Noting a remark in a post made on Richard William’s blog that demonstrates Richard’s belief that saying “Civil War ‘forgetfulness'” is more appropriate than saying “Civil War ‘memory'” (I would argue that both “forgetfulness” and “memory” have valid places in understanding the way people reflect on the war, but that will come in another post), something came to mind.
Nearly 150 years since the war, I find it interesting the way that some people don assumed Civil War era animosities. Granted, some people do have ancestors who, in some way, passed animosity down the family lines (exactly how “original” that animosity is today, as compared to how it existed then, is questionable), but do one or two ancestors (just used as an example here) define the sentiments of ALL our ancestors who lived through the war? So why do some people today engage in the practice of identifying with assumed animosities?
I know for a fact that one of my direct ancestors – Charles Robert Hilliard – upon learning that the person from whom he was purchasing a farm implement was a veteran of the Union army, refused to have lunch with the man.
On the other hand, another direct Confederate ancestor of mine – Siram W. Offenbacker – despite his financial woes, made every effort to attend the huge 50th anniversary reunion at Gettysburg in 1913 and exchange greetings with former foe – only a year before his own death.
So again, do one or two ancestors define the sentiments of ALL our ancestors who lived through the war (or, in the absence of any real linkage with animosities in any ancestors, do we assume animosities just to say we can better identify with an ancestor or set of ancestors of choice)? Not likely. Nor do we have the right to reflect on Union or Confederate soldiers with the same (assuming they are the same) animosities felt by those who lived it. So, are assumed animosities in people in the 21st century a reflection of “memory,” or are they a reflection of “forgetfulness?”
As I already mentioned, there was animosity in some men from both sides. However, as the years passed by, there is evidence that animosities did not dominate all of the actions of veteran organizations. As an example, I remember reading about a meeting held in a convention in Virginia among Confederate veterans, when one veteran stood up and swore that he would not meet with his former enemies (I think this was in Gaines Foster’s Ghosts of the Confederacy). This man was quickly shouted down by the majority of Confederate veterans present, and the reunion did in fact take place.
So, in today’s “remembrance,” how many have “forgotten” the example of reconciliation as displayed in our the actions of our ancestors? Additionally, are not animosities assumed and exhibited today examples of “imagined memory?”
All this having been said… consider this…
Near the time of his death in July 1885, former general and President Ulysses S. Grant, felt that he had lived to see true reconciliation and reunion in the country. In fact, even before Grant’s death, former Confederate General Fitzhugh Lee worked in unison with former Union General Winfield S. Hancock in planning for the day. One newspaper reported of his funeral that “if the war didn’t end in 1865, it certainly did yesterday [at the funeral].” Among his pallbearers were former Confederate Generals Joseph E. Johnson and Simon Bolivar Buckner, as well as former Union General William T. Sherman.
Even years before Grant’s death, while Gen. Robert E. Lee was serving as President of Washington College (now Washington & Lee University), Lee scornfully rebuked a peer when he denigrated Grant in front of him.
Perhaps then, the response of Page County’s own Confederate veterans should not be surprising as most appear to have emulated the example made by Lee. At least that is the way it appears in an article from an August 1885 edition of the Page News, published soon after Grant’s death. As stated in the article, most of the men named to the committee to honor Grant were local Confederate veterans, some of whom had been present at the Luray-Carlisle Reunions that had taken place in 1881.
The Grant Memorial Meeting
A meeting of the citizens of the town and county, including a number of ex-Confederate soldiers, assembled in the Court House at 2 o’clock p.m., Saturday, August 8th, and was called to order by Maj. A.J. Brand, who stated that in response to the request of the Governor of Virginia [Confederate Veteran and Democrat William Evelyn Cameron], we were here to pay tribute to the memory of General Grant.
Upon motion of Maj. J.G. Newman, Judge James E. Stewart, was elected Chairman, and E.A. Wilson, Esq., Sec’y, paid a high tribute to the character of the distinguished dead.
Upon motion a Committee was appointed to draft suitable resolutions. The Chair named the following gentlemen: Maj. J.G. Newman, Dr. H.J. Smoot, Andrew Broaddus, Esq., Maj. A.J. Brand, Col. W.O. Yager, Messrs. T.R. Campbell, Sr., Solon T. Kite, W.W. Hampton, T.C. Strickler, William H. Somers, S.K. Wright, Jno. N. Mauck, and
The Committee submitted the following resolutions, which were adopted:
Resolved, That the Southern soldiers and citizens of Page County deeply deplore the death of the distinguished soldier, patriot, and statesman, General U.S. Grant, whose memory will ever be cherished by them for his magnanimity in their darkest hour.
Resolved, That the firm and courageous stand of General Grant, by which he prevented the arrest and prosecution of that illustrious Confederate General, Robert E. Lee, and other Southern soldiers, entitles him to the lasting gratitude of every American patriot.
Resolved, That as a warrior and statesman, General Grant gained a renown which elicited the admiration and applause of all mankind, yet his demeanor and bearing was always that of modest and unpretending citizen.
Resolved, That we unite with all patriotic citizens of the Republic in lamenting the death of the eminent soldier, statesman, and patriot, yet we rejoice that he lived long enough to receive assurances of the sympathy of all brave men, who had antagonized him in war, and to realize the most earnest desire of his heart – a restored and happy union of fifty-five millions of American freemen bound together by fraternal ties which we ardently hope will ever remain indissoluble and imperishable.
Resolved, That the newspapers are requested to publish these proceedings, and that the Judges of the County and Circuit Courts of Page County are requested to have them entered of record in the minute books of their respective Courts.
Pathetic and eloquent speeches were delivered by Maj. J.G. Newman, Maj. A.J. Brand, Dr. H.J. Smoot, Andrew Broaddus, Esq., and the Chairman, Hon. James E. Stewart.
So, as far as “forgetfulness” goes, in the act of reflecting, in modern times, on our ancestors and the general actions of veterans in reconciliation efforts, “where did the love go?”
Richard Williams
December 1, 2008
You write: “So, as far as “forgetfulness” goes, in the act of reflecting, in modern times, on our ancestors and the general actions of veterans in reconciliation efforts, “where did the love go?”
Excellent question Robert.
I would tend to agree with Professor Clyde Wilson’s opinion, which I think answers, at least in part, your question:
“The “Lost Cause mythology” was but a part of an understanding reached by most Americans around the end of the 19th century. (I am aware this agreement excluded African-Americans, but that is another story. There was little North/South difference of opinion on that.) The understanding, which was deemed essential to the strength of the country, went something like this: The Civil War had been a terrible ordeal for Americans. But perhaps it had been the crucible necessary to create a new, strong nation out of the original Union. At any rate, most people on both sides were satisfied that in the end America was held together. Nearly all Southerners sincerely accepted this. They would ever after be staunch supporters of the United States, as they have proved many times over ever since in countless ways, including their persistent over-representation in the combat arms of the national forces. All they asked in return was an acknowledgment that, if they had been wrong in the pursuit of independence, they had not been dishonorable and that they had fought a good fight that could be appreciated as a part of the pride of all Americans. Until rather recently that little has been granted, but “America” is now in the process of reneging on its part of the bargain.” – Clyde Wilson, Ph.D.
In other words, certain segments of our America have “forgotten” this understanding, i.e. that honoring the South’s/Confederacy’s heroes-and her symbols-after the war was to be part of the reunification process.
That, sir, is what has been forgotten.
Best Regards,
RGW
cenantua
December 1, 2008
Richard,
Thanks for the comment.
“The Civil War had been a terrible ordeal for Americans. But perhaps it had been the crucible necessary to create a new, strong nation out of the original Union. At any rate, most people on both sides were satisfied that in the end America was held together. Nearly all Southerners sincerely accepted this. They would ever after be staunch supporters of the United States, as they have proved many times over ever since in countless ways, including their persistent over-representation in the combat arms of the national forces.”
To some degree, I can agree with that. However, “the crucible necessary” comment implies that the Civil War was inevitable and necessary. This is contrary to some of the arguments made by some within the new-age Confederate remembrance… even in the content of some SCV camp websites and rhetoric of some SCV members in high places.
Also, as for “Nearly all Southerners accepted this”… I’m certain that we can identify many, under the guise of “new age Confederate remembrance,” who “do not agree,” and that is another problem.
“All they asked in return was an acknowledgment that, if they had been wrong in the pursuit of independence, they had not been dishonorable and that they had fought a good fight that could be appreciated as a part of the pride of all Americans. Until rather recently that little has been granted, but “America” is now in the process of reneging on its part of the bargain.”
I’d argue that there was no real bargain or guarantee… and it was not at all “granted.” Despite the clasping of hands between veterans, there was considerable apprehension in the Union veterans when it came to Confederate remembrance. Respect of the former foe was one thing, but the symbology and celebration was concerning to many Union veterans. In many ways, the nation reunited turned its head away or simply ignored Confederate remembrance as the focus was to move on. Somewhere in that process, it seems that it became a “forgotten” that Confederate remembrance continued as a privilege and not a right. Suppression of remembrance might have complicated and even proven problematic in the efforts to reconcile.
You do realize don’t you, that there was talk in the South (I think in the 1870s or 80s) of another rebellion? I’d have to look it up, but I think I remember Jubal Early as being somewhere in the middle of the talk, and I don’t mean as a peacekeeper. Furthermore, Union veterans of the G.A.R. were quite conscious of this and had battalions on the “reserve” and in anticipation of another rebellion. I think Wilson’s comment is either assuming too much based on his perception of history or he is just unaware of the facts behind the history.
Innocent Confederate remembrance of ancestry aside, it appears that the concerns of Union veterans have been proven valid considering the many who have used and those who continue to use Confederate symbology as the foundation for a number of activities that would be considered contrary to anything acceptable by Union veterans or even anything that may have been assumed as “granted” in reconciliation.
I’m quite compelled with your thought of “Civil War ‘forgetfulness.'” There is quite a great deal to consider when looking at this angle and that of “Civil War ‘memory.'” It appears a great deal more than we could imagine has, in fact, been “forgotten.”
Best, Robert
Michael Aubrecht
December 1, 2008
I would bet that many Americans (myself included) have just as much animosity towards the U.S. government today as they did back then. The difference is that we are from both the north and south this time.🙂
cenantua
December 1, 2008
Michael,
Thanks for commenting.
I’m not so sure we should even compare modern animosities with animosities at the time leading up to the war. I think the context in which animosities are felt is different from the way they “were felt.” While one might make connections with the results of the war to contemporary politics or government, the blurring of the line between emotions from now and then can diminish the respective significance of the “animosities” within the context of American history. I know some people who, because they don assumed historical animosities as if they were their own, present real problems not only in their “presentations” of history, but also in the manner they use, for example, the “Confederate heritage platform” as a foundation for their modern anti-government sentiment.
David Schneider
December 2, 2008
I enjoyed reading about both your ancestors. The individual stories are, to me, the most fascinating part of this history.
“… but “America” is now in the process of reneging on its part of the bargain.”
“I’d argue that there was no real bargain or guarantee…”
There was no explicit bargain, but beginning with the mutual respect of veterans themselves- excellent examples of which are mentioned in the above post- there was a conscious effort on both sides to accept each other as patriotic and as fully American. For about a hundred years references to the Confederacy in the media were usually respectful, objective, and veterans were written about as 3-dimensional humans.
Now the voices of authority and American culture (to non-academics like me, the monolithic “They”) have made a 180 degree turn. All of a sudden these men who were gently brought into the fold of American unity are being pushed back out. These Southern icons replaced state loyalty with national patriotism. Now they are simply known for “treason”. Now there is no difference between “Confederate” and “Nazi”. Indeed, where did the love go? Now, every Southern soldier was fighting to oppress African Americans, whether he knew it or not. And it is offensive to cite primary sources that state otherwise.
“…why do some people today engage in the practice of identifying with assumed animosities?”
This is fertile ground for people who are looking for an axe to grind. Some people are looking for an animosity to assume. Ironically, even the loudest new era Southerner has benefited from the security and prosperity the past 140 years of unity has given us.
cenantua
December 2, 2008
David,
You said…
“Now the voices of authority and American culture (to non-academics like me, the monolithic “They”) have made a 180 degree turn. All of a sudden these men who were gently brought into the fold of American unity are being pushed back out. These Southern icons replaced state loyalty with national patriotism.”
I think you make an excellent point here. It seems, in a number of people, the modern mindset complicates ability to look back on the past “on the same terms of the past.” There is a tendency to superimpose modern perceptions of “how things should” be in the present on what we see as the way things “should have been” in the past. Sort of like armchair quarterbacks. Yet, it’s hard not to do this. I try not to do so, but I’m sure I do it from time to time.
However, speaking of icons, you’ve made me remember something about which I need to write; the ability of some specific Confederate icons to reconcile. While the same icons are raised on-high by some in the new era Confederate remembrance movement, it seems the example set by those icons had been conveniently (shall I say it? Yup, I’m going to say it.) “forgotten.” I’ll need to get back to this later in a post.
“Now they are simply known for ‘treason.’ Now there is no difference between ‘Confederate’ and ‘Nazi.’ Indeed, where did the love go? Now, every Southern soldier was fighting to oppress African Americans, whether he knew it or not. And it is offensive to cite primary sources that state otherwise.”
This is something I still have a problem with. I don’t like the comparisons made between Nazis and Confederates. It’s a totally different ballgame. At the same time however, I’m frustrated with the inability for die-hard Confederate flag waivers to understand the contradictions in what the Confederate government was saying and what the dirt-farmer soldier was saying. The government and some high-ranking Confederate officers make clear their interests in secession for the sake of preserving the institution of slavery. Meanwhile, the common soldier, in my experience, tends to show other reasons for fighting; reasons not tied to slavery. Then, and this is just my opinion here, I think that those with an interest in slavery did not exploit their interests among the common soldier, but played upon the concerns centered on “hearth and home.” By doing so, the interests of the slaveholders received the support it needed in an army of men focused on different interests.
The labeling of Southerners with the title of “treason” is another issue. I think in theory, the crime of treason might apply in some respect, but there are still problems with that argument.
“Some people are looking for an animosity to assume. Ironically, even the loudest new era Southerner has benefited from the security and prosperity the past 140 years of unity has given us.”
I agree, absolutely…
Thanks for the contribution to the discussion.
Richard Williams
December 2, 2008
David:
“there was a conscious effort on both sides to accept each other as patriotic and as fully American. For about a hundred years references to the Confederacy in the media were usually respectful, objective, and veterans were written about as 3-dimensional humans.”
“Now the voices of authority and American culture (to non-academics like me, the monolithic “They”) have made a 180 degree turn.”
You are absolutely correct sir. And much of the so-called “neo-Confederate” sentiment is simply a reaction to that 180 degree turn. Certainly, some of that reaction is over the top and silly, but much of the concern over Southern heritage violations is a legitimate reaction to this PC change.
And yes, there are a number of problems with the “treason” charge. The federal government knew this at the time which is the main reason Jefferson Davis was never tried.