On Saturday afternoon, I had the opportunity to visit the American Civil War Center, and, as one who is in search of how Southern Unionists are represented in reflections of the Civil War, I began my walk-through anticipating what I might find. While an interesting and different way to present the history of the war and, perhaps more importantly, how it has been “remembered,” I was incredibly disappointed that Southern Unionists were in no way represented. I found an exhibit showing a butternut badge (Southern-sympathizing Northerners), saw the mention of Copperheads, and I even saw a quote (more or less, if the South loses the war, it will be because of the Southern people, or actually lack of support from them), but not once was the phrase “Southern Unionist” used! Did I miss something??? If not, I’m shocked at the absence.
I realize that I am pro-active in seeing the history of Southern Unionists brought into the overall story of the war, most especially with the Sesquicentennial on our doorstep, but really… for a museum that challenges the way that we “remember” the Civil War, it seems there should be something in there. The experience has left me even more determined to find museums that actually recognize Southern Unionists in some form of fashion. I know one exists here in the Valley (The Valley Brethren-Mennonite Heritage Center), but Southern Unionists were by no means limited to those who based their position on religious dissent. I also think the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley mentions Southern Unionists, but will have to take a look at their exhibit there again (I think it also tells the story of Southern Unionists from the same angle as the Valley Brethren-Mennonite Heritage Center). So, really, how many museums actually mention Southern Unionists and the role that they played in the war? It’s strange, but I’m finding more mention of Southern Unionists in historical markers across the landscape than I am in museums. I wonder why that is.
Greg Rowe
April 20, 2009
Could it be that many Unionists’ descendants have not donated any materials to museums for display either due to a lack of knowledge of their ancestors’ involvement, a la your recent repost by Terry Thorton?
cenantua
April 21, 2009
I think with or without physical items, the museum could have presented something about Southern Unionists. I think, perhaps, the problem might be that Southern Unionism just hasn’t been given a lot of attention by most museums, whether that is because they haven’t realized its prevalence or they can’t seem to figure out how to weave it into the overall presentation.
Greg Rowe
April 21, 2009
I just realized, I didn’t give the “or” for the “either” in the last comment.
Or could it be a little shame about their ancestors’ involvement as a Unionist?
cenantua
April 21, 2009
Nahhhhhh, I don’t think it was shame. Honestly, I think that, as opposed to the mass pony-up by so many because of secession fever in 1861 (from which many tumbled later as disaffected or disillusioned Confederates), the Southern Unionists resistance of the “herd mentality” shows even greater courage. Sort of a secession from the secessionists.
acwresearcher
April 21, 2009
I was mainly playing devil’s advocate here. (Should that be just playing the devil?) Yes, I believe you are more accurate in saying the lack of attention in the scholarship makes it difficult for museums and preservationists to interject it into the overall narrative of the museum. I would have thought the American Cvil War Center might have been better able to do this, but obviously not. As far as why, I believe it is the confusion among general history consumers that “Southern=Confederate.” The museum boards know this, so it is largely ignored for the sake of creating places the public will actually visit. Does it do the public a disservice? Of course, but museums must actually have a public to serve. That means making exhibits the public at-large will be interested in visiting. That makes the museum business seem a little like the amusement park business, but museum boards want to make sure dollars are spent on what people are actually looking at and for or the money won;t be spent. I guess, sadly, it comes down to money.
cenantua
April 21, 2009
I too would have thought (and was thinking as I first walked in there) that the ACWC would have had something… something…. to show for Southern Unionists. For gosh sakes, Elizabeth Van Lew was a Richmonder! I’ve played the museum game before and am all too familiar with the spin necessary to keep interests. Yet, I think the ACWC just missed an opportunity… an oversight perhaps…
acwresearcher
April 22, 2009
Could a major in historic preservation or public history do an exhibit project like this in lieu of a thesis or a dissertation? That might be a place for some of these museums to begin. It would mean little cost to the organization as grant money to the student could fund research and development of the exhibit. All the museum would need to do is try to allocate the space for it.
cenantua
April 22, 2009
Greg,
That would be a tremendous undertaking for a student. I have to say, it would also be a challenge for some small-mid-sized museums. The planning time, dollar amount, creation, and set-up can also be rather staggering. I was involved in securing a small one panel exhibit one time and was floored by the cost alone.
The thought of creating something like a traveling Southern Unionists exhibit would be an interesting project, however. It would be nice to see something similar to the Lee-Grant exhibit that started at the Virginia Historical Society. By the way, anyone know where that is now or if it has stopped making the rounds?
cenantua
April 22, 2009
Greg,
You have left me thinking on something… if a Southern Unionist exhibit were to be produced and you had say, 750 square feet to set-up the exhibit, I wonder how much one could put in that exhibit. Considering the limitations, what things would tell the story most effectively? This might actually be a good post for the Chronicles blog.
Greg Rowe
April 22, 2009
Perhaps you and Vikki could work together to fill this exhibit void in the museums of Civil War history.
cenantua
April 22, 2009
I’d like to see what many people think would be important to them to portray in such an exhibit. I’ve got my ideas, Vikki has her’s, you have your ideas, and a lot of other folks out there have ideas as well. From different contemporary perspectives, we start, I think, to gain an understanding of the multiple perspectives of Southern Unionists. In fact, it would be really interesting if a lot of us could collaborate in one solid online project. Sure is less costly that actually creating a museum exhibit and… and this is the important part… it has the potential to reach an even larger and more diverse audience.
Greg Rowe
April 22, 2009
You are right in the size of the audience such an exhibit could receive, being online. Ed Ayers created a good model with “The Valley of the Shadow.” Another good model is “The Texas Slavery Project (http://www.texasslaveryproject.org), produced at the University of Virginia by Andrew J. Torgert, a Ph.D. candidate at UVa.
The online resource could also examine the myriad of perspectives on this topic (e.g. “disaffected” Confederates, “disillusioned” Confederates, etc.) that make up so much more than that of those who supported the Union from the start — tracing the patterns of evolving Unionism, but I’m sure you’ve already considered this.
cenantua
April 22, 2009
I’m actually developing a project right now for my digital rhetoric course that focuses on the “Many Souths” of the Civil War era. I’m not exactly sure that it’s going to be a “great” project considering I’ve been so wrapped-up in my thesis, but I’m going to give it a shot…
By the way, thanks for that link to the Texas Slavery Project. I need to take a look at that.