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

McPherson, What They Fought For I would agree with McPherson about the motivations for soldiers, both North and South, but I would disagree with the way that he presents the information. Sure, Confederate soldiers were motivated to defend their homes and Federal soldiers were motivated to preserve the union, but that is not what they FOUGHT for, that is why they joined and served and in many cases why they stayed. They fought for self-preservation and the guys to their left and right. What I didn't see McPherson take into account is the nature of letters written home by soldiers compared with reality. Service members have rarely been completely forthright when writing letters to loved ones from combat zones. Soldiers writing letters home in our times might echo the ideas of freeing subjugated peoples and neutralizing those that do the subjugating, but they fight for self-preservation and the preservation of their fellow service members. It would only seem natural that soldiers during the Civil War would simply echo the sentiments of the side they were fighting on, thereby keeping their loved ones convinced of their "commitment to the cause." What is left out is the role of religion and peer pressure in keeping the soldier fighting. Few soldiers of the era wanted to be labelled a coward and many believed in a divine hand guiding them. Both sides seemed to claim the legacy of 1776 during the Civil War according to McPherson. For Union soldiers, they fought to preserve the government and constitution created by the founders that they believed had been threatened by secession. Southerners believed they were continuing the revolutionary legacy by fighting against what was in their eyes a tyrannical government of even greater threat to their liberties than King George was to the colonists. Even more interesting was McPherson's discovery that southern use of the word slavery to define the threat that the Union posed over them (meaning white enslavement to the north, not black slavery) was almost exactly similar to the way the revolutionaries of 1776 used slavery to describe their subjugation to the British. -Sean McPherson mentions, however, that the research thus far on Civil War soldiers’ attitude and motives has argued that the soldier did not understand or care “’about the constitutional issues at stake’” (2). McPherson is challenging that notion. He, too, looks at the personal diaries and letters of soldiers on both sides to determine whether or not they knew the issues at stake and further, if they identified their own motives with them. I would be the first person to agree with the first poster (there isn’t a name on there!). Maybe they did want to seem to their family that they had “commitment to the cause,” but if I were to be playing the devil’s advocate, I have to go one step further…The personal diaries were not meant to be read by anyone, so soldiers would have felt freer to write about their experiences and their thoughts concerning the war. But even still… If a soldier didn’t believe in what he wrote in either his letters or diary entries and he was only trying to console his loved ones (or himself), McPherson argues that by including these statements he still KNEW about them. McPherson argues, “Not all, of course, but a large number of those men in blue and gray were intensely aware of the issues at stake and passionately concerned about them” (4). He continues this point when he mentions a Mississippi private who wrote in a diary entry: “’Spend much time in reading daily papers &amp; discussing the war question’” (4-5). -- Brooke I really enjoyed looking into the motivations of the different soldiers. I thought it was interesting how the Confederate soldiers seemed to fight more for freedom and protection of their homes more than slavery itself. We were always taught in grade school that the Civil War is a fight over slavery but McPherson points out here (and we talked about it a little in class) that the Civil War was much more than a war over slavery. -Meg O I found the Southern rhetoric of wanting to be free of enslavement to be very ironic (McPherson 12, 49-50). It does seem to contrast with certain Northern stereotypes that all the Southerners were motivated by their desire to have slaves. McPherson argues that it was only a percentage of soldiers who cared about slavery per se; it seems that most of the others fought for varying reasons, from immediate protection to more general ideas of white superiority. -Carly B I really like how McPherson narrows in on what what the North and the South were fighting for. I feel as if the language used by the soldiers to describe what they were fighting for is what made the reading alluring. "We fight for the blessings bought by the blood and treasure of our Fathers...I will fight 'till I die if necessary for the liberties which you have so long enjoyed." (p. 28) The rest of that chapter is full of language similar to that. The memories live on because of the obvious passion behind the voices of the soldiers telling their stories. -Ana Y. The Northern motivation for fighting, according to McPherson, was due to their conception of themselves as inheritors of the Revolution (27, 56). This contradicts the narrative present in the time in the South that they fought only because they wanted to have equality between blacks and whites. On the contrary, evidence suggests that Northerners were very racist, as well, even in abolitionist circles. -Carly B I think McPherson brought up a really interesting point when he starts to compare the importance of patriotic and ideological convictions of both armies by class, in this case, rank. He goes into great detail about how the Union and Confederate armies emphasized different motives, but it was even more illuminating when you look at it by class. From his research, he gathered that there was more cohesiveness amongst the Union army ranks than the Confederate. This says alot about the culture of each region, and how much the South was defined by class and social standings. Its interesting to see that the soldiers brought these convictions and their social identities with them to the battlefield. -Cameron F. If we look at why men on both sides fought then we can better understand causes of the war. Every cause is personal, so when it's being debated we turn to soldier's private writing. Ranging from independence to equality, both sides have clear reasons why they fought. Why is this an important field of study? How do we reflect on letters and diaries today? Why do people still care? -Hannah

Remembering Slavery In reading the testimonies of the many slaves I was struck by one in particular, and for dialectic reasons. Thomas Cole's story begins with the statement, "I might as well begin far back as I remember and tell you all about myself. I was born over in Jackson County, in Alabama, on August 8, 1845." (p. 220) He begins the story in relatively normal dialect, but as he recounts the past and tells his story, his dialect becomes thicker and thicker into one that would have predominated with the slaves during the Civil War. It was as if he "got into character" as he was telling the story. I really enjoyed this reading because I thought it gave a different side to the memories. You generally see the northern side, the southern side and then you see a few slaves’ accounts. I liked being able to read many different accounts and showed the different perceptions from the slaves’ memories. One that really stuck out to me was the one about the slave girl that took her mistress’ opinion of the war because she didn’t know any better. I thought it was interesting that she had no idea what was going on until she heard other slaves saying they were free and her father took her away from the plantation. Like I said, I enjoyed the reading.–Kayle P I agree with Kayle, this reading was great and I thoroughly enjoyed it. This reading opened and entirely new view of Civil War memory for me, seeing that most of what I've read dealt with the accounts of soldiers or civilians of the North and South, not the slave's accounts. Including the slave dialect within the reading creates a deeper connection with the memories being recounted. I found it interesting that some of the former slaves had no idea what "freedom" actually meant for them, "Then I hears some slaves shoutin' glad cose they was free. I didn't know what 'free' meant, and I askes Mrs. Harris if I was free" (215). --Mary O. I’m surprised no one has brought up yet how these are former slaves or friends/family of former slaves recounting their tales decades after the war had ended. What does that say about how they remember the war? What parts are they recounting? What are their feelings towards the Union? The end of the war? Freedom? I hope we’re missing some of the last account. Even though it’s short, though, I think it relates to a lot of what we have been talking about in this course thus far: “It was the endin’ of it that made the difference….but the War didn’t change nothin’ (262). The readings for today have emphasized the importance of slavery and freedom in the Civil War. But they all also indicate how “the War didn’t change nothin’ (Remembering Slavery, 262). -- Brooke I too was struck by the fact that the memories selected in this book showed a variety of slaves' knowledge about what freedom was and what the war was actually being fought over, how slaves interpreted the war, whether or not slaves had similar attitudes as their owners about the war, etc. Given the fact that we know that most slave owners in the South tried to keep their slaves as ignorant as possible to the war and freedom, I was curious as to other people's thoughts on how geography likely plays a major role in how slaves' knowledge about the war was impacted. Personally, I think that the slaves most ignorant to the war and the idea of freedom were more than likely located in the Deep South. However, I'm a bit stumped on the slaves who were sympathetic with their owners (such as Katie Phoenix). Given, she was just a child at the time and a house servant, which sometimes provides slaves with a more intimate relationship and experience with their masters than, say, a field hand, but surely she wasn't the only slave who expressed the same feelings as those of his/her owner. Also, I agree with Brooke's comment about keeping in mind the timing of the recountings (decades after, in some cases) and how that can play a vital role in how the story being told may be edited or altered. --Carly Winfield Blight, Race and Reunion I really enjoyed reading this view of the Civil War. I thought it was interesting to point out that "Gettysburg haunted American memory, both as a reminder of the war's revolutionary meanings and as the locus of national reconciliation." (15) I wonder why we hold Gettysburg so close in our heart, not only the battle but also the address Lincoln gave. What makes these two stand out from the rest? And what was the importance of giving the speech in Gettysburg? There must have been other places that would have had the same affect. I also thought it was interesting the Walt Whitman called the Civil War the "Secession War." (21) He is obviously putting fault on the southern states for the start of the Civil War. Does he not realize it takes two sides to begin and end a war? Also, was this view popular among the northerners at the time? -Meg O Blight introducing Walt Whitman surprised me. I thought it was interesting how Blight wove Whitman’s memories and how Civil War affected him into the reading. I thought that it showed a different side of the memories of the war. I felt that it gives the reader something more personal to connect with (even if it may be one sided as Meg points out), since Whitman was originally travelling to the hospital to find his brother. –Kayle P Blight calls the vision of the future for America that Lincoln and Douglass outline in their speeches and writings, the "regenerative" revolution (pg 18). Regeneration means to create anew but often is used when describing something that was destroyed and made better. And of course revolution means to induce dramatic change. Put together these two words imply that something has been drastically changed for the better. This is an appropriate term to apply to Lincoln and Douglass's vision of the new America after the war as one drastically changed for the better as a result of the end of slavery and the beginning of racial equality. -Sean I have to go along with Kayle's and Meg's comments/questions on Blight's inclusion of Walt Whitman's involvement and impact on the memory of the war. As Meg pointed out, Whitman referred to the Civil War as the "Secession War," but based on Blight's description that "Whitman loathed Southern 'fireaters' and Northern 'abolitionists' with equal disdain" (21), what exactly were Whitman's sentiments towards the war? Blight says that "Whitman did speak for millions" (21), so was it common consensus throughout post-war America both sides were completely wrong, or were the two extremities (fireaters and abolitionists) were in the wrong? What impact have opinions such as Whitman's had on the memory of the war in the years that have followed? --Carly Winfield I have a feeling that I am really going to enjoy reading this book, with that being said, I found Blight's opening argument "Civil War memory began well before the conflict ended" extremely interesting (6). By focusing on what was written or spoken during the war Blight examines how those words created memories of the war while it was still being fought and those words still have preserved Civil War memory today. Both Lincoln and Douglass gave numerous speeches during the war. Lincoln's dedication speech at Cemetery Hill was based on remembering those who gave their lives for the war, while Douglass and his speeches created memories for freedom and equality among blacks. What I found most interesting was that Blight devoted half of this chapter to Walt Whitman's work and views of the war. Many of Whitman's works were based on his personal memories and experiences from the war and Blight makes an excellent point when he states "In poetry, and especially in prose remembrance, Whitman left a literary testament to the war" (19). --Mary O. I experienced the same surprise as some others when Walt Whitman was brought up. I never would have paired him with the rhetoric of the Civil War, but that might just because I've only ever learned about him in English poetry classes. However, his contribution to the mourning period Americans experienced after the Civil War was extremely important, for he could put into words what the majority of the population was feeling. Blight says that Whitman was able to "depoliticize the suffering" of the Civil War, which I think is necessary in order for Americans to reconcile and move on. -Cameron F. One of the themes that really stuck out with me was the theme of “death” and “rebirth” that was evident in the minds of both the North and the South after the war, and how necessary they both were after the war ended. Although there were differing views during the war, was it necessary for both sides to see the “death” and “rebirth” as something that needed to happen in order for the country to re-emerge as a whole?- Kelly F.

I found it interesting that Blight included the memory of the post-war struggles of the black population in the south, but didn't seem to speak of any struggles of the black population in the north. Surely there were struggles all over America in the post-war climate, however Blight focused more on how black churches in the north celebrated the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation instead (pgs 25-28). Any thoughts on why Blight took this direction? -George H

Do we remember the valor of soldiers to avoid other memories of the war? -Hannah

What I found most interesting about Walt Whitman's memory of the Civil War or 'Secession War' is that Whitman felt that bloodshed actually led to his spirit of reconciliation (pg. 20). He places the blame on those who threatened the unified nature of America and placing blame on both northern and southern aggressors. This is the most astonishing idea to me because the blame therefore falls on the lack of America's ability to compromise. I had never thought of it like form this perspective as usually the blame is placed on southern secession or northern aggression. -Question: Could this lack of ability to compromise have been widespread as common citizens saw the brutality of war and led to the quick movement toward reconciliation? -Matt Allen Debate topics (Northern Agression versus Southern Secession) VS. inability to Compromise -Matt Allen General questions