Kevin this is the first piece of yours that I've read, thanks to Bob calling you out on his Allman pages. The first battlefield I ever visited was Antietam at age 5 as my parents were discovering their new home area around Hagerstown. My little photo next to this was probably taken on that first visit, or one of the first. As a child the cannons and monuments got my attention. I was fixated on the battle...the movement of armies fighting right where I was standing...or sitting having lunch at a picnic table near the little Coke stand by Bloody Lane with a bone that had a bullet lodged in it. I got my grey hat with a rebel flag...and that was the beginning of a VERY long journey. Today the tourist trap that is full of the T-shirts you describe and the ghost tours is hard for me to deal with. It's like being on a boardwalk at a beach where death and slavery are for sale. A lot of It feels like blood money to me. Yes, there are a few quality establishments...but not many. The Parks are trying to do better...I much prefer Sharpsburg as a town by a battlefield and it's lack of much of that stuff. I sense there will be much to discuss here about your other pieces. Thanks for what I perceive your work to be.
However, I say: the only problem with Barnicle's article is that he was probably under a word count limit.
Barnicle's pedigree is great: young army reserve officer, former Dem Senator Tina Smith staffer. Harvard cum laude with a new Dem-Prog oriented law firm almost on K Street (nearby, on G St).
Schlock shops in/around G'burg are in business to first pay their rents and then make profits. If troglodytes from across the nation are going to pay you to buy what most of the country considers traitorous, nobody can stop any of them.
A federal agency responsible to all 50 states including the formerly traitorous ones, has to offend no one. The National Park Service at Gettysburg is in a perpetual hot seat. A major offense taken by an opportunistic Lost Causer raising a stink to a racist senator can cost someone their job.
Thus, historians who are also bureaucrats always need a team of eyes looking backwards.
In 1987, the Smithsonian Institution's American History Museum unveiled 'A More Perfect Union: Japanese Americans and the U.S. Constitution'. It departed from happy-talk exhibits (Dorothy's Ruby Slippers has been their top display) to show their mistreatment by FDR and his War Department. On one side, it featured a concentration camp barrack room and stories of life (but not death: my grandmother was an early victim of Camp Jerome, Arkansas) behind barbed wire fences and machine-gun watchtowers, ostensibly for their protection but the guns aimed inside; on the other side, the weapons and exploits of the 442nd army battalion, co-curated by the very veterans.
There was a TREMENDOUS backlash against the use of federal money to ripping (one of) the band-aid(s) off the webs of lies layered over that entire unconstitutional exercise. The curators stood tall against the protests with the SI's backing. (They were also very concerned about these displays being vandalized.) Within a year, President Reagan signed a bill apologizing for the curtailment of civil liberties and granting each survivor $20k. This was coincidental, but a nice touch. Maybe it helped SI:
the political backlash against AHM telling the truth didn't cost anyone their jobs.
From my community's eyes, we gave a raised finger to the protests: we were the underdogs who finally had our day. Now, African Americans are seeing the slow dawning of their day as their story in this invasion and battle are starting to be examined. The arc of history bends towards justice, at least in this century.
(Gratitude to KML for his scholarship debunking the total myth of enslaved CSA soldiers, Kent Masterson Brown for including the roles of enslaved teamsters in Lee's army, et al.)
(n.b.: 'A More Perfect Union' had a 17-year run, then went to permanent online status. It is temporarily offline to convert to a new format.)
What a great comment. I can only add something incidental: Your discussion of the Smithsonian's no-win situation from decades back reminds me of the Smithsonian's no-win situation when it tried to stage a big exhibit of the Enola Gay, the Hiroshima A-bomb plane, as the centerpiece of a general retrospective look at the bombing. I had a double interest: I was then working in NASA's academic history program with a focus on WW2-era aeronautics, and my dad had been a fighter pilot aboard a carrier in the Pacific, poised to support the invasion. Opponents of the exhibit would have said, of someone like me that President Truman and the Enola Gay ensured that I'd be here. Years later, at a conference, I met Martin Harwit, who had headed the National Air and Space Museum during all of this. I was sorry that I inadvertently ruined his morning by bringing up that nightmare culture-war battle, which indeed had only losers. But I'm not taking sides in that old argument; I'm just affirming the colossal power of contentious arguments that can beset institutions engaging national memory. I'm grateful for your discussion of that.
So taken was I with Simon Barnicle's NYT op-ed that even before I knew that Kevin had responded, I was hoping he would, and wishing also to see a response from Ty Seidule. I do take Kevin's point. But I wish that somehow Yale's David Blight would comment too.
Please skip this paragraph if you already know who Ty Seidule is. He's the Army combat officer who transitioned to historian with an Ohio State Ph.D., rose to chair the West Point history department, retired as a brigadier general, served as vice chairman of the commission that recommended new names for Confederate-named Army posts, and still comments publicly about these matters. His book _Robert E. Lee and Me_ tells of his evolution from youthful ambition to become a gentleman like Lee to realization that no, he does NOT want that. I'd like to hear what Gen. Seidule thinks.
The issue of conflating reconciliation with Lost Causery (yes, a made-up word) makes me think also of Professor Blight. I think Kevin has at least touched on this before.
This discussion calls to mind, at least for me, Blight's recent _Atlantic_ article "A Yankee Apology for Reconstruction: The creators of Yale’s Civil War Memorial were more concerned with honoring 'both sides' than with the true meaning of the war." Excerpts:
QUOTE
[By] 1915 ... [a] culture of reconciliation ... had come to dominate American society ... [with a] deliberate forgetting of the deepest meanings of the war. 'Both sides' became a clarion call. ... Yale in its official wisdom could not and would not create a memorial to Union _victory_ nor to the end of slavery. All causes and consequences ... had to be dissolved into misty sentiments about unity and the strained image of 'mingled dust.' Such sentimental deception in the interest of national unity was widespread in both the South and the North.
Here's what popped out at me: "It would be a scandal and an outrage if, at the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York, you could purchase a snow globe with an Al Qaeda flag. It shouldn’t be OK for Confederate paraphernalia."
I don't disagree, but I also think that this is lazy writing. My guess is that you can find inappropriate souvenirs at a wide range of historic/cultural sites. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but it does speak to the need to dig deeper.
Also, the NPS has absolutely no control over what happens outside GNMP boundaries. At least when I was a kid, Gettysburg was the standard 5th grade field trip. If anything the tacky tourist goods were more prevalent.
I was deep in the fight over expanded interpretation, the current VC/Museum (which is not private. It's a public/private partnership) No surprise. I fought for expanded interpretation. The opposition was far more influenced by reconciliationism than the Lost Cause, at least directly. The former fought bitterly against the slightest hint of dealing with issues of slavery, indeed anything beyond who shot who where. This had the effect of favoring the Confederates. The NPS is serious about supporting expanded interpretation
The op-ed author came to Gettysburg with a lot of confirmation bias
That distinction is so important to acknowledge. Thanks, Margaret. It's also worth distinguishing between the National Park Service, Gettysburg Foundation, and Eastern Standard, which, if I remember correctly, runs the gift shop. Confirmation bias, indeed.
You sure can - almost every site we've ever been to has something that's at least a little problematic. On my last trip to Williamsburg, we saw camouflage patterned tri-corn hats, a shirt that says "farm like it's 1776" and in the less official gift shops all manner of inappropriate or anachronistic souvenirs.
However, we also saw the work on the Bray School. The more thoroughly interpreted African American church. A greater degree of discussion of what slavery meant in the colonial era than on any past trip. To judge them on what souvenirs were in various gift shops along the way would be terribly unfair and miss the point of interacting with a historical site.
Apparently, this author was unable to see any of the progress the Gettysburg Visitor Center has made over the last several years. Too much Lost Cause kitsch spoiled his experience.
I think what Gettysburg is today and what it will likely continue to be is a place where some will be able to understand what Southern secession and Confederate war were really about, as well as why Union soldiers fought. But others will have their Lost Cause appetites satisfied with such trinkets as the NYT article told us about. I've said this before- there are more Confederate flags in Gettysburg right now than there ever were in 1863.
All those flags should have dust on them. Sadly, someone is buying them. Supply and demand. A war fought over a slave-based economy continues to trigger a mini-economy, in Gettysburg and elsewhere, rooted in the fantasy of a good 'ole boys Confederacy. *sigh*
Your piece was thought provoking and, dare I say it, right on target. Thanks also for highlighting the NYT op-ed. I’ve had a news moratorium this week! The bit about rampant stars and bars was disturbing but certainly not surprising.
I think it would be useful for someone to conduct a study detailing what people thought when they entered the park and how (or if) that changed when they departed. Perhaps the study could even assess things several weeks, months or even years afterwards.
Thanks for the positive response. I like your idea for a study of the visitor experience at Gettysburg. Perhaps someone else might know if such a study has been conducted.
Excellent rebuttal. If anything the Reconciliation narrative has a stronger hold on the battlefield than does the Lost Cause. That said, the NPS is doing what it can. Is the overall vibe there in terms of narrative dated? Yes, to those of us on the cutting edge of interpretation. For the public at large, some of what they’ll see will challenge what they’ve always known.
This site is still a work in progress, and that’s not just rehabbing the physical space like Little Round Top or tearing down the old Pickett’s Buffet. How this battle is interpreted continues to evolve, it’s come a long way and it has miles to go. The NPS is trying to do something with public tax dollars without alienating the people who pay for their existence. That is difficult. I think they’re doing as good a job as they can.
Had the author looked harder in the battlefield gift shop, he would’ve found excellent books on the causes and consequences of the war in the same place he found the snow globe.
Thanks for the rebuttal to the NYT article. Freedom of the press is so critical. The biggest problem is lack of responsibility of the writer. I don't know if it is the rush to get an article written or just lack of research. This happens way too many times in all types of media. Most readers only see a 10, 000 foot view and views are formed by that with no further digging. That's what we need the writers to do more digging.
I am looking forward to visiting Gettysburg next month. My 11 year old granddaughter requested I take her this summer. It has been over 30 years for me. Plan to book a guide for a tour.
I agree with Kevin about the granddaughter. It all inspired me this morning to bring up the idea of going to Gettysburg with one or some of our grandchildren.
I have to stipulate that I've never been there. But I happened to read the Barnicle op-ed before I saw Kevin's post about it, and my never-been-to-Gettysburg impression was that it made a lot of sense. Now, though, I take Kevin's point about it. Nevertheless, I hate to see disagreement with Mr. Barnicle elevated into an allegation of "lack of responsibility" perped from 10,000 feet. Mr. Barnicle might have it all wrong, but it's not because he hasn't looked hard at the evidence and thought hard about it. I also infer--possibly wrongly, I admit--that he's no newcomer to the overall topic of national memory of the Civil War.
Thank you for taking time to answer the NYT op-ed, I hope someone (you?) submits it as an excellent rebuttal.
The way the Visitors Center is organized around Lincoln’s words is excellent. Well done, to whoever imagined that concept, and everyone who brought it about.
Once again, Kevin, you underscore the reason I subscribe. Great analysis.
The reason Gettysburg exists is not to glorify some Lost Cause myth but exactly to underscore what the author dismisses: the ebb and flow of battle. It would do him well to research the backgrounds of Battlefield memory. This complex and historical struggle, starting with Chickamaga and Chattanooga National Military Park, showcases compromises and violent disagreements over so many issues.
While veterans debated positioning of units and issues of hesitation and cowardice took a backseat to glory and honor and fame, the concept of preserving where things happen remarkably helps tell the story of what happened there.
Recent visitors from Austria remarked that the American concept of battlefield preservation is so unique. Clemens is a strong Civil War scholar. Yet he said that very little of the many battles across Europe are memorized other than placards or statues in towns. Battlefields themselves are minimally preserved.
Anyway, I absolutely love your perspective on this op-ed. It’s a reminder to drop by Gettysburg for a weekend sometime soon.
Thanks, Joe. I really do appreciate the kind words. I don't want to minimize the Lost Cause influence on the battlefield, but I think we need to put it in perspective. I agree that the formative years of Park development in the 1890s is important, which is why I linked to Jen Murray's fabulous book on Gettysburg in the post.
You made a number of good points, but I think one thing you make clear (and I know I've been guilty of in the past) is that it's a mistake to conflate the Lost Cause and "reconciliation." They're definitely linked in some ways and at certain times, but they are still distinct lenses through which the Civil War is interpreted and remembered.
Kevin this is the first piece of yours that I've read, thanks to Bob calling you out on his Allman pages. The first battlefield I ever visited was Antietam at age 5 as my parents were discovering their new home area around Hagerstown. My little photo next to this was probably taken on that first visit, or one of the first. As a child the cannons and monuments got my attention. I was fixated on the battle...the movement of armies fighting right where I was standing...or sitting having lunch at a picnic table near the little Coke stand by Bloody Lane with a bone that had a bullet lodged in it. I got my grey hat with a rebel flag...and that was the beginning of a VERY long journey. Today the tourist trap that is full of the T-shirts you describe and the ghost tours is hard for me to deal with. It's like being on a boardwalk at a beach where death and slavery are for sale. A lot of It feels like blood money to me. Yes, there are a few quality establishments...but not many. The Parks are trying to do better...I much prefer Sharpsburg as a town by a battlefield and it's lack of much of that stuff. I sense there will be much to discuss here about your other pieces. Thanks for what I perceive your work to be.
Yes, it's complicated.
However, I say: the only problem with Barnicle's article is that he was probably under a word count limit.
Barnicle's pedigree is great: young army reserve officer, former Dem Senator Tina Smith staffer. Harvard cum laude with a new Dem-Prog oriented law firm almost on K Street (nearby, on G St).
Schlock shops in/around G'burg are in business to first pay their rents and then make profits. If troglodytes from across the nation are going to pay you to buy what most of the country considers traitorous, nobody can stop any of them.
A federal agency responsible to all 50 states including the formerly traitorous ones, has to offend no one. The National Park Service at Gettysburg is in a perpetual hot seat. A major offense taken by an opportunistic Lost Causer raising a stink to a racist senator can cost someone their job.
Thus, historians who are also bureaucrats always need a team of eyes looking backwards.
In 1987, the Smithsonian Institution's American History Museum unveiled 'A More Perfect Union: Japanese Americans and the U.S. Constitution'. It departed from happy-talk exhibits (Dorothy's Ruby Slippers has been their top display) to show their mistreatment by FDR and his War Department. On one side, it featured a concentration camp barrack room and stories of life (but not death: my grandmother was an early victim of Camp Jerome, Arkansas) behind barbed wire fences and machine-gun watchtowers, ostensibly for their protection but the guns aimed inside; on the other side, the weapons and exploits of the 442nd army battalion, co-curated by the very veterans.
There was a TREMENDOUS backlash against the use of federal money to ripping (one of) the band-aid(s) off the webs of lies layered over that entire unconstitutional exercise. The curators stood tall against the protests with the SI's backing. (They were also very concerned about these displays being vandalized.) Within a year, President Reagan signed a bill apologizing for the curtailment of civil liberties and granting each survivor $20k. This was coincidental, but a nice touch. Maybe it helped SI:
the political backlash against AHM telling the truth didn't cost anyone their jobs.
From my community's eyes, we gave a raised finger to the protests: we were the underdogs who finally had our day. Now, African Americans are seeing the slow dawning of their day as their story in this invasion and battle are starting to be examined. The arc of history bends towards justice, at least in this century.
(Gratitude to KML for his scholarship debunking the total myth of enslaved CSA soldiers, Kent Masterson Brown for including the roles of enslaved teamsters in Lee's army, et al.)
(n.b.: 'A More Perfect Union' had a 17-year run, then went to permanent online status. It is temporarily offline to convert to a new format.)
Thank you very much for this response.
What a great comment. I can only add something incidental: Your discussion of the Smithsonian's no-win situation from decades back reminds me of the Smithsonian's no-win situation when it tried to stage a big exhibit of the Enola Gay, the Hiroshima A-bomb plane, as the centerpiece of a general retrospective look at the bombing. I had a double interest: I was then working in NASA's academic history program with a focus on WW2-era aeronautics, and my dad had been a fighter pilot aboard a carrier in the Pacific, poised to support the invasion. Opponents of the exhibit would have said, of someone like me that President Truman and the Enola Gay ensured that I'd be here. Years later, at a conference, I met Martin Harwit, who had headed the National Air and Space Museum during all of this. I was sorry that I inadvertently ruined his morning by bringing up that nightmare culture-war battle, which indeed had only losers. But I'm not taking sides in that old argument; I'm just affirming the colossal power of contentious arguments that can beset institutions engaging national memory. I'm grateful for your discussion of that.
Thanks, Kevin.
So taken was I with Simon Barnicle's NYT op-ed that even before I knew that Kevin had responded, I was hoping he would, and wishing also to see a response from Ty Seidule. I do take Kevin's point. But I wish that somehow Yale's David Blight would comment too.
Please skip this paragraph if you already know who Ty Seidule is. He's the Army combat officer who transitioned to historian with an Ohio State Ph.D., rose to chair the West Point history department, retired as a brigadier general, served as vice chairman of the commission that recommended new names for Confederate-named Army posts, and still comments publicly about these matters. His book _Robert E. Lee and Me_ tells of his evolution from youthful ambition to become a gentleman like Lee to realization that no, he does NOT want that. I'd like to hear what Gen. Seidule thinks.
The issue of conflating reconciliation with Lost Causery (yes, a made-up word) makes me think also of Professor Blight. I think Kevin has at least touched on this before.
This discussion calls to mind, at least for me, Blight's recent _Atlantic_ article "A Yankee Apology for Reconstruction: The creators of Yale’s Civil War Memorial were more concerned with honoring 'both sides' than with the true meaning of the war." Excerpts:
QUOTE
[By] 1915 ... [a] culture of reconciliation ... had come to dominate American society ... [with a] deliberate forgetting of the deepest meanings of the war. 'Both sides' became a clarion call. ... Yale in its official wisdom could not and would not create a memorial to Union _victory_ nor to the end of slavery. All causes and consequences ... had to be dissolved into misty sentiments about unity and the strained image of 'mingled dust.' Such sentimental deception in the interest of national unity was widespread in both the South and the North.
UNQUOTE
Here's what popped out at me: "It would be a scandal and an outrage if, at the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York, you could purchase a snow globe with an Al Qaeda flag. It shouldn’t be OK for Confederate paraphernalia."
I agree on this. Gettysburg is complicated.
I don't disagree, but I also think that this is lazy writing. My guess is that you can find inappropriate souvenirs at a wide range of historic/cultural sites. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but it does speak to the need to dig deeper.
Also, the NPS has absolutely no control over what happens outside GNMP boundaries. At least when I was a kid, Gettysburg was the standard 5th grade field trip. If anything the tacky tourist goods were more prevalent.
I was deep in the fight over expanded interpretation, the current VC/Museum (which is not private. It's a public/private partnership) No surprise. I fought for expanded interpretation. The opposition was far more influenced by reconciliationism than the Lost Cause, at least directly. The former fought bitterly against the slightest hint of dealing with issues of slavery, indeed anything beyond who shot who where. This had the effect of favoring the Confederates. The NPS is serious about supporting expanded interpretation
The op-ed author came to Gettysburg with a lot of confirmation bias
That distinction is so important to acknowledge. Thanks, Margaret. It's also worth distinguishing between the National Park Service, Gettysburg Foundation, and Eastern Standard, which, if I remember correctly, runs the gift shop. Confirmation bias, indeed.
You sure can - almost every site we've ever been to has something that's at least a little problematic. On my last trip to Williamsburg, we saw camouflage patterned tri-corn hats, a shirt that says "farm like it's 1776" and in the less official gift shops all manner of inappropriate or anachronistic souvenirs.
However, we also saw the work on the Bray School. The more thoroughly interpreted African American church. A greater degree of discussion of what slavery meant in the colonial era than on any past trip. To judge them on what souvenirs were in various gift shops along the way would be terribly unfair and miss the point of interacting with a historical site.
Thanks for the example of Williamsburg.
Agreed.
Apparently, this author was unable to see any of the progress the Gettysburg Visitor Center has made over the last several years. Too much Lost Cause kitsch spoiled his experience.
I think what Gettysburg is today and what it will likely continue to be is a place where some will be able to understand what Southern secession and Confederate war were really about, as well as why Union soldiers fought. But others will have their Lost Cause appetites satisfied with such trinkets as the NYT article told us about. I've said this before- there are more Confederate flags in Gettysburg right now than there ever were in 1863.
All those flags should have dust on them. Sadly, someone is buying them. Supply and demand. A war fought over a slave-based economy continues to trigger a mini-economy, in Gettysburg and elsewhere, rooted in the fantasy of a good 'ole boys Confederacy. *sigh*
Your piece was thought provoking and, dare I say it, right on target. Thanks also for highlighting the NYT op-ed. I’ve had a news moratorium this week! The bit about rampant stars and bars was disturbing but certainly not surprising.
I think it would be useful for someone to conduct a study detailing what people thought when they entered the park and how (or if) that changed when they departed. Perhaps the study could even assess things several weeks, months or even years afterwards.
Hi Ted,
Thanks for the positive response. I like your idea for a study of the visitor experience at Gettysburg. Perhaps someone else might know if such a study has been conducted.
Excellent rebuttal. If anything the Reconciliation narrative has a stronger hold on the battlefield than does the Lost Cause. That said, the NPS is doing what it can. Is the overall vibe there in terms of narrative dated? Yes, to those of us on the cutting edge of interpretation. For the public at large, some of what they’ll see will challenge what they’ve always known.
This site is still a work in progress, and that’s not just rehabbing the physical space like Little Round Top or tearing down the old Pickett’s Buffet. How this battle is interpreted continues to evolve, it’s come a long way and it has miles to go. The NPS is trying to do something with public tax dollars without alienating the people who pay for their existence. That is difficult. I think they’re doing as good a job as they can.
Had the author looked harder in the battlefield gift shop, he would’ve found excellent books on the causes and consequences of the war in the same place he found the snow globe.
Well said, Jerry.
Thanks for the rebuttal to the NYT article. Freedom of the press is so critical. The biggest problem is lack of responsibility of the writer. I don't know if it is the rush to get an article written or just lack of research. This happens way too many times in all types of media. Most readers only see a 10, 000 foot view and views are formed by that with no further digging. That's what we need the writers to do more digging.
I am looking forward to visiting Gettysburg next month. My 11 year old granddaughter requested I take her this summer. It has been over 30 years for me. Plan to book a guide for a tour.
Happy 4th,
Mike
I agree with Kevin about the granddaughter. It all inspired me this morning to bring up the idea of going to Gettysburg with one or some of our grandchildren.
I have to stipulate that I've never been there. But I happened to read the Barnicle op-ed before I saw Kevin's post about it, and my never-been-to-Gettysburg impression was that it made a lot of sense. Now, though, I take Kevin's point about it. Nevertheless, I hate to see disagreement with Mr. Barnicle elevated into an allegation of "lack of responsibility" perped from 10,000 feet. Mr. Barnicle might have it all wrong, but it's not because he hasn't looked hard at the evidence and thought hard about it. I also infer--possibly wrongly, I admit--that he's no newcomer to the overall topic of national memory of the Civil War.
Hi Mike,
Have a wonderful time with your granddaughter in Gettysburg.
Thank you for taking time to answer the NYT op-ed, I hope someone (you?) submits it as an excellent rebuttal.
The way the Visitors Center is organized around Lincoln’s words is excellent. Well done, to whoever imagined that concept, and everyone who brought it about.
I was really impressed when I first saw it in 2008 and I've gone through the exhibit a number of times since. Always learn something new.
Once again, Kevin, you underscore the reason I subscribe. Great analysis.
The reason Gettysburg exists is not to glorify some Lost Cause myth but exactly to underscore what the author dismisses: the ebb and flow of battle. It would do him well to research the backgrounds of Battlefield memory. This complex and historical struggle, starting with Chickamaga and Chattanooga National Military Park, showcases compromises and violent disagreements over so many issues.
While veterans debated positioning of units and issues of hesitation and cowardice took a backseat to glory and honor and fame, the concept of preserving where things happen remarkably helps tell the story of what happened there.
Recent visitors from Austria remarked that the American concept of battlefield preservation is so unique. Clemens is a strong Civil War scholar. Yet he said that very little of the many battles across Europe are memorized other than placards or statues in towns. Battlefields themselves are minimally preserved.
Anyway, I absolutely love your perspective on this op-ed. It’s a reminder to drop by Gettysburg for a weekend sometime soon.
Thanks, Joe. I really do appreciate the kind words. I don't want to minimize the Lost Cause influence on the battlefield, but I think we need to put it in perspective. I agree that the formative years of Park development in the 1890s is important, which is why I linked to Jen Murray's fabulous book on Gettysburg in the post.
100%, Kevin! And love that book BTW.
You made a number of good points, but I think one thing you make clear (and I know I've been guilty of in the past) is that it's a mistake to conflate the Lost Cause and "reconciliation." They're definitely linked in some ways and at certain times, but they are still distinct lenses through which the Civil War is interpreted and remembered.