471A3--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

Gallagher points out the problem of the Lost Cause in that some parts of it are rooted in truth. He hits the nail on the head when he says, “…it is important to engage each part of the Lost Cause interpretation on its merits. Such an approach promises at least two positive results. First, …a better understanding of…how Americans have sought to create satisfactory public memories of major events. Second, and perhaps more important, a willingness to point out instances in which authors such as Early advanced arguments well supported by evidence will lend greater power to critiques of Lost Cause interpretations based on blatant twisting of the historical record.” (p. 58) The acknowledgment that some tenets of the Lost Cause are at least partially true lends credibility to historians. This credibility will in turn allow their criticisms of the other tenets of the Lost Cause to be better received and will thus further the discussion. –Jason I really enjoyed reading the Gallagher article, I thought that it was a different way to approach the Lost Cause ideology. I was really struck when he stated "a major reason these elements of the myth of the Lost Cause continue to resonate is that they are not myths at all." (58) One place where this showed was during Gallagher's discussion about the Union victory. He recognizes that not only the South acknowledged the Union's numbers and resources, the North also noticed their advantage, it was only under Grant that their numbers and resources became a true advantage. -Meg O Living in Yorktown, we tend to spend a lot of time going over the Revolutionary War and nowhere near enough time talking about the Civil War. Also, my family being from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, I get a very skewed perspective of the Civil War. So I find that looking at different aspects of Lee is increasingly interesting and added to my growing understanding of his abilities and leadership, in both the Gallagher article and Savage article. Although both of these articles took different approaches to look at Lee, I believe that there was truth in both sides. -Meg O In describing the use of the equestrian statue to depict Lee, Savage seemed to try to speak for what the ex-Confederates might have been thinking. He seems to emotionally espouse what he thinks they were thinking and what their rationale was without supporting it. He begins his association between the Lee monument and white supremacy by stating, “The image of Lee on his horse worked beautifully as a model of leadership for a white supremacist society trying to legitimate its own authority.” He sums up the same paragraph by saying, “The equestrian Lee is at once a retrospective image of the benevolent master, good to his inferiors, and a prospective image of a postwar white government claiming to know what is best for its own black population.” He continues in the next paragraph, “Since the equestrian image of Lee stood for nothing less than the moral authority of the Confederacy and of white power in general…” (p. 135) I don’t pretend to deny that white supremacy reigned, both north and south, but these statements seem overblown to me. Could it possibly be that they held Lee up to be a military hero and the most respectful way to memorialize him would be on a horse, just like Col Shaw, Marcus Aurelius, and all of the Union Generals at Gettysburg? - Jason Cullen's analysis of the two versions of Lincolns portrayed in biographies by Sandburg and Randall really illuminates how cultural changes can shape the way people write about historical figures. I think that this piece is especially relevant and of interest to us because as history students we have to do the same thing when writing lit reviews. It was surprising to me how Lincoln became relevant again during the Depression and how he was used to conform to the needs of the time. It almost reminds me of what has happened in recent years, with the release of the movie Lincoln that just won alot of awards, the next book we have to read about Lincoln being a vampire slayer, and a movie of the same... Lincoln is making another comeback in popular culture! -Cameron F. Lincoln is my guy. I've heard about Lee so much growing up in a Southern school that I definitely got more from the Lincoln readings than the Lee ones. After reading a bit on Mary Todd’s depiction, especially her relationship with Lincoln, I am curious to know what other people think of her depictions in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Lincoln (2012). -- Brooke. This was just an LOL moment for me in Savage: “If the grand emancipation designs of the 1860s were monuments to a new order that never came to be, the Confederate monuments erected after the war commemorated an old order that never existed in the first place—a slave society without the moral impediment of slavery.” I never really realized this until Savage said it. -- Brooke “PARTY ON DUDES!” “You’re not a- Blahblahblah. I NEVER LIE.” Then suddenly badass Lincoln is axing people and taking names. I think we can see an evolution of Lincoln here (Steven Spielberg is just late to the party. Serious Lincoln was so 30 years ago.) We just want to relate to him, man. But seriously. I’m kind of curious to know how Lincoln compares to other presidents—especially Washington—in our popular memory. I mean, does Washington have a Wikipedia page devoted just to his sexuality? I’m not kidding either. -- Brooke I agree with you Brooke that I am curious to see how you can compare how they are represented. Such I agree I don’t think there is a page on George Washington’s sexuality not do I think there is a George Washington Vampire Hunters. But I also think that because these men are so ingrained in popular memory, I don’t know if there will really be that much of a difference. I think that because everyone has heard about these presidents since a young age, I think that the popular memory might not be that different, there may just be better Lincoln stories out there. –Kayle P I agree with Meg's comment on the Gallagher article, that it was a refreshing deviation from what we normally read about Lost Cause ideology. Other historians tend to focus on what aspects of the Civil War the Lost Cause ignores and highlight their racial motivations. Gallagher, however, takes their views of Lee and Jackson and reveals that there is actual proof behind alot of their ideology. It may have been risky as a historian to work from this angle, in that he might have been criticized for taking the Lost Causes' side, but it is necessary to understand why Lost Cause-ers felt so strongly. I was surprised when Gallagher gave examples of support from Northerners because I thought the Lost Cause's reverence for Lee and Jackson was firmly confined to the South. -Cameron F. Gallagher's example of how extremes in history are ideologically driven was very interesting. He shows how Early exaggerated military sizes in favor of making the South look more outnumbered then they really were to bolster General Lee's prestige. On the same hand, Badeau did the same thing in favor of Grant. Gallagher states that the numbers were actually around 120,000 to 65,000 which still supports the "Lost Cause" ideas. However, these ideas are not as extreme as they would like to think. This shines light on the fact that the "Lost Cause" lasted because of hints of truth while ideology creates exaggerations in the immediate aftermath to defend Southern honor. --Matt A. I Think the comparison between Sandburgh's ideology driven biography of President Lincoln with Randall's purposeful evasion of ideology are a great contrast to show how Sandburgh was a product of his times. He was born and raised in similar conditions to Lincoln and therefore felt connected and sentimental towards him. Sandburgh was also effected by the times in post-World War one America in which government expansion was prominent among the populace. No president represented this kind of active government more than Lincoln which made him a useful tool for Sandburgh. --Matt A. I enjoyed the reading about “faithful slave” monument. I thought that it was interesting to read that they were being honored in the South after the war. However I find what the monument is supposed to depict interesting. “...it was inscribed and dedicated to the faithful slaves who, loyal to a sacred trust, toiled for the support of the army, with matchless devotion and with sterling fidelity guarded our defenseless homes, women and children…” (p.156-157) The monument is a picture of a mammy and the other is a field labor. I think the depiction shows a interesting view of loyalty and protection coming from the South. –Kayle P I, too, found the Gallagher reading to be a refreshing and different approach to the Lost Cause ideology. From what we've read so far, I was under the impression that those who advocated for the Lost Cause were grasping at nothing, but Gallagher has made me completely reanalyze that thought. There was a lot of exaggeration on both Union and Confederate sides, but there was also truth in each sides' statements. For example, Connelly argues that Lee was a post-war (particularly 1880's) figure; however, Gallagher notes: "By the summer of 1863 at the latest, Lee was the most important Southern military figure, and he and the Army of Northern Virginia had become the principal national rallying point of the Confederate people"(51). Just the fact that we see a historian actually sticking up for the Lost Cause movement was very intriguing to me. --Carly W. What I found most interesting about the Cullen article was not that Lincoln was not the different approaches Randall and Sandburg took towards Lincoln, but rather the discussion of Mary Todd Lincoln. I had always heard she was an interesting character (putting it nicely), but I was never aware of Ann Rutledge. Comparing Randall's and Sandburg's biographies, Cullen makes note that the two used virtually the same sources and managed to come out with two very different portrayals. --Carly W. When Dr. M first mentioned that one of the readings for this class was going to be Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter I was really excited, I had already read the book and am a huge fan of historical fictions and what they can offer to the memory of certain eras and events throughout history. I agree with Kayle P in saying that there is a variety of Lincoln stories and I think that is why the author chose him to fill the role of vampire hunter. There have been multiple spin offs including this trailer for Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies from YouTube. --Mary O. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=0tFaQYSFLuE From the Gallagher article, I think it is very interesting that Lee was well aware of the Northern superiority during the war and that it came out in his letters. One letter to Jefferson Davis said, “Though conscious that the enemy has been shattered in the recent battle, I am aware that he can be easily reinforced, while no addition can be made to our numbers” (53). This shows that he knew winning battles was not enough. Eventually he was going to run out of manpower and there was not any way around it. It seems that there was this sense of only being able to prolong the inevitable. --Kelly F. I can definitely see an evolution of Lincoln through the progression of these films. From the early films to the modern ones, Lincoln evolves from a larger-than-life, stoic character to more of a common man put in weird situations, for example, Vampire Hunter and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I think Brooke's point is hilarious regarding Lincoln and sexuality. I never thought Lincoln would be viewed in such a fashion. I guess being considered one of the greatest presidents heightens his sexuality. -- Donald P.

With Lincoln as a personal hero of mine, I found the reading by Edward Cullen to be somewhat difficult because I am a great believer in Lincoln as an extraordinary great an and it seems like Cullen was criticizing Sandburg for emphasizing Lincoln's greatness. Though I understand it was the mysticism, myth and Christ-like portrayals Sandburg made that Cullen was criticizing, my admiration for Lincoln made it difficult to not sympathize with Sandburg in his description of Lincoln.-Sean

Most of the video depictions of Lincoln show that we tend to think of him as a deep voiced, imposing figure from our history, which highlights just how excellent Daniel Day Lewis's recent portrayal of Lincoln was as he his able to show Lincoln with all his oddities, awkwardness and humanity and in doing so, still made the audience love and admire him as much as any other literary or motion picture portrayal.-Sean

Definitely agree Sean. Hopefully you have seen Daniel Day Lewis' Lincoln because it really was a great movie. Definitely deserved the Oscar for his performance. What stands out to me though is America's fascination with portraying these enormous historical figures. Lincoln has such a great history and it makes society want to view him in various shades of light. This leads to the Vampire Hunter movie, which actually wasn't too bad. These historic reimaginings do tend to tend to take the figure and skew it a little too much, yet the director/actors do try to stay close to the original source. Its definitely an interesting dynamic.-- George H I appreciated Gallagher's assessment of revisionist theory with regard to Lee and his contemporaries. He acknowledges the good that revisionists accomplished by "forcing readers to reevaluate Lee's life and Confederate career" (51), while also admitting that the revisionists did become less conscious about the context in which Lee, Early, and Freeman operated. - Carly B.

Taking a step back, I really enjoyed that Gallagher actually interpreted the evidence; in comparison to Blight, it was refreshing to know right up front and without ambiguity what Gallagher thinks and argues. While I understand Blight was writing for a different purpose (to be more of a resource and less of a critical voice), I enjoyed the Gallagher reading more. Because I have less of a background in Civil War history, the clear statements that interpret the evidence are useful, because I am not already familiar with the debates in the field. - Carly B.

I like how in the "A Tree is Best Measured" reading how it begins with the quote about how Sandburg is the worst thing that has happened to Lincoln since Booth shot him. By what the author says, Sandburg portrays Lincoln as a God, in a sense. "Nancy is Mary, and Lincoln is an American Christ." 38. I thought that was kinda funny. I like how the author makes a point about how cultural impulses for Lincoln mythology had become the underlying creation for a heroic Lincoln. I thought that was well put. - Ana Y.

One quote I found interesting was in Slavery's Memorial, "To ardent Unionists Lee was nothing less than a traitor, while the black men who fought against him were heroes. But white Southerners worked hard to reverse these sentiments. Lee was hardly a traitor, they argued, but instead was a courageous Christian gentleman who loved the Union and returned to it wholeheartedly after his defeat (132)." This makes me wonder if Lost Cause activists would say anything just to deflect a lot of the negativity the South received after the war. Its really hard to imagine that Lee "loved" the Union during and after his defeat. To me there has to be some bitterness after losing a war. Also the first part of the quote stood out to me. "The black men who fought against him were heroes." I feel that there was still a lot of unwillingness to accept the black men during Reconstruction and high racial tensions, so I find it kind of hard to believe that whites would call black union soldiers heroes. It just seems slightly exaggerated.-George H

Would Lee's built up reputation and heroism immediately after the war been the same had Early not written the memoir or established Lee in writing? I also agreed with Gallagher's point about writings focusing on Lee and the military tactics to distract people from real causes of the war and slavery. "Lost Cause interpretations, suggest these scholars, were formulated after Appomattox with the intention of placing Lee and the Confederates in the best possible light and continue to carry undeserved weight in Civil War literature." (49) I liked what Gallagher wrote on "manufactured history" with the war's aftermath and legends coming to light. -Hannah