Remembering Our Bloodiest War

Article excerpt



Race and the Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. By David W. Blight. Harvard. $29.95.

Recently, historians have sought to understand how and why Americans continue to remember their civil war. Memory of the bloodiest conflict on U.S. soil remains fresh in popular imagination, kept alive by legions of Civil War buffs, reenactors, genealogists, and amateur writers, as well as scholars, who declare it to be the "Second American Revolution" or the watershed in our national history. Clearly, it was a significant event, but why does this war still resonate so strongly in our popular culture and national psyche? The answer, or answers, appears to be quite complicated.

David Blight's Race and Reunion takes readers back to the armed conflict and the onset of communal remembering, tracing the development of different and often divergent interpretations of the war from 1863 (the year he deems to be the war's turning point) to 1913. Sensitive to the changing social, political, and racial context of the postwar years, Blight identifies three "overall visions of Civil War memory": "reconcliationist," "white supremacist," and "emancipationist." He finds evidence of all three visions at varying times, but the last, that of the emancipationist, grew dimmer with time, overshadowed by the first two. By 1913, Blight argues, most remembered the war as a uniquely American event in which all white solders were brave, Northern and Southern causes were equally just, and the roles of slavery and blacks in causing and determining the war's outcome were largely forgotten.

Blight views race as the defining theme in American history and the "central problem in how Americans made choices to remember and forget their civil war." His focus on race is a necessary corrective to counter present perceptions that slavery had nothing to do with the war, and that the societal and governmental failures of Reconstruction hurt white Southerners more than they harmed ex-slaves and successive generations of black Americans.

Blight synthesizes most of the important scholarship done on memory and the war, although he admits that his book does not attempt to provide an overview of Civil War historiography. He does discuss some of the first historians of the war, including soldiers themselves and influential writers such as James Rhodes and W.E.B. DuBois. He describes the advent of Decoration Day, first promoted by former slaves in Charleston who decorated the graves of dead Union prisoners, and its eventual evolution to Memorial Day. He recounts how postwar Northerners, especially Radical Republicans, waved -the bloody shirt" to stir painful memories to consolidate and keep government power. White Southerners sought to use the war's memory for their own purposes too, to challenge Northern power, retain racial control, and redefine Confederate defeat. And blacks, whose memory of the war was conflicted and contested, sought to use the war to claim rights to citizenship, counter racist propaganda, and keep hopeful about the future. By the turn of the 20th century, Americans drew on selected and sentimentalized recollections of the war to reunify the nation and reinvigorate a new age of imperialism and white supremacy. Including slavery in this communal memory was too disturbing and troubling to a nation already undergoing transformative and disruptive societal growth. Politics was corrupt, immigrants were crowding cities and industrialism seemed to be dehumanizing everyday life. Americans in the early 1900's needed a soothing, inspiring memory of their past to calm anxieties about the future. To reunify nationally, white Northerners and white Southerners "required a cessation of talk about [the war's] causation and consequences, and therefore about race. …