Civil War Memory

The Virginia Forum

I am looking forward to next week’s conference in Winchester, Virginia at Shenandoah University. This is the first meeting of the Virginia Forum, which has been organized by Warren Hofstra and Brent Tarter. The conference brings together scholars from different fields to explore various themes in the history of Virginia. My session is on memory – as if I even had to tell you. Here is a list of participants and brief descriptions of their papers. I am totally psyched for next weekend.

Session: The Continuing Civil War

Marie Tyler-McGraw, Research Historian, presiding and commenting

James J. Broomall, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, "Beyond the Big House: Interpreting and Remembering Slaves and Slavery in Fredericksburg"

James J. Broomall is currently a Master of Arts candidate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for a degree in history with a concentration in museum studies. He received his Bachelor of Arts in history with a concentration in American history from the University of Delaware in 2000. Last year, he completed an internship at the Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Military Park where he worked with staff members to construct and implement a slave-based tour of Chatham Manor—18th century plantation located north of Fredericksburg, Virginia. During this experience, he uncovered fascinating yet troubling stories concerning the plantation’s slave community. He is utilizing portions of this research for the paper he will present at the Virginia Forum. Slave resistance, external representations of the slave past, and notions of remembrance are compelling topics, which have influenced his historical interests to date.

Program Overview:

Two remarkable episodes—exposures of slavery’s tenuous position 19th century society—occurred at Chatham Manor, located in Stafford County, Virginia. In January 1805, a number of slaves revolted against their overseer leaving four people dead, forcing the transportation of two others, and striking fear into the hearts of local Virginians. Forty-five years later an enslaved women, Ellen Mitchell, purchased her freedom and that of her children. How can these dramatic moments of resistance be successfully incorporated today into museum tours and reveal the complex and often-contradictory bonds between master and slave?

This paper will focus on 19th century Virginia slavery with the goal of exposing pivotal moments in Chatham’s past that can be integrated into museum interpretive tours. Slavery’s meaning then and how it should be viewed and used today are important considerations for the historical community. The politics of historical memory, moreover, twist public representations of slavery. These distortions in turn obscure interpretive opportunities that are intimately connected to the world that slaves at Chatham made. My findings not only reveal new dimensions of life at Chatham; they also speak more generally to the rich possibilities available when interpreting the institution of slavery at any house museum or cultural institution in Virginia.

Kevin M. Levin, St. Anne's–Belfield School, "Landscapes and the Lost Cause: An Analysis of the 1903 and 1937 Crater Reenactments"

Kevin M. Levin teaches American history and the Civil War at the St. Anne’s – Belfield School in Charlottesville, Virginia. His most recent publication is titled, “William Mahone, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History, which appeared in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (December 2005). He is currently working on a book-length manuscript on postwar commemorations and memory of the Battle of the Crater.

Presentation Overview:

This paper explores the 1903 and 1937 reenactments of the battle of the Crater fought in the city of Petersburg, Virginia on July 30, 1864. On both occasions the general public was presented with a version of the famous fight at the Crater, shaped not only by the experiences of the veterans’ own subjective memory but also by the Lost Cause tradition and its accompanying political outlook. Evidence for this can be seen in the blatant omission of African American participation from the 1903 reenactment, even though United States Colored Troops played an important role at the Crater and were a prominent feature in the letters and diaries of Confederates immediately following the battle and later in postwar recollections. Reenactments performed the vital function of connecting memory to landscape, which solidified a narrow view of the Civil War well into the twentieth century. Understanding this process, its outcome and consequences sheds light on the creation and maintenance of public memory. A closer examination of the evolution of public memory surrounding Civil War battlefields is indispensable to the goal of providing necessary correctives to the way these sites are interpreted.

Sarah Selvaggio, Chemical Heritage Foundation, "The Loathing of Lincoln: Understanding the Lost Cause in a Popular Culture Context"

Originally from Wilmington Delaware, Sarah received her BA in History from the University of Delaware in 2003. She continued on and received her MA in American History with a certification in Museum Studies in 2005 from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Currently, Sarah is working at the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia Pa. As a program assistant in the Collections Department Sarah is working on the building of an archival, object and research collection based on the life of Intel’s co-founder, Gordon Moore.

Sarah has also completed internships at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia Pa, The Guilford Courthouse National Military Park in Greensboro North Carolina and Altapass Historic Apple Orchard located in Little Switzerland North Carolina. She has presented at the North Carolina Museum Council Annual Conference on Digitalizing History and has received the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference scholarship to attend the Modern Archives Institute in Washington DC.

Presentation Overview:

My paper, “The Loathing of Lincoln: Understanding the Lost Cause in a Popular Culture Context” examines the modern perpetuation of the Lost Cause and southern memory by using the 2003 protests in Richmond Virginia against the Lincoln statue as a case study. While pro-confederate groups and their actions do not directly connect with the historical idea of what constitutes the Lost Cause, currently some groups are re-interpretating the Lost Cause ideals in order to regain and reinstate Confederate pride. By using the protests against the erecting of the Lincoln statue in Virginia, I suggest that these public actions and discussions insinuate that there is a degree to which the Lost Cause, however distorted, remains a part of the modern landscape.

Because this is a mostly a study of the Lost Cause in a popular culture I have combined sources used in historical and ethnographical studies in order to examine current sources on memory. For example, my paper relies heavily on internet websites that are run by or hosted by neo-Confederate activist groups. By examining these websites I conclude that these groups refashioned the Civil War from a battle over actual space to a battle waged over virtual space. I also use neo-Confederate conferences, Web blogs, as well as recent and historical writings about the Lost Cause.

Carlton McCarthy's Confederate Battle Flag

Given the ongoing public debates surrounding the displaying of the Confederate battle flag and the recognition of Confederate History and Heritage Month I thought it might be time for a little dip into the past. In 1882 Carlton McCarthy published a little study of the Confederate soldier titled, Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia (B.F. Johnson Publishing Co., Atlanta, GA). I don't know anything about the author except that he had a brother who was killed at Cold Harbor in 1864. The final chapter offers some observations about the history and display of the Confederate battle flag:

The Confederate banner, the witness and inspiration of many victories, which was proudly borne on every field from Manassas to Appomattox, was conceived on the field of battle, lived on the field of battle, and on the last fatal field ceased to have place or meaning in the world. But the men who followed it, and the world which watched its proud advance or defiant stand, see in it still the unsustained banner of a brave and generous people, whose deeds have outlived their country, and whose final defeat but added lustre to their grandest victories. It was not the flag of the Confederacy, but simply the banner, the battle-flag, of the Confederate soldier. As such it should not share in the condemnation which our cause received, or suffer from its downfall. The whole world can unite in a chorus of praise to the gallantry of the men who followed where the banner led. (p. 225)

What I find interesting is that McCarthy clearly believed that the narrow meaning of the flag as the symbol of the Confederate soldier is conditional. Here is how the author concludes this chapter.

This much about the battle-flag, to accomplish, if possible, two things: first, preserve the little history connected with the origin of the flag; and, second, place the battle flag in a place of security, as it were separated from all the political significance which attaches to the Confederate flag, and depending for its future place solely upon the deeds of the armies which bore it, amid hardships untold, to many victories. (p. 230)

McCarthy was clearly worried that the public display of the battle flag for reasons having nothing to do with the soldier would alter its meaning. Now, what does McCarthy mean by "place of security"? While I can't be sure, my guess is that he probably would agree with the suggestion that the best place to display the flag is in a location where it can be properly interpreted: How about a museum?

AHA Proposal

I recently contributed a chapter from my Crater manuscript to a collection of essays that is being edited by Aaron-Sheehan Dean. The book is scheduled to be published by the University of Kentucky Press in September and is titled The View From the Ground: The Experiences of Civil War Soldiers. The title of the article is, “'Is Not the Glory Enough to Give us All a Share?': An Analysis of Competing Memories of the Battle of the Crater, July 30, 1864.” In addition to the book, Aaron put together a panel from the list of contributors for possible inclusion in the AHA's 2007 meeting in Atlanta. This proposal will give you a sample of the essay topics contained in the book. My guess is that the proposal will be approved. I enjoyed my time in Philadelphia this past January, though the AHA is an overwhelming experience given the numbers and the range of panels. I much prefer the OAH or SMH; however, I still need to get to one of the SHA meetings. The problem is that it takes place in November and it is difficult to break away from teaching at that time.

Soldiers, Citizens, and Sources: The Uses of Civil War Soldiers in Writing U.S. History

This roundtable will explore the state of the field with regard to current writing on Civil War soldiers. The participants all feature soldiers as central actors in their research and writing. The roundtable would be an opportunity for the participants and the audience to explore how the unusually large and rich sources generated by Civil War soldiers can be used in a wide variety of histories.

Kent Dollar's work focuses on Confederate soldiers and their spiritual lives. By exploring how the war challenged the faith of many soldiers, Dollar's research expands the scope of antebellum Christianity, bringing men fully into the picture, and demonstrating the great value of war-time sources for social historians. Chandra Manning's work on race, democracy, and war explores how men on both sides understood the nature of the conflict. Of signal importance, she shows the evolution of racial opinion in the North, where soldiers emerged as the earliest advocates of emancipation. Like Dollar, Manning reveals the utility of Civil War sources for historians concerned with larger questions of American history. Charles Brooks's research on common soldiering in early America connects the Civil War experience to previous engagements and demonstrates the profound links between the duties and privileges of citizenship and military service. Jason Phillips's work offers a dynamic reading of motivation among soldiers. In his research on Confederates' images of Northerners, Phillips shows the unpredictable way wars can lead people to transform their visions of their enemies and of themselves. Last, Kevin Levin's research on veterans and Civil War memory explores the political content of war histories. Levin uncovers the conflicts that outlast the war, the fault lines and hidden controversies that often define the peace.

In our current state of war, the necessity of understanding common soldiers as full historical actors is crucial. These historians bring a host of valuable perspectives to the table. In particular, the participants can compare and discuss the effects of war upon religion, democracy, race, nationalism, and post-war life. Equally important, they are qualified to explain the ways that civilian attitudes shape the nature of military conflicts. Last, the roundtable will provide an opportunity for audience members conducting their own research in related fields to talk with the presenters about the nature and utility of Civil War sources for a wide variety of topics.

Some Good Things To Look

Some Good Things To Look Forward To

Today I received advanced copies of two books to be published by the University of North Carolina Press in the next few weeks. The first book is The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864 edited by Gary W. Gallagher and is scheduled for release on April 29. No doubt many of you are familiar with the Military Campaigns of the Civil War Series. This volume includes 11 essays and runs just over 400 pages which is significantly longer than the other books in the series. Unfortunately, the notice that comes with the book indicates that this is to be the "final book" in the series. The second title is The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll and has a release date of April 24. This book is part of a new series edited by William Blair. Happy reading.

How To Treat A Textbook

How To Treat A Textbook

One of my favorite students came by this morning to talk about the reading assignment in her textbook. This is a student that I've mentioned before on this blog. I had to look twice at her textbook when she opened it up as the margins were completely filled with the most detailed notes that I've ever seen in a student textbook. As I flipped through her book I noticed the same thing on just about every page. She had notes from primary sources, quotes from my lectures, and comments on the illustrations contained in the book. Some of the notes were written in English while others were written in Korean. Even more impressive was the highlighting. Now, I make it a point to tell my students to never use highlighting as a way to study as it creates a "seeming sense" of understanding. However, in this case the student had used different colors to highlight for different reasons; there was a method behind what appeared to be sheer madness. I was tempted to ask if I could keep her textbook as a sample of how to treat a textbook. It has been a pleasure teaching this student. All too often AP students start out with an eagerness and curiosity only to get bogged down in the amount of reading and writing for the course. It is not an easy curriculum. Given that English is not this student's first language it has been wonderful watching her grow in confidence and in her curiosity for this country's history. She mentioned that a career in International Relations may be in her future. I told her to make sure that I write one of her letters of recommendation next year.

Andy Prutsok asks: "Is it

Andy Prutsok asks: "Is it Political Correctness or Something Else?" It's Something Else

Prutsok reports that members of Suffolk County's chapter of the SCV are hurt by the mayor's refusal to issue a proclamation declaring April Confederate Heritage and History Month. One member suggested:

These were real heroes,” he said. “They stood for faith, honor and duty. Those are the things we need to be teaching our young people today. These basketball stars are not heroes.”

He said one of his most prized possessions is his 10th grade history book from Suffolk High School, which he described in some detail. It had chapter headings like “Defending Virginia,” and had illustrations of Confederate soldiers carrying their flag on horseback.

You can rest assured that I am not propping up basketball stars as our new pantheon of heroes. As I've stated in previous posts recent decisions limiting the public acknowledgment of Confederate history has nothing to do with political correctness. I actually have no idea what it even means. Seems to me that it is overused more as a means to evade the tough questions surrounding public history. If organizations like the SCV want to continue to celebrate their preferred version of the past than they should do so. However, what they need to begin to acknowledge is that the political make-up of local governments has changed in many places over the past few decades and with it the memory of local and national history. It is important to remember that these more recent developments in no way detract from the very same conditions that created the SCV's preferred narrative of our past at the turn of the twentieth century. I can hear the calls of African Americans in the 1890's and beyond wondering why their history was not being included in public ceremonies. Answer: Because they could not take part in the public discussion (i.e. they could not vote!).

An Encounter With A Brain

An Encounter With A Brain

I had anticipated this moment last night for a few days, but somehow with everything going on I forgot. A few minutes after my wife and I finished dinner around 8:30 she told me to put my shoes on since we were to go down to the basement. I did as I was told and descended the stairs. Sitting on the washing machine was a plastic container. Michaela handed me a pair of gloves as she opened the box. In it was a well-preserved human brain (my wife is a Ph.D student in Neuroscience at the University of Virginia) that she will be using today for a demonstration in a local school. I've never seen a human brain, but not only did I now have a close-up view, but I was able to handle it as well. Simply observing the organ was interesting enough, but touching and poking at various parts revealed both its beauty and complexity. As I poked Michaela explained the function of each part from where emotions to analytical thinking are located. As I stared longer it occurred to me that I was staring at myself; in that moment the mind-body distinction collapsed in a way that any reductionist explanation in the philosophy of mind literature fails to do. The fragility of my own consciousness came into sharp focus as I recalled the story of Phineas Gage whose emotional life was severely altered as a result of an explosion that caused a steel rod to move completely through a section of his brain. It also occurred to me that I was holding an archive of someone's experiences.

On the Importance of Imagination in Historical Studies

In the 1940’s British philosopher R.G. Collingwood argued that historical knowledge was grounded in the imagination. Collingwood’s philosophy of history, as explicated in his classic work The Idea of History, was meant as a response to positivist philosophers who argued that historical studies should be treated as proto-scientific theories. According to Carl Hempel, the theoretical sciences offered the paradigm example of what it means to explain an event. Understanding an event in the sciences reduced to referencing a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that causally explained the event under question. If historians claim to explain events in the past, according to the positivists (which they do since they commonly use causal language) than they must apply the causal model used in the theoretical sciences.

Collingwood claimed that history cannot be understood along narrow scientific terms since historical knowledge is not rooted in a theoretical model. According to Collingwood, a historian must imagine himself in the shoes of a historical figure (he must imagine himself into the past or engage in an extreme form of empathy) and only then can she gain full insight into the event in question. While Collingwood may have succeeded in defining the study of history in a way that removed it from the standards of the theoretical sciences he won few converts. Many argued that Collingwood threw the baby out with the bathwater as he ignored the importance of a scientific attitude, including the role of evidence, the concept of competing explanations, and the role of analytical thought in both the writing and analysis of historical studies. How do you critically analyze whether a historian has successfully imagined himself into the past?

Although Collingwood went too far I admire his focus on the importance of imagination as an integral part of the historical process. As historians at the time understood, they must apply an analytical rigor that is akin to the scientific process. They analyze sources and engage one another in debate over the best way to explain a specific subject. Debate is often dry or “academic” and often sinks into linguistic or conceptual analysis rather than a discussion of what happened and why. I believe wholeheartedly that the analytical skills applied by the best historians are absolutely essential and I work hard as a teacher to encourage those same skills in my students.

While I acknowledge all of that, what I value most in my historical journey are those historians and books that force me to re-imagine or re-think the past. It is not enough that I know more and more about any given subject, I also want to be challenged in a way that places my most fundamental assumptions in check. The analytical and imaginative aspects of critical history are in no way contradictory; in fact, they are both equally essential to the process.

This is a roundabout way of saying that my interest in social history and race relations/slavery should not be understood as simply a particular taste. Yes, I find those subjects to be of interest in the same way that many of my readers find the traditional battlefield to be of interest. But for me it goes further. I find these areas interesting because the historians behind them happen to be incredibly imaginative, and I can think of no better example of this than the last few decades of American slavery studies. Eugene Genovese’s Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made is not simply a well argued and analytically rigorous book. Genovese forces the reader to see the relationship between slaves and slaveholders in a completely new light. You my not agree with his conclusions; however, he raises new questions that only emerge from placing on hold preconceived notions. I’ve used sections of this book in my AP classes and my students notice it right away because they have been trained to see slavery in such simplistic terms. The relatively recent interpretive approaches by historians such as Ira Berlin, David Brian Davis, and Bernard Bailyn which place American slavery within the broader context of the “Atlantic World” is yet another example of this imaginative process.

The same can be said for cultural, social, and gender studies of American history and the Civil War in particular. And again, it is not that I am hardwired in a way that I find these types of studies attractive; what I enjoy is that they broaden my horizons by introducing me to new questions, new explanations, new people, and new connections. At times I do find the theoretical jargon to be just a bit heavy, but who ever said that historical understanding had to be straightforward? I may not agree with their conclusions but they force me to think in ways that are beyond my purview at any given time.

I’ve read my fair share of Civil War military history. My shelves are lined with books by Gordon Rhea, Harry Pfanz, Bob Krick, Stephen Sears, Richard Sommers, and yes I’ve read and thoroughly enjoyed them all. What they do is invaluable and absolutely necessary given that the Civil War was in the end a war. That said, traditional Civil War military history does not give me that sense of wonder and curiosity compared with some of these other branches of history. What I like about Mark Grimsley’s Blog Them Out of the Stone Age is his emphasis on asking new questions and broadening the scope of traditional military history. It can and should evolve like every other area of inquiry. As I’ve said all along, we don’t just want to know more, we want to know better.

Civil War Talk Radio I

Civil War Talk Radio

I just got off the phone with Professor Gerry Prokopowicz of East Carolina University and the host of Civil War Talk Radio. I immediately recognized his voice as I make it a point to listen as much as possible. Many of you are no doubt listeners and fellow bloggers Dimitri Rotov, Mark Grimsley, and Eric Wittenberg have appeared on the show. Given the list of previous guests it is an honor to be asked to take part. We plan to talk about the Crater, teaching the Civil War on the high school level, and blogging. The taping is in May and I will keep you updated as to when it airs.

Why Nations Forget Here is

Why Nations Forget

Here is an interview (via History News Network) with European historian Tony Judt of New York University on the origin and process behind post-WWII constructions of European history:

In the interview, excerpted below, Judt argues that Europeans were able to put their societies back together again after World War II by creating acceptable myths and forgetting much of their history. This struck the editors of HNN as a remarkable statement for a historian to make considering how hard historians work at uncovering the truth.

The following question calls for a reader's response. Only registered readers can take part: "Are there times when the truth, like dynamite, has to be handled with care?"