>>>>What does it mean to characterize the Civil War as a 'tragedy' or an
'unpleasantness' - to fight to bring slavery to an end?>>>
I agree with most of what you said - slavery was the root cause of the
War. But the Northern and Southern colonies and states had been on
different cultural, political, economic tracks since the 17th century.
Two nations with two different interpretations of the meaning of the
Revolution had evolved. It's true, though appalling in retrospect, to
say that Southerners were fighting to uphold the intent of the
Constitution - which allowed slavery. And, in their minds, allowed for
secession, just as America seceded from the British empire. (I'm not
saying they were "right" in any way, or that slavery is in any way
excusable, just what they were thinking.)
In 1861 the issue on the table was NOT ending slavery. That was not the
declared goal of the North - preserving the Union was the goal. Lincoln
himself said if he could have preserved the Union and kept slavery, he
would have done it. In fact, he tried to do just that until 1863.
My point was about the motives of the Confederate soldiers whose
descendents wish to honor them, and the motives of those descendents.
When soldiers came wearing blue uniforms and shooting at their
neighbors, it would have been very hard for the average Southerner to
take a reasoned, neutral approach. They weren't ALL defending slavery as
an institution. They thought they were defending their land. Maybe in
retrospect, that shouldn't be honored, but I think there's a way to do
it without honoring the ideology of the larger argument. But of course
there are the more racist and extremist pro-Confederate groups, who
conflate the Confederate flag, nostalgia, family, and patriotism in
lethal ways, and it is a slippery slope.
The original issue was both the flag as a symbol - and I agree that it's
racist to display it, because it does make a political point that's
abhorrent. But the other issue was the Sons of the Confederacy, and the
legacy and heritage of ancestry - which is more than nostalgia, it's
identity.
Which of these ancestors of mine is more worthy of memory? One
great-great-great grandfather was a farmer, who owned no slaves, in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee. He did not rush to join the Confederate Army -
but when the Battle of Stone's River took place in his back yard, he
signed up. One battle. He was captured, released, and went back to
farming. End of story. Another great-great-great grandfather was a
carpenter in a Pennsylvania town, with a wife and three children. He
also did not rush to sign up. But he was drafted - he was too poor to
pay the fee to avoid the draft. He tried to get out of it by arguing
that his poor vision prevented his firing a gun ("I tried to tell them
that I couldn't see, but they wouldn't let me slip," he wrote to his
wife). He was assigned to the Ambulance Corps, served for six months in
the 1864 campaign through Virginia - Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Petersburg
- was captured, and died of dysentery in a prison camp in North
Carolina. So... Which one is more worthy of the respect and praise of
his descendents? One "gave his life to end slavery" - but unwillingly.
One fought to protect his community, and took no interest in the larger
cause.
It's complicated. And it is tragic.
There's a good and amusing book called "Confederates in the Attic," by
Tony Horwitz, who argues that the Civil War is still very much with us
in America today. He's right!
Ok, enough from me, I have a museum to run.
Carol Ely
Louisville, KY
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
