471A3--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

In White’s article, she talks about how the UDC honored African Americans too, but only those who supported their masters during the War. They did not honor those who fought as soldiers. By doing this it continues the white supremacist attitude and from my perspective, makes it hard for them to argue that any monument or statue is purely for memorializing the dead. –Kelly F.

"Those who are able to commemorate the past are those who have the money and political power to publicly remember a particular past" (13). Shackel brings up a point that is often discussed in my Museum Studies courses: just because a certain view is presented by an academic source (museum), that does not always mean it is an unbiased an accurate portrayal. Most museums are largely funded by major donors, and important decisions are typically decided upon by the museum board (which is often comprised of these major donors). Donors want their views and takes on certain aspects of history to be conveyed in what they are paying to support. Although in most instances, museum directors try their best to balance the desires of the board, other major contributors, and the most accurate approach, that balance is a difficult one to achieve. With that being said, as we continue our discussions on public memory and the way in which the war is presented in all aspects, we should keep in mind WHO is behind the views that we are reading. --Carly W.

I liked that Ayers (160) discussed how we need to keep in mind that although there is a general consensus and narrative to the Civil War, we can't simply assume that it is exactly right. Today, aside from your extreme Confederate supporters, there is a general agreement among people that the North was meant to win the Civil War in all aspects because it is the "good guy" in the fight. Ayers points out crucial moments in the war where, if the events had occurred differently the United States would have had a completely different history. For example, Ayers comments that if the North would have won in 1862, slavery would still be legal and if Lincoln had not been assassinated, Reconstruction would have been a completely different situation. --Carly W.

The Ayers work was interesting. I liked the way that he related the revisionist Civil War history that was taking place after World War I. Where the revisionist had argued that the war was not worth the cost, scholars during the centennial era focused on the slaves and were more sympathetic to their plight. (155) - Jason

I was particularly struck by Ayers' assertion that areas in the South that were marked by plantation and rich slave owners were more likely to be Unionist. (162) This is in keeping with my research of Mosby who was reportedly a staunch Unionist before and after the war. Mosby only made the decision to join the Confederacy after Virginia succeeded and claimed to not be able to raise a weapon against his home state. The best part of Ayers' piece was the 3rd to last sentence where he states, "If we acknowledge that we inherit all the past and not merely those parts we like to call our "heritage," we would better respect the past's complexity, weight, and importance." (165) - Jason

Reading Ayers' article made me think of the importance of historiography is every aspect of Civil War history. The fact that emotions still run high and that it seems like a recent event to many who sense their familial relationship to the event makes the need to weed out biases all the more important. Ayers talks on pages 154-156 about revisionist history in the 1930's in comparison to that of the 60's and 70's and discusses the ways in which history was perceived through modern eyes and rationals. For example, in the 1960's, civil rights activism sought to portray the humanity of the slave and the need for more aggressive reconstruction post war. This differed greatly from the WWI era in which Ayers said that slavery was not seen as so intrinsically and that the deaths were not worth what was achieved. The proximity to the war must have had a lot to do with these earlier feelings toward the war and although I would have thought that historians would purposely try to weed out these biases, It reminded me that often the hardest biases to weed form your own writing are those that you do not realize are only biases. -Matt A.

I thought that the Ayers article made a good point of arguing for a move away from a single chronological interpretation of the Civil War. By citing examples of understanding from different time periods up until today, Ayers shows that the Civil War has been thought of like a "single story, with a beginning, middle, and end, with turning points and near misses."(164) I can understand how alluring this vision of the war is to historians and other writers because it does make for a good story- it has so many twists and turns- and easily stereotyped sides, but it is completely inaccurate.- Cameron F.

“Public memory is more a reflection of present political and social relations than a true reconstruction of the past.” (Shackel, pg 11) I really liked this quote. I thought that the sentiment was true though. I think that public memory is shaped by the views that are in the present rather than what truly happened in the past. You see this in “historical” film, in depictions of battles, and other histories. As historians, we have to not only look and see what is being depicted but also how the time period affects the overall accuracy of what is trying to be portrayed. Plus I just really like quotes. –Kayle P

This was particularly a good quote to point out. Remembering historical events are shaped by societal views for sure. Memory is shaped by individuals perspectives and what not necessarily happened. For instance, you can remember something that happened to you as a kid, but that event might be totally different then what actually occurred. I think this is what happens when remembering the Civil War. The UDC wanted to pass on the legacy of their confederate fathers, but future generations will look at that particular event in a different light. -George H

I liked how Shackel presented his introduction by splitting up his viewpoints into sections. Furthermore, I thought it was useful for him to have said “traditions, meanings, and memories are invented…”(11) He used simple words for a big picture concept. “All the case studies are about different and changing perceptions of race, the use of power, and the ability to use resources to control public memory.” (19) This sets the standard for analyzing memory and its changes throughout time. –Ana Y.

I liked when Whites was discussing the “Rock” interesting. We had discussed last week about the Confederate flag, but this showed a different representation. I thought that, even though it was not a flag, it still sparked the same react as the flag did. I also found it interesting that the student body objected to having on campus but they did not object to having it outside of a courthouse. I wonder why that was? –Kayle P

In Ayers, I agree that McPherson and Burns tied the words we think of when hearing the Civil War (slavery, bravery, war, progress...). Ayers makes a point of the Civil War being talked about as the moral war and setting the stage for major social changes to come in America. The notion of protecting battlefields stems from protecting the memory of what soldiers fought for. - Hannah

I thought it was interesting how Civil War commemoration was used to express defiance of the U.S. government. I had no idea it was ever used in that way, although after reading about it, should have seemed fairly obvious given the circumstances. New Jersey urged people to boycott opening ceremonies and urged other states to do the same. That stood out to me because it meant that New Jersey was against anything that excluded blacks from participation and how the state believed those situations should not be used in Civil War commemorations. (239) I think this influenced the memory of Northern states and their participation against boycotts like this because it prevented a lot of negativity that would have followed had they not boycotted the ceremonies. – Ana Y

I found White's article to be very interesting in light of what we read in Janney and Blight. I thought the way she described the cultural movement after the war was a culture war; my thesis was about the Polish cultural resistance movement during World War II. While the two circumstances and resulting manifestations of culture are very different, I think it's intriguing how culture plays such an important role in the processing of a war both during and after the fighting. - Carly B.

Shackel's introductory discussion of the role of public memory in society (13) was also useful for me. I took Dr. Blakemore's course on Diplomatic History and one thing that really stuck with me was how in the 19th century, the public opinion became a much more important and driving force in society and in the public sphere as a whole. What purpose does this public memory play in the culture, as well? - Carly B.

I think that Shackel's interpretation of public memory as "tactical power that controls social settings" (13) is supported very well by the rest of his introduction and following case studies. The influence memory has on the public is often overlooked, but when harnessed can have a powerful effect on society. Shackel does a good job of paralleling African American's growing influence in society with the change in public memory of the Civil War, and makes a point to say that it is still in flux.-Cameron F.

Shackel points out a lot of good points in the section of the introduction we read. "Even though two people may share a common history, it does not mean that they share a common experience" (16) it is important that we keep this idea with us in regard to all the topics we discuss. As Shackel points out, material culture is controlled when it meets the needs of certain groups. Like Carly W. mentions how most museums are funded by a board this leads museums to have control over how the public views and interprets what it puts on display. Shackel does a great job painting a greater picture of the issues dealing with how history is remembered.. Like the Heyward Shepherd memorial, different groups had different motives behind what they thought the memorial represented. --Mary O.

Even though we’ve talked about this reconcilitationist point of view before, it never struck me that no one was being held responsible until I read this part from Ayers, “It is clear that the North fought for purposes entirely good—for Union and the end of slavery—but Confederate soldiers also win respect for their bravery, their devotion, and their struggle against long odds. They seem to have been playing historical roles for which they are not to blame” (146). I also liked this essay because it reminded me of a “literature review” of the Civil War in film and other popular culture—especially the Vietnam part. -- Brooke

The Wiener essay made me want to read a lot of the pieces that he mentions, especially the Look magazine piece on “If The South Had Won the Civil War.” I’m a bit surprised by the centennial’s relationship with the communism of the 1960s. “Thus the Cold War was invoked to explain to Southerners why they should accept the Union victory—despite the threat to the Southern way of life the civil rights movement had recently inaugurated” (248, Fahs and Waugh). I still don’t understand how the story Cantor creates really proves this—just take a look at the responses to his story on page 247. -- Brooke

I found the alliance between African American students and white female students to be an interesting dynamic. Both were fighting for their rightful place on campus and they took up a lot of the same causes.However, "A parallel between white women and and African Americans was not complete, since women may have lost their identities, but blacks were losing their lives."(pg227).--George H