I watched the video. I was particularly intrigued by the reference to black re-enactors. I wonder if the level of interest described by the panel is still the case?
I think McCurry is right in her identification of the historical legacy of the Civil War. I am not so sure she is right about her identification of a living legacy. I also think Gallagher is right about his assessment of the historical legacy of the Civil War. I also think Coats is correct. I think all three are saying that the outcome of the Civil War impacted the United States and the world in very specific ways and if that out come had been different the impacts would have been different. That sounds a little weak I guess but I am not sure what else you can really say.
The comments that I found the most interesting were by the social citric guy ( whose name I don't remember) about the search for a middle ground in the years before the Civil War and the election of 1860 and mcCurry's criticism of that view.
There were people searching for a middle ground that would preserve the country. Lincoln was searching. What shaped that search was a set of beliefs and life ways that were different from ours. What they saw as the middle ground, the containment of slavery, we see as unacceptable. But to understand them and the decisions they made we have to understand these differences. That doesn't mean from our perspective we say the containment of slavery was more desirable than abolition of slavery. But we do acknowledge that stopping the spread was a first societal step towards abolition and by the end of the war we had clearly moved to abolition.
So does that mean we need a new language to talk about the Civil War? I think probably so. I'm not sure how we get that but it does seem to me the narrative has moved on from the "Emancipationist."
Acknowledging the "Emancipationist" view and all it entails was important. But I am not sure where we are headed. The removal of symbols memorializing the Confederacy is important and probably emblematic of the next step. but I have no idea what you call it.
I also wonder to what extent, if at all, identification with the Lost Cause has waned since 2015. Gallagher did a great job in his book *The Union War* in driving home the importance of Union to the loyal citizenry of the United States during the war. We've completely lost sight of it as a lasting legacy of the war.
I’m not sure this fits here but, I see where the Museum of the U S Army is holding Civil War Days April 12-15 ( I think). One of the features of this event is an on site symposium. I found this interesting in light of our recent discussions about the Army’s approach to its role in the Civil WR
The symposium is part of something they are calling Civil War Days which runs from April 12 to the 14th. There do appear to be virtual options for some of the Civil Wars Days events including what appears to be a keynote by Kevin Bryant on the 12th. But to get to the registration link you have to go to the Museum webs site and scroll to the calendar of events. The Museum's url is: https://www.thenmusa.org
Very interesting, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. Might have to watch that video tomorrow. Prof. McMurray sure seems to have brought the hammer to the nail.
"What has changed?" I think the most important change is the realization that those of us who want to be very honest and accurate and "un-Lost-Cause-ish" about the Confederacy have seen that there are others who agree with us, so we are willing to be more outspoken and forthright about things. I well recall a discussion among my roomies and their girl friends and myself in my undergraduate days (1973--74) in which everyone except me was willing to say "it wasn't really all about slavery." I kept quiet, partly out of a lack of firm knowledge at the time, but also because I did not want to alienate my friends. Fast forward to 2017, after Charlottesville: one of the girl-friends in that discussion asked me for some resources to send to her brother, who had moved to South Carolina many years ago and bought into the entire Lost Cause mythology. I sent her the link to my website, and smiled a LOT.
Excellent article and worthy of more discussion. The preservation of the Union was necessary for Emancipation, and to bring forth the continuing quest to secure civil rights for all. It is our perseverance in the pursuit of that sacred ideal of the Declaration that Lincoln expounded on in the Gettysburg Address, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…” post emancipation but pre-equality for all might be where we are, or living in the uncomfortable middle between the to, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote about the time between creation and consummation. The Unitarian Pastor and abolitionist, Theodore Parker, prefigured Lincoln in a transcendent ideal of liberty. He wrote, “The American Revolution, with American history since, is an attempt to prove by experience this transcendental proposition, to organize the transcendental idea of politics. The ideal demands for its organization a democracy – a government of all, for all, and by all…”
Anyway, a great discussion topic when a significant minority is attempting to reverse history, roll back civil rights, and rend the Union asunder.
I watched the video. I was particularly intrigued by the reference to black re-enactors. I wonder if the level of interest described by the panel is still the case?
I think McCurry is right in her identification of the historical legacy of the Civil War. I am not so sure she is right about her identification of a living legacy. I also think Gallagher is right about his assessment of the historical legacy of the Civil War. I also think Coats is correct. I think all three are saying that the outcome of the Civil War impacted the United States and the world in very specific ways and if that out come had been different the impacts would have been different. That sounds a little weak I guess but I am not sure what else you can really say.
The comments that I found the most interesting were by the social citric guy ( whose name I don't remember) about the search for a middle ground in the years before the Civil War and the election of 1860 and mcCurry's criticism of that view.
There were people searching for a middle ground that would preserve the country. Lincoln was searching. What shaped that search was a set of beliefs and life ways that were different from ours. What they saw as the middle ground, the containment of slavery, we see as unacceptable. But to understand them and the decisions they made we have to understand these differences. That doesn't mean from our perspective we say the containment of slavery was more desirable than abolition of slavery. But we do acknowledge that stopping the spread was a first societal step towards abolition and by the end of the war we had clearly moved to abolition.
So does that mean we need a new language to talk about the Civil War? I think probably so. I'm not sure how we get that but it does seem to me the narrative has moved on from the "Emancipationist."
Acknowledging the "Emancipationist" view and all it entails was important. But I am not sure where we are headed. The removal of symbols memorializing the Confederacy is important and probably emblematic of the next step. but I have no idea what you call it.
I also wonder to what extent, if at all, identification with the Lost Cause has waned since 2015. Gallagher did a great job in his book *The Union War* in driving home the importance of Union to the loyal citizenry of the United States during the war. We've completely lost sight of it as a lasting legacy of the war.
I agree and I am not sure how to fix the problem. Maybe through improving the teaching of history and government in the public schools.
I’m not sure this fits here but, I see where the Museum of the U S Army is holding Civil War Days April 12-15 ( I think). One of the features of this event is an on site symposium. I found this interesting in light of our recent discussions about the Army’s approach to its role in the Civil WR
Is there a link to the details about the symposium? Thanks.
This will get you to the symposium virtual option:https://www.thenmusa.org/civilwar/
The symposium is part of something they are calling Civil War Days which runs from April 12 to the 14th. There do appear to be virtual options for some of the Civil Wars Days events including what appears to be a keynote by Kevin Bryant on the 12th. But to get to the registration link you have to go to the Museum webs site and scroll to the calendar of events. The Museum's url is: https://www.thenmusa.org
Thank you.
Very interesting, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. Might have to watch that video tomorrow. Prof. McMurray sure seems to have brought the hammer to the nail.
"What has changed?" I think the most important change is the realization that those of us who want to be very honest and accurate and "un-Lost-Cause-ish" about the Confederacy have seen that there are others who agree with us, so we are willing to be more outspoken and forthright about things. I well recall a discussion among my roomies and their girl friends and myself in my undergraduate days (1973--74) in which everyone except me was willing to say "it wasn't really all about slavery." I kept quiet, partly out of a lack of firm knowledge at the time, but also because I did not want to alienate my friends. Fast forward to 2017, after Charlottesville: one of the girl-friends in that discussion asked me for some resources to send to her brother, who had moved to South Carolina many years ago and bought into the entire Lost Cause mythology. I sent her the link to my website, and smiled a LOT.
Excellent article and worthy of more discussion. The preservation of the Union was necessary for Emancipation, and to bring forth the continuing quest to secure civil rights for all. It is our perseverance in the pursuit of that sacred ideal of the Declaration that Lincoln expounded on in the Gettysburg Address, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…” post emancipation but pre-equality for all might be where we are, or living in the uncomfortable middle between the to, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote about the time between creation and consummation. The Unitarian Pastor and abolitionist, Theodore Parker, prefigured Lincoln in a transcendent ideal of liberty. He wrote, “The American Revolution, with American history since, is an attempt to prove by experience this transcendental proposition, to organize the transcendental idea of politics. The ideal demands for its organization a democracy – a government of all, for all, and by all…”
Anyway, a great discussion topic when a significant minority is attempting to reverse history, roll back civil rights, and rend the Union asunder.