471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

Readings I found this weeks readings really interesting because Blight seemed to cover certain aspects of Civil War memory that you don't hear much about. One thing that really stood out to me was the fact that veterans kept in contact with each other. I could understand this immediately following the war, but I was&#160;fascinating to read that older veterans would write to one another. I can only imagine the detail that ex-soldiers would provide to one another, unlike the letters they would right home "the minnie ball passed through my right leg a few inches below the knee" is not the sort of&#160;information a soldier would right to a&#160;loved one about&#160;(187). In chapter 8, Blight talks about the idea of&#160;a faithful slave monument and a mammy monument, I can only imagine what it would be like in the event that such monuments were constructed and still standing today in areas like&#160;Washington D.C. and what&#160;effect that would have on&#160;how slavery was remembered. --Mary O. I found it interesting that Blight says that Civil War Veterans became America’s first Civil War “buffs.” Also, that many of the war papers written by them were narratives of prison experiences. It surprised me that Century waited until 1890 to publish them to where they thought it was safe. This includes the fact that southerners reacted to the stories with some hostility, and threatened their business by spending their money elsewhere. – Ana Y. “Southerners found that they could transform loss on the battlefield into a reunion on terms largely of their own choosing.” (264) Charles Colcock Jones Jr.’s argument that the South had fought for “liberty” and “freedom” and had only lost because it had been “overborne by superior numbers and weightier munitions” stood out to me. He believed that the South could still win politically. I wish Blight would have included a little more on this, and if possible, how Jones thought that could have been achieved. – Ana Y. Emancipation did not become a war aim until 1863 when Lincoln decided that the time had come, with his motivations many. Lincoln himself stated at the beginning of the war that he had no inclination to free the slaves. Blight hints at this emancipationist view of the war but doesn't really go into. What comparisons can be made between the emancipationist view in the North and the Lost Cause ideology in the South? How significant is the Northern memory of the war? Many northerners entered the war with no desire to free slaves but by the end of the war it was largely the cause for the North. -Jason I found it compelling that General Lee was embraced nationwide. What was it about Lee that appealed to Northerners? The Lee cult took off decades after the Civil War. Could this be attributed to an increased white supremacist view North and South? Is that why Lee was embraced in the North? -Jason I find that interesting too! I think it was Janney’s book that mentioned that when Lee died that the North mourned his death too. I think that it is intriguing how even though he was on the opposing side during the war he was still embraced in the North. –Kayle P  In response to Jason, I would assume that if the veterans were the first Civil War buffs, then it would be hard not to atleast respect the great commanders on both sides of the war.-- George H  It was interesting to see how Blight portrayed the UDC after reading Janney's book. I thought that Blight focused more on the racial aspects of the UDC and their commitment to the white supremacist aspect of the lost cause, which just goes to show how far-reaching the UDC was. The part of Blight's chapter about the lost cause that talked about loyal slave/mammy monuments reminded me of our reading on monuments from last week. Having two different scholarly perspectives on the same topic create a fuller understanding, and fill in what the other may have left out. I found it interesting that the lost cause depended so heavily on the belief that the Confederacy came to be by divine principle because it reflects how they thought it was their special Christian duty to enslave African Americans. Even after the war, they felt like they were the most righteous of the two sides. -Cameron F. The second part of our Blight reading this week was definitely more riveting than the first. I originally was going to start this post with some remarks on how delusional the South was for believing there were a huge number of “faithful slaves” still after the war (287). But then I started to think about how the South’s “passion” for the war was so appealing to people from both the South and the North (276). They were all delusional then! Not really, but it is interesting to think that people were captivated and enchanted by the South’s memory of the war. The North admired the South for their respect towards veterans. What really got me going, though? That last piece in the second chapter we read. He said what all of us are probably thinking right now on page 298: “Why not talk about witchcraft if as he said, slavery was not the cause of the war.I always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.” You can’t get much better than that. -- Brooke I agree with Blight that the rise of the Gilded age and the threat of losing important "soldier virtues" such as honor, manliness, valor and sacrifice was a huge base for Union-Confederate reconciliation. They could both agree that the future generation was in danger of becoming too materialistic and that it was their duty (as fathers?) to instill their values onto their children. Maybe the paternalistic commitment to their sons of both Confederate and Union veterans was enough to champion other differences. -Cameron F. I know I shouldn’t be, but I’m rather stunned by the extent to which soldiers went to be recognized. Even though I come from a Navy family, my relatives never recalled wars to me. They didn’t want to remember or BE remembered for that matter. But the way Blight makes it sound is that EVERYONE, even those who weren’t veterans, wanted to be part of this memory. Even further, though, they wanted to shape that memory (Judas priest, is there anyone who doesn’t?) to forget much of the whole slavery-caused-this thing. -- Brooke I have to agree with you on this Brooke. I was pretty stunned at the extremes that veterans and their families went to to get their story told. Blight talks about how Buel and Johnson (the editors of Century magazine) were completely bombarded with everything from written narratives to full collections of letters amazed me. However, I completely understand where many of the "common soldiers" were coming from. They were broke--Blight even talks how even Grant was pestered by the editors and he resisted...until he had no choice but to contribute in order to receive financial assistance. However, what I found most interesting was the careful selection of published accounts so that they would only portray the "reunion" of the North and South, even though readers were looking for things such as causes, slavery, and the gruesomeness of prisons. Blight mentions that many soldiers said they'd be willing to write in a nonpolitical matter JUST so they can be published. It makes me wonder, how many of the first-hand accounts and narratives that we read today are the TRUE thoughts and experiences of soldiers, or were they simply written that way to fit the cookie-cutter format of Civil War memories during that time? --Carly W.  I think that the way the “Lost Cause” grew and changed with the time after the war was remarkable. I never really understood how deep this belief was and as the class goes on, I am starting to see how deep this mentality really is/was. The mentality of the people that kept this belief alive through the war and then changed the focus to fit the belief of the time is remarkable. –Kayle P One part of the second chapter that stood out to me was the Lost Cause essay contest and how they remebered slavery as being such a good thing. They spoke about the strong relationships that slave and slave owner had together and that it was such a strong bond. It really goes to show how backwards they're way of thought really is.-- George H How did the memory of the war become commodified in the 1880s? -- Carly B. After completing both readings, what I found most interesting was how in the first chapter we read Blight discussed how Century and other published works worked hard to make sure that only a memory of reconciliation between the North and South was told--only the "good" memories (or the ones that would appeal to both Northern and Southern soldiers in a positive way). However, after reading Blight's chapter about the Lost Cause, I was struck by Lost Cause activists' desire to fully discuss the causes of the war (although they were skewed to their own benefit). For example, Blight talks about Mildred Lewis Rutherford's lectures about the importance of the Confederacy and how all children should be educated about it. "She provided to instructors lists of Civil War causes (five primary and ten 'aggravating'), all of which placed responsibility at the feet of abolitionists" (281). I understand that Lost Cause activists wanted to get "their" story about the Civil War out there, but I'm wondering how big of an affect their push on the causes had in relation to others, such as Century, who tried their best to avoid discussions about the Lost Cause?--Carly W.

The myth of the loyal slave, talked about in chapter 8, seemed to be very important to the lost cause and the rewriting of history by the south. The book does mention that in some cases, fear and other complex causes and reactions led some to protect their owners and their property from Union forces.(pg. 287) However, the myth seemed to be pushed as being a lot larger than it actually was and forgets the many who joined the war to fight for their own freedom. What was more interesting, however, was the role that The Confederate Veteran played in pushing this myth. It was intriguing to see that many "loyal slave" stories were written by former masters and submitted as valid stories. This attempt to justify social conditions of slavery seems very important to the narrative of the lost cause or else I do not think they would have gone to all the trouble to make up these stories and push them threw literature. --Matt A.

When reading how the editors of Century magazine tried to influence the idea of the reunion, I found this part particularly interesting. Blight said, “What would be understood for all time, they hoped, was how and on what scale the war was fought- how there was glory aplenty on both sides” (175). It seems that one of the main points we have come across so far is the idea that in order for the country to reunite the focus had to be on the glory and pride in each side and the country as a whole, and not on the issues that caused the war. --Kelly F.

I thought it was interesting how Blight saw the war reminiscence as a family affair, I hadn't really thought about it in that sense before. (178) It blew my mind to think that even children at home were stuck in this battle, which was often true because of the amount of battles that took place literally in different families backyards. I loved the quote on page 181 which read that "the thing about a story is that you dream it as you tell it, hoping that others might then dream along with you, and in this way memory and imagination and language combine to make spirits in the head." I thought this was an interesting way to depict the war...as a dream...maybe a way to say it wasn't as bad as they thought it was or maybe it was a bad dream which they had awoken from. -Meg O

Blight really gets to the heart of why civil war veterans and post-war society did not want to portray the war in its true terrible, gritty and horrific form in this reading. He says that veterans were not capable of reliving those moments at that putting them on paper was often too much. He also points out that in the materialistic and shallow culture of the gilded age, society was looking for stories to bolster manhood and virtue rather than of sorrow, pain, and suffering.-Sean

Debate ideas The role of Century in the reconciliation debate in both the North and South. --Carly B.

Would partisan veteran writing (as talked about on page 176) have been acceptable or believed to be partisan if reconciliation was not the national theme? --Matt A. How might the horrors of war been glossed over in favor of positive and honorable memories by women transcribing the letters of their brothers and fathers? (See page 177) --Matt A.

Blight talks about getting "the story right," (186) and I was curious what aspects of the war would create the correct story? And how would these stories differ from north and south? I think this would show insight to how the different soldiers felt and possibly what future generations thought was important. -Meg O

Why veterans focused so much on the details of battle and were obsessed with writing and reading accurate accounts of troop movements and actions? How are these traits similar to the modern civil war buff and why does this practice continue to this day?-Sean

Blight talks about reconciliation writings and how it grew in the 1880's. Why were people so excited to write their stories for Century? Why weren't people talking about secession, race, or slavery? How can we look at this and apply it to more recent wars? How have people changed what they write about? How have veterans changed their writing and being in the public eye? Century influenced the progression of reunion and unity. It seemed as though the stories that veterans sent in were romanticized versions of their experience. -Hannah