It was a privilege to be part of the study group you lead on Twitter of Dr. Janney’s book. I learned a great deal that informed my understanding of the War of Southern Rebellion, helping me unlearn the lost cause mythology I grew up with and clung to into my late 50s. Perhaps you could lead another study here on Substack?
I have never believed there was or could be “reconciliation” and I think the actual history proves it. The South remained, and to a great extent remains, bitter and committed to their “lost cause” narrative.
Just discuss Reconstruction and their sentiments of resentment, unbowed animosity, and pretty fast revisions of their own history show. Then factor in the at least annual “remembrance” celebrations and the monument narrative that justified and cleansed their “noble cause” of “freedom and you see why they still feel that devotion.
That no one was punished, that the Black Codes, Jim Crow, lynching eras came in with many monuments, that the KKK will never die and the monument issue is seen as spitting on graves...so much was just accepted by the Union in order to move on. And here we are.
The confederate monument in Arlington needs to be removed. Its presence conveys a message I'm not sure the nation intends. I do think the people of 1914 saw the Arlington monument, and probably others, as some symbol of the world power the US was in the process of becoming. It some how showed we had put ourselves back together and were now offering our guiding principles to the world. But it also conveys a message about acceptance (not sure the is what I mean) about or past that I am not sure was intended.
We had, as many here and elsewhere have observed, reunited. But we had not reconciled. In the famous Gettysburg photograph of the veterans shaking hands across the wall I think you see reunification. The looks on the faces of the participants tell you all you need need to know about reconciliation. But I think many of us (Americans in general and myself certainly included) confused reunification with reconciliation and if you look at our role in the 20th century that may well have been a good thing. But it is becoming increasingly clear we have not reconciled and I am not certain we ever will. And, I am not certain that is a bad thing as long as we can accept--not honor it but accept it.
I hope this makes some sense. I have added Janmey's book to my list of things to read you have suggested (along with a couple of Carol Reardon's books)
It does indeed make sense. Thanks for adding your thoughts, Michael. Glad to see your comment builds on the distinction between reunion and reconciliation. As I suggested in the post, there is plenty of evidence that many white Americans likely viewed the dedication ceremony and the monument itself as a symbol/outward sign of reunion, but that did not mean that reconciliation had taken hold. Certainly African Americans, including the veterans who fought in the Civil War, did not see this monument as anything other than a gross distortion and another sign that the nation would continue to treat them as second-class citizens.
Using Janney's definition of reunion and recognizing that the definition of it--like that of reconciliation--changed over time: I'd like to know more about what these speakers in the 1910s found meaningful about the political reunion of two warring parties.
Certainly, northerners in the late 1860s might have been relieved by reunion because they had predicted that secession would lead to the failure of the precious democracy and the emergence of tyranny all over North America. Their worst fears had been avoided.
Looking back from 1914, I suspect it means something different. Not only had the nation been saved from destruction, but the lengths between what potentially could have happened and what the US was at the time of Wilson's presidency could only have been awe-inspiring.... at least for white establishment figures.
Idk, I'm just wondering aloud. (And yes, I'm ignoring reconciliation in this thought exercise).
Janney emphasizes that reunion was a fact resulting from Union victory and that didn't need to be debated. It was accepted by the vast majority of white southerners, who expressed loyalty to the nation, while at the same time maintained their allegiance to the Lost Cause. For them there was no conflict between the two identities. Certainly both white northerners and southerners could celebrate the nation becoming a world power by the turn of the twentieth century as a result of their victory in the Spanish-American War.
It seems to me that this helped to create the space in which both the Lost Cause and expressions of reunion were able to flourish and overlap. I also don't doubt that feelings of reconciliation also blossomed. It must have been a challenge for politicians to maneuver through all of this in their efforts to achieve their goals.
I wish it were that easy. It would involve starting completely over. It's not that the book is no longer useful, but that my interpretive lens would have taken me in many more directions.
It was a privilege to be part of the study group you lead on Twitter of Dr. Janney’s book. I learned a great deal that informed my understanding of the War of Southern Rebellion, helping me unlearn the lost cause mythology I grew up with and clung to into my late 50s. Perhaps you could lead another study here on Substack?
Stay tuned tomorrow for a big announcement tomorrow re: my new book group.
Hurrah!!!
I have never believed there was or could be “reconciliation” and I think the actual history proves it. The South remained, and to a great extent remains, bitter and committed to their “lost cause” narrative.
Just discuss Reconstruction and their sentiments of resentment, unbowed animosity, and pretty fast revisions of their own history show. Then factor in the at least annual “remembrance” celebrations and the monument narrative that justified and cleansed their “noble cause” of “freedom and you see why they still feel that devotion.
That no one was punished, that the Black Codes, Jim Crow, lynching eras came in with many monuments, that the KKK will never die and the monument issue is seen as spitting on graves...so much was just accepted by the Union in order to move on. And here we are.
The confederate monument in Arlington needs to be removed. Its presence conveys a message I'm not sure the nation intends. I do think the people of 1914 saw the Arlington monument, and probably others, as some symbol of the world power the US was in the process of becoming. It some how showed we had put ourselves back together and were now offering our guiding principles to the world. But it also conveys a message about acceptance (not sure the is what I mean) about or past that I am not sure was intended.
We had, as many here and elsewhere have observed, reunited. But we had not reconciled. In the famous Gettysburg photograph of the veterans shaking hands across the wall I think you see reunification. The looks on the faces of the participants tell you all you need need to know about reconciliation. But I think many of us (Americans in general and myself certainly included) confused reunification with reconciliation and if you look at our role in the 20th century that may well have been a good thing. But it is becoming increasingly clear we have not reconciled and I am not certain we ever will. And, I am not certain that is a bad thing as long as we can accept--not honor it but accept it.
I hope this makes some sense. I have added Janmey's book to my list of things to read you have suggested (along with a couple of Carol Reardon's books)
It does indeed make sense. Thanks for adding your thoughts, Michael. Glad to see your comment builds on the distinction between reunion and reconciliation. As I suggested in the post, there is plenty of evidence that many white Americans likely viewed the dedication ceremony and the monument itself as a symbol/outward sign of reunion, but that did not mean that reconciliation had taken hold. Certainly African Americans, including the veterans who fought in the Civil War, did not see this monument as anything other than a gross distortion and another sign that the nation would continue to treat them as second-class citizens.
Using Janney's definition of reunion and recognizing that the definition of it--like that of reconciliation--changed over time: I'd like to know more about what these speakers in the 1910s found meaningful about the political reunion of two warring parties.
Certainly, northerners in the late 1860s might have been relieved by reunion because they had predicted that secession would lead to the failure of the precious democracy and the emergence of tyranny all over North America. Their worst fears had been avoided.
Looking back from 1914, I suspect it means something different. Not only had the nation been saved from destruction, but the lengths between what potentially could have happened and what the US was at the time of Wilson's presidency could only have been awe-inspiring.... at least for white establishment figures.
Idk, I'm just wondering aloud. (And yes, I'm ignoring reconciliation in this thought exercise).
Janney emphasizes that reunion was a fact resulting from Union victory and that didn't need to be debated. It was accepted by the vast majority of white southerners, who expressed loyalty to the nation, while at the same time maintained their allegiance to the Lost Cause. For them there was no conflict between the two identities. Certainly both white northerners and southerners could celebrate the nation becoming a world power by the turn of the twentieth century as a result of their victory in the Spanish-American War.
It seems to me that this helped to create the space in which both the Lost Cause and expressions of reunion were able to flourish and overlap. I also don't doubt that feelings of reconciliation also blossomed. It must have been a challenge for politicians to maneuver through all of this in their efforts to achieve their goals.
Great question.
The first thought that came to my mind was "yet here we are again. History rhymes." *sigh*
Having not yet read this particular Janney book, this is helpful. Thanks.
I would have written a very different book about the Crater had Janney's book been published a few years earlier.
How interesting - perhaps a new edition is in order? Hope you’ll consider it!
I wish it were that easy. It would involve starting completely over. It's not that the book is no longer useful, but that my interpretive lens would have taken me in many more directions.