ON THE GREAT RECONCILIATION 1913
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 1:40 p
History
The Reconciliation Movement
The American Civil War ended in April 1865, but the debate over the political, social, and economic repercussions of the war continued well into the next century.
The devastating effects of the war and questions regarding the status of former slaves divided Northerners and Southerners, often resulting in further bloodshed.
Even during Reconstruction, white Americans began to seek common ground on which they could unite and forget the pain and loss of war.
The reconciliation movement was an effort to obscure the legacy of emancipation and black participation in the war in favor of remembering the conflict as a fight between white Americans, Northern and Southern, which ultimately proved the honor and dignity of both sides.
Reconciliation downplayed the violence of battle, the failure to secure civil rights for former slaves, the centrality of slavery to the conflict, and the opposition to the war in both the Union and the Confederacy.
White veterans of both sides embraced this movement in the 1880s and 1890s, after the responsibility of enforcing Reconstruction had been turned over to the Southern state governments.
Reconciliation hid the true nature and meaning of the war for many Americans for decades to come, at the cost of creating a narrative of the war that almost eliminated the emancipationist legacy that African American citizens valued.
The Lost Cause
Reuniting the nation was a difficult task, hampered by the changes to Southern society caused by emancipation and by continued white Southern resentment of Northern influence and the imposition of federal authority.
The popular postwar song, "Oh, I'm a Good Ole Rebel," epitomizes the bitter feelings of some defeated Confederates.
In the song, the former Confederate soldier laments that he can no longer fight, but proclaims, "I don't want no pardon for what I was and am, I won't be reconstructed and I don't care a damn!" (Silber 1995, pp. 256–257).
The process of crafting an acceptable Southern version of the war's meaning began the moment the conflict ended.
In 1866, Edward Alfred Pollard wrote an account of the Civil War that emphasized the Southern perspective and coined the term "The Lost Cause."
Pollard described North and South as being separate "civilizations" and downplayed the issue of slavery by describing it as "a convenient line of battle between the two sections" (Pollard 1866, p. 46).
His argument avoided questions regarding the immorality of slavery and the legality of secession.
Pollard's book was mainly a narrative of military events, in which he underscored the bravery and chivalry of the Confederates, especially Virginians.
The Lost Cause myth was solidified in 1873, when former Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early (1816-1894) became president of the Southern Historical Society.
Early wrote several articles that attributed Confederate defeat to the numerical superiority and industrial might of the North instead of the waning support for war among Confederate civilians or the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Both Pollard and Early were advocates of forgetting the war's unpleasantness and reuniting as a nation — provided white Northerners accepted the Southern version of the war.
Published Reminiscences
The process of reconciliation was greatly accelerated by a wave of publications on the Civil War in the 1880s and 1890s.
The war was far enough in the past by that time that Americans became interested in reading about the conflict.
Union and Confederate veterans wrote about their experiences, often filtering their memories through the lens of time and popular concepts of war.
Some of the first widely read accounts appeared in newspapers, but were later compiled into such volumes as the Philadelphia Weekly Times's 800-page collection of articles by soldiers and civilians titled Annals of the War, which was published in 1879.
Century Magazine also compiled articles into a volume of reminiscences published in 1887 called Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.
A leading historian of the reconciliation movement observed that the authors of these accounts "unabashedly declared their own pursuit of impartial 'truth' and 'facts"' (Blight 2001, p. 164).
White Northerners and Southerners were equally complicit in rewriting the history of the war in such a way that African Americans were included in only the most peripheral roles.
This literature began a national healing process but also perpetuated the myth of the loyal slave and the Lost Cause's insistence that the war was not about the continuation or abolition of slavery.
The rise in public interest in the war caused some veterans to write regimental histories that emphasized bravery, heroics, and adventure, often leaving out the grim and gory details of battle.
Oliver Christian Bosbyshell (b. 1839) documented his recollection of the war in his regimental history of the Forty-eighth Pennsylvania Infantry.
Bosbyshell admitted that his memories "may be somewhat twinged with partiality…,but remember, it is the way that it came under my own observation" (Bosbyshell 1895, p. 14).
R. M. Collins, a lieutenant in the Fifteenth Texas Infantry, recorded his wartime experience in 1893.
The Confederate veteran's reminiscence featured a description of a singing contest between Union and Confederate soldiers, commenting that, "for the time Federals and Confederates were all one" (Collins 1893, p. 72).
Like many veterans, Collins described white soldiers, Northern and Southern, as a brotherhood who would pass away and "answer to roll-call with Lee, Johnston, Bragg, Hood, Grant, Meade, Hancock, and the long unnumbered list of soldiers brave, who quit this life" (Collins 1893, p. 93).
Collins's list of famous Union and Confederate generals indicates his belief that all soldiers had a common bond regardless of the side for which they had fought.
This simplified understanding of soldiers' motivations glossed over the fact that resentment, condescension, and hatred often fueled the violence that had occurred on the battlefield.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
The Reconciliation Movement
The American Civil War ended in April 1865, but the debate over the political, social, and economic repercussions of the war continued well into the next century.
The devastating effects of the war and questions regarding the status of former slaves divided Northerners and Southerners, often resulting in further bloodshed.
Even during Reconstruction, white Americans began to seek common ground on which they could unite and forget the pain and loss of war.
The reconciliation movement was an effort to obscure the legacy of emancipation and black participation in the war in favor of remembering the conflict as a fight between white Americans, Northern and Southern, which ultimately proved the honor and dignity of both sides.
Reconciliation downplayed the violence of battle, the failure to secure civil rights for former slaves, the centrality of slavery to the conflict, and the opposition to the war in both the Union and the Confederacy.
White veterans of both sides embraced this movement in the 1880s and 1890s, after the responsibility of enforcing Reconstruction had been turned over to the Southern state governments.
Reconciliation hid the true nature and meaning of the war for many Americans for decades to come, at the cost of creating a narrative of the war that almost eliminated the emancipationist legacy that African American citizens valued.
The Lost Cause
Reuniting the nation was a difficult task, hampered by the changes to Southern society caused by emancipation and by continued white Southern resentment of Northern influence and the imposition of federal authority.
The popular postwar song, "Oh, I'm a Good Ole Rebel," epitomizes the bitter feelings of some defeated Confederates.
In the song, the former Confederate soldier laments that he can no longer fight, but proclaims, "I don't want no pardon for what I was and am, I won't be reconstructed and I don't care a damn!" (Silber 1995, pp. 256–257).
The process of crafting an acceptable Southern version of the war's meaning began the moment the conflict ended.
In 1866, Edward Alfred Pollard wrote an account of the Civil War that emphasized the Southern perspective and coined the term "The Lost Cause."
Pollard described North and South as being separate "civilizations" and downplayed the issue of slavery by describing it as "a convenient line of battle between the two sections" (Pollard 1866, p. 46).
His argument avoided questions regarding the immorality of slavery and the legality of secession.
Pollard's book was mainly a narrative of military events, in which he underscored the bravery and chivalry of the Confederates, especially Virginians.
The Lost Cause myth was solidified in 1873, when former Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early (1816-1894) became president of the Southern Historical Society.
Early wrote several articles that attributed Confederate defeat to the numerical superiority and industrial might of the North instead of the waning support for war among Confederate civilians or the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Both Pollard and Early were advocates of forgetting the war's unpleasantness and reuniting as a nation — provided white Northerners accepted the Southern version of the war.
Published Reminiscences
The process of reconciliation was greatly accelerated by a wave of publications on the Civil War in the 1880s and 1890s.
The war was far enough in the past by that time that Americans became interested in reading about the conflict.
Union and Confederate veterans wrote about their experiences, often filtering their memories through the lens of time and popular concepts of war.
Some of the first widely read accounts appeared in newspapers, but were later compiled into such volumes as the Philadelphia Weekly Times's 800-page collection of articles by soldiers and civilians titled Annals of the War, which was published in 1879.
Century Magazine also compiled articles into a volume of reminiscences published in 1887 called Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.
A leading historian of the reconciliation movement observed that the authors of these accounts "unabashedly declared their own pursuit of impartial 'truth' and 'facts"' (Blight 2001, p. 164).
White Northerners and Southerners were equally complicit in rewriting the history of the war in such a way that African Americans were included in only the most peripheral roles.
This literature began a national healing process but also perpetuated the myth of the loyal slave and the Lost Cause's insistence that the war was not about the continuation or abolition of slavery.
The rise in public interest in the war caused some veterans to write regimental histories that emphasized bravery, heroics, and adventure, often leaving out the grim and gory details of battle.
Oliver Christian Bosbyshell (b. 1839) documented his recollection of the war in his regimental history of the Forty-eighth Pennsylvania Infantry.
Bosbyshell admitted that his memories "may be somewhat twinged with partiality…,but remember, it is the way that it came under my own observation" (Bosbyshell 1895, p. 14).
R. M. Collins, a lieutenant in the Fifteenth Texas Infantry, recorded his wartime experience in 1893.
The Confederate veteran's reminiscence featured a description of a singing contest between Union and Confederate soldiers, commenting that, "for the time Federals and Confederates were all one" (Collins 1893, p. 72).
Like many veterans, Collins described white soldiers, Northern and Southern, as a brotherhood who would pass away and "answer to roll-call with Lee, Johnston, Bragg, Hood, Grant, Meade, Hancock, and the long unnumbered list of soldiers brave, who quit this life" (Collins 1893, p. 93).
Collins's list of famous Union and Confederate generals indicates his belief that all soldiers had a common bond regardless of the side for which they had fought.
This simplified understanding of soldiers' motivations glossed over the fact that resentment, condescension, and hatred often fueled the violence that had occurred on the battlefield.
TO BE CONTINUED ...