The well stated points about empathy apply to today’s political and social climate. I have a few close friends who are diametrically opposite from my political views. Any reference I offer is reduced to “fake news.” They are educated, and otherwise kind and thoughtful people. While their political views baffle me, we are able to maintain cordial relationships.
People are complex, and behaviors are not always congruent with professed values.
Hi Laura. I think these friendships are really important to maintain. I am doing my best to remember that people are much more than their political views and that if we spend enough time with one another we will find common ground.
I've said before that I have no problem with the history of White people in the Confederacy as long as it is a fact-based, honest history that does not diminish the story of enslaved people. And for that matter, I think it's pretty important to bring forward this truth. Someone has to be able to provide a better narrative than groups like the SCV, the UDC or any keyboard warriors out there who are only interested in a history of the Confederacy that doesn't go beyond their comfort zone.
But I just remembered that Gary Gallagher wrote about his own experiences of navigating the dichotomy of how people see him for his acknowledgment of Confederate history. As he wrote in his book "The Enduring Civil War: Reflections on The Great American Crisis," page 11:
"My essays in Civil War Times often angered readers who deplored what they considered my transgressions against their ideological preferences. Neo-Confederates scorned my placing slavery-related issues at the heart of secession and establishment of the Confederacy or my refusal to concede that Nathan Bedford Forrest belongs alongside Lincoln as one of Shelby Foote's "two authentic geniuses" of the Civil War. To these people, I represent a typical "Marxist/communist" professor, as several have put it, who hates the South. In contrast, my suggestion that Robert E. Lee possessed considerable military skill and wrestled painfully with multiple loyalties during the era of sectional controversy brought accusations of conservative special pleading on behalf of a slaveholder and traitor who deserved to be hanged. I have two files in my study where I preserve such sentiments-the first labeled "Hate Mail from Neo-Confederates" (one correspondent hoped I would develop a "virulent form of pancreatic cancer") and the second "Hate Mail Calling me a Neo-Confederate. All such messages reminded me of advice from my graduate adviser that has guided much of my career. When I complained that recent research had forced me to change prospective conclusions, Barnes F. Lathrop curtly replied, "God damn it, Gallagher, just go where the evidence leads, and you'll be all right.""
I've experienced much the same over the course of twenty years on social media, but in recent years the same type of criticisms have been leveled against me from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Both groups place priority on their ideological convictions over any serious investigation into history. I have zero tolerance for either group. If you want to be an activist, be an activist, but don't confuse what you are doing with historical inquiry.
George Rable once described slaveholders as "virtuosos of self-deception". Mary Chesnut, for example, often wrote that she hated slavery, but still she fully supported the Confederacy. She hated slavery because of the harm it did to white women, blithely overlooking the facts that it was the foundation of her status as a "Southern lady" and that the system was constructed to produce all the things she disliked about African Americans, including the sexual exploitation of women. One could freely cast into oblivion her and the other whites who profited economically, politically and socially from slavery if the same kind of cognitive dissonance were not fully operational today, and a trap against which every human needs to guard themselves.
When Ta-Nehisi Coates was educating himself about the Civil War while blogging for The Atlantic, years ago, he was surprised to find himself feeling some empathy for Confederates. he wrote that slavery had been so deeply embedded into Southern life that keeping one's hands clean of it was nearly impossible. True, white Southerners were actually hoisting themselves on their own petard, but they are far from the only humans, then and now, to do so. Our dependence on fossil fuels comes to mind as an analogy.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. White southerners fall on a wide spectrum of attitudes re: slavery, the Confederacy, and secession. Their views were complex, rarely consistent over time, and often contradictory.
I miss Coates's blogging about the Civil War. You've probably read this one, but I will leave it here for others. One of my favorite pieces.
Thanks - studying history has the moral benefit of tending to keep one humble. COates was great on the War - the link you provide is to one of his best pieces. One of the beat writers I've ever encountered.
“Empathy should not be confused with acceptance of the unacceptable or conflated with sympathy for the detestable.”
Mr. Levin, you and Professor Carmichael hit the nail on the head. There is a way, certainly within the realm of public history, that incorporates the “understanding” of the life of historical subjects in a broader perspective than a very binary “good” or “bad.” Rather, by meeting historical figures with empathy, a very basic acceptance that we will never know exactly how something “which seems morally incomprehensible and unjustified today, made sense to those who were living it then” becomes possible. Despite the circling comments below, this work and several others are valuable in analyzing the worldview of southern slaveholders, politicians, and soldiers. As historians, we should be reading a diverse swath of material that aids in research but also challenges our conceived notions, orders us to maintain objectivity and nuance, and of course, practice empathy. I’ll be adding it to the cart.
"As historians, we should be reading a diverse swath of material that aids in research but also challenges our conceived notions, orders us to maintain objectivity and nuance, and of course, practice empathy."
This should be an important contribution to the understanding of this period of our history, similar to the letters of Mary Chestnut, and the letters Elizabeth Brown Pryor used in her biography of R.E.Lee. Where in Virginia were the Whartons from?
Historians will most definitely make good use of these letters, but they really are a joy to read. It's an incredibly rich wartime correspondence. Gabriel or Gabe was originally from Alabama and Anne was raised in southwestern Virginia.
Prof. Carmichael renders into a more sophisticated and erudite form my common aphorism that Good People can do Bad Things, and Bad People can do Good Things. I don't say this to make light of Prof. Carmichael---I have a great deal of respect for him and his work---I simply think my version gets to the heart of the matter in fewer words. (Brevity is often a good thing.) And it is a very important point. There has been a fringe aspect to the "Confederate statue removal project" that, IMO, really goes too far at times. The point is not, and never should be, to erase these people from the national memory, but to put them in the proper context. Was George Washington a slaveholder? Of course he was; but we honor him and memorialize him and his home, not *because* he was a slaveholder, but because he was so much more than that, a complicated man of his times. Many prominent figures of the pre-emancipation era deserve that degree of empathy and understanding. James Henry Hammond? Probably not. The Whartons? I think the letters of this couple ought to shed a great amount of light on many aspects of the Southern/Confederate mindset, just as Carmichael's biography of Willie Pegram did. The point of writing the book is not to glorify them, but to add to our understanding of them and their contemporaries.
You said: "Many prominent figures of the pre-emancipation era deserve that degree of empathy and understanding. James Henry Hammond? Probably not."
I actually think Hammond especially deserves to be approached with empathy if we are to take seriously our responsibilities as historians and as students of history.
"[A]pproached with empathy"? Absolutely. But my distaste for Hammond centers around things that have little to do with slavery. I really do try to see historical figures through a neutral glass, but Hammond is one of those whose story just offends me mightily, and makes it difficult to maintain an even keel. When you manage to generate sympathy for Wade Hampton, you have really gone down a dark path (IMO).
One of the things that I tried to be very careful about in Searching for Black Confederates was with describing the relationships between master and slave. At the center of the relationship was the coercion of slavery itself. The idea that any relationship based on such a foundation can be described as one of friendship is an absurdity. At the same time I tried to provide some room to describe what you might call other-regarding emotions/attitudes between master and slave.
I contend that there were moments when master and slave acknowledged a shared experience whether it was their time away from loved ones to periods where one or both parties were ill.
I think empathy is a way to approach both parties and the relationship itself as a way to begin to peel back and appreciate the complexity of their experiences. At no point would I ask or expect my reader to feel sympathy for an enslaver.
"As I pointed out the other day, any serious understanding of Confederates must acknowledge their humanity and that we should resist treating them as one-dimensional. As Peter notes, we can do this without minimizing or excusing the horrors of slavery."
And I've been thinking about this since you wrote it the other day. I don't know that there are many historians who do a good job navigating between the extremes.
Well, to indulge in my son's classical background, there is a real Scylla and Charybdis thing going on here. For far too long, far too many folks have virtually canonized Confederate icons. I don't object to removing many of the "municipal statues," but erasure is not right either. Understanding should always be the goal.
William C. Davis has authored numerous scholarly studies about the Confederacy and the Civil War and has earned numerous awards. What exactly have you done other than stand in front of the Lee monument and give it your middle finger? As far as I can tell, you are in no position to advise anyone as to what they should or should not read.
I don't understand why you insist on framing this as a mutually exclusive choice. I've been studying and writing about the history of the enslaved in the United States for over 20 years. I am quite familiar with the slave schedules and I've read numerous books about Robert E. Lee and his connection to slavery.
Part of studying Confederates is trying to understand how their "cognitive dissonance" functioned as part of a much larger world view.
I say this with all due respect and as someone who greatly appreciates the time you take to comment here, but you are running the risk of coming off as self-righteous.
I don't think it's about "devoting time" because there's no time limit on reading, writing, or understanding any of this history. I know there are people who want to know about the Confederacy without seeing or understanding anything about slavery. But maybe- just maybe- understanding slavery from 1860-1865 is helped by understanding something about the rebellion? Of course, you're not required to learn anything about it if you don't want to. But I do think it's possible to learn about both, without diminishing the history of slavery.
There are certainly people who are preoccupied with military history, which is why they have little interest in slavery, but as I have recently suggested, you can't begin to understand the Confederate war effort without understanding how enslaved people were utilized in support.
To be preoccupied with the military history of the ACW without understanding the importance of slavery to the CS war effort beyond causal issues is a very superficial interest, to say the least. And I write this as one of “those people.”
I think more and more people today, who are preoccupied with military history, do understand the importance of slavery. Thankfully, we are seeing much more of an emphasis on slavery, not only in books, but also at historic sites, including Civil War battlefields.
As you know, it goes both ways. And not just in the case of the Confederacy. A little while back, I saw this question asked- "Do you consider White officers who commanded Black soldiers to be USCT soldiers themselves?" I know that some of these officers did not always do their best by their soldiers, but I know more that most of them went through a rigorous exam to establish their ability for command in the USCT. And besides this- i.e., picking and choosing the worth of USCT officers- we could do the same for the men in the ranks as well, as not all of them proved to be good soldiers.
Back to the Confederacy: I try to be pretty well-rounded in my personal Civil War library, and this includes several books on the Confederacy, including the writings of Confederates themselves. I think it's pretty important for qualified historians to understand the Confederacy as it really was, and more than just slavery. I think it's important to provide a far better narrative than people like Shelby Foote, H. K. Edgerton, the UDC and the SCV have to offer.
I've never considered that question, but it's a good one. It might be interesting to reread Joseph Glatthaar's classic study FORGED IN BATTLE with that question in mind or even Holly Pinheiro excellent new book, THE FAMILIES' CIVIL WAR.
I completely agree re: your second point, but let's take it one step further. I maintain that the kind of approach to studying Confederates that Pete is calling for in the post above has everything to do with challenging the Lost Cause narrative. The Lost Cause did not only mythologize/erase Black history it also mythologized the story of Confederates. Approaching the study of Confederates with empathy and acknowledging their humanity is to challenge the Lost Cause directly.
I am a historian of the Civil War era. I've devoted much of my life to understanding this period in American history in its totality. That means everyone.
My goal is not to devote attention to any one group of people or to "bend American ears" in any one direction. If you believe that this is my primary responsibility than you simply do not understand what I am doing here on social media and in my published work. I don't tolerate people telling me what I should or shouldn't study or be curious about and I certainly don't claim any authority to do the same.
What I want to see are people who are curious about the past, who are willing to ask tough questions and to think critically.
Absolutely, if our understanding of empathy falls along the lines of the post above. To suggest that what I am doing is the same thing that the UDC was engaged in is both insulting and completely misses the point. I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
The well stated points about empathy apply to today’s political and social climate. I have a few close friends who are diametrically opposite from my political views. Any reference I offer is reduced to “fake news.” They are educated, and otherwise kind and thoughtful people. While their political views baffle me, we are able to maintain cordial relationships.
People are complex, and behaviors are not always congruent with professed values.
Hi Laura. I think these friendships are really important to maintain. I am doing my best to remember that people are much more than their political views and that if we spend enough time with one another we will find common ground.
I've said before that I have no problem with the history of White people in the Confederacy as long as it is a fact-based, honest history that does not diminish the story of enslaved people. And for that matter, I think it's pretty important to bring forward this truth. Someone has to be able to provide a better narrative than groups like the SCV, the UDC or any keyboard warriors out there who are only interested in a history of the Confederacy that doesn't go beyond their comfort zone.
But I just remembered that Gary Gallagher wrote about his own experiences of navigating the dichotomy of how people see him for his acknowledgment of Confederate history. As he wrote in his book "The Enduring Civil War: Reflections on The Great American Crisis," page 11:
"My essays in Civil War Times often angered readers who deplored what they considered my transgressions against their ideological preferences. Neo-Confederates scorned my placing slavery-related issues at the heart of secession and establishment of the Confederacy or my refusal to concede that Nathan Bedford Forrest belongs alongside Lincoln as one of Shelby Foote's "two authentic geniuses" of the Civil War. To these people, I represent a typical "Marxist/communist" professor, as several have put it, who hates the South. In contrast, my suggestion that Robert E. Lee possessed considerable military skill and wrestled painfully with multiple loyalties during the era of sectional controversy brought accusations of conservative special pleading on behalf of a slaveholder and traitor who deserved to be hanged. I have two files in my study where I preserve such sentiments-the first labeled "Hate Mail from Neo-Confederates" (one correspondent hoped I would develop a "virulent form of pancreatic cancer") and the second "Hate Mail Calling me a Neo-Confederate. All such messages reminded me of advice from my graduate adviser that has guided much of my career. When I complained that recent research had forced me to change prospective conclusions, Barnes F. Lathrop curtly replied, "God damn it, Gallagher, just go where the evidence leads, and you'll be all right.""
I've experienced much the same over the course of twenty years on social media, but in recent years the same type of criticisms have been leveled against me from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Both groups place priority on their ideological convictions over any serious investigation into history. I have zero tolerance for either group. If you want to be an activist, be an activist, but don't confuse what you are doing with historical inquiry.
Sounds interesting.
George Rable once described slaveholders as "virtuosos of self-deception". Mary Chesnut, for example, often wrote that she hated slavery, but still she fully supported the Confederacy. She hated slavery because of the harm it did to white women, blithely overlooking the facts that it was the foundation of her status as a "Southern lady" and that the system was constructed to produce all the things she disliked about African Americans, including the sexual exploitation of women. One could freely cast into oblivion her and the other whites who profited economically, politically and socially from slavery if the same kind of cognitive dissonance were not fully operational today, and a trap against which every human needs to guard themselves.
When Ta-Nehisi Coates was educating himself about the Civil War while blogging for The Atlantic, years ago, he was surprised to find himself feeling some empathy for Confederates. he wrote that slavery had been so deeply embedded into Southern life that keeping one's hands clean of it was nearly impossible. True, white Southerners were actually hoisting themselves on their own petard, but they are far from the only humans, then and now, to do so. Our dependence on fossil fuels comes to mind as an analogy.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. White southerners fall on a wide spectrum of attitudes re: slavery, the Confederacy, and secession. Their views were complex, rarely consistent over time, and often contradictory.
I miss Coates's blogging about the Civil War. You've probably read this one, but I will leave it here for others. One of my favorite pieces.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/02/why-do-so-few-blacks-study-the-civil-war/308831/
Thanks - studying history has the moral benefit of tending to keep one humble. COates was great on the War - the link you provide is to one of his best pieces. One of the beat writers I've ever encountered.
“Empathy should not be confused with acceptance of the unacceptable or conflated with sympathy for the detestable.”
Mr. Levin, you and Professor Carmichael hit the nail on the head. There is a way, certainly within the realm of public history, that incorporates the “understanding” of the life of historical subjects in a broader perspective than a very binary “good” or “bad.” Rather, by meeting historical figures with empathy, a very basic acceptance that we will never know exactly how something “which seems morally incomprehensible and unjustified today, made sense to those who were living it then” becomes possible. Despite the circling comments below, this work and several others are valuable in analyzing the worldview of southern slaveholders, politicians, and soldiers. As historians, we should be reading a diverse swath of material that aids in research but also challenges our conceived notions, orders us to maintain objectivity and nuance, and of course, practice empathy. I’ll be adding it to the cart.
"As historians, we should be reading a diverse swath of material that aids in research but also challenges our conceived notions, orders us to maintain objectivity and nuance, and of course, practice empathy."
Well said.
This should be an important contribution to the understanding of this period of our history, similar to the letters of Mary Chestnut, and the letters Elizabeth Brown Pryor used in her biography of R.E.Lee. Where in Virginia were the Whartons from?
Historians will most definitely make good use of these letters, but they really are a joy to read. It's an incredibly rich wartime correspondence. Gabriel or Gabe was originally from Alabama and Anne was raised in southwestern Virginia.
Prof. Carmichael renders into a more sophisticated and erudite form my common aphorism that Good People can do Bad Things, and Bad People can do Good Things. I don't say this to make light of Prof. Carmichael---I have a great deal of respect for him and his work---I simply think my version gets to the heart of the matter in fewer words. (Brevity is often a good thing.) And it is a very important point. There has been a fringe aspect to the "Confederate statue removal project" that, IMO, really goes too far at times. The point is not, and never should be, to erase these people from the national memory, but to put them in the proper context. Was George Washington a slaveholder? Of course he was; but we honor him and memorialize him and his home, not *because* he was a slaveholder, but because he was so much more than that, a complicated man of his times. Many prominent figures of the pre-emancipation era deserve that degree of empathy and understanding. James Henry Hammond? Probably not. The Whartons? I think the letters of this couple ought to shed a great amount of light on many aspects of the Southern/Confederate mindset, just as Carmichael's biography of Willie Pegram did. The point of writing the book is not to glorify them, but to add to our understanding of them and their contemporaries.
Thanks for the comment, Jim.
You said: "Many prominent figures of the pre-emancipation era deserve that degree of empathy and understanding. James Henry Hammond? Probably not."
I actually think Hammond especially deserves to be approached with empathy if we are to take seriously our responsibilities as historians and as students of history.
If it's a failure of empathy to loathe a serial sexual predator - preying on girls and women of all colors - I proudly confess to it.
"[A]pproached with empathy"? Absolutely. But my distaste for Hammond centers around things that have little to do with slavery. I really do try to see historical figures through a neutral glass, but Hammond is one of those whose story just offends me mightily, and makes it difficult to maintain an even keel. When you manage to generate sympathy for Wade Hampton, you have really gone down a dark path (IMO).
One of the things that I tried to be very careful about in Searching for Black Confederates was with describing the relationships between master and slave. At the center of the relationship was the coercion of slavery itself. The idea that any relationship based on such a foundation can be described as one of friendship is an absurdity. At the same time I tried to provide some room to describe what you might call other-regarding emotions/attitudes between master and slave.
I contend that there were moments when master and slave acknowledged a shared experience whether it was their time away from loved ones to periods where one or both parties were ill.
I think empathy is a way to approach both parties and the relationship itself as a way to begin to peel back and appreciate the complexity of their experiences. At no point would I ask or expect my reader to feel sympathy for an enslaver.
"As I pointed out the other day, any serious understanding of Confederates must acknowledge their humanity and that we should resist treating them as one-dimensional. As Peter notes, we can do this without minimizing or excusing the horrors of slavery."
And I've been thinking about this since you wrote it the other day. I don't know that there are many historians who do a good job navigating between the extremes.
Well, to indulge in my son's classical background, there is a real Scylla and Charybdis thing going on here. For far too long, far too many folks have virtually canonized Confederate icons. I don't object to removing many of the "municipal statues," but erasure is not right either. Understanding should always be the goal.
Why can't one read both?
Apparently, Miss Farnham knows what's best for all of us. LOL
Not an answer. Surely you don't wish to promote defrauding "immoral" authors of the fruits of their labors. Try again?
Why not read both? What harm does a fuller understanding do?
I think it's important to understand that she's not a historian or even a student of history.
These were good questions to which I would have been interested to receive sincere answers. I'm not a historian, either - just a big reader.
William C. Davis has authored numerous scholarly studies about the Confederacy and the Civil War and has earned numerous awards. What exactly have you done other than stand in front of the Lee monument and give it your middle finger? As far as I can tell, you are in no position to advise anyone as to what they should or should not read.
Fun Fact: Words can have different meanings in different contexts.
I don't understand why you insist on framing this as a mutually exclusive choice. I've been studying and writing about the history of the enslaved in the United States for over 20 years. I am quite familiar with the slave schedules and I've read numerous books about Robert E. Lee and his connection to slavery.
Part of studying Confederates is trying to understand how their "cognitive dissonance" functioned as part of a much larger world view.
I say this with all due respect and as someone who greatly appreciates the time you take to comment here, but you are running the risk of coming off as self-righteous.
I don't think it's about "devoting time" because there's no time limit on reading, writing, or understanding any of this history. I know there are people who want to know about the Confederacy without seeing or understanding anything about slavery. But maybe- just maybe- understanding slavery from 1860-1865 is helped by understanding something about the rebellion? Of course, you're not required to learn anything about it if you don't want to. But I do think it's possible to learn about both, without diminishing the history of slavery.
Hi Bryan,
There are certainly people who are preoccupied with military history, which is why they have little interest in slavery, but as I have recently suggested, you can't begin to understand the Confederate war effort without understanding how enslaved people were utilized in support.
To be preoccupied with the military history of the ACW without understanding the importance of slavery to the CS war effort beyond causal issues is a very superficial interest, to say the least. And I write this as one of “those people.”
Hi Chris,
I think more and more people today, who are preoccupied with military history, do understand the importance of slavery. Thankfully, we are seeing much more of an emphasis on slavery, not only in books, but also at historic sites, including Civil War battlefields.
As you know, it goes both ways. And not just in the case of the Confederacy. A little while back, I saw this question asked- "Do you consider White officers who commanded Black soldiers to be USCT soldiers themselves?" I know that some of these officers did not always do their best by their soldiers, but I know more that most of them went through a rigorous exam to establish their ability for command in the USCT. And besides this- i.e., picking and choosing the worth of USCT officers- we could do the same for the men in the ranks as well, as not all of them proved to be good soldiers.
Back to the Confederacy: I try to be pretty well-rounded in my personal Civil War library, and this includes several books on the Confederacy, including the writings of Confederates themselves. I think it's pretty important for qualified historians to understand the Confederacy as it really was, and more than just slavery. I think it's important to provide a far better narrative than people like Shelby Foote, H. K. Edgerton, the UDC and the SCV have to offer.
I've never considered that question, but it's a good one. It might be interesting to reread Joseph Glatthaar's classic study FORGED IN BATTLE with that question in mind or even Holly Pinheiro excellent new book, THE FAMILIES' CIVIL WAR.
I completely agree re: your second point, but let's take it one step further. I maintain that the kind of approach to studying Confederates that Pete is calling for in the post above has everything to do with challenging the Lost Cause narrative. The Lost Cause did not only mythologize/erase Black history it also mythologized the story of Confederates. Approaching the study of Confederates with empathy and acknowledging their humanity is to challenge the Lost Cause directly.
I am a historian of the Civil War era. I've devoted much of my life to understanding this period in American history in its totality. That means everyone.
My goal is not to devote attention to any one group of people or to "bend American ears" in any one direction. If you believe that this is my primary responsibility than you simply do not understand what I am doing here on social media and in my published work. I don't tolerate people telling me what I should or shouldn't study or be curious about and I certainly don't claim any authority to do the same.
What I want to see are people who are curious about the past, who are willing to ask tough questions and to think critically.
Absolutely, if our understanding of empathy falls along the lines of the post above. To suggest that what I am doing is the same thing that the UDC was engaged in is both insulting and completely misses the point. I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
Good day.