An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

America’s Civil War Sesquicentennial Coming Soon

Civil War

In 2011 America will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. If the last two 50-year markers are any indication, this will be a very big deal.

States across the country are starting their preparations. Here in Tennessee, which saw more military action than any state outside Virginia, a coalition of preservation, tourism and education groups is preparing for the event. Scholars have planned a symposium next month for the anniversary of John Brown’s Raid at Harper’s Ferry, an event that played a crucial role in triggering the war.

But what will this mean for American identity? Historian David Blight outlined three memorial narratives that emerged in the decades following the Civil War. The Emancipationist narrative, embraced by African Americans and the dwindling population of white Radical Republicans emphasized the promise of freedom to four millions slaves as the single most important event in the war. The Lost Cause narrative insisted that the South was justified in seceding, that its troops fought honorably and nobly, that slavery was ancillary at best to the cause of secession – “state’s rights” were the REAL reason for secession – and the Old South social order was superior to what followed. Then there was the Reconciliationist narrative, which praised white soldiers North and South for the bravery and dedication to cause – though no serious examination of causes should be undertaken so as not to disturb the fragile peace.

In 1911, the Lost Cause narrative had triumphed – especially in the South. Nearly every Southern town had a statue of a Confederate soldier gracing its most conspicuous public space. Reconstruction was written into the textbooks as an infamous era of black supremacy and corruption. And the first blockbuster feature-length film in American history – Birth of a Nation – celebrated the Ku Klux Klan, which re-emerged in 1915 as the final statement of Lost Cause values for a new age.

By 1961 the Reconciliationist narrative had come to dominate national discourse. This was the moment when modern re-enacting and battlefield preservation really took off. The early civil rights movement had done enough to temper the old fires of Lost Causism – among Northerners especially – but it had yet to eradicate this white supremacist narrative. In fact, many Southern states revived their Lost Cause heraldry as a relic of Massive Resistance to the civil rights movement; Georgia even added the Confederate Battle Flag to its state flag at this time. Still, the centennial of the Civil War was a time to celebrate both sides and, as much as possible, ignore the causes that led up to it.

The 1960s changed all of that, and reignited support for the Emancipationist narrative. Civil rights activists openly identified with Radical Reconstruction, and black Civil War soldiers were “rediscovered” by white people – and valorized in the movie Glory. Even white Southerners – now in migration to the Party of Lincoln – grudgingly accepted the emancipation of slaves as a fundamentally positive moment in American history (though many continued to insist that secession was over “state’s rights” and not defense of slavery).

How will this play out in the sesquicentennial celebration? With the election of a black President America has made its most profound statement on the consequences of the Civil War. Expect lots of self-congratulation on how far we’ve come as a nation – thanks largely to the Union victory, the emplacement of civil rights in the Constitution during Reconstruction (even if it would take another century before those Amendments had any meaning), and, of course, the valor of the soldiers.

But that doesn’t mean the emancipationist narrative will go uncontested. Scholars on the left have long challenged the motives of Radical Republicans, seeing them more as agents of industrial capitalism than moral avatars of freedom. If the great myth in the South is that secession was based on state’s rights, the great myth in the North is that most of the soldiers fought to free the slaves (and the Underground Railroad was proudly supported in every Northern town). This delusion of self-congratulation belies a Northern racial conservatism that made emancipation far from inevitable.

On the far right will be the Neo-Confederates who insist that they fought against Federal tyranny; no doubt they will incorporate current day gripes against the Obama Administration as part of their revived Lost Cause.

And millions of others will just want to visit the beautiful battlefield parks, imagine themselves to be soldiers and officers, and think nothing beyond platitudes of the reason they fought.

Hopefully, though, we will come out of the sesquicentennial with a more nuanced understanding of what Union, freedom and, yes, race, actually meant for Americans in 1861.

  • DLS
    1. Elrod, be sure to GO TO SHILOH sometime. The park there (with its old 1800s monuments) rivals not merely Antietam, but in fact rivals Gettysburg (and doesn't have the commercialism surrounding it). The park (Shiloh) is used by Scouts on day-long and even multi-day outings, if I am not mistaken.

    http://www.nps.gov/shil/planyourvisit/direction...

    2. The Civil War means much, much, less in our modern or contemporary times than it used to mean.

    3. The Civil War is no excuse for cheap righty-bashing and South-bashing by PC brownshirt lefties.
  • elrod
    DLS,
    Do you honestly think neo-Confederate organizations have NOT taken general discontent with the Obama Administration into account in their recruiting efforts? Note that I am not claiming the reverse is true - that anti-government conservatism is akin to Neo-Confederatism.

    Shiloh is an amazing - and amazingly eerie - place.

    As for the Civil War's meaning, I suspect that people will start to think about it a lot more with the sesquicentennial.
  • DLS
    "Do you honestly think neo-Confederate organizations have NOT taken general discontent with the Obama Administration into account in their recruiting efforts?"

    No (of course they have), but that's obviously not the correct point. The point related to that subject is that there should not be any ridiculous hype or another round of righty-bashing or South-bashing (or Religious Right-bashing, which is an opportunity among the usual crowd whenever the South or Flyover Country, USA is a subject), or hype about opposition to everything Obama or the Dems in Washington are doing as "racist" [sic], no bogus claims to superiority while bashing hate objects, etc.

    Such people are incapable, or don't merit being included, in intelligent discussion of the real issues surrounding secession (why it happened, why it was suppressed), Lincoln's constitutional violations, or the growth of Washington since then during each war, for example.

    As for the general public, their attachment or true interest in the Civil War recedes with time and each passing generation (in the East as well as in the West, so far removed from so much of earlier history). Plus, much of their "knowledge" has been replaced by post-1960s PC-and-worse drivel. I fear the meaning of the Civil War as well as the history is likely to be subject to PC corruption.

    A visit to Shiloh (or Gettysburg, or Antietam) would be much better than commentary coming from DC or its outposts.
  • shannonlee
    The Civil War represents the time our country finally became civil. There is nothing civilized about keeping slaves.

    I get tired of people trying to claim that the war was about state rights. "State rights" was simply the framework from which the greater argument of slavery was fought. I may be extreme in this belief, but I believe denying the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the holocaust.
  • DLS
    The essence, stripped of PC drivel: States' rights lost to Manifest Destiny.
  • Leonidas
    The Civil was was a double edged sword. The institution of slavery was removed, the institution of federal government control was imposed.
  • DLS
    It was our Second American Revolution. We had a third as well, the New Deal, post-Depression modern welfare state in Washington. Both involve what first became an issue during the Civil War, what has rightly been called (in a book by that title) the rise of the "Yankee Levithan" (and what we have seen since in each war with the growth and centralization of power in Washington).

    Manifest Destiny -- no surprise there at all to the non-ignorant. That was during our expansionist era, and resort to imperialism to prevent loss of territory (what a defiant blow to our Yankee national ego!) shouldn't be a surprise to anybody today. (It doesn't matter why the South chose to secede, or how bad they were, or primitive in their development and anti-industrial or anti-modern in their culture. Those facts are irrelevent to the central issue at hand, that they had the right to leave just as the original 13 colonies did, but failed after trying.)
  • elrod
    The South was expansionist every bit as much as the North. That's the reason things blew up over Kansas. And with that lost by 1859 Southern leaders talked more about filibusters in Central America and the establishment of a great slaveholding empire stretching down to Argentina. Read over J. D. B. DeBow's treatises on this in the DeBow's Review. By losing the 1860 election to a party ideologically opposed to the expansion of slavery - and for many to slavery itself - Southern leaders felt that they had lost control over foreign policy. Up to that point Southerners had dominated foreign policy (Mexican War, Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.).

    Secession was about power, pure and simple. "States' rights" was a purely situational "doctrine" and not a remotely consistent ideological position. In fact, Northern states passed Personal Liberty Laws barring the return of fugitive slaves...in direct violation of the Federal Fugitive Slave Act. Northern states like Wisconsin actually asserted their state rights' to refuse to turn over runaway slaves. Southerners called this an unconstitutional infringement upon Federal prerogatives. When they lost the 1860 election all that changed and they suddenly discovered "states rights" for Southerners.
  • Leonidas
    States' Rights predated the Civil War and the election of 1860. Remember that thing called the Nullification Crisis in 1832 over tarriffs?

    States' Rights was about the right of States' to pursue their own interest as sovereign States, of course it was about power, primarily in economic affairs. Some of Northern States had previously considered sucession (remember the Hartford Convention), but they backed down, in 1860 the Southern States did not.
  • DLS
    Yes, the Hartford Convention -- something that wasn't neglected either then, or now.

    There were also other economic reasons for secession (including tariff policy, that didn't stop after Jackson). Where Joe Windish has been, Milledgeville, Georgia, was once the capital, and was also the site of a series of debates in favor of and against secession, and they included resentment of economic exploitation by the North (which predated later Southern and Western resentment against the Northeast).

    http://www.amazon.com/Secession-Debated-Georgia...


    The most succinct description of the Civil War and blaming the South for it came from Trollope:

    "... I cannot defend the South. As long as they could be successful in their schemes for holding the political power of the nation, they were prepared to hold by the nation. Immediately those schemes failed, they were prepared to throw the nation overboard. In this there has undoubtedly been treachery as well as rebellion."

    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/trollope/anthon...

    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/trollope/anthon...
  • shannonlee
    Money is power and without free slave labor, the South loses profit...meaning they lose power. Yes, there is more history to this than most may know, but the very root cause of the civil war was slavery.
  • elrod
    The Hartford Convention is actually quite a bit like the secession crisis of 1860-61 in that it also had little to do with "states' rights" and everything to do with loss of political power. In the Hartford case it was vehement opposition to the War of 1812 that convinced these New England Federalists that the Hamiltonian republic they had once controlled was now irrevocably out of their control. The Federalists died a swift death after Hartford and the lesson was learned in New England - Union is permanent.

    The Nullification Crisis was more of a classic states' rights issue because it involved the state nullification of a Federal law.

    Note that in 1860-61 there was no Federal law in question that the first seven seceding states hoped to overturn. It was just loss of control over the Federal government to a party ideologically opposed to the basic social system of the South. The second group of seceding states - VA, NC, AR and TN - officially seceded in protest against Lincoln's troop call-up on April 15, 1861. They refused to fight against their fellow Southerners, though KY, MO, MD and DE would ultimately decide to stick with the Union.

    There was a states rights case for TN, VA, AR and NC - the right of a state to secede. But the right to secede and the wisdom and morality to do so are two different things. What drove the Upper South states out of the Union was only partially the opposition to Lincoln's coercion. Pre-April referenda in those states showed about 40% for secession; the war added another 20% or so on top. Once reluctant Confederates in Middle TN or Piedmont NC sensed that the old Union was kaput no matter what, they threw aside their old Whiggish conservatism and cast their lot with the new Southern Republic.
  • Don Quijote
    3. The Civil War is no excuse for cheap righty-bashing and South-bashing by PC brownshirt lefties.


    There is no need for Civil War anniversaries to bash the south... There are plenty of good current reasons... Like the fact that they have the highest teenage pregnancy rates, the highest poverty rates, the worst educational systems, the shortest life expectancy, the lowest wages, the most racists, the highest poverty rates, the dumbest republicans...

    There is no shortage of legitimate reasons to bash the south...

    Oh!!! While I am at it, the southern states are a bunch of welfare queens...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC