So, who was it? I ask this question from time to time on the C.A. Facebook page and Twitter…purely out of curiosity. I am not developing any thesis or historiographical essay, I just want to know.

I find it interesting that a handful of names come up repeatedly. David Potter set the bar for excellence for many professional historians, and of course Bruce Catton’s magnificent prose is unmatched (one person referred to Catton as the “gateway drug” for Civil War history…I found that to be about right). Barbara Tuchman taught one person (on this last round of inquiries) that women could write compelling history, and, to rocket us into to the twenty-first century, fellow blogger Brooks Simpson got a few tips o’ the hat (despite his love of the NY Yankees). Allan Bogue, Albert Castel, and James Robertson made the list this time out as well.

So I ask again – who influenced you the most?

Keith

In 1922, at the unveiling of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., President Warren G. Harding noted that Lincoln ended slavery only to save the Union, not to usher in a new period of racial equality. He further noted the reconciliatory symbolism of the memorial’s site – directly across the Potomac from Virginia. The event itself, as one historian has argued, became a “microcosm for the strained race relations of the day, marked by the rhetoric of good intentions and the behavior of bigotry.”

And thus we have an example of an event designed for the  reconciliation minded that distanced the cause of Union from the cause of freedom. In fact there was only one speaker of color that day – Robert Russa Moton, Booker T. Washington’s successor at the Tuskegee Institute. In a fashion that can only be characterized as patronizing, event coordinators had asked Moton to “speak for his race.” But the final draft of his speech would have to pass the close scrutiny of those planning the event. And in the end, heavy editing of Moton’s “controversial” material rendered the speech mostly benign. Here is what Moton wanted to say:

Robert Russa Moton

So long as any group is denied the fullest privilege of a citizen to share both the making and the execution of the law which shapes its destiny – so long as any group does not enjoy every right and every privilege that belongs to every American citizen without regard to race, creed or color, the task for which the immortal Lincoln gave the last full measure of devotion – that task is still unfinished. 

Heated words for a racially charged decade to be sure…excised from Moton’s speech. In many cases, national events such as these specifically designed to ease any sectional tensions were devoid of such troubling language – and I offer this one as an example. But I would like to remind my dear readers that such events were not typical of dedication ceremonies on the larger scale. In both the North and South, sectionally aligned events were more often than not laced with controversy.

Peace,

Keith

For the next day or so, I will be working on a whole new look for Cosmic America. The content will be the same – but the feel will be much more streamlined and user friendly – with links to all of the C.A. projects. Check back soon – and I hope you like the new site.

For the nostalgic among us – I offer a screenshot of the old blog home page.

Peace,

Keith

Charles Francis Adams, Jr. had two presidents in his lineage. His father was the United States minister to England. The younger Adams had attended Harvard and at the beginning of the war was practicing law. In December 1861, Adams was commissioned first lieutenant in the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry and eventually fought at Antietam and Gettysburg. In July 1864, Adams rose in rank to lieutenant colonel in the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry – an African American unit that fought at Petersburg and elsewhere.

On March 4, 1865, Adams found himself in Washington City – as the war drew to a close, he was eager to hear the president’s second inaugural address. Writing to his father a few days later, he had this to say: “That rail splitting lawyer is one of the wonders of the day. Once at Gettysburg and now again on a greater occasion he has shown a capacity for rising to the demands of the hour …This inaugural strikes me in its grand simplicity and directness as being for all time the historical keynote of this war.”

I would certainly agree with Adams. What do you think?

Peace,

Keith

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well love him then...in HELL!!

Peace,
Keith

The axiom about archaeology is true enough. But in this case it has led to what some note as a troubling conundrum. Imagine the discovery of traces of the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown. Without question – a site worth uncovering, dissecting, and cataloging. But what if archeologists had to destroy the remnants of some Confederate earthworks to get at it? That is precisely what is happening. The traces of Confederate Fort Pocahontas sit directly on top of and next to the early settlement’s Fort James, an enclosure originally encompassing a little over an acre.

Sites related to two central episodes in American history are thus in conflict. According to an article in the Washington Post, “because much of the original fort is buried underneath a Confederate earthwork…these discoveries forced a painful historical and archaeological trade-off. To reveal James Fort, nearly half of Fort Pocahontas has been removed. In the process, invaluable traces of America’s founding have been discovered right next to remains from the Civil War. ‘It’s probably the only place you would have a story like that,’ says Colin Campbell, president of Colonial Williamsburg, citing the conjunction of two pivotal moments in U.S. history. ‘I think it’s absolutely fascinating.’”

In the process of cutting away the Civil War fort, archeologists have unearthed a number of valuable discoveries, such as a remarkably preserved bomb proof, complete with period log supports and sandbags. And, the site is being digitally mapped in 3-D, so it is not completely lost – sort of.

Archeologists based the decision to remove the Confederate fort on its relative insignificance during the war. And, quite obviously, the profound significance of what lies beneath it. While I am generally opposed to destroying any of the few remaining Civil War sites that have not already succumbed to strip malls and other unsightly suburban sprawl, in this case I will side with the Jamestown archeologists. As they say, they are not just digging arbitrarily, and I believe their cause worthwhile in the overall scheme of things. What are your thoughts?

Peace,

Keith

National Geographic, May 2012

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

By now we are certainly accustomed to seeing the nation’s iconic publications feature a Civil War related cover or series. Time magazine, the New York Times, and the list goes on. After all, we are in the midst of the sesquicentennial and Civil War history has worked its way in to media, popular culture, and maybe even water cooler discussions at the office. I was recently asked by a member of the National Geographic staff to feature and weigh in on an article in their May 2012 Civil War issue.

The article – “A Sketch in Time,” by Harry Katz -  reviews briefly the lives of Civil War sketch artists – known on both sides of the conflict as “specials.” Katz has published a soon-to-be-released book on the subject – noted as a “landmark collection of rare and sensational images of the Civil War” – so let’s consider the article as something of a warning shot.

Katz makes a number of compelling statements suggesting that specials endured the same privations as did a typical Civil War soldier – they came under fire, sustained injuries, and risked death – all to provide the realistic images of combat, life on the march and in camp, and other activities to an eager and anxious public. While at times he ventures down the problematic path of anachronistic language and comparisons – noting that specials were “embedded” with troops (a term they would not have used) and making tenuous connections to war correspondents in Afghanistan – Katz ultimately opens the door for a look at the men behind the work with which we are all quite familiar. Such peccadilloes can thus be forgiven.

In comparison, we know a great deal about the work of Civil War photographers such as Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner. But technological insufficiencies rendered their work somewhat incomplete. The artists providing the action – what Civil War era cameras could not do – for publications such as Frank Leslie’s Illustrated and Harper’s Weekly have gone largely unnoticed. Katz’s work is a welcome addition.

Below is an excerpt from the article – you can access the full story here.

At the time of the Civil War, camera shutters were too slow to record movement sharply. Celebrated photographers such as Mathew Brady and Timothy O’Sullivan, encumbered by large glass negatives and bulky horse-drawn processing wagons, could neither maneuver the rough terrain nor record images in the midst of battle. So newspaper publishers hired amateur and professional illustrators to sketch the action for readers at home and abroad. Embedded with troops on both sides of the conflict, these “special artists,” or “specials,” were America’s first pictorial war correspondents. They were young men (none were women) from diverse backgrounds—soldiers, engineers, lithographers and engravers, fine artists, and a few veteran illustrators—seeking income, experience, and adventure.

In spite of the remarkable courage these men displayed and the events they witnessed, their stories have gone unnoticed: Virginia native son and Union supporter D. H. Strother’s terrifying assignment sketching the Confederate Army encampments outside Washington, D.C., which got him arrested as a spy; Theodore Davis’s dangerously ill-conceived sojourn into Dixie in the summer of 1861 (he was detained and accused of spying); W. T. Crane’s heroic coverage of Charleston, South Carolina, from within the Rebel city; Alfred Waud’s detention by a company of Virginia cavalry (after he sketched a group portrait, they let him go); Frank Vizetelly’s eyewitness chronicle of Jefferson Davis’s final flight into exile.

BATTLE OF FAIR OAKS, VIRGINIA, JUNE 3, 1862; LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Union soldiers bury their comrades and burn their horses after the Battle of Fair Oaks. Alfred Waud, on assignment as a "special artist" for Harper's Weekly, sketched the grim scene.

To view the National Geographic May 2012 Civil War artist photo gallery, click here.

Peace,

Keith

I often make mention of two significant books in the historiographical timeline of Civil War remembrance: Paul Buck’s Road to Reunion and David Blight’s Race and Reunion.  Both (quite obviously) mention the word reunion in the title and then proceed to discuss at length, especially the latter title, the process of reconciliation – it is as if the two words mean the same thing. In fact, if one were to immerse themselves in the literature on post-war commemoration and general remembrance they might indeed arrive at this conclusion – a synonymous marriage of definition…reunion and reconciliation. The words even sort of appear interchangeable…or at least convey a sense of starting anew in tandem.

The two words are related but not interchangeable. But we are dealing with more than mere shades of meaning. From the perspective of the Civil War generation – those who fought and those who lived through it – reunion simply meant the coming together of individual states, previously united under one government, subsequent to a protracted war. It was a reality sealed by the final surrenders of Confederate armies, the dissolution of the Confederate national government, and the forced suppression of a domestic rebellion. Reconciliation, in contrast, was an experiential action undertaken by the participants of that war (military and civilian). The word implies general forgiveness, but in the context of the Civil War era, refers more pointedly to a general acceptance that those once warring parties were again fellow citizens. The promotion of reconciliation acknowledged a sense of unity – a sense of sectional healing. Veterans willingly, often enthusiastically committed to embracing an all-encompassing national identity – an identity as Americans, one and all. Ultimately, national politics depended on reconciliation; economic expediency rested on it. So veterans from both sides of the bloody chasm set out to craft a message of reconciliation from the scattered shards of disunion.  In so doing, they preserved the memories of their ideals, their trials, and their respective causes.

Their speeches, parades, monument dedications, and literature reflecting on the war provided the means through which they articulated visions of reconciliation – visions that in essence mirrored the causes for which they had fought. Veterans’ reconciliationist views were in fact colored by their experiences of war, the issues that had been at stake, and their respective causes. They at once promoted reconciliation and reminded their audiences that only one side had been right. Their challenge was how best to situate former enemies within these commemorative contexts.

While scholars such as Blight (and his legion of proponents) have blurred the distinction between the two, I offer terms of separation – and clear definitions. Presuming of course that one agrees with my definitions, we might proceed with caution when we use them, and keep in mind how the veterans made the distinction between the two.

Historians speak often about the storied “road to reconciliation” after the Civil War. I, as you all probably know, have spent the last ten years talking about it, and I do not think that I will relenting any time soon.

The scholarly approach – at least how many understand it – is part of the foundation of the history and memory cottage industry that has been a hot topic for the last couple of decades.

The approach (most famously argued by Yale historian David Blight) boils down to a few simple lines. Reconciliation came at the expense of what was promised by Union victory. Black people – slavery and emancipation – were essentially whitewashed out of the war’s memory. The Civil War was thus commemorated on southern terms. You can find out why I do not necessarily agree with this idea by doing a simple search for “reconciliation” right here on Cosmic America.

But Blight’s take is only new in that is casts a negative light on effort by both by sides to reconcile. Others…earlier in the twentieth century, drew similar conclusions – although they were celebrating reconciliation in the process.

Among the first to assess the implications of reconciliation, Paul H. Buck tendered an affirming appraisal of veterans’ efforts despite the overt racism apparent at commemorative gatherings. In 1937, his The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 lauded the “positive influences” paving the way for the “promise of ultimate peace” and applauded the breakdown of sectional animosity during the postwar years. He nevertheless admitted that reconciliation ushered in a “period where [black people] would no longer figure as the ward of the nation to be singled out for special guardianship or peculiar treatment.” Buck paid tribute to reconciliation but observed “the tremendous reversal of opinion” regarding freed people.

Just a few thoughts – I’ll be back tomorrow to explain why I think the words “reunion” and “reconciliation” should not be used interchangeably. They may seem like the same thing – but guess what, they are not.

Peace,

Keith

Last Saturday was Confederate Memorial Day. Now when talking about Rebel graves, most people associate Hollywood with the cemetery in Richmond. But here in Hollywood California we have our very own Confederate monument – at Hollywood Forever Cemetery on Santa Monica Blvd. – a mere few blocks from Cosmic America HQ.

As I have mentioned, a good many Civil War veterans moved west after the war to seek their fortunes or otherwise benefit from the perfect…yes perfect climate we enjoy here in Southern California. They did a lot of the same things their comrades did in the East – they formed organizations and participated in Civil War commemorative activities. When they died, many were buried in plots throughout the area maintained by their organizations. In the case of the Confederate plot and monument in Hollywood Forever, we can thank the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Saturday’s turnout was pretty light. In the Daughters’ defense, there was a big reenactment going on at Pierce College, which more than likely lured the main Confederate contingent to the Valley. And there was little else alerting the general pubic to the event. As you may remember, the Daughters’ have had some trouble in the past with issues concerning placement of Confederate flags at the cemetery – they fought and won a case to allow for such activities.

But from what I understand, the Daughters want the event to fly under the radar anyway. On the Thursday prior to the event, I briefly discussed Saturday’s ceremony with UDC representative Margaret Alley. She was hesitant to publicize the event for fear of vandalism. In her words…”The neighborhood has gotten…well…shall we say…”dark” over the years – if you know what I mean.” She feared that these “dark” (again…her word, not mine) people would take offense to Confederate activity and damage their monument. I’ll let you make what you will of Ms. Alley’s comments. But I think you can get the drift.

Below are a number of pictures from Saturday’s memorial festivities. I’ll place some video on my Youtube channel in short order – so you can get the full experience.

Deo Vindice (maybe)

Keith