471A3--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday

Reading
One of the women’s groups, The United Daughters of the Confederacy, monitored the printing of school textbooks and wanted to make sure that the South was being represented correctly. “Fearing that schoolchildren might not be taught the ‘true history’ of slavery and the Civil War, Daughters chapters closely monitored and censored textbooks (frequently published by northern presses)” (p. 172) I thought that this was interesting point since this can still be an issue today (I also study education here). I would have never thought that they would monitor the textbooks for their depiction of the war; however I see how that makes sense. It is making sure that legacy is continuing to live on. -Kayle P

The last few chapters of Janney's book really got me thinking about the credit given to the Ladies Memorial Associations. To be completely honest, I never knew that these groups were responsible for so many of the memorials that we link to the Lost Cause today, and it really put into perspective what we've been discussing in class about the way the memory of the Civil War has changed over time. They, at least according to Janney's argument, cleared the way for future women's organizations and set up the basic networks and foundations for future women to build off of. To see how quickly the LMA's were phased out and forgotten really surprised me and made me think about how many other people and organizations are responsible for things that aren't receiving the credit for. --Carly W.

I just happened to have checked out a source book for education from 1912 for my project. This one was created by the Confederate Memorial Literary Society—the auxiliary group to the Hollywood Memorial Association in Richmond. They were looking to preserve the memory of the Confederacy for future generations and in this source book, you can certainly tell. I’m including just a photo of the front cover for here, but I think that’s enough to understand the message of the book. Anyways, now that I have finished Janney’s book, I feel like it was missing something. She states in the beginning of her book that she doesn’t include race because it isn’t relevant to the LMAs during this time. They just weren’t concerned. Yet, she still includes race in her discussion. Then she only offers us maybe one paragraph to explain why the white women of the LMAs wanted nothing to do with black women or men. I also became very frustrated with her discussion of the “apolitical” nature of LMAs. For example, on page 156, “Because women were not thought of as political they could continue to espouse Confederate rhetoric and sympathy even as their male counterparts could not.” Maybe I’m misunderstanding or misread something, but just because they could doesn’t mean they had to. So…why did they continue then? Why did they start for that matter? I don’t feel she answers this well enough. -- Brooke

I thought the placement of Shaw in his monument was significant of the time. I believe that the monument was supposed to acknowledge not just Shaw, but the black soldiers as well. In the monument, Shaw was placed front and center riding a horse above everyone else. The soldiers while being created in great detail, were still not the primary focus. I think if this statue were to be recreated today, Shaw might not of been placed above the rest of his men and more on an even field. His placement above the black soldiers was indicative of the time where white supremacy was still a major factor.-- George H

I found the battle over the Heyward Shepherd Memorial to be fascinating. The games that were played over the display of the memorial were interesting to say the least and the motivations behind the creation were quite disgusting. I completely agree with the sentiment of the Harpers Ferry superintendent, Joseph Prentice when he condoned the daily bathing in urine that the monument was receiving from the “drunken outcasts of the white race.” (Shackel, 104) I would disagree with him and others who say that the monument should not be displayed. I was deeply bothered, as an aspiring historian, to hear sentiments of wanting the monument dropped in the deepest part of the Potomac River. (Shackel, 110) As offensive as the monument is, it is history. Destroying it would be travesty. How would future generations be able to appreciate how some tried to distort history through the dedication of this monument. In my opinion destroying it would be almost as ignorant as creating it in the first place. How would people react if someone decided to bulldoze the Auschwitz concentration camp? -Jason

I agree to a certain extent Jason. I definitely don't believe historical monuments should be defaced in that respect, however, history is always up for interpretation. Everyone will always have a different view of a certain event in time. Your example of bulldozing Auschwitz might be a rejoiced solution to one group of people, yet it doesn't represent the era as a whole and would be another event for future historical interpretation.-- George H

As much as I was not convinced by Janney’s argument that remains recovery was motivated by the Lost Cause, she certainly provides ample evidence of the LMAs being motivated by the Lost Cause ideology in the her later chapters. She summed up the LMAs motivations adeptly in her summary paragraph on page 156. She finishes that statement by stating, “…gender excluded women from the national dialogue on reunion just as it continued to provide white southerners a source of power over regional politics and race relations.” Earlier in the chapter, on page 153, she speaks of the women as being more opposed to reconciliation than men. Being thought of as not politically relevant left the women free to continue to espouse the ideas of the Lost Cause. That freedom almost certainly reinforced their ideas in a way that wouldn’t have happened for their male counterparts. If the women are constantly spreading the propaganda of southern heritage, no alternative viewpoints, or a bigger picture, are allowed to present themselves. It would seem that they are in effect sheltered from reality through the freedom that they are afforded. -Jason

After finishing Janney's book and stepping back to view the evolution of the LMAs and women's memorial groups, I was amazed at how far they came in relatively short amount of time. From being unofficial groups of women whose goal was to make sure every Confederate soldier had a proper grave to opening a Confederate Museum in the former White House of the Confederacy, these women showed undeniable determination and commitment. The support that was needed for them to accomplish things on such a large scale shows how important the memorialization of the Conferderacy and how popular the Lost Cause rhetoric was to Southerners in the years following the war. Especially in a time period were women didn't have the same agency as males, the devotion it took to follow their agenda through says alot about the memory they were determined to leave behind. -Cameron F.

Janney contests Karen Cox’s argument for why women were attracted to the UDC. She says: “women of the memorial associations had been motivated by these same desires for more than three decades. Perhaps something more concrete, more practical, spurred interest in the Daughters. ” 169. She gives her counter, but I wish she would have made more of a complete conclusion for her opinion, other than the fact that it was the numbers for the Daughters that drew in new ladies. – Ana Y.

Something that struck me in Janney’s reading was that it was the role of the women to teach the next generation about the importance of the confederate soldiers who gave their lives to the cause. Janney states, “By “preserving” the past and teaching the “true history” of the south, white women sought to encounter the negative and condescending stereotypes of the region and instill regional pride in coming generations” (157). Even though they lost the War there was this sense of pride in being a Confederate soldier and the role of white women was make sure the future generations were proud of their ancestors and focused not on the fact that they lost the war, but the bravery and what they stood for. I think it is important to look at the ideas that were passed down by these women to the younger generations because these are the memories that get passed on and contribute to what we learn about the memory of the Civil War today. -- Kelly F.

The story of the Heyward Shepherd memorial really stood out to me. From the numbers of whites and blacks that attended the unveiling of the monument, to the fact that the superintendent of Harpers Ferry actually turned it around really got my attention. I completely agree with Jason in saying that is it, indeed, a part of history. Now allowing the public to view it, no matter how controversial it may be would be wrong. Even as recent as 1997, it was covered by a plywood box. The efforts that went into trying to get rid of the monument were outstanding. Even the NAACP found it offensive. I can only imagine what would have happened if Andrew's initial draft of the inscription would have been used. - Ana Y.

I agree with both Ana and Jason, the Shepherd memorial controversy was fascinating. Having visited Harpers Ferry numerous times I learned more from Shackel's book about the John Brown Fort and the Heyward Shepherd memorial than I have from actually visiting the fort itself. The back history of the Shepherd memorial is extremely intense, and I was a little shocked that the NPS did not know what to do with the memorial once it acquired the land it was on. As Jason mentioned the fact that the superintendent of the NPS was entertained by the fact that locals were defacing the memorial was even more shocking. History at times can be offensive but that does not make it any less a part of history, it should not be hidden or erased from historical record. Memorializing certain aspects of American history is always going to raise issues with different groups of people, it would be impossible to create memorials that pleased everyone, we cannot change history, and we have to accept it, the good and the ugly. –Mary O.

The manipulation and changing of the John Brown Fort's meaning over time was remarkable to see documented in such a clear form. From the earliest meanings of struggle to the turn of the century where the meaning seemed to take on a sense of martyrdom and equality, the meanings always seemed to be placed in the present for those trying to use the fort. The time period that truly grasped this idea was during the 1960's where the civil rights movement seemed to use it as a symbol of social justice. All of these symbolic meanings (ie. struggle for freedom, equality, social justice...) can all be seen as similar but take on whole new meanings when placed in the context of how they were being used. -Matt Allen

The next thing I found remarkable was the backlash to the John Brown memory which developed through a memorializing of the "faithful slave". The Heyward Shepherd monument seemed to be the purest embodiment of the attempt of ex-confederates to portray a old southern memory of passive, obedient, and happy black slaves with civil and honorable whites living in harmony. (<--some might say this is an exaggeration, but I think it fits their ideology of the time.) It is very intriguing to see the battle over the memory of an event from two sides so clearly as through the memorializing of Brown and Shepherd and the altering of the memory over the same time period. -Matt Allen

I cannot fathom how people in the 1990s still thought it was okay to display that Shepherd monument without interpretation. Um… what? It isn’t “true” history, UDC? I agree with Jason that just tossing it into the river or destroying it would have been a tragedy for historians. And Shaw! The way Saint-Gauden talked about the black models for his sculpture was rather intriguing, “I shall select the one that best suits my purpose…I may send ‘em both back” (131). Obviously the sculptor had his own prejudices, saying that they had “imaginative, though simple, minds” (131). We talked about this monument in our Film class when we watched Glory. What I didn’t realize then, however, was the name of the memorial: “The Shaw Memorial.” Really? That’s how we remember the 54th? Doesn’t that say a lot right there? -- Brooke

Women spent the latter part of the 19th century re-establishing gender ideology and ladies' association rhetoric by teaching new generations. The new generations don't really bring a memory from the war. They bring perceptions and the collective memory of the generation of ladies before them. It's interesting that the LMAS tried to rebuild southern society, like before the war. Upholding traditions, teaching children, and publicly announcing moral wrongs were strong influences. They would have established new gender roles in society if they weren't so elitist. - Hannah

I've always found John Brown to be a difficult figure to study in history because of the obvious paradox of a man who fought hard for a cause he truly believed in yet used violence and sometimes terrible violence to achieve it. In many ways he can be considered a terrorist by todays standards but this is a hard label to apply because many Americans today can sympathize with is cause.- Sean

Debate topics
The LMAs' need for control over Confederate memory -- Brooke

Changing historic monuments to reflect context vs leaving them as is to be a reminder (or because it is "more true") -- Brooke

Shackel's depiction of each time period with relation to the interpretation of John Brown's Fort. For example, 1890s trends versus 1990s trends. - Carly B

Questions to ask Dr. Janney next week
Her choice of topic Why did Dr. Janney decide to write about this topic in particular? Other than what was already written under her acknowledgments, how does she connect with this on a deeper level? - Ana Y.

I know that this book was Dr. Janney's dissertation, but I was wondering if she would've approached it any different if she didn't have the pressure of writing a dissertation? Basically, I guess I'm asking if she catered to writing a dissertation? -Meg O

Expanding on Meg O's question, I was wondering if Dr. Janney was limited to focusing on just LMA groups in Virginia due to this being her dissertation or was there something specific about the five Virginia LMA's that caused her to focus solely on those groups? --Mary O.

What would this book look like if it included GA, SC, NC etc. LMAs? Was the distribution of monuments and types of monuments different in other states?

Who were they? Why were ladies memorial associations in the south mainly upper class women? -Sean

Percentages/Numbers of LMA People who are NOT related to confederate soldiers?

Content/argument questions

Did the women have any control over the content of the men's speeches at Memorial Day celebrations?

How did the memorial associations work with the directors of Hollywood Cemetery? Was it a positive relationship? Were there any tensions? How did cemeteries and other memorial spaces transfer from the care and tending of LMAs to what they are now? -- Brooke

The treatment of religion is relatively brief in your book. Did religion and religious thinking play a smaller role than commonly accepted? - Carly B

Historiography

How has historiography changed since your book? Would you change anything in it? --If she could go back and correct any of her arguments, or refine any of them, which ones would they be and why? - Ana Y.

What was your favorite part of this book to research? -Kayle P.

Process What would a documentary of your book look like? How would you start one? What would you focus on?