Somehow I overlooked Thomas Brown’s The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration for my proposed course on Civil War memory. The book is part of Bedford/St. Martin’s "The Bedford Series in History and Culture" which covers a broad range of subjects in American history. The nice thing about these books is their length which makes them ideal for classroom use. The chapters are short and include an excellent selection of primary sources. Thomas Brown’s book will be perfect for my course as it includes chapters on Civil War soldiers, Lincoln, Lee, the 54th Massachusetts, and women. The primary sources include inscriptions, paintings, statues, monument designs as well as public addresses and two perspectives on the public display of the Confederate flag. The book will also be very helpful in preparation for day-long trips through Charlottesville and Richmond, which will include stops along Monument Avenue and Hollywood Cemetery. This is going to be an awesome class.
It’s that time of the year again when I have to decide what courses to teach next fall. We are moving to a trimester schedule which will present a number of challenges relating to the amount of material which can be covered. I thought about teaching the Lincoln course once again, but decided against it given the number of students who will have already read William Gienapp’s biography in the survey course. I also played around with a course centered on the history of children, which would use Steven Mintz’s Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood. In the end I decided on a survey course on the Civil War in the first trimester and a course on memory in the second. Students will be encouraged to register for both classes and should prove to be quite an experience given the amount and range of material which can be covered between the two courses. Keep in mind that this is a rough description and outline. Feel free to offer suggestions and remember that this is an elective for high school students.
Course Description for Civil War Memory
“The Civil War is our felt history—history lived in the national imagination” wrote Robert Penn Warren in 1961. Indeed the Civil War occupies a prominent place in our national memory and has served to both unite and divide Americans. This course will explore the various ways in which Americans have chosen to remember their civil war through literature, monuments and memorials, histories, film, art, as well as other forms of popular culture. We will examine how memory of the war changed over time as well as the political implications for Civil War memory. Specific subjects to be addressed include the role of reunion and reconciliation in shaping memory of the war, the place of slavery in our national narratives of the war, public disputes over the display of the Confederate flag, changing perceptions of such notable figures as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and “Stonewall” Jackson, as well as other controversies surrounding the way in which the war has been remembered in public spaces. We will pay particular attention to the way in which the war has been remembered and commemorated here in Charlottesville in such places as the Confederate cemetery at the University of Virginia, Lee and Jackson Park, and Courthouse Square. Additional field trips may include the Museum of the Confederacy, American Civil War Center at Tredegar, and Hollywood Cemetery – all in Richmond, Virginia. Students are encouraged to take the Civil War course, which will be offered in the first trimester.
Robert Penn Warren, The Legacy of the Civil War (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, reprint, 1998).
David W. Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).
Gary W. Gallagher, Causes Won, Lost & Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know About the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008).
Thomas J. Brown, The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration: A Brief History With Documents (Boston: Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2004).
[Additional readings will be made available by the instructor.]
Outline [very rough]:
Week 1: Early commemorations and Reconstruction
Week 2: Competing Memories of the War
Week 3: The Soldiers’ Memory
Week 4: Americans Remember Lee, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant
Week 5: Black Americans Remember in the Jim Crow Era
Week 6: Reconciliation and Reunion at Gettysburg
Week 7: The Civil Rights Movement and Civil War Centennial
Week 8: The Civil War in Film
Week 9: The Civil War in Art and Reenacting
Week 10: Displaying the Confederate flag and other public controversies
A belated Happy Lee-Jackson Day to you all. Feel free to sing along!
"We thank you for our country today it’s not what it once was." That about sums it up.
In the introduction to his biography, The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson, historian Bernard Bailyn briefly examines how distance from the historical event under analysis shapes the interpretation. According to Bailyn, early histories “that follow a great and controversial event are still a significant part of the event itself.” For the historian, “the outcome [of the event] is still in question,” writes Bailyn, and “emotions are still deeply engaged.” This emotional attachment to the event by historians “especially those involved in the event in question” leaves wide open issues relating to how the event will be explained, what aspects of it will be remembered, and which participants will be included and why. Throughout this early stage of historical interpretation assumptions and conclusions remain in flux. Only later is the historian able to see clearly from a more detached perspective where “earlier assumptions of relevance, partisan in their nature, seem crude, and fall away.” As I read these passages Bailyn is not suggesting that distance necessarily leads to philosophical objectivity, but that it tends to allow historians to attain a more detached perspective where they are able to ask more engaging perspectives that address multiple perspectives.
The historiography of the Civil War presents us with an interesting counterexample to Bailyn’s outline. On the one hand the historical profession has in the last few decades attained a kind of objectivity that has resulted in an outpouring of studies that have shed new light on old questions as well as a wide spectrum of new topics. While this scholarship has broadened our understanding of mid-nineteenth century America it has also revealed the fact that not everyone (perhaps not even most Civil War enthusiasts) have yet to move beyond the point where their “emotions are still deeply engaged.” Examples abound from the public display of the Confederate flag to questions about Lincoln’s civil liberties record to the divisive topics of slavery and race. I should say that I see nothing necessarily wrong with having one’s emotions engaged in the work of uncovering the past as long as it does not become an obstacle to the historical process. In the case of the Civil War and especially (though not exclusively) in reference to topics related to the antebellum South and Confederacy the emotional hold that the past exercises on many continues to result in materials that ultimately tell us more about our own values than much of anything having to do with history.
We see this very clearly in the documentary Still Standing: The Stonewall Jackson Story, which was released last year by Franklin Springs Family Media. The video is produced and directed by Ken Carpenter and based on the book, Stonewall Jackson: Black Man’s Friend by Richard Williams, which offers an account of Jackson’s views on slavery and the history of his Sunday School class for slaves and free blacks in Lexington, Virginia. Williams is included as a talking head along with historians James I. Robertson and Col. Keith Gibson of VMI. As a broad overview of Jackson’s life from cradle to grave the documentary succeeds. I was very impressed with the footage of Jackson’s childhood stomping grounds as well as the discussion of the difficulties he faced throughout his early years owing to the death of his parents. While I don’t claim to understand Jackson I find him to be an incredibly sympathetic character and the documentary does a very good job of imparting the sadness of his early years. I also enjoyed the segments on Jackson’s private life, including the grief surrounding the loss of his first wife and unborn child and subsequent marriage to Mary Anna Jackson. Overall the documentary is visually stunning and I commend the production staff for the pace of the narrative as well as the choice of visual materials.
Unfortunately, the narrative attempts to cover too much given its running time of 50 minutes. While the video succeeds in terms of broad coverage when it comes to more specific subjects it is less than satisfying. The fundamental flaw is the lack of any attempt at providing context for Jackson’s life. Jackson is an island unto himself regardless of whether the focus is on his religious outlook or racial views. For example, in the context of his belief that slaves ought to be taught to read there is no discussion of how this assumption fits into Presbyterian doctrine or any broader religious context that might help the viewer better understand why Jackson believed this. Was this unusual in Lexington and in Rockbridge County? Instead we are treated to a confused explanation suggesting that while Jackson believed slavery to be wrong he believed God was responsible for it and was not justified in interfering; however, he did believe himself to be justified in improving the condition of slaves within the Lexington community. Need I point out the contradiction here? The producers perhaps would have had better luck if they had dispensed with the broad overview and instead focused specifically on Jackson’s relationship with his slaves as well as his racial views. More importantly, there is no discussion of how Jackson’s attitudes compared with other slave owners in Rockbridge County or the Shenandoah Valley. Perhaps they could have interviewed historian Fitzhugh Brundage who is the author of one of the finest studies of slavery in the county.
The problem emerges again when briefly discussing Jackson’s decision to resign from the U.S. Army and align himself with Virginia and the Confederacy. The talking heads make a conscious effort to remove any and all references to slavery when discussing Jackson’s decision here. Interestingly enough, a similarly narrow approach is typically taken when addressing Robert E. Lee’s decision to resign from the U.S. Army. According to Robertson, Jackson was “not fighting to preserve slavery.” He goes on to suggest that “there is no way he could fight to do that….I don’t think he was willing to do something so evil.” I’m not sure that a slave owner would have thought of that as “evil.” According to Robertson, Jackson was “fighting for his home state of Virginia” and a “way of life.” I guess we are supposed to forget that this way of life revolved around the ownership of slaves and the maintenance of a social and political hierarchy based on race. More to the point, such a statement ignores the wealth of new research which demonstrates the centrality of slavery to better understanding the alignment of white southerners during the secession period. The failure to provide a more sophisticated analysis of crucial aspects of Jackson’s life will no doubt lead some to characterize this documentary as a study in hagiography.
Unfortunately, the narrative loses all historical integrity when discussing Jackson’s relationship with his servant-slave Jim Lewis. Richard Williams admits that the “records are sketchy” and then goes on to suggest Lewis “was very loyal to Jackson” and that “they had a great relationship.” The evidence cited is indeed “sketchy” at best and includes the story of Lewis silencing men in camp so as to allow Jackson to pray in peace. There is no tangible evidence cited to suggest much of anything in terms of Jackson’s relationship with Lewis nor his slaves and free blacks back home who attended his Sunday School. To do so in a convincing way would involve citing contemporary evidence from those black individuals who interacted with Jackson. Of course, this is very difficult for anyone familiar with the historical record. What exactly are we saying when referencing concepts of loyalty and friendship in describing the master-slave relationship? The viewer is left to her own devices assuming one is inclined to ask questions.
The story closes with reflections by the talking heads on Jackson’s significance along with footage of the Broad Run Baptist Church which includes a beautiful stained glass window in memory of Jackson and paid for by one of his former Sunday School students. Once again the viewer is left to guess as to the significance of this act. This documentary is best understood as a celebration of Jackson’s life which is no doubt what those who purchase it will be looking for. That said, the celebration of Jackson’s life contained in Still Standing comes at the expense of any serious attempt to come to terms with what was, by any standards, an engrossing and historically significant life.
While I applaud high school senior Jen Veldhuyzen of Colonial Forge High School for taking the initiative to write for her local newspaper I have to wonder who is teaching her and where she is getting her information. Jen’s thesis: Martin Luther King would not mind sharing a holiday with Lee and Jackson. Why? Because all three strove to confront racism in their own times:
Lee did not merely speak
against racism, though–he released all his slaves 10 years before the
war. Most of them stayed on at his plantation, and one even became his
cook during the war.
Lee taught his family to appreciate people of other colors–like
King’s activists years later, Lee’s daughter was arrested for violating
Jim Crow laws in the South. According to the 1902 Cleveland Gazette,
she reportedly "persisted in occupying a car set apart for
Afro-Americans," and the mayor found her guilty of violating the law.
"Stonewall" Jackson did not speak much about slavery–he lived against it, instead.
Jackson did not understand what flaw of society placed people of
color in positions of servitude–nor did he care what society said. He
was known for being eccentric and forceful with his opinions, and he
lived them out.
Every Sunday, while in his hometown of Lexington, Jackson quietly
broke the law by teaching a class of black students to read and write.
After his death, when the Union Army occupied Lexington, citizens took
care to hide the Confederate flag formerly marking Jackson’s grave.
They were surprised later to find flowers, a note and a small
Confederate flag placed at his tombstone by a boy from one of his
Jackson would always be remembered by his students, not as a racist
or a military man, but as a strict champion of black literacy. I do not
believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have objections to sharing a
weekend with a man who supported African-American education.
Well, I don’t know if King would mind sharing a day with two slave owners who fought a war in the name of a nation whose primary goal was the protection of slavery. I suspect that King might have a short list of names from the war and Reconstruction that he would have preferred. Perhaps Frederick Douglass, David Walker, Hiram Revels, Blanche K. Bruce and later, W.E.B. Dubois. Jen is clearly picking up on a trend that is growing louder, which seeks to address and often remove issues of race and slavery by concluding that white Southerner slaveholders/Confederates were actually the best "friends" of black Americans. The comparison with Lee and Jackson is instructive on another level as it assumes that King would have anything at all to say about their civil rights records. I suspect that he would look at you askance and move on in the face of such a suggestion. Lee’s postwar record as president of Washington College and his handling of racial tensions in Lexington is available to anyone who cares to consider history rather than fantasy. As for Jackson, someone needs to explain to me what teaching your own slaves to read has to do with civil rights at all.