471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday

Faust
There were so many casualties within the war and of the deaths, so many bodies were left unburied and unidentified. This chapter focuses on the postwar reburial programs in which military commanders combined efforts with legislative power to do so. Locating the bodies was not an easy task, and Whitman set off to ask locals questions concerning the whereabouts of the Union soldiers' graves. The post master of one town denied Whitman his knowledge. The further south he traveled the more difficult it became. He came across around 40,000 bodies buried with little care, and in one instance Mississippi was witness to floating caskets (191). Whitman had gone to great lengths to push for an establishment of national cemeteries. I was surprised by this as I did not really understand the origins of these cemeteries. I wonder why so many turned a blind eye to the thousands of bodies in their surroundings and if speaking out to do something about the bodies of the Union soldiers would have led to consequences, if so, what would they be? -Ana Y.

Response to Ana- “The hundreds of thousands of Union bodies in their midst proved an irresistible target for southern rage and represented as well an opportunity to express the refusal to accept Confederate defeat. It had proved impossible to overcome a live Union army, but bitter Confederates could still wage war against a dead one.” (p. 189, however it is Note 13). I think the South was trying to hurt the Union like they were hurting, losing their family and friends, (just an idea). But like you I wonder why so many people in the North turned a blind eye….–Kayle P

I was thinking along the same lines as Kayle, I was really taken back by the amount of dead bodies left in the South. I really thought it was crazy to think that the Southerners that tried to aid the Yankees by giving their dead a proper burial. I just thought it was interesting that he opened the chapter by saying the dead and suffering was what brought the nation together, but to me it seemed more like the deaths caused more violence..-Meg O

Response to Ana and Kayle: This contradicts, to a degree, Blight's assertion that people focused more on the battlefields than the issues. But in response to the initial question, I think that these people were so numbed by the war that it numbed them to the horrors of war, too. --Carly B.

Response to the above string of comments: I have to agree a lot with Carly that the people were so numbed by the horrors of the war that it was a lot easier (if that even makes sense, wrong word to use probably) for them to turn a blind eye to the masses of dead soldiers. Faust actually mentions at the beginning of this piece that in the immediate aftermath of the war, the dead soldiers and the manner in which their burials were carried out continued to make the US divided (Confederates vs. Yankees, blacks vs. whites, etc.) I also think this may be one of the main reasons why we are learning in the present that the mortality rates of the Civil War are so much higher than have been estimated over the years. People were so horrified by and exhausted with the war that when it came time to give all of these soldiers proper burials, they were ready to get it over with and move on with their lives. --Carly Winfield

This piece is very fascinating to me. I was taken back when they were discussing the number (though I know how high the totals are) of the bodies of the Unions soldiers that were found in the South. I was also shocked that former slaves had risked their lives, tending to the graves of the fallen Union soldiers and that they were often helping Whitman find the bodies. –Kayle P

Faust’s characterization of Southern women’s motivations for ensuring that Confederate soldiers received proper burials seems a bit exaggerated. Faust states, “Ensuring the immortality of the fallen and of their memory became a means to perpetuate southern resistance to northern domination and to the reconstruction of southern society.” (Faust, 196-197) Isn’t is possible that Southern white women, who lost so many husbands, brothers, and sons, simply wanted proper burials and recognition for Southern men? Faust draws attention to speeches given during these interments and the positive nature of how the soldiers were remembered. Wouldn’t any reasonable person expect kind words about the soldier and the even the cause they were fighting for to be presented during such an occasion? Justification for death in battle is nothing new. -Jason

&lt;/p&gt;

Faust's piece really opened my eyes to how big of a problem the Civil War dead was to the relationship between the North and the South after the Civil War. Since there was such a massive amount of causalities on both sides, having to deal with the sheer volume of bodies respectfully was a daunting task to take on. What I found really interesting about this passage was that Southerners had to be ordered against desecrating Union graves when they tried to plow fields in the spring. It just shows that the battles of the Civil War were so spread out in the South that it was hard to avoid running into casualties. And while it is easy to look back now and think of desecrating any grave as a horrible act, I can try to understand that the Southerners had at least try and move on, going back to farming to feed their families. I think that it would have been easy for a former Confederate soldier to carelessly move a Union grave site in order to get his life back together.-Cameron F Faust isn’t only talking about moving dead Union soldiers, though. She is talking about intentional destruction and ruin of their bodies. If a former Confederate soldier ran across the body of a dead Union soldier or his grave, it makes total sense why the Confederate soldier would want to desecrate it. It’s passive-aggressiveness at its finest! But, no really, isn’t this a common characteristic of war? You see someone as the “other,” the “wrong” side for so long that you lose total respect for them as human beings. When I started reading this piece, I kept wondering about the Confederate bodies. The quartermaster was finding and identifying all of the Union soldiers, but what about the Confederate bodies he came across? I also think it’s important to note the contribution of the U.S. Colored Troops and black southerners. Faust argues that the black southerners especially revered the Union troops and wanted to show that respect by giving them a proper burial. I think this speaks to the other reading also—the relationship freedmen and women had with the North shortly following the war. Faust also highlighted some things that I’ve been researching in the past few days. Hollywood Cemetery was originally made to garden-esque, like the rural style Faust speaks about. But there is a clear difference when you enter the Confederate portion of the cemetery: everything is in lines! It’s such a stark difference it’s hard not to notice it. The neat rows mirror how the Union graves are. While I’m assuming it is easier and more economical to bury that many bodies this way, I believe we could also imagine that this was to show the same level of reverence that was shown to the Union dead. -- Brooke

I thought that the Reverend John Girdeau's words to those at the reinterment ceremony of the Gettysburg dead were interesting in light of this discussion: "we are not here as simply mourners for the dead"; he also references "living issues" (197). He points to the tendency to want to ignore the issues at hand and instead focus entirely on the burials and commemorations of those who died. --Carly B.

I thought it was interesting that after the conclusion of the Civil War, "The Confederate was 'the less a hero because he failed'" according to the Union (195). Despite a reunification of the once divided North and South, the effort was forced and northerners blamed the failures and calamities of the war on the south. After the war, it is interesting to note how the national cemetery resolution outrage, despite the Union's attempt to forcibly reunify the South with the North, allowed the North to not recognize Confederate soldiers as part of the national dead. It is a bit ironic that even though the North wanted and allowed the South to reunify with them, they would still not recognize the Confederate's dead.--Donald P.

It's clear that reburials and national cemeteries brings unity to the country. Both sides share suffering and bravery of lost men. It is a part of the healing process. The vandalizing of graves makes it that more important to have proper burials. It's a way of making sure the rebels are suppressed by making sure the men stay buried. The cemeteries now help us to remember the loss that families felt after the war. It is reminder of universal suffrage. The Hollywood Memorial Association of the Ladies of Richmond gives an example of everyone trying to do their part, even though it's for specific areas. -Hannah

Blight
It seems that the Lost Cause narrative began surprisingly early after the war. Blight points to an article in the Richmond Dispatch published in December 1865 that portrayed the southern cause as just and in keeping with the principles of the founding fathers and attributes the South's loss to superior northern resources and manpower. This was less than a year after the end of the war, and already southerners were beginning to paint the war as an inevitable conflict between two just causes, with one winning solely through material power. -Sean

Going off of what Sean has brought up, I thought that it was interesting that the South used resources and manpower as their excuse for their downfall. The South after all were comparing themselves to the founding fathers and their fight against the British. I noticed a flaw in this comparison immediately, if the South were truly like the founding fathers, shouldn't they have won the war? I don't mean that in a sarcastic tone, but seriously, the colonists didn't have all of the supplies the British did, but they were able to overcome them. I feel as though the southerners continued to compare themselves to the founding fathers because it kept the idea of oppression fresh in southern mindsets. Is this the reason behind the comparison? Or am I just missing this entirely? -Meg O

The epitaph by Ralph Emerson is very telling for the argument that is made by Blight in chapter 2. "tis far best that the rebels have been pounded instead of negotiated into a peace. .....But the problems that now remain to be solved are very intricate and perplexing." (pg. 31)This, to me, means that it is better that the solutions to bring about reconciliation and unification of the country are left to one side to decide as the problems run deep in society and the solutions will be very difficult to come by. This comes across in the chapter as Blight talks about feelings of southerners after the war such as Dennett's conversation with Mr. K where Mr. K. sais pretty blatantly that secession was legal and that war was the tyranny, not the "principles of the Revolution" that they were carrying out (pg. 37). -Matt Allen

The consumption of time focused on dealing with the results of the war, i.e. deaths, destruction, Memorial Day remembrances, etc. pushed the conscious of many away from facing the ideological backdrop of what the war was fought over. (Blight, 31) W.E.B. Dubois argues that "the nation's central turning point had been misshapen by white supremacy and the necessity of a mythology of reunion. (Blight, 32)

Could it simply be that the nation's wanting to get on with itself after the war and wanting to distance itself from the brutality of that war fought on their soil was the primary reason that reunion was such a popular sentiment instead as W.E.B. Dubois argues that it was fueled by white supremacy? -Jason

It seems natural for Southern whites to respond to defeat by adhering to a positive self-image during the immediate post-war years. What seems unnatural is for Northern whites to so readily embrace the defeated South and the idea of reunion. At the center of it all is white supremacy, in the South as well as the North. So much focus has been given to Southern racism, but that ideology was defeated during the war. The North failed to capitalize on that victory because of their own inherent racism. Focus should shift toward these Northern victorious racists for embracing reunion for no other reason than feelings of white supremacy. This failure on the North’s part to exploit the situation led to Southern whites moving from a position where they were willing to except almost anything (complete submission) to a position of resistance. (Blight, 44) Much has been made of President Johnson’s failure to take action against the South, and rightly so. He is routinely ranked amongst our worst presidents. President Johnson was almost certainly pressured by Northern whites to acquiesce to Southern whites. -Jason

One point that stuck with me came at the start of the Blight readings. He says: "During Reconstruction, many Americans increasingly realized that remembering the war, even the hatreds and deaths on a hundred battlefields--facing all those graves on Memorial Day--became, with time, easier than struggling over the enduring ideas for which those battles had been fought" (31). This makes me think of the importance that memorials and statues and other permanent commemorations play in the collective American memory. --Carly B

I have to agree with Matt and say that Blight's use of Emerson's quote paints a vivid picture as to what lies ahead in the chapter. I also found Blight's idea of "Bloody shirt" rhetoric very interesting and it expands on the ideas of what was truly going on in politics between the North and the South at the time of reconstruction. Also, by using the graphic terminology it reminded people and politicians of the blood shed of the recent war, playing off of memory to try and create guilt or anger. --Mary O.

While I won’t say that it was just the nation “wanting to get on with itself after the war,” I do agree with where Jason’s question is headed. The North (generalizing here) did not want to be the one every few minutes going, “Hey, remember that time you enslaved all those people and then fought in a huge war for it? Yea, so that wasn’t cool. I’m going to need you to change everything about yourself now and while you do that, we’ll make all your lives hell.” Instead, many Northerners wanted to give the Southerners a break. “Rubbing it in” wouldn’t help them become a united nation again—which was one of the little factors in the Union’s rationale for war. This is really clear in the Jefferson case which Blight covers from page 57 to page 63. There was a former radical abolitionist who paid bail money for JEFFERSON DAVIS. JEFFERSON DAVIS. At least Blight saw the irony here. Even a former abolitionist wanted the nation to come together and saw that convicting the former President of the former Confederacy would hinder that. JEFFERSON DAVIS. His body was paraded around after his death for god’s sake. If that doesn’t make it clear that the North was being lenient on the South, I don’t know what will. Blight also mentions the “commercial ties between North and South” played a major part in “these emotional rituals of reunion” (59). He has yet to really explore this further so far in the book, but I think, especially given the radical abolitionist’s remarks on page 59, that this must be bigger than he’s let on. -- Brooke

I like that Blight hit on the devastation of the South and the lost cause. The graves, burned homes, and devastated fields were reminders that the South lost. In memory, southerners had to live with it and see it everyday. Union graves were reminders of pain. Today we can look at these areas of the country and have reminders of why soldiers fought or what side they were on. -Hannah

I agree Hannah. Burial sites whether it be in the north or south have a profound impact on America's conscious pertaining to the Civil War. Over the summer I went around Fredericksburg and visited the burial sites for both the Union and Confederates. What stood out in my mind wasn't that both men fought a very gruesome war, rather I thought that it exemplified a time when the nation was torn in two. The lasting memory for me is that so many young men died trying to fight what they believed in and that same motivation still exists today. -George H Blight points to a force in northern politics that was an important determinant in how long radical reconstruction would last: The business community. These men were interested in re-unifying quickly and rebuilding the South's economy so that commerce and trade could resume between all the states. Blight gives the example of this force at work in the paying of Jefferson Davis's bail in part by Cornelius Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt, like other business tycoons of the era, was willing to sacrifice justice for healing in order to bring about speedier economic recovery for the south and allow them to continue economic expansion. -Sean

Blight writes "White Southern memory of the war was forever animated by this profound sense of loss in 1865. The conquered filled their letters and diaries with a combination of defiance, despair, and fear." (pg 32). This stood out to me because the fear that Blight mentions is a very important aspect of the post war years. How will the South be treated by the North now that they lost the war? How will the freed slaves react to the white man? Will there be utter chaos in the streets of the south? -George H

Remembering Slavery
It is interesting to see the positive comments from slave owners who seemed to enjoy telling their slaves they were free. Many of the slaves didn't know where to go after becoming free so they stayed with their ex-owners who paid them a salary. I would like to find out if slaves actually felt this positively towards their masters or if these stories were told because of those who were recording them. -Meg O

I agree Meg. The interactions that are shown between master and slaves were interesting to read. The story that stuck with me was the one where the slave thought his master was joking and asked a woman on the plantation and she said “Did you ever know your master to lie to you?” (p. 277) I thought that said something about the relationship the master must have with his slaves. –Kayle P

This was a very interesting dynamic that I was surprised to read about too Meg. I was mostly under the impression that slave owners wouldn't be so open to letting their slaves just walk away freely. I believe I saw in one of our recent readings that many slave owners would pay their former slaves to work for their plantations, however they would charge them an enormous amount of rent to live there. -George H

I found it interesting that the slaves knew the war was going on, but things had stayed the same. Seeing the sights of soldiers and guns pass through did not change the daily activities for the slaves on the ranch. "Life was good." (263) Escaping was not even a thought in the minds of the slaves at this point. When they found out about their freedom, they were excited, but were left questioning what they would do about it (where would they go, what would they do when they got there). I guess I was a little naive to the thought that most slaves would not have wanted to immediately leave their plantations once liberated. Of course after some time, the slaves, like the one telling the story, found a way to enjoy the freedom they gained, "I hunted a lot and throughly enjoyed the freedom," (274). However, I agree with Meg's point. It is possible the memory of this story has been altered to please the interviewer. - Ana Y.

As I was reading I thought he sounded like he was happy when he was a slave, especially a child. It reinforced the idea that southern whites would say about slaves. They'd say they were content and happy the way they were being slaves, that they didn't know any better. It's not that he didn't know any better it was that he didn't know what freedom was. We can think about what freedom was to slaves and what they would do with their freedom once the war ended. What were these slaves supposed to do even though nothing really changed? Leave to go where? -Hannah

Hannah, I agree with what you are saying, where would they go? But at the same time, the slaves had recognized that they could go to different areas other than the north, like Mexico. I think that the owners may have potentially continued to have a hold on their slave's lives, even after they were "freed". I think the best way to see this is when the owners would keep information from the slaves. But maybe they were looking to find better opportunities? Also, why wouldn't they just leave in groups? I feel like it would be easier to survive out in their America if they were able to pull all of their money and resources together. -Meg O

Opportunities would be hard to find no matter where you went and maybe that's why they didn't travel in groups. If you didn't travel in groups it would give you a better chance at finding something rather than losing out to someone they are traveling with, someone they would have gotten to know personal and had a friendship with. -Kayle P

One statement that popped out to me was made by the interviewed ex-slave was when he talked about how fellow freedmen tried to move closer to freedom like it was a physical place or city. I think its interesting to see how the slaves interpreted slavery and tried to put a plan together of what to do with their new status. It must have been so overwhelming (in a good way) with the concept of not being tied down to their masters. Another part of the excerpt that I found really interesting was the mentioning of the idea of traveling further south down to Mexico for freedom. Even though it seems obvious now,it never occurred to me that slaves considered Mexico as an option. For some, it may have been an easier, quicker trip to the border and the idea of being in a land not controlled by white males might have been really alluring.-Cameron F

In agreement with Cameron, I too got the sense of the slave talking about moving toward freedom as though it was a physical place. I think it struck me as most interesting though because it links back to the reading/discussion last week about the "geography of the Civil War." Faughs and Wah (I believe), describe this term in their introduction as being both figurative and literal, and I think this possibly provides an example of what they mean by that.--Carly Winfield

In response to Cameron's post, I thought the statement about slaves traveling down south to Mexico really stood out to me as well. The idea of ex slaves migrating to Mexico surprises me due to the fact that they were emancipated in the United States and also they had the judgement to recognize their so called new freedom was not entirely correct. However, I wonder whether life for former slaves was actually better in Mexico. Did the Mexican government and citizens recognize who they were and force them into bondage again? Is there truly a lost generation of former slaves in Mexico? "In Mexico you could be free" (265). This statement made by a former slaves makes me wonder if stories of Mexico and its opportunities of freedom were exaggerated? -- Donald P.

Tom Robinson’s story is important despite the fact that he is relating his story some 80 years after the fact. What is interesting to me is his testament to be sold away from his family at a very young age and being moved around to include across state lines. (275-276) This is contradictory to the tales that Southerners tell of how they treated their slaves. The irony is that some Southerners portrayed this image of family honor but were breaking up the families of their slaves without consideration for the honor that they treated the institution. The most amazing part of Tom’s story is how he recounts how well he was treated and how he kept one of his master’s surnames and even names one of his children after one of his masters. (276-277) -Jason

I find it interesting (something I hadn't noticed before) that we aren't informed of the questions that the interviewees are being asked. Only one slave's recollection (Wallace Quarterman, pages 268-269) had the questions of the two interviewers recorded. I think this is an important thing to note because it is very possible that the way the questions were worded and asked probably had an impact on the way in which the blacks responded and the amount of information they decided to reveal.--Carly Winfield

Going along with what Meg mentioned about the positive nature within parts of this reading. Felix Haywood blatantly states that he was happy "what I want to say is, we didn't have no idea of runnin' and escapin'. We was Happy. We got our lickings, but just the same we get our fill of biscuits ever time the white folks had 'em" (265). Carly W. brings up a great point in regards to the interview questions being left out. The questions and the attitude from the interviewer can shape and mold the interview if desired so it does leave the reader with a skewed sense of memory from the information provided. --Mary O.

I'd like to know more about that, too, Carly. I wonder what questions were being asked to give these responses....In the interview on 270 of Susan Meritt I’m curious about how she was related to the slaves on the farm. When she talks about “the slaves” it’s always in third person and only once in first. Does this mean she saw herself different than the slaves in the fields? Was she strictly in the house? Did this make her different? Could this mean that she stayed with her owner even after she was freed? Or does this simply be how she viewed her relationship with the other slaves during the 1930s? Her interview also gave me some of what I expected to hear about the atrocities against newly freed men. -- Brooke

One of the things that I found very interesting about the second part of Remembering Slavery was the accounts where an ex-slave talked described how the war did not really affect them. He claimed that others made a big deal about the huge impact that it had on their lives when really some were not affected at all. This makes you think about the impact of those around them and why they remember it so strongly one way or another. Is one person possibly saying something because it was how they remembered it, or because they hear others around them describing it like that? -- Kelly F.

It is interesting to note the relationship between slave master and slave in Remembering Slavery. "Old man Dave Robinson was good to me…Treated me almost like I was one of his own children. Course I had to work.  Sometimes he whipped me -- but no more than he had to" (276). There seems to be a bond between the two that resemble a confused intimate relationship. On one hand the slave master owns and forces the slave to work, however, on the other hand the master and the slave live on the same land and work directly with each other. To me it is reminiscent of Stockholm Syndrome. Was it common for slaves to feel compelled to stay with their masters after the war? Did the Emancipation Proclamation cause a divide between slaves and their masters. due to the slaves desires for freedom? -- Donald P.

General Questions
&lt;p&gt;What does Blight mean when he says that the imperative of healing was "the prisoner of memory" while the imperative of justice was "a creature of law" (pg. 57)? -Sean

I may be taking this too literally, but I think the imperative of healing is the prisoner of memory because healing means moving on. It is difficult to heal without dealing with the memory of what needs healing. It would be difficult to heal if the memory of the occurrence was a constant negative. The imperative of justice cannot coincide with the imperative of healing, because justice is served by the laws that make them, and not the memories that have been affected by them. -Ana Y.

How does a country go about reimbursing someone for generations of servitude and slavery? How would a politician even start going about balancing the need to progress toward policies of black-white equality and the wants of southern whites to return to the "old South"? (pg. 42)---These questions seem stunningly difficult to answer when reading the exchange between Trowbridge and the ex-slave who wanted his rights and felt that land he had toiled on was due. --Matt Allen ^General Questions but from Blight-^(Matt)

Something that struck me in these works and the works from last time, is the sheer volume of sources. That makes it exceedingly difficult to have a clear discussion, or even to separate trends and patterns in what people were thinking and doing. While no time period in history is free of this, it seems to be especially problematic in this post-War era. How can we account for this challenge? --Carly B

Because of the readings thus far (and my own personal interest in the topic), I find the controversy between the proper ways to commemorate and bury dead soldiers in the immediate post-war era interesting. The average lesson taught from the Civil War is that it was a war of brother against brother that ultimately ended up reuniting the country. However, in most instances we see Confederate cemeteries and Union (typically national) cemeteries. Just a broad comment but I feel like this is an example that definitely contradicts the idea of the Civil War being about reuniting the country. The soldiers buried and re-interred were still separated based on which side they chose to fight for. Any thoughts?--Carly Winfield

We haven't really talked about it much, but what about economic ties between the North and the South? Both before and after the war. Could they have played a role in the reunion over race issue? -- Brooke

That is an interesting aspect to look at Brooke. Before the war both the north and south seemed to be dependent upon each other to keep their economies afloat. The north needed the south's raw materials and the south needed both the north's technology and money to be able to keep their economy going as well. With race, I think it lends a large grey area in the post-war economy. The north still needed the south's crops, but I would imagine having the slaves being freed hurt the production of those crops being sent north. Also, I feel that the north felt infringed upon by the new labor force that was coming to the north in waves. The newly freed slaves migrated north in hopes of new opportunity at a time when northern whites were finally starting to get a life of normalcy after the war. I would think racial tensions would of been very high all over America. -George H

I thought the most interesting aspect of "Remembering Slavery" was in the beginning with the former slaves recollection of when the war ended and their reactions. They all broke out in joyful song. With the importance of song in slave's lives, did whites recognize the importance of their songs? Were slaves songs seen by whites as a method to cope with emotions/events? -- Donald Phelps