Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Are We Rethinking Our Civil War Reconciliation?
My family was in Iowa at the outbreak of the Civil War and I have one ancestor that fought for the Union. I grew up in the South but I was always grateful that the North won the Civil War. Slavery was noxious and a great evil in the American experiment. We could have had a peaceful resolution to slavery but the South broke the rules of the game and as they started to lose politically they tried their very, very best to destroy the United States. It was a very good thing that the Confederacy lost the Civil War — and in the long term — it was very good for all the states in the Confederacy that they lost the Civil War.
Having said that, I have always thought that America’s reconciliation after the Civil War is an under-appreciated miracle. The speed at which the country could unite against a common foe during the Spanish-American War — when many Civil War veterans were still alive — is remarkable. Not only that, but the career of Varina Howell Davis is equally amazing, going from being the First Lady of the Confederacy to becoming a celebrated writer in New York City.
Many have talked about the courage of Lee in making sure the Confederate Army did not break up and start guerrilla war against the Union, and rightly so. But equally important was the fact the the South could have just sat out of the American life as well. That would have been disastrous.
There was a brutal and evil price to pay for the quick reconciliation — the Jim Crow regime — and I can’t emphasize enough how much better American would be today if Jim Crow had never existed. Fortunately, we dealt with Jim Crow fifty years ago and, today, the only people that think Jim Crow was or is a good idea are a tiny lunatic fringe.
The best thing about the reconciliation has been the ability of all Americans to celebrate the martial valor of both sides of the Civil War. This has led military tradition of valor that greatly benefits our current military and contributed greatly to our military success as a nation.
When I watch a movie like Gettysburg, I want the Union to win and I would have been proud to make a stand with Chamberlain on Little Round Top. But how could I fail to be moved by the tragedy of Longstreet, or awed by the bravery and sacrifice of Pickett’s division, or not appreciate Lee’s leadership and audacity? I think it is to the nation’s benefit to that I am able to feel and emphasize with the soldiers and military tradition on both sides.
Now, however we have a strong attempt to disqualify that reconciliation to see the all the men of the Confederacy as unremitting evil. To my great disappointment Jason Lee Sterots argues this view at National Review. He thinks we should see all the Confederacy as racist cowards that deserve no respect for their military exploits. I think he writes this, as he writes much else, with little thought to the cultural consequences of his attitude.
I am more on the side of David French who debates Bakiri Sellers here. French takes the view that the reconciliation process after the Civil War is important and the South’s military history is important and distinct enough from the racist cause of the war to be worth keeping. Mr. Sellers who, at one point, uses the word “Sheroes” does not even seem to understand what Mr. French is saying. I pray that “Sheroes” has not become a thing in the United States.
That disturbs me because every great nation has to stand up and fight for its survival at times and its martial culture and courage is a very important ingredient to a nation’s survival. It bears noting that the French had everything they needed to resist the German invasion in 1940 except the will to fight. While many French soldiers fought bravely — as well as a very few French Government officials — it was not sufficient to the task of stopping the German army, whose military élan and determination was in much greater supply.
Whether the Confederate Battle Flag continues to fly anywhere or not, must we jettison the important reconciliation we have achieved after the Civil War? Am I — are we — not allowed to acknowledge that even the best and bravest of men can sometimes fight for the wrong cause? Is that lesson not important for us all to learn? If you throw away an entire tradition of marital valor and courage you do not easily replace it. Do people even bother to pause and contemplate that? I fear they do not, and we could easily lose an important part of American culture as a causality of a lone man’s racist attack.
Published in Culture, Politics
I did not have any ancestors fight for the Confederacy, at least that I know of. My great-great grandfather, a Juan Romero, served from 1861-1862 for the New Mexico Territory while it was under threat from the Confederacy. Having been born and raised in California, I identified with the Union more so than the Confederacy when learning about the war. I was always quite proud that the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln.
When it comes to Southern heritage, I am an outsider looking in. While there is the heritage stemming from those how fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War, there is also a heritage that stems from those whose ancestors were slaves.
Thank you for this wonderful post.
About 15 years ago I was visiting the railroad museum near Marietta that stores “The General” – the locomotive made famous by Andrews Raiders. With few visitors that day, I was able to have a long conversation with a costumed volunteer playing the part of William Fuller. He spoke of his concerns that more and more museum visitors seemed to have no understanding (or seeming desire to understand) the complexities of the war and the reconciliation, and little but dismissive contempt for Southerners who expressed any sort of approval of any efforts undertaken in that great struggle. He related an evolving set of instructions from the museum board to ensure the volunteers would not offend these “Northern Sensibilities.”
I recalled to him that as a young boy in the 1960s, we would play “war.” Somebody had to be the Japanese/Germans/Indians/Rebels/Redcoats/etc. – otherwise you couldn’t have a war. Even that superficial play provided some insight that there was a man with hopes for life, but a role to serve.
Young boys will still find inspiration in the stories of both James Andrews and William Fuller, if they ever hear about them. These type of stories always have been and ever will be enduring. Yes, there is “re-thinking,” but Brian Wolf you made a significant contribution to the on-going reconciliation discussion – thanks again!
The war proved that there never was or will be a right to secession in any nation. No national leadership will let a significant part of its nation walk away without a fight unless they are too weak to hold it.
Southern aristocrats owned slaves and voted accordingly. But Southern soldiers obviously didn’t fight with passion only to preserve the “property” of their wealthy politicians. The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves and didn’t risk their lives for slavery. They risked their lives for home.
That is why the Rebel flag still has value. The South is still a distinct cultural region with a proud heritage. And that flag is the only universally recognized symbol of the South. If another symbol replaced it, that would surely be condemned as racist too.
Local loyalties will always be as strong or stronger than national loyalties, because local culture and persons more closely reflect one’s own nature.
I am a resolute and unapologetic Yankee. To be perfectly honest, my sentiments align most closely with Valiuth’s comment #15.
But I want to thank you, Brian Wolf, for a beautifully-written and persuasive post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and very much appreciate the discussion.
Carry on.
[Edited to add link to Val’s comment]
Here is an example of the kind of thing we are seeing on the Right that is going to tear a hole in the conservative movement. Sue me for wanting nuance and respect for my ancestors.
The War is Over. These Men Won It For Liberty.
You are welcome. I never really thought our reconciliation after the Civil War would be under threat like this but here we are trying to losing something good and true that we have been refining and making better for 150 years. What fools we are sometimes. Thank you for holding the torch up in the darkness, may your tribe increase.
I feel differently about this depending on the circumstances. I think the decision by the Governor of South Carolina to ask for removal of the flag from the capital grounds is a good one. The graciousness of the AME church and the families who preached forgiveness, did not make demands and focused on South Carolinians handling this helped a lot.
And, as a practical political matter, why do I want to defend the flying of a flag raised by 19th century Democrats in defense of slavery and reraised by a Democratic governor in 1962 in defense of segregation?
I would object however to other changes. For instance, at our National and State parks commemorating the battles of the Civil War. One of the great things about those parks is that they honor equally those who fought and died on both sides. I worry that there may be attempts to change that.
I’d object to removal of monuments honoring those who fought for the South in the war. At the same time you may see more monuments also honoring those who were oppressed during the period, which I think is fine and, from my travels in the South, including Charleston, have already seen in several places.
Wow that guy understands nothing of reconciliation and the great American story after the Civil War. He is Jason Sterots camp. I certainly hope this does not become the default attitude of the Republicans. I think it is short sighted, not well thought out and shallow way of viewing our past.
I just wanted to note that my position is pretty close to yours here. I am not concerned about any particular Battle Flag or where it is flown. What I want to avoid is an “othering” of the Confederate soldiers and losing the shared heritage of battle valor and sacrifice that has done so much for our country when our cause was just! If all that happens is that one flag comes down it is not a big deal. But if we attack the whole idea of post Civil War reconciliation then we are losing something very important.
This is a very good discussion. Thank you. But with one or two exceptions, I see that many commentators here do not understand the economics implications which in large part was used to justify slavery, ingrained as the status quo and could have led to a far worst result had the War never been fought. The economic issues underlie most issues that we face and or see in History: politics, culture, power. The economic and cultural strains that divided North and South began more than 200 hundred years before the Civil War. Many Southern’s migrated from the Northeast because they were either pushed out or seeking opportunity. My own ancestors came to Virginia as skilled tradesmen indentured servants. One of the reasons that the South and North were united enough to fight Britain was over trade and finance issues. If freedom and/or rights been the main issue we would be singing God Save the Queen today. After the founding, these economic issues became internal and continue to exist today. Blue vs. Red States, Right to Work vs Union, etc.
This debate, and the conflicts that originated between the North and South during the Constitutional Convention is well documented and debated in Professor Thomas Fleming’s; ” A Disease in the Public Mind” .
Maybe we, including myself, should stop the moralizing and pick up our history books again.
If “picking up our history books again” were the result of this discussion that would be fantastic. I hate it when the political winds start blowing in a certain way and suddenly we start making far reaching decisions without even considering the consequences. Like in the debate I linked too Sellers had obviously never even heard or engaged with Mr. French’s perspective.
I wonder if this is little like a group of brothers all decide whether they should rob a bank or not. Some brothers decide not to rob the bank. The other brothers go ahead and rob the bank and when the police come to get them the brothers that voted to not rob the bank start shooting at the police.
The support for the bank robbery was not explicit but they give their brothers implicit support for the crime by defending them from the police. It was not right for me to personally rob the bank but it was a good thing for my brothers to do it.
So the the Upper South may very well have decided that it was not right for the them to leave the Union over an Election but it was right for anyone who wanted to leave the Union over an election to do so. That position was then and would be now poison for the American experiment and if the Upper South’s position had been taken up by the North their would be no United States of America today. That would have been a terrible outcome. Preserving the Union and the Constitution of the United States was worth the war.
The Stars and Bars is often just a symbol of protest against an oppressive federal government, but it’s hard for a yankee to understand that.
We had a good discussion recently on the question of whether the southern states were correct in thinking they had the right to secede. Slavery was certainly a major element of why they wanted to secede, but I don’t think it is the only thing and I don’t think why they wanted to secede is relevant to that question (though several disagreed by saying that the south only had a right to secede for reasons approved by, well presumably, the North.
Having lived in both the north and the south, I think they did have that right and think the term “War of Northern Aggression” is a more accurate description of the conflict.
If a group of businesses on the outskirts of town decides they don’t like the way the chamber of commerce in town is acting, perhaps overstepping its chartered bounds and favoring the in-town businesses, and they decide to withdraw from the chamber and found a new one just for those businesses on the outskirts who are being disadvantaged by the present chamber, should the old chamber hire mercenaries to burn down the seceding businesses and forcibly return them to the chamber? The states came first. They created the federal government with limited powers, just as businesses create a chamber of commerce to network, advertize, and advocate on behalf of the businesses. So, the southern states had the perfect right to withdraw and form a new federation. This is why calling it a “civil war” is entirely incorrect. There are other names. Here are some in increasing level of incendiary sentiment: War between the States, War for Southern Independence, and War of Northern Aggression. You can yell “Slavery!” at the top of your lungs all day long, but that doesn’t make it what the war was about.
Now, the “Battle Flag” is a separate issue to me. It was the flag of one part of the Confederate Army. As Valiuth said, plastering that everywhere was done in the middle of the last century. None of my family served under it. If we want to honor our heritage, let us fly the Blood-Stained Banner:
If the desire is to denounce those with ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, one must denounce a great number of the Marine officer corps during WW2. People called them “the Confederate Army in disguise” for a reason. Many were the grandsons of Confederate soldiers. The Confederate Army fought bravely and lost the Civil War, but their grandsons saved America. I count over 200 men who share my maiden name who fought for the Confederacy.
From Alexander H. Stephens’ “Corner Stone” Speech, 1861:
“The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
Stephens was the Vice President of the Confederacy. He then goes on to talk about how Jefferson was incorrect when writing that all men are created equal. I highly recommend reading this speech in its entirety.
The flag being flown is not the Stars and Bars, or First National Flag of the Confederacy. It is the Battle Flag of the Army of Tennessee. There were similar flags used by other armies of the Confederacy, but they were square. The Confederate Naval Jack was also similar, but I usually see it depicted with a lighter blue in the saltire.
Re: Comment #15
BTW, excellent comment from Asquared above.
Valiuth and the 3 or 4 “likes”, you should expand your horizon somewhat from learning about the past from the History Channel and Ken Burns.
I have read hundreds of diaries from Southern soldiers, including the one from my GG Grand-Father found at the Virginia Historical Society. In very, very few cases from either those who died later or survived the war with maiming wounds, some 20% of the total male population of the South, did anyone express regret or believe their plight was “in vain”. Not like the 6,000 US soldiers that were killed by their own bombers during Operation Cobra in WWII due to some poor air force planning. (Guess we should strike Omar Bradley off the statue list) Not like the 58,000 dead in Vietnam (Strike Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, oh that right, off of the statue list)
When you travel through the battlefields and communities that honored the Civil War dead, the plaques never mention “died for slavery” on southern monuments and very seldom do you see, “died for freeing the slaves”on Northern ones. What you do see is “fought for Virginia”, fought for Georgia” and “died to save the Union”.
Home and country meant something to these people, even the Irish immigrants that were bought off to take the place of wealthy Northerners in order they could evade the draft. To minimize their motives to one thing, slavery is just wrong.
I’m with Brian with his views on this topic. I agree that the soldiers who fought for the South had many different motivations and for many preservation of slavery was not one of them.
But preserving slavery was the reason for secession. Secession did not occur in a vacuum in support of an abstract principle.
I think fighting to preserve the Union had greater merit than fighting to create the Confederacy. I do not have any emotional or family connections to the South, although I have spent some time there. Looking at the Civil War as it was, rather than how we would like it to have been, is the best way to approach this time of history for our country. Only viewing the Southern experience through the eyes of the Confederate soldiers and their families is missing an important part of Southern history, which is the legacy of slavery and the viewpoint of the descendants of slaves. I think Confederate memorials would have a very different meaning to them.
I was almost ready to support the removal of the flag. But the speed with which the overclass is moving this week to remove all evidence of the Confederacy — memorials, street names, mounuments, statues . . . and yes, flags — is frightening.
Mollie has a great piece at The Federalist today on this weird obsession with the flag.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/23/congratulations-you-oppose-the-confederate-flag-now-what/
Congratulations Brian Wolf! Your post has been quoted by David French on National Review’s The Corner.
Not sure a military victory proves (or disproves) this. And in fact, the Constitution is completely silent on this issue; which is why no Confederates were charged with Treason.
Ah, sorry. You are correct. I googled “Stars and Bars” before I included that in my comment and the “Confederate Flag” was one of the first images that popped up, but I didn’t read the wikipedia entry, which was absolutely my bad.
I guess my initial reaction is, if the flag itself is not the official flag of the CSA, then the assertion that the flag represents slavery looks very tenuous.
Brian:
I would though like to point out that we do not have memorials to the thousands of Americans who fought against the inception of our nation during the Revolutionary War. Were these men not American’s too? Did they not display the virtues of loyalty, obedience, and bravery? If we erect a monument to them shall we fly the Union Jack above it?
But lets get back to the issue of our Southern dead. So long as the South and Southerners keep draping themselves in a kind of nostalgic view of the confederacy they purposely separate themselves from America. If you fly a Confederate flag above the tomb of dead Americans do you not imply that they were not really Americas? And ultimately was that not their point that they were rather Virginians or Georgians rather than Americans?
I also disagree about the merits of southern aristocratic culture, considering that it was the self interest and vanity of these people that nearly destroyed our nation and condemned the South to economic poverty and underdevelopment. What could be less American than an aristocrat? They were fools and their foolishness condemned many. Might as well praise the boyars of Russia for that nations indisputable character. Truly they deserve the credit, but is that really a good thing?
Not a big deal. The reason the picture of that flag came up is that many, many people make that error.
I would not consider any flag of the Confederacy to symbolize slavery. The flag of the United States flew over slavery from the nation’s inception until after the end of the war. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did nothing at the time. It was simply a PR measure. It freed slaves in another country, while not freeing the slaves in the United States. Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were slave states that never seceded. He could not afford to alienate them. So, you want a symbol of slavery, try the Stars and Stripes.