While remembering events such as the Civil War is tremendously important to our American history, no event can be remembered objectively, concretely, or without prejudice of some sort. I think it was Walt Whitman who said that perhaps they should not, probably referring to the sacred nature of the Civil War and how language can do no justice to the horror of the many civil and military deaths.
However, write they did and so long after the war but far removed from our generation, it is fascinating to read what each side thought. In some ways, I think the glossing over and rejoining of both sides had to do with having no choice but to unite but also a real sentiment of reunification. It really is almost as though we forget "what a bad temper Aunt Matilda had" at her funeral and eulogize only her good traits, if you will.
The first document is from Jubal Early (what a name!) who defends the "Legacy of the Confederacy" in August of 1873. Here, he is writing for out-of-state visitors to Va. I fancied when he wrote about Noah Webster because I liked that he used the word history and story as meaning two distinct things. It is almost comical that he says writers are making up what they want to about the war and that that is not history but a fable. He writes that this happens with Northerners and Southerners alike. He does directly reference the North in how the South is portrayed as rebels and traitors and finds it of utmost importance not to allow that to happen by framing the war in a positive Confederate light. He even calls out each Federal general to make a point! Then he takes issue with Southern historians who claim to know, "ex post facto" or after the fact, how to have won the war (hindsight really is 20/20). He does make a good point there. His article, which I assume was continued at length elsewhere, pays tribute to all southerners who participated in the war heroically and unselfishly. He basically is asking folks of the South to write about themselves in the way the victors of the war also see themselves.
The second document from Roger Pryor (Confederate general) reminds me of selective memories which I referenced in my intro. Here, the general writes to the Committee persons to elevate the heroism of the soldiers. However, he honors them in a way that seperates their honor (which I understand to be typical per our class lectures) over emancipation. I think he really wants some sort of conciliation, but it is at the cost of what it meant for ex-slaves. Pryor blames the politicians for the conflict and references the Missouri compact of "pacification" and calls abolitionism an "agitator." I think where he says "imaginary wrongs" and "fictitious evils" caused folks to become furious is where he is most insulting and genuine only to himself. Pryor feels the constitution with a small "c" shone with a "sinister aspect" towards the south This is quite an angry or sarcastic statement. There are so many loaded statements here that the reader understands his is not really a speech of someone who admits wrong, but of someone unrepentant and downright mad that 1) the South lost and 2) won't admit the cause by referencing the heroism of soldiers over the cause (slavery) and 3) cries foul! where he can. He indirectly speaks of Lincoln where he says, basically, "you (Lincoln) promised not to 'touch the least of the securities of slave property.' The end of his speech regards how the war was won- not by men but through God - which was something usually said by the North. I think his saying that removes the victory from the North even if they strongly beleived in a deity who watched over the country. What a speech!
The third, fourth and fifth articles are from prominent Unionists such as Douglass, Sherman and Holmes, which appeal to citizens in different manners. I love reading Douglass because he writes so eloquently and with the unique perspective offered from someone with intimate understanding of what emancipation and occasion meant for "that class of our fellow citizens to which I belong" and for all Americans in general. He speaks to the "brave and noble spirits, living and dead." My favorite parts are not only when he writes about how important the war is to the memory of all who served and lived or perished and to emancipated millions, but also where he speaks of what peace carries behind her. He says peace is good, but liberty, law and justice is "first." H eknows the amendments are important, but so too is having them "faithfully executed." He knows from first-hand experience that the letter of the law and its' execution are two seperate spheres. Later, he launches into direct language about law and the rights of the weak, using a Biblical reference to the "prodigal son." Despite this, he says that we must not say who was right or wrong, but more importantly, meet on "common ground." His last paragraph is beautiful for its' word choices but also as a reminder of his faith in Americans who are "true to themselves." He personifies the Nation as a person with a "strong heart," its' weakness, of course, having been slavery. I wish I could write like him and so many others (N and S) who put thoughts into words and beleived - right or wrong - in what they wrote and felt.
Sherman's speech exemplifies the same thing that other speeches in both areas of the U.S. did - that one side was right, the other was wrong. He is unapologetic and more defiant than Douglass, saying that the Union saved itslef from "total annihilation" or from "anarchy." I got a chuckle out of his "intestine war" comment, which I took to mean an entity which attacks itself is derived from anarchy. However, he does acknowledge that preventing war is better than declaring war and wants both sides to "unite." His last paragraph is a vision of America for all people and their descendants.
Holmes writes in 1884 about reconciliation. His essay begins with a newer generation asking about what the importance of Memorial Day celebrations and the author answers why in this essay. He recognizes that future generations of kids will need to understand that celebrating no matter what side you were on is important for our future reconciliation and also for those who died. His two last paragraphs contain gorgeous imagery of "the lonly pipe of death" and "symphony of flowers" at spring when we remember the war on Memorial Day (Decoration Day). That day and the season signify to him a renewal of brotherhood, of "daring, hope and will." Youth also signifies this new hope of a renewed nation; lovely writing.
George Williams in doc. 6 wrties about the importance of a monument for black soldiers to honor their contributions. I know it has been done, but I wondered if it was done in the same way he suggested? I will research this. Regardless, he has it right in 1888 to bravely say that "History contains no parallel" to this war, slavery, and the disenthralment thereof. He makes many references to God and likens the South to a biblical pharoah, which was not uncommon writing in that time. I felt that his acknowledgement in numbers of black soldiers who died shows readers a symbolic and concrete commitment from those soldiers to the cause. The last paragraph shows how the government can honor said contribution and he sketches out the statues, how they should look, where they should be placed, and how many there should be in honor of each military branch. The fact that he refers to the appearance of blacks as peripheral ot "incidental" in stories led me to believe he may also be African-American.
The last document is from Walt Whitman, who feels that the real war may never get in tot he books. He writes in 1882-3 here about the war being forgotten, how emotion affects how we think and write during emergencies, and how the "real war" is hell and cannot be captured (or perhaps should not be) in recollective writing. The "stray glimpses of life" he refers to are all the small details forgotten in the heat of such a war, never to be captured again. I think he says it should not be because those moments are sacred. To capture them ,we must tell it right and do those moments and the soldiers, justice in the telling. But since war is such a personal experience (per his anecdote), it is not possible. His word choices are as beautiful as any other, especially where he says the war was like a "heavy-pouring constant rain." These documents left an inmpression on me more indelible than any other documents because they come after the war from people who were so impressed by the war that they understood the solemnity of it and the unparalled destruction of the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment