471A3--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday

Just a few questions related to Blight to think about for tomorrow's discussion: Chapter 10: What can be concluded of emancipationist memory from this chapter? How did the Spanish-American War cement reunion for both Northerners and Southerners? What were some of the debates over imperialism by the South? What was the emerging urban order of war, emancipation and Reconstruction in the South? -Ana Y.

Throughout the readings in this course I have been struck by the North’s refusal or inability to capitalize on its dominant position after the war. It started with the reunion sentiment and grew into a longing for the romanticized South during the depressing Gilded Age years. Patrick Kelly continues this saga with his article about the election of 1896. (Fahs & Waugh, 180-212) The fact that the Republican Party abandoned the blacks in the South and chose instead to campaign on fear of disunion was staggering. The idea that tens of thousands of Americans died for the liberties and freedoms of Southern blacks only to have seemingly died in vain is disgusting. -Jason

In his speech at Gettysburg, President Wilson spoke volumes about how reunion won out and the Southern blacks had lost when he said, "What have [the last 50 years] meant? They have meant peace and union and vigour, and the maturity and might of a great nation. How wholesome and healing the peace has been!" I couldn't help but wonder what a black American, north or south, would have thought to hear those words! This was clearly written for white America.

&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Jason

&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/p&gt;

I agree with Jason in that I was disgusted by the Republican party abandoning Southern blacks, but I also wasn't that surprised. Its clear that their goal was to win the Presidency, and for them, politics came way before following through on their promises to freedmen. Including the Republican's traditional position on race would have made their campaign much harder, and it was a good strategic (however immoral and backwards) move. But I was surprised that they were able to almost cover up the issue of race from the Civil War and only talk about sectionalism. -Cameron F.

We talk a lot about how the nation had “careful remembering” of the Civil War in the postwar years. After finishing Blight’s book, I feel more confident in saying that I don’t think it would have been possible to have reconciliation between the North and the South if the nation had “remembered” slavery and the causes and results of the war. As Blight says on page 391, “A segregated society required a segregated historical memory and a national mythology that could blunt or contain the conflict at the root of that segregation.” Again and again we read that it was only “safe” to remember the dead if they were remembered, not for fighting for or against emancipation or slavery, but for being selfless and honorable heroes. -- Brooke

I think Brooke makes a really good point. To add to it, I think this concept may help explain the many contradictions in both Northern and Southern society regarding the issue of race and of reconciliation/reunion. Do others agree? --Carly B.

In President Wilson's speech in 1913, I find it perfectly fitting with the typical narrative dealing with the Civil War that the main theme was brotherhood. "They [the years passed since the war] have meant peace and union..." (Wilson) This narrative seems to be the necessary path to take at the national level if union is ever to be fully stabilized and made stronger. President Wilson then goes on to say that the work is not yet done as President Lincoln did in his Gettysburg Address and in this act Wilson attempted to bring glory to the soldiers deaths. He made clear that they served a purpose. This memory of the soldier is very important to this narrative and Wilson captures it all. --Matt A.

&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Going along with Matt's comment, I too found Wilson's theme of brotherhood unsurprising. Because Wilson was the first Southern president since the war, I think he probably felt the pressure to portray this narrative. I found the second to last paragraph most compelling: "Are we content to lie still? ... War fitted us for action, and action never ceases." Although Wilson seems to be catering to the white population, he does subtly address the fact that the nation was far from being down with its problems. --Carly W.

&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/p&gt;

That 1896 Campaign chapter would have helped when I was researching the partisanship of newspapers. I don’t understand the money, silver/gold thing. I have tried over and over again and read far too many explanations, but I still don’t get it. But anyways, as I was reading this chapter, I kept wondering how the Democratic party responded to the GOP’s attacks using public memory of the war. I also had a more general question. How could the GOP’s campaign have been successful in using race? -- Brooke

I have to agree with Brooke. I think it would have been interesting to see more of the Democratic response to the GOP attacks. By taking this stand, however, I think the GOP greatly succeeded in the sense that by taking the Civil War memory approach, they created a much more personal connection-especially, of course, to the veterans. I would have also liked to see more of the African Americans' response to McKinley's shift from being an advocate for civil rights to sweeping it under the rug when it came to the election platform. There was a small mentioning of it on 190-191, but because such a large social group was left out, I think it would have been beneficial to include more of their views.--Carly W.

I thought that the reading from “The Memory of the Civil War” was particularly interesting. It was interesting to see how the Civil War still affected politics and how the Republican party was able to use the fear of the country splitting again to influence McKinley’s win. One example of this was when Senator Ben Tillman made some remarks that ended up being extremely detrimental to not only his political ambitions, but also to the Democratic party. He said, “Some of my friends from the South and elsewhere have said that this is not a sectional issues. I say it is a sectional issue. We of the South have turned our faces to the West, asking our brethren of those States to unite with us in restoring the government, the liberty of fathers, which our fathers left us” (185). I thought that this quote and the national reaction to this speech showed just how much the Civil War still played a role in government and policy. –Kelly F.

What do you think of Blight's final words: "All memory is prelude?" -- Carly B.

I think that in this case he could mean that it is a prelude to something bigger. These memories last a long time (The Civil Rights Movement…and didn’t someone just ratify the 13th amendment oh wait like 2 days ago?) As we know memories to today they can be a powerful things and they can often act as an influence. I think that it is possible that Blight meant that the memory of the Lost Cause was only a prelude to what was going to happen. –Kayle P

The portion of the reading that dealt with the campaign of 1896 was fascinating because it argues that the republicans used unionism and the spirit of the north from the war to delegitimize and slander the labor striker and Coxeyites. They banded them as rebels on the same level as secessionists. It seems horrifyingly ironic that the same men who were ignoring the true legacy of the war as it pertained to race was using the war to stop a legal and legitimate movement by labeling them the same as an illegal, illegitimate secessionist movement.-Sean

The scene in James Weldon Johnson's Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man that takes place in the Pullman car is incredibly indicative of the problem with pitting race against reconciliation. The union veteran and the Texan get into battle about the meaning of the Civil War and black freedom but despite the North's intellectual and moral superiority in its arguments, the two sides decide it is easier to be friends again by dropping the subject. This reading shows that when it cam to race, it was much easier to simply drop the subject and move on then to continue to fight for it.-Sean

"They spent so much of their segregated lives being 'disreognized' by whites that recognizing a President might take special knowledge." (7) It seems to me the fiftieth anniversary of the Gettysburg Address should emphasis the United States' progression politically and socially following the Civil War. However, this quote showcases black America's disconnect with the country's leaders and government. The government's failure to racially unify the country 50 years after the Gettysburg Address illustrate the continued racial turbulence between black and white America. "Since 1904 none of them (Black Americans) had been able to vote in the state without passing literacy tests, paying poll taxes, and meeting all but impossible property restrictions." (7) Although the country progressed socially within 50 years since the Gettysburg Address, black Americans still endured the racial intolerance of a divided nation. As Jason stated above about President Wilson's speech, he spoke only to white America. There was little race reunion between blacks and white 50 years after the Civil War. -- Donald P

The League of the South was quite interesting to me from its origins to its modern "purposes". The origins seems to lie in a ex-Confederate "lost cause" ideology that could easily be associated with groups like the Klan. This origin leaves very little room to gain any credibility as a rational group to listen too. However, their modern goals from their charter, outside of the euro-centric origin pride stuff, seems to fit in pretty well with a modern Tea Party mentality. This was honestly kinda scary for me to read because I actually like the sound of a lot of these policies. However, will any of these policies ever be taken seriously when phrased in a pro-confederate fashion like this? Does this group hurt the chances of any of these policies being rationally looked at do to the stigma and perception people would have of these people?? --Matt A.

Going along with Matt's comment, President Wilson's speech did an excellent job of combining the purpose and memory of the soldiers who fought fifty years earlier. I have to agree with Carly W, Wilson does everything it seems to avoid the issue of slavery and the existing black community his words reach out to the white population only. With that being said, I found his speech adequate in repsect to the soldiers who were there being honored. I also think that since he was the first Southern president elected since the war, he knew that he would have to choose his words wisely and to take a neutral stand when addressing that sort of crowd. --Mary O.

I agree with Jason as well. Blight even mentions that African Americans in the town did not recognize him or the fact that African Americans went unnoticed near his home. I think that he did a good job in the speech about brotherhood but I think that he missed a large population as well. –Kayle P

Going off of what Mary says about Wilson's neutrality regarding black Americans. It seems to me that his exclusion of slavery and the existing black community was more due to his racist ideals. Wilson's southern roots shaped his racist beliefs and continued into his presidency. I find it somewhat ironic that WIlson, a known racist, was one of the more liberal and progressive American presidents. -- Donald P