbiwgTXQuIFN0LiBNYXJ5J3MgQ29sbGVnZQ0KIA0KICAgICAg ICAgIE9uZSB3YXkgdG8gZ2V0IHN0dWRlbnRzIHRvIGVuZ2FnZSBpcyBhIHdyaXRpbmcgYXNzaWdu bWVudCB0aGF0IGFza3MgdGhlbSB0byBhc3N1bWUgYSBzdGFuY2UNCnRoZXkgd291bGRuJ3Qgbm9y bWFsbHkgdGFrZSBzZXJpb3VzbHksIGUuZy4gd3JpdGUgYSBwYW1waGxldCBvciBwdWJsaWMgbGV0 dGVyIHRoYXQgb2ZmZXJzIGEgZGVmZW5zZSBvZg0Kc2xhdmVyeS4gIEkgdHJ5IHRvIGVtYmVkIHRo ZSBhc3NpZ25tZW50IGhpc3RvcmljYWxseSwgYnkgaGF2aW5nIHRoZW0gcmVhZCBwcm8tIGFuZCBh bnRpLXNsYXZlcnkgbWF0ZXJpYWxzDQphbmQgdGhlbiBvZmZlcmluZyBzZXZlcmFsIGNob2ljZXMg YXMgdG8gaWRlbnRpdHkgKGEgYmlnIHBsYW50ZXIsIGFuIGV2YW5nZWxpY2FsIG1pbmlzdGVyLCBh biBpbW1pZ3JhbnQgd29ya2VyLA0KZXRjLikuICBJdCdzIHdpc2UgdG8gb2ZmZXIgdGhpcyBhc3Np Z25tZW50IGFzIG9uZSBvZiBzZXZlcmFsIG9wdGlvbnMgdG8gYXZvaWQgZm9yY2luZyBhIHN0dWRl bnQgdG8gdGFrZSBvbg0KYW4gZW1vdGlvbmFsbHkgb2ZmZW5zaXZlIHRhc2suICBBdCBsZWFzdCBv Y2Nhc2lvbmFsbHksIHN0dWRlbnRzIGRvaW5nIHRoaXMgYXNzaWdubWVudCBtYWtlIHRoZSBjb25u ZWN0aW9uDQp0aGF0IHByby1zbGF2ZXJ5IHJoZXRvcmljIGhhcyBkaXN0dXJiaW5nIHNpbWlsYXJp dGllcyB0byBzb21lIGNvbnRlbXBvcmFyeSBkaXNjb3Vyc2Ugb24gcmFjZS4NCiANCiAgICAgICAg ICAgIA0KDQoJLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0gDQoJRnJvbTogUGF1bCBTIFJ5a2tl biBbbWFpbHRvOnJ5a2tlcGF1QEJSRi5PUkddIA0KCVNlbnQ6IFRodSAzLzEzLzIwMDMgMjo1MSBQ TSANCglUbzogQ0lWSUxXQVJGT1JVTUBBU0hQLkxJU1RTRVJWLkNVTlkuRURVIA0KCUNjOiANCglT dWJqZWN0OiBSZTogVGVhY2hpbmcgdGhlIENpdmlsIFdhcg0KCQ0KCQ0KDQoJVGhhbmtzIHRvIFBy b2Zlc3NvciBCbGlnaHQgZm9yIGFydGljdWxhdGluZyBhbiBpbXBvcnRhbnQgcG9pbnQgYWJvdXQN CglkZWFsaW5nIHdpdGggY29udHJvdmVyc2lhbCBpc3N1ZXMuICBJIHRlYWNoIGluIGEgaGlnaCBz Y2hvb2wgaW4gY2VudHJhbA0KCVdpc2NvbnNpbiB3aXRoIGEgMjAlIEFtZXJpY2FuIEluZGlhbiBw b3B1bGF0aW9uIChIb0NodW5rIHRyaWJlKSwgYW5kIHdlDQoJY29uZnJvbnQgdGhpcyBpc3N1ZSBj b250aW51YWxseS4gIE1hbnkgb2Ygb3VyIHdoaXRlIHN0dWRlbnRzIHNpbXBseSBmZWVsDQoJdGhh dCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvICJnZXQgb3ZlciBpdCBhbHJlYWR5IiB3aGVuIGl0IGNvbWVzIHRvIHN0dWR5 aW5nIHRoZQ0KCXRyb3VibGluZyBhc3BlY3RzIG9mIHdoaXRlLW5hdGl2ZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXBz IGZyb20gaGlzdG9yeS4gIFdlIG5lZWQgdG8NCgl0YWtlIHN0YW5kcyBhYm91dCByaWdodCBhbmQg d3Jvbmcgd2l0aG91dCBjb25kZW1uaW5nLiAgSSdtIHJlbWluZGVkIG9mDQoJSG93YXJkIFppbm4n cyBib29rICJZb3UgQ2FuJ3QgQmUgTmV1dHJhbCBvbiBhIE1vdmluZyBUcmFpbi4iICBUaGUgYWR2 aWNlDQoJY29uY2VybmluZyAidGVhY2hpbmcgYWdhaW5zdCB0aGUgZ3JhaW4iIGlzIHJpZ2h0IG9u ISAgVGhhdCdzIG91ciBqb2IuDQoJDQoJUGF1bCBTIFJ5a2tlbg0KCUJsYWNrIFJpdmVyIEZhbGxz LCBXaXNjb25zaW4NCgkNCglUaGlzIGZvcnVtIGlzIHNwb25zb3JlZCBieSBIaXN0b3J5IE1hdHRl cnMtLXBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCBvdXIgV2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2hpc3RvcnltYXR0ZXJzLmdt dS5lZHUgZm9yIG1vcmUgcmVzb3VyY2VzIGZvciB0ZWFjaGluZyBVLlMuIEhpc3RvcnkuDQoJDQoN Cg== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:12:46 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: I have found comments about teaching and talking about the Civil War with young people very interesting. I guess that I would only add at this point that one of the things we have to try to convey is that so much of what we learn from the past depends on how we ask the questions. What historical questions do we really want to pose? If we don't even find ways to ask about such vexing problems as slavery then we probably won't learn much about it. I need to also add that beginning Sunday, March 16 I will be in Virginia for four days, until March 21 - teaching an institute on the Civil War for the National Park Service in Harpers Ferry and delivering a lecture at the University of Virginia. I will do my best to access email from the Park Service training center in Harpers Ferry. But if I am slow you will know why. This should not stop anyone from continuing these dialogues with one another. all the best, David Blight ps. I lectured last night to the Joshua Chamberlain Civil War Roundtable last night in Brunswick, Maine. I just want to convey that it was a great time being in Chamberlain Mecca, but especially that two students, one from Bowdoin and one from Connecticut College, gave me a tour this morning. They were then heading off on their spring break to Gettysburg and sites in Virginia. Any cynicism we may have about young folks' interest in the Civil War was very much put aside for me by these two serious young budding historians. One is a reenactor and the other is soon heading off to graduate school. So keep the faith. They had very astute criticisms of Gods and Generals. Matthew Penrod wrote: > My opinion to what David Blight wrote about teaching "against the grains:" > I absolutely agree. It's just that I think we need to catch students at a > much earlier age than college. I have an eight year old boy and he is > becoming more and more aware of history and I know I have a responsibility > to teach him properly - which means how to think critically about events > past and present. I absolutely detest feelgood history. No, not everyone > was a good guy. History isn't only supposed to be about facts it is also > about values, it is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. > When we abandon teaching values and critical thinking we surrender our > children to the tide of public opinion. Waiting until college is too late. > It must be done as early as third and fourth grade. And like I said, I > believe the kids can handle the ugliness in our history. They want to > learn right from wrong. They want to do and be better than those who live > or have lived immoral lives. > > Matthew Penrod > > David Blight > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Sent by: "Teaching the U.S. cc: > Civil War" Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > V.CUNY.EDU> > > 03/13/03 10:20 AM CST > Please respond to "Teaching > the U.S. Civil War" > > Colleagues: > > I find Greg Kaster's and Mathew Penrod's statements fascinating and > troubling but not surprising. This is the kind of broad Civil War memory > that most > Americans still want - valor, sacrifice, noble heroes on both sides, > blunted ideology if any at all, and a Reconstruction where... "why didn't > they > just get over it already." > > What do we do about this? Just keep trying, keep teaching, keep searching > for ways to help young people know that history is about ideas as well as > drama, and that race can be talked about openly without someone feeling > condemned. We also need to help them realize that it is all right to make > some > judgements about the past - that an everyone was right, no one was wrong > approach to the past will never help us learn much that is valuable. And > the > comment about our therapeutic age is interesting. When memory comes up, > perhaps we are a culture now that is conditioned to demand some kind of > healing no matter what, a dissolution of difference. Many of us are > trained to teach the conflicts, or at least by instinct that is how we see > historical reality. Many people live their daily lives around conflict and > want history to be a story that gives them ORDER and COHESION and > RESOLUTION. A good story, a good movie, a good experience. We simply have > to teach against the grains, and that is what so many of you are doing. I > applaud. > > I have an out of town lecture trip tonight, returning tomorrow. I may not > be back on until pm sometime Friday. > > David Blight > > Greg Kaster wrote: > > > In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions > > about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil > > War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war > at > > this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen > > years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of > > whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what > they > > see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting > and > > killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the > war > > as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave > > society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they > > usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's > > end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made > > reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by > the > > ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee > as > > a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of > > him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than > Grant, > > Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick > > Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are > > generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis > > would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even > > irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an > > ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at > the > > time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to > put > > it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but > > I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters > > seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief > counseling--that > > word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for > > victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of > > Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of > > bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological > > history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite > > knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. > > > > Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war > > to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to > > mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of > > course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The > > last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how > > their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of > > the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better > > understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by > > Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and > > the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on > > either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new > > understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or > > even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. > > > > Greg Kaster > > Chair, Department of History > > Gustavus Adolphus College > > St. Peter, MN 56082 > > > > (507)-933-7431 > > gkaster@gac.edu > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:33:39 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Peter Haro Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Professor Blight: What historical questions do you pose to your students regarding the Civil War? In addition, do you recommend any particular sources that might help raise the historical questions that you refer to? Please elaborate. Sincerely, Pete Haro. -------Original Message------- From: David Blight Sent: 03/14/03 12:12 PM To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > > Colleagues: I have found comments about teaching and talking about the Civil War with young people very interesting. I guess that I would only add at this point that one of the things we have to try to convey is that so much of what we learn from the past depends on how we ask the questions. What historical questions do we really want to pose? If we don't even find ways to ask about such vexing problems as slavery then we probably won't learn much about it. I need to also add that beginning Sunday, March 16 I will be in Virginia for four days, until March 21 - teaching an institute on the Civil War for the National Park Service in Harpers Ferry and delivering a lecture at the University of Virginia. I will do my best to access email from the Park Service training center in Harpers Ferry. But if I am slow you will know why. This should not stop anyone from continuing these dialogues with one another. all the best, David Blight ps. I lectured last night to the Joshua Chamberlain Civil War Roundtable last night in Brunswick, Maine. I just want to convey that it was a great time being in Chamberlain Mecca, but especially that two students, one from Bowdoin and one from Connecticut College, gave me a tour this morning. They were then heading off on their spring break to Gettysburg and sites in Virginia. Any cynicism we may have about young folks' interest in the Civil War was very much put aside for me by these two serious young budding historians. One is a reenactor and the other is soon heading off to graduate school. So keep the faith. They had very astute criticisms of Gods and Generals. Matthew Penrod wrote: > My opinion to what David Blight wrote about teaching "against the grains:" > I absolutely agree. It's just that I think we need to catch students at a > much earlier age than college. I have an eight year old boy and he is > becoming more and more aware of history and I know I have a responsibility > to teach him properly - which means how to think critically about events > past and present. I absolutely detest feelgood history. No, not everyone > was a good guy. History isn't only supposed to be about facts it is also > about values, it is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. > When we abandon teaching values and critical thinking we surrender our > children to the tide of public opinion. Waiting until college is too late. > It must be done as early as third and fourth grade. And like I said, I > believe the kids can handle the ugliness in our history. They want to > learn right from wrong. They want to do and be better than those who live > or have lived immoral lives. > > Matthew Penrod > > David Blight > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Sent by: "Teaching the U.S. cc: > Civil War" Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > V.CUNY.EDU> > > 03/13/03 10:20 AM CST > Please respond to "Teaching > the U.S. Civil War" > > Colleagues: > > I find Greg Kaster's and Mathew Penrod's statements fascinating and > troubling but not surprising. This is the kind of broad Civil War memory > that most > Americans still want - valor, sacrifice, noble heroes on both sides, > blunted ideology if any at all, and a Reconstruction where... "why didn't > they > just get over it already." > > What do we do about this? Just keep trying, keep teaching, keep searching > for ways to help young people know that history is about ideas as well as > drama, and that race can be talked about openly without someone feeling > condemned. We also need to help them realize that it is all right to make > some > judgements about the past - that an everyone was right, no one was wrong > approach to the past will never help us learn much that is valuable. And > the > comment about our therapeutic age is interesting. When memory comes up, > perhaps we are a culture now that is conditioned to demand some kind of > healing no matter what, a dissolution of difference. Many of us are > trained to teach the conflicts, or at least by instinct that is how we see > historical reality. Many people live their daily lives around conflict and > want history to be a story that gives them ORDER and COHESION and > RESOLUTION. A good story, a good movie, a good experience. We simply have > to teach against the grains, and that is what so many of you are doing. I > applaud. > > I have an out of town lecture trip tonight, returning tomorrow. I may not > be back on until pm sometime Friday. > > David Blight > > Greg Kaster wrote: > > > In response to David Blight's interesting and I think important questions > > about the perceptions/expectations students bring to a class on the Civil > > War: I've taught my upper-level seminar (c. 10-15 students) on the war > at > > this liberal arts college in Minnesota probably ten times in my seventeen > > years here. My students, not all of whom are history majors but all of > > whom have been white, bring to the course an intense interest in what > they > > see as the war's central drama (and tragedy): (white) brother fighting > and > > killing (white) brother. They have little if any understanding of the > war > > as revolutionary in its destruction of slavery and southern slave > > society. And they almost uniformly agree on the importance of what they > > usually term "healing" and "closure" immediately following the war's > > end. A harsh Reconstruction, they argue, would only have made > > reconciliation alll the more difficult and the treatment of freedmen by > the > > ex-master class even worse. They evince considerable reverence for Lee > as > > a gentleman and general, even if they've never read a biography of > > him. (Indeed they seem more interested in, or romanced by, Lee than > Grant, > > Lincoln, or Davis.) I assign Professor Blight's fine book on, _Frederick > > Douglass' Civil War_, and while earlier in the semester students are > > generally sympathetic to Douglass' fervent hope that the sectional crisis > > would yield to an abolitionist war, they later grow impatient, even > > irritated, with the post-war Douglass who insisted on preserving an > > ideological abolitionist memory of the war. Like Douglass' critics at > the > > time, most of my students view him as living in the past, as unable to > put > > it all behind him and move on. (I haven't thought a lot about this, but > > I'm often struck by how students' language in discussing these matters > > seems drawn in part from the therapeutic language of grief > counseling--that > > word "closure" keeps coming up--combined with a disdain for > > victimhood.) Some students, usually but not always male, are masters of > > Civil War military/battlefield knowledge (down to the micro-nuances of > > bullets and buttons), even if they know little about the ideological > > history of the war. And at least a few, not surprisingly, are quite > > knowledgeable about and proud of the role of the First Minnesota. > > > > Since I want students to understand that they bring a "memory" of the war > > to the class, I begin each semester by having them jot down what comes to > > mind when they hear the prompt "The Civil War." With some exceptions, of > > course, their jottings typically hint at the views summarized above. The > > last day of class we return to their opening-day jottings and discuss how > > their understanding--their memory--of the war has changed as a result of > > the course, if it has. I do think most students leave with a better > > understanding of the war's ideological complexity; its transformation by > > Lincoln, abolitionists, and slaves themselves into an abolition war; and > > the ideological similarities and differences between those who fought on > > either side of the conflict. Still, I also have the sense that this new > > understanding does not take deep hold and certainly doesn't supplant or > > even seriously challenge the memory with which they began the course. > > > > Greg Kaster > > Chair, Department of History > > Gustavus Adolphus College > > St. Peter, MN 56082 > > > > (507)-933-7431 > > gkaster@gac.edu > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:11:21 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Matthew Lavington Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > Original Message: Dear Professor Blight: What historical questions do you pose to your students regarding the Civil War? In addition, do you recommend any particular sources that might help raise the historical questions that you refer to? Please elaborate. Sincerely, Pete Haro. Dear Dr. Blight, 1-Like Peter Haro, I would too, be very interested your historical questions. 2-The issue / attitude "get over it already" is often a product of us vs. them history. In fact very telling of my own pre-collegiate impressions of history. How have High School teachers splayed history on the disection slab to open minds and hearts and achieve greater empathy among this group of students. Cheers, Matthew Lavington _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:44:22 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter, Matthew and others: Well, I simply have in mind the big questions we want our students to grasp and face: what really brought about disunion? Why was slavery such a divisive issue, politically, economically, morally? Did proslavery thought and antislavery thought become so fundamentally at odds that it made some kind of ultimate conflict all but inevitable in America? Why did the Republican party threaten Southern planters so much? Why did the American political party system disintegrate in the 1850s? What was secession really all about? Was it a constitutional act? Was the Confederacy a "nation" or a "revolution?" Why did the North win the war? What factors were most significant in Union victory or Confederate defeat? Did the South lose its "will?" Is the Civil War really the birth of "modern" America? If so how? How did the war re-shape Americans' views of government? Of military service? Of death itself? Who or what really freed the slaves? If both sides fought for ideologies, what were they? If both sides fought for "liberty," then were both equally right in their cause? On what grounds do we best make such judgments? Should Confederate leaders have been tried for "treason?" Why did it take violence on such a scale to free the slaves in America, whereas other countries did so largely by legislation? Is the Civil War a Second American Revolution? These are some questions that I try to make sure my course address, if not always fully answer. with all best, David Blight Matthew Lavington wrote: > > Original Message: > Dear Professor Blight: What historical questions do you pose > to your students regarding the Civil > War? In addition, do you recommend any particular sources > that might help raise the historical > questions that you refer to? Please elaborate. Sincerely, Pete > Haro. > > Dear Dr. Blight, > 1-Like Peter Haro, I would too, be very interested your historical > questions. > > 2-The issue / attitude "get over it already" is often a product of us vs. > them history. In fact very telling of my own pre-collegiate impressions of > history. How have High School teachers splayed history on the disection > slab to open minds and hearts and achieve greater empathy among this group > of students. > Cheers, Matthew Lavington > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:44:57 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here are some of the things that I do when I teach my high school elective on the American Civil War: 1. When introducing the war, I try to show how something from 140 years has relevance in my students' lives today. Luckily, the South Carolina Confederate flag controversy has thrust the war back into the spotlight within the last 3 years. I ask them "How can this flag represent heritage and hatred at the same time? Is someone's view more right (correct) than another's view? Why?" Also, I've recently used Andrew Curry's article in U.S. News and World Report from Sept. 30, 2002 entitled "The Better Angels" that looks at the changing CW scholarship at the NPS sites and how we're moving away from the men of valor idea to what really caused the war - slavery. For some high school kids, talking about the history of history, or historiography, can be a bit daunting, but I get them through it. In the past, I've used excerpted chapters from Tony Horwitz's book - the chapters "Dying for Dixie" and "Cats of the Confederacy" - but I think I've made the mistake of not making sure that the kids see that this book doesn't paint too broad a picture of the whole South for my students. I've also shown parts of the History Channel's documentary, The Unfinished Civil War which aired a few years ago. I've heard that re-enactors hate this video b/c of the negative stereotypes that are portrayed in the video. From the people whom I have met and interacted with, I'd say the film is accurate. The film does say qualify itself - that the couple in question voice a feeling that isn't often heard - that blacks had it better under slavery than freedom back in the 19th Century. Part of what my students walk away with from this unit is that the legacy of racial inequality stems from what happened not only during the Civil War, but before it in the roots of slavery and after the CW in the broken promises of Reconstruction as well. This legacy still affects us in many of the things that we see today - in things like affirmative action, hate crimes, slavery reparations, the economic gap between black and white families, the frequent inability of black coaches to become head coaches in the NFL, and many other things. Also, (and I'm stealing from Horwitz and from Kenneth Davis' book, Don't Know Much About the Civil War), I propose to them the hypothesis that the Civil War is not over - yes, the shooting is over, but, no, how the war is interpreted certainly isn't over. All this usually gets done in the first week and a half and then I get into slavery as a cause for about 2-3 weeks and then 2-3 on states rights and economics as causes also. More on those later. Hope this is specific enough for those who have been asking. Geoff Wickersham Groves High School, Beverly Hills, MI "Don't drink the water, there's blood in the water" - Dave Matthews Band. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Lavington" To: Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:11 PM Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > > Original Message: > Dear Professor Blight: What historical questions do you pose > to your students regarding the Civil > War? In addition, do you recommend any particular sources > that might help raise the historical > questions that you refer to? Please elaborate. Sincerely, Pete > Haro. > > Dear Dr. Blight, > 1-Like Peter Haro, I would too, be very interested your historical > questions. > > 2-The issue / attitude "get over it already" is often a product of us vs. > them history. In fact very telling of my own pre-collegiate impressions of > history. How have High School teachers splayed history on the disection > slab to open minds and hearts and achieve greater empathy among this group > of students. > Cheers, Matthew Lavington > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:14:41 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geoff: These are wonderful suggestions for hooking students on current legacies and relavance. Great ideas. The only thing I would add is that sometimes it also helps to see if they have any kind of family connections to the war. I would remind again that I will be only on this email list-serve sporadically over the next 4-5 days while I am on the road. Keep the good ideas flowing. David Blight Geoff Wickersham wrote: > Here are some of the things that I do when I teach my high school elective > on the American Civil War: > 1. When introducing the war, I try to show how something from 140 years has > relevance in my students' lives today. Luckily, the South Carolina > Confederate flag controversy has thrust the war back into the spotlight > within the last 3 years. I ask them "How can this flag represent heritage > and hatred at the same time? Is someone's view more right (correct) than > another's view? Why?" > > Also, I've recently used Andrew Curry's article in U.S. News and World > Report from Sept. 30, 2002 entitled "The Better Angels" that looks at the > changing CW scholarship at the NPS sites and how we're moving away from the > men of valor idea to what really caused the war - slavery. For some high > school kids, talking about the history of history, or historiography, can be > a bit daunting, but I get them through it. In the past, I've used excerpted > chapters from Tony Horwitz's book - the chapters "Dying for Dixie" and "Cats > of the Confederacy" - but I think I've made the mistake of not making sure > that the kids see that this book doesn't paint too broad a picture of the > whole South for my students. > > I've also shown parts of the History Channel's documentary, The Unfinished > Civil War which aired a few years ago. I've heard that re-enactors hate > this video b/c of the negative stereotypes that are portrayed in the video. > From the people whom I have met and interacted with, I'd say the film is > accurate. The film does say qualify itself - that the couple in question > voice a feeling that isn't often heard - that blacks had it better under > slavery than freedom back in the 19th Century. > > Part of what my students walk away with from this unit is that the legacy of > racial inequality stems from what happened not only during the Civil War, > but before it in the roots of slavery and after the CW in the broken > promises of Reconstruction as well. This legacy still affects us in many of > the things that we see today - in things like affirmative action, hate > crimes, slavery reparations, the economic gap between black and white > families, the frequent inability of black coaches to become head coaches in > the NFL, and many other things. Also, (and I'm stealing from Horwitz and > from Kenneth Davis' book, Don't Know Much About the Civil War), I propose to > them the hypothesis that the Civil War is not over - yes, the shooting is > over, but, no, how the war is interpreted certainly isn't over. > > All this usually gets done in the first week and a half and then I get into > slavery as a cause for about 2-3 weeks and then 2-3 on states rights and > economics as causes also. More on those later. Hope this is specific > enough for those who have been asking. > > Geoff Wickersham > Groves High School, Beverly Hills, MI > "Don't drink the water, there's blood in the water" - Dave Matthews Band. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Lavington" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War > > > > Original Message: > > Dear Professor Blight: What historical questions do you pose > > to your students regarding the Civil > > War? In addition, do you recommend any particular sources > > that might help raise the historical > > questions that you refer to? Please elaborate. Sincerely, > Pete > > Haro. > > > > Dear Dr. Blight, > > 1-Like Peter Haro, I would too, be very interested your historical > > questions. > > > > 2-The issue / attitude "get over it already" is often a product of us vs. > > them history. In fact very telling of my own pre-collegiate impressions > of > > history. How have High School teachers splayed history on the disection > > slab to open minds and hearts and achieve greater empathy among this group > > of students. > > Cheers, Matthew Lavington > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 19:14:08 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War In-Reply-To: <8BB06941FA99D411961800D0B79DBB6E02F239EF@exchange.pwc.ad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Good luck trying to catch the students at an earlier age than college. >I would be happy if my own Virginia educated children were even taught >"feel good" history. All they are taught is how to answer the questions >correctly for the state SOL (Standards of Learning) tests. To do this, >they also require up to two weeks' class time to "review" possible >questions, so no new material is covered. My 11th grader studied WWI in >one week -- Tuesday and Thursday 90 minute blocks. > >I train my children how to THINK about history at the dinner table! I'm >sorry to spout off about this subject, but this is a VERY BIG worry of >mine and I'm in the "history" field. It's a major issue in every field. Standardized testing has a demonstrably bad effect on education, but it's a "feel good" political topic--to say you're against standardized tests seems to say that you're against standards. The weird thing is that the standardized tests folks make a big deal about how important it is to have numbers to *prove* that what you're doing is good, and yet they have no numbers to support the very notion of standardized testing. In any case, have any of you tried _Lies My Teacher Told Me_? It has a really good introduction about what's wrong with how history is taught, and I was thinking about having my students read that. I thought, at least, it could get an interesting discussion going. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "I ranted to the knave and fool, But outgrew that school, Would transform the part, Fit audience found, but cannot rule My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:59:03 -0500 Reply-To: dwblight@amherst.edu Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Organization: Amherst College Subject: Re: Teaching the Civil War MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Someone once said that good teaching is ultimately a somewhat "subversive act." Against the grains? Slip in some good teaching and some tough questions around those standardized tests wherever you can folks. I am off now to teach a 3-day institute for National Park Service rangers and historians at Harpers Ferry on the Civil War era. I'll report their thoughts as best I can. Maybe some of them will log on and engage some of you as well. with all best, David Blight Trish Roberts-Miller wrote: > >Good luck trying to catch the students at an earlier age than college. > >I would be happy if my own Virginia educated children were even taught > >"feel good" history. All they are taught is how to answer the questions > >correctly for the state SOL (Standards of Learning) tests. To do this, > >they also require up to two weeks' class time to "review" possible > >questions, so no new material is covered. My 11th grader studied WWI in > >one week -- Tuesday and Thursday 90 minute blocks. > > > >I train my children how to THINK about history at the dinner table! I'm > >sorry to spout off about this subject, but this is a VERY BIG worry of > >mine and I'm in the "history" field. > > It's a major issue in every field. Standardized testing has a > demonstrably bad effect on education, but it's a "feel good" > political topic--to say you're against standardized tests seems > to say that you're against standards. The weird thing is that the > standardized tests folks make a big deal about how important it > is to have numbers to *prove* that what you're doing is good, and > yet they have no numbers to support the very notion of standardized > testing. > > In any case, have any of you tried _Lies My Teacher Told Me_? It > has a really good introduction about what's wrong with how history > is taught, and I was thinking about having my students read that. > I thought, at least, it could get an interesting discussion going. > -- > Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com > "I ranted to the knave and fool, > But outgrew that school, > Would transform the part, > Fit audience found, but cannot rule > My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) > http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:19:35 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: "W. Wayne Smith" Subject: And Reconstruction It seems to me that we need to teach Reconstruction as a part of the Civil War Course. I say this for several reasons. (1) Research in the Reconstruction phase has been vibrant and fruitful over the last few years. In fact, we can see a new historical intepretation, in that the Reconstruction Era was more conservative than we originally argued. (2) Those who ignore the Reconstruction Era tend to end up with a "buff's view" of the war. These was especially true for war historians in the 1950's-1960's. (3) Essentially, the Reconstruction Era is where the Union lost the war and conservative Southerners prevailed. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:33:17 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: jeffrey rinde Subject: Re: And Reconstruction In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I can not agree more ! Reading Eric Foner helped to convince me. --- "W. Wayne Smith" wrote: > It seems to me that we need to teach Reconstruction > as a part of the Civil > War Course. I say this for several reasons. (1) > Research in the > Reconstruction phase has been vibrant and fruitful > over the last few > years. In fact, we can see a new historical > intepretation, in that the > Reconstruction Era was more conservative than we > originally argued. (2) > Those who ignore the Reconstruction Era tend to end > up with a "buff's > view" of the war. These was especially true for war > historians in the > 1950's-1960's. (3) Essentially, the Reconstruction > Era is where the Union > lost the war and conservative Southerners prevailed. > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please > visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu > for more resources for teaching U.S. History. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:04:25 -0500 Reply-To: orvalbear@excite.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Karen Hall Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I teach reconstruction as part of a Civil Rights study. Reconstructions doesn't end until 1968. When the African-American comunity gets the same rights as the rest of America. I do teach portions of it after the civil war. I have had some students argue that in parts of the south reconstruction is still happeneing because those areas are still under the standard of what the rest of the United states is at. I think it is not a time period that can be pinned into a specific eriod of time and that is why it is not always taught with the Civil war. Karen Hall Creedmoor, NC --- On Thu 03/20, W. Wayne Smith < wwsmith36@AOL.COM > wrote: From: W. Wayne Smith [mailto: wwsmith36@AOL.COM] To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:19:35 -0500 Subject: And Reconstruction It seems to me that we need to teach Reconstruction as a part of the Civil
War Course. I say this for several reasons. (1) Research in the
Reconstruction phase has been vibrant and fruitful over the last few
years. In fact, we can see a new historical intepretation, in that the
Reconstruction Era was more conservative than we originally argued. (2)
Those who ignore the Reconstruction Era tend to end up with a "buff's
view" of the war. These was especially true for war historians in the
1950's-1960's. (3) Essentially, the Reconstruction Era is where the Union
lost the war and conservative Southerners prevailed.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:10:40 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Chandra Manning Subject: Re: And Reconstruction Comments: To: Karen Hall In-Reply-To: <20030321130425.77BCE3D30@xmxpita.excite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reconstruction as a logical starting point for a class on Civil Rights does not necessarily disqualify it from inclusion in a class on the Civil War, though, does it? I think that there might be a difference between the achievement of the work and the goals of Reconstruction, and the end of Reconstruction. Reconstruction does have an official end-date: 1877 when the troops pull out. The fact that the work of Reconstruction had not been achieved by that time, and that much of what was achieved soon got undone, might actually be one of the important points. In other words, there was an ending and it was not happy. That can be tough on students (and their teachers), but it has never seemed to me that because a conclusion is difficult to countenance is a good enough reason to decide to avoid it. What I have not figured out is how to include both the War and Reconstruction without feeling like all semester is an all-out sprint. So I pretty much just keep my running shoes on, but I hope one day to find a better solution. all best, Chandra Manning On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Karen Hall wrote: > I teach reconstruction as part of a Civil Rights study. Reconstructions doesn't end until 1968. When the African-American comunity gets the same rights as the rest of America. I do teach portions of it after the civil war. I have had some students argue that in parts of the south reconstruction is still happeneing because those areas are still under the standard of what the rest of the United states is at. I think it is not a time period that can be pinned into a specific eriod of time and that is why it is not always taught with the Civil war. > > Karen Hall > Creedmoor, NC > > > --- On Thu 03/20, W. Wayne Smith < wwsmith36@AOL.COM > wrote: > From: W. Wayne Smith [mailto: wwsmith36@AOL.COM] > To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:19:35 -0500 > Subject: And Reconstruction > > It seems to me that we need to teach Reconstruction as a part of the Civil
War Course. I say this for several reasons. (1) Research in the
Reconstruction phase has been vibrant and fruitful over the last few
years. In fact, we can see a new historical intepretation, in that the
Reconstruction Era was more conservative than we originally argued. (2)
Those who ignore the Reconstruction Era tend to end up with a "buff's
view" of the war. These was especially true for war historians in the
1950's-1960's. (3) Essentially, the Reconstruction Era is where the Union
lost the war and conservative Southerners prevailed.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
> > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:33:20 -0800 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Rea Redd Subject: Civil Rights History MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello Esteemed Colleagues! As a matter of speculation: If the Civil War and Reconstruction is a part of Civil Rights history (I aggree), then can it be said that the assassination of Lincoln is a turning point of both the Civil War and of Civil Rights movement in America? If so, how so? ===== "The past is never dead. It's not even past." Wm. FaulknerRea Andrew Redd, Associate Professor, Waynesburg CollegeDirector of Library Systems, History Instructor or 724.852.3254 (desk), 724.627.4188 (fax) Assisstant Surgeon, Medical Service, Ninth Pennsylvania Reserves, a Civil War Reenactment Unit __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:13:57 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Albert Mackey Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15b.1d63479e.2bacbe75_boundary" --part1_15b.1d63479e.2bacbe75_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/21/03 4:59:57 AM Hawaiian Standard Time,=20 orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes: >=20 Perhaps we should say the first attempt at Reconstruction ended in 1877.=A0=20 After that there was an accommodation between North and South.=A0 The Civil=20 Rights Movement brought about a second attempt to complete Reconstruction. Best Regards, Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_15b.1d63479e.2bacbe75_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/21/0= 3 4:59:57 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes:


Reconstructions doesn't end= until 1968.


Perhaps we should say the first attempt at Reconstruction ended in 1877.= =A0 After that there was an accommodation between North and South.=A0 The Ci= vil Rights Movement brought about a second attempt to complete Reconstructio= n.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --part1_15b.1d63479e.2bacbe75_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:23:54 EST Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Maureen Murphy Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From someone who has to go from Columbus to 1898 in one semester and the twentieth century in another, I understand what sprinting during semesters means. But we can emphasize what we think is really important. Reconstruction is important. The change in the way we are viewing Reconstruction is important (showing parts of "Birth of a Nation" can expose this). I think one of the most important events during Reconstruction was the ratification of the Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th). Slavery is ended, due process and equal protection under the law for all citizens and voting rights are put into the Constitutuion. Supreme Court decisions immediately weakened them but they were there for the future. The 14th and 15th amendments will not be used for their original intent until the Civil Rights era of the mid twentieth century. If they did not exist would we have had a legal leg to stand on in Brown V. Board of Education (1954) or Civil Rights legislation in the 60's? Would we have been able to ratify such amendments in the early or mid-twentieth century? Maureen Murphy Hoover High Des Moines, IA This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:42:39 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0B5E0BA7F08A8992E15324D2" --------------0B5E0BA7F08A8992E15324D2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello again everyone: for all those writing about Reconstruction, I want to add my voice to the chorus who believe that the war and Reconstruction should be combined in the same course. I have always taught it that way. My colleague, Jim Horton, and I just taught a three-day institute for the National Park Service where we concentrated on the Civil War and Recon. Reconstruction is indeed the period of American history that so many Americans seem to know so little about. You are all quite right to link it ahead to the modern civil rights movement. But it is impossible to understand the meanings of the Civil War without covering the Recon. period. That 1877 ending date is of course the Compromise after the disputed election. But remember, that the business of pulling out the final troops is partly mythology. There were very few troops left in the South at that point and most were in garrison forts on the coast. There is indeed a very rich literature on Reconstruction. In subsequent posts I can begin to list some if people desire. all best, David Blight Albert Mackey wrote: > In a message dated 3/21/03 4:59:57 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, > orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes: > > > >> Reconstructions doesn't end until 1968. > > Perhaps we should say the first attempt at Reconstruction ended in > 1877.Ý After that there was an accommodation between North and South.Ý > The Civil Rights Movement brought about a second attempt to complete > Reconstruction. > > Best Regards, > Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our > Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for > teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------0B5E0BA7F08A8992E15324D2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello again everyone:

for all those writing about Reconstruction, I want to add my voice to the chorus who believe that the war and Reconstruction should be combined in the same course.  I have always taught it that way.  My colleague, Jim Horton, and I just taught a three-day institute for the National Park Service where we concentrated on the Civil War and Recon.  Reconstruction is indeed the period of American history that so many Americans seem to know so little about.  You are all quite right to link it ahead to the modern civil rights movement.  But it is impossible to understand the meanings of the Civil War without covering the Recon. period.  That 1877 ending date is of course the Compromise after the disputed election.  But remember, that the business of pulling out the final troops is partly mythology.  There were very few troops left in the South at that point and most were in garrison forts on the coast.  There is indeed a very rich literature on Reconstruction.

In subsequent posts I can begin to list some if people desire.

all best,

David Blight

Albert Mackey wrote:

In a message dated 3/21/03 4:59:57 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, orvalbear@EXCITE.COM writes:
 
 
Reconstructions doesn't end until 1968.

Perhaps we should say the first attempt at Reconstruction ended in 1877. After that there was an accommodation between North and South. The Civil Rights Movement brought about a second attempt to complete Reconstruction.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. --------------0B5E0BA7F08A8992E15324D2-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:07:54 -0500 Reply-To: orvalbear@excite.com Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Karen Hall Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I show Birth of a nation as part of a resurgence in the KKK and predujuce feelings that came during the Woodrow Wilson Presidency. Under the presidency of Grant and the later presidence of the 1800 the KKK and other racially motivated groups were on the decline. With Wilson they began to have larger numbers also there were more race riots during the Wilson Presidency than in others before him. If you are going to use that movie for reconstruction you should point out this fact. Karen Hall --- On Fri 03/21, Maureen Murphy < MurphyMo@AOL.COM > wrote: From: Maureen Murphy [mailto: MurphyMo@AOL.COM] To: CIVILWARFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:23:54 EST Subject: Re: And Reconstruction From someone who has to go from Columbus to 1898 in one semester and the
twentieth century in another, I understand what sprinting during semesters
means. But we can emphasize what we think is really important.
Reconstruction is important. The change in the way we are viewing
Reconstruction is important (showing parts of "Birth of a Nation" can expose
this).

I think one of the most important events during Reconstruction was the
ratification of the Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th). Slavery is
ended, due process and equal protection under the law for all citizens and
voting rights are put into the Constitutuion. Supreme Court decisions
immediately weakened them but they were there for the future.

The 14th and 15th amendments will not be used for their original intent
until the Civil Rights era of the mid twentieth century. If they did not
exist would we have had a legal leg to stand on in Brown V. Board of
Education ( 1954) or Civil Rights legislation in the 60's? Would we have
been able to ratify such amendments in the early or mid-twentieth century?

Maureen Murphy
Hoover High
Des Moines, IA

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:47:29 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Trish Roberts-Miller Subject: Re: And Reconstruction In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I will confess that, when it comes to reconstruction, I more or less throw up my hands and say, my oh my oh my! Man, is that era a mess. -- Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com "I ranted to the knave and fool, But outgrew that school, Would transform the part, Fit audience found, but cannot rule My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:30:33 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colleagues: Reconstruction is certainly not a subject to just throw up our hands about. The assumption of its "complexity" is really overrated. It is rich and dramatic and full of conflict. It is also hugely important as many of you say here. Using "birth of a Nation" is a good idea. But as many of you know, it is always worth being careful with that film when young people encounter it for the first time. They often do not know whether to laugh or moan or cry. It needs some careful contextualization by the teacher - its historical moment of 1915 needs to be developed. One cannot overestimate its importance at the time it was released. One useful overall way to approach teaching Reconstruction is to teach it in at least three chronological parts - one, wartime Reconstruction (1863-65); Radical Reconstruction (1865-70); and the Retreat from Reconstruction (1870-77). A good book on the retreat is by William Gillette, Retreat from Reconstruction. It is entirely possible to teach all perspectives about Recon. - southern, black, northern, carpetbagger, diehard ex-Confederate, - all in a week's time or in 3-5 sessions of a course. Another way to think about it is of course, topically - legal, political, economic, and the fate of the freedpeople. Recon. is a great Constitutional story, and it is also a great story about an on-going social revolution on the ground in the South. PBS is making a major new documentary about Recon as well. all best for now, David Blight Trish Roberts-Miller wrote: > I will confess that, when it comes to reconstruction, I more or less > throw up my hands and say, my oh my oh my! > > Man, is that era a mess. > > -- > Trish Roberts-Miller redball@mindspring.com > "I ranted to the knave and fool, > But outgrew that school, > Would transform the part, > Fit audience found, but cannot rule > My fanatic heart." (WB Yeats) > http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~robertsmiller/homepage.html > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:10:55 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Jim Hart Subject: Reading List Dr. Blight, I would appreciate a list of the most important studies of Reconstruction published since 1997 (works that would show up on a grad. reading list). I have a solid reading list up to that point, but know little about the most recent work. As long as I'm bringing up bibliographies, I would also appreciate a short list of the most important recent works on the road to war and the war itself. Thanks, Jim Hart This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:40:13 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Paddy Swiney Subject: Re: And Reconstruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I begin the second half of my American history survey with Reconstruction. 4-5 sections every semester, and I do it in three 1 hr. courses. (I didn't say I do it well). I try to present it as competing interests--the Radicals, the Republican party, ex-slaves, Confederate hierarchy, white yeoman farmers, etc.- and as some lost, some gained opportunities. Paddy Swiney Tulsa Community College Tulsa, OK_____________________________________ If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible warning. -Catherine Aird- This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:37:42 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: Reading List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Hart and others: As for recent Reconstruction scholarship, some of the books before 1997 are still essential and the best - Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution; Gillette's Retreat from Reconstruction; Perman's Road to Redemption, and so forth. But recently you would want to check out Brooks Simpson's The Reconstruction Presidents; Heather Richardson's The Death of Reconstruction; and perhaps Robert Goldman, Reconstruction and Black Suffrage: Losing the Vote, in Reese and Cruikshank, Landmark Law Cases and American Society series, Univ. Press of Kansas. There has been some good new work out on violence and on the Freedmen's bureau as well, but they escape the top of my head right now. Another good work on suffrage (since Goldman is heavy legal history) is Xi Wang, The Trial of Democracy: Black Suffrage and Northern Republicans, 1860-1910. And of course, for the the Reconstruction period and beyond two essential works are Edward Ayers, The Promise of the New South; and Leon Litwack's Trouble in Mind. A good new teaching book is John David Smith, Black Voices of Reconstruction. And finally, look for a brand new book by Steven Hahn about black southerners in Reconstruction and beyond. It will be a blockbluster I think, coming out this spring. This is an unsystematic list to start with. best, David Blight Jim Hart wrote: > Dr. Blight, I would appreciate a list of the most important studies of > Reconstruction published since 1997 (works that would show up on a grad. > reading list). I have a solid reading list up to that point, but know > little about the most recent work. As long as I'm bringing up > bibliographies, I would also appreciate a short list of the most important > recent works on the road to war and the war itself. Thanks, Jim Hart > > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:22:11 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: Geoff Wickersham Subject: New topic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well folks, I figured the inactivity on here had to do more with reality and current history intruding on past history, but as I taught about Fort Sumter this week, discussed the political wranglings of Lincoln and Davis, and the patriotic reactions to the bombing in both the North and the Confederacy, I was struck by a few parallels. My students were reading excerpts from Stephen Oates' "The Approaching Fury" and I used a section that showcased Mary Chesnut's, Fred Douglass', W.L. Garrison's, and H.B. Stowe's reactions. All reacted differently, like many of us have reacted differently, I'm sure to the current war. Some students couldn't understand how Mary Chesnut saw the North as "rash, headstrong," and impetuous when the CSA was the one that bombed the fort. I reminded them of the slave oligarchy's perspective - the election of Lincoln was a sure sign that the North had changed their mind about slavery. Plus, couldn't John Brown's raid be considered rash? Douglass fully embraced the war for the freedom of slaves held in bondage - and I asked students to compare this current war as if it's the same thing - war for Iraqi freedom vs. Douglass' view of the war (war for slaves' freedom). Most thought that there were shades of similarities, but the concensus was that it wasn't exactly the same. Jeff Davis didn't supposedly have chemical weapons nor was he frustrating the UN for 12 years. The kids realize that "Iraqi freedom" isn't the only reason why US troops are there. Garrison threw aside his doctrine of pacifism and gave his support to Lincoln in a pragmatic decision to support the final grapple with the CSA for the destruction of slavery. I made the connection for my students that many politicians have put aside their differences with the President (or muted them considerably) in an effort to show support for the troops. I think of Tom Daschle in particular. Election time is right around the corner and these same politicians don't want to be haunted by comments that they might have made that would reflect negatively upon them leading up to November 2004. It's the classic argument of principle vs. pragmatism. Stowe remarked on two things: the sudden patriotism of Americans after the bombing and how there were flags everywhere, people marching, signing up, banners everywhere. We discussed the sudden change in America after 9/11/01 and how America was united soon after we got over the "shock and horror" -that's my term for it - of our commerical aircraft being used like kamikaze planes during WW2. Dubya's critics rallied behind him then for a few months (critics felt it was back to the buffoonish Bush soon after that darn pretzel at the Super Bowl). Stowe also remarked on sending off the young men to war. This, of all the things we talked about, rang true this week. I've never taught my Civil War elective with an actual war going on at the same time (and I hope I never have to again), but the soldiers who went off to war this time were young, 18-21, just a couple of years older than my juniors and seniors. Some of us even knew former graduates who were in the armed forces and were over in Iraq right now. My students are draft age, and despite the constant reassurances of "no draft, no draft" by Rumsfeld, I know that it's got to be a huge concern in my students' mind - much like it was 12 years ago when I was draft eligible and the first U.S. - Iraq War began. Anxious moments for my kids. And they are kids, no matter how old they are considered by law. It will be interesting to see where the anti-war protests go from here in America in the next few weeks/months, especially if no chemical/bio/nuclear weapons are found or used, and I wonder how I can tie them in with the Civil War. I've already talked about the arrests in Maryland and suspension of habeas corpus to stop secessionists, and I plan to talk about Clement V. and his merry band of pranksters. We've discussed the copperhead/peace democrat issue previously, but just looking for some more relevancy to current topics. I'm sure they'll come to me as we go along. Take care, and godspeed to the end of this war, Geoff Wickersham Groves High School Beverly Hills, MI "There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief, "There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief." - "All Along the Watchtower", Bob Dylan/Jimi Hendrix/ Dave Matthews Band This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:29:24 -0600 Reply-To: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" Sender: "Teaching the U.S. Civil War" From: David Blight Subject: Re: New topic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geoff and others: This is a very interesting reaction and suggestion about parallels between the Civil War and our current war in Iraq. This is a very effective way to teach of course and I would only urge you to keep making your students think in comparative terms. It is always useful and we can really be relevant now. But there are huge differences too. Douglass's view of war against the South is quite different from our current struggle here at home to understand just what a best foreign policy would be to resist terrorism. In 1861 it was a war about the enslavement of Americans within our own society. It was about the very meaning and future existence of an American republic. The global ramifications of this current war, and of our relationships with the rest of the world (much diminished by failed diplomacy and a preemptive war) are a different set of questions than what Americans faced in the spring of 1861. On the level of what human beings go through in facing war, in dealing with combat, in understanding sacrifice and loyalty - these are all largely universal questions. There are also interesting legal parallels: how was the Civil War sanctioned? The Iraq War? Some comparisons of how the "media" covers war would be useful as well. Today we can live with live images of this war all day if we choose. How were news and impressions of the war controlled in 1861-65? Moreover, has the notion of "honor" changed over time? Has the role of presidential leadership changed? Economic mobilization? thanks for making us think about this. I invite others to weigh in on this matter of parallels in the remaining two days we have . with all best, David Blight Geoff Wickersham wrote: > Well folks, I figured the inactivity on here had to do more with reality and > current history intruding on past history, but as I taught about Fort Sumter > this week, discussed the political wranglings of Lincoln and Davis, and the > patriotic reactions to the bombing in both the North and the Confederacy, I > was struck by a few parallels. > > My students were reading excerpts from Stephen Oates' "The Approaching Fury" > and I used a section that showcased Mary Chesnut's, Fred Douglass', W.L. > Garrison's, and H.B. Stowe's reactions. All reacted differently, like many > of us have reacted differently, I'm sure to the current war. Some students > couldn't understand how Mary Chesnut saw the North as "rash, headstrong," > and impetuous when the CSA was the one that bombed the fort. I reminded > them of the slave oligarchy's perspective - the election of Lincoln was a > sure sign that the North had changed their mind about slavery. Plus, > couldn't John Brown's raid be considered rash? > > Douglass fully embraced the war for the freedom of slaves held in bondage - > and I asked students to compare this current war as if it's the same thing - > war for Iraqi freedom vs. Douglass' view of the war (war for slaves' > freedom). Most thought that there were shades of similarities, but the > concensus was that it wasn't exactly the same. Jeff Davis didn't supposedly > have chemical weapons nor was he frustrating the UN for 12 years. The kids > realize that "Iraqi freedom" isn't the only reason why US troops are there. > > Garrison threw aside his doctrine of pacifism and gave his suppo