home |
many pasts |
evidence |
www.history |
blackboard |
reference
talking history | syllabi | students | teachers | puzzle | about us
talking history | syllabi | students | teachers | puzzle | about us
=========================================================================
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
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.
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 Manassas Virginia
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 Georgetown =
University
I can only speak about my little corner of =
Virginia Virginia Virginia
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>
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 New =
Jersey 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
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
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 Manassas
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 Manassas Manassas
Manassas Prince =
William =
County Virginia Virginia Virginia
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
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
In conclusion, I do carry this Diaspora theme into my =
work
to interpret what happened in this tiny once unassuming =
Virginia America Virginia
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
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:
For
seven years, I have been immersed in the study of a town called Brentsville , Virginia Manassas Virginia
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 Georgetown University
I
can only speak about my little corner of Virginia Virginia Virginia
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
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 New
Jersey 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
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
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 Manassas
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 Manassas Manassas
Manassas Prince William County Virginia Virginia Virginia
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
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
In
conclusion, I do carry this Diaspora theme into my work to interpret what
happened in this tiny once unassuming Virginia America Virginia
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
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