Monumental

Since the incident at Charlottesville a great deal of news and controversy has centered around monuments constructed for many leaders of the Confederacy.  This post is not intended to debate the existence of the monuments, but examine why they arose in the first place.  Should they remain or be taken down is a matter for each community to debate and decide.  They are, however, part of our collective history and in that sense their existence can tell us a great deal of where we were as a nation.  That history is not always pleasant, and that is why it is important to study history.  

My opinion is that while the North won the war, the South created and controlled the narrative.  This seems almost unique in our history.  The allies certainly controlled the narrative after the Great War and WWII.  A fledgling nation even seem to control the narrative after the revolutionary war.  A few years ago the nation recognized the 150th anniversary of the end of the war with the states in rebellion, better known as the Civil War.   I recall reading an article in Time magazine, which recognized the 150th anniversary of the war which noted how the south seemed to be held in high regard in the minds of the nation ever since the end of the war.  Why?  In my mind it is because they controlled the narrative.  I think there are a few reasons why this occurred.  I really have not read much on this aspect, so much of my opinion is not really based on diligent research.  So, let me examine the Lost Cause movement and how the south came to control the narrative following the Civil War.

First, everybody loves an underdog. If we look at the start of the nation, it was a bunch of discontents making war against what was then the greatest military power house in the world. Recall that the nation really was only four score and several years removed from the Revolutionary War--less than 90 years past since 1776.  Whereas today we are over 150 years past.  The underdog ferment of the Revolutionary soldiers 90 years earlier was still part of the nation ethos.  I am sure many who fought in the Civil War had grandfathers who fought in the war for independence.  

While U.S. Grant would become President, today many books and articles are written on the great tactics of Robert E. Lee.  Lee has always been held to a high standard since the war, regardless of the fact that he committed treason.  Why, because he was an underdog with a smaller number of men less material and money in which to fight the war, so to speak, but he gave the south much of a chance by his tactics.  This whole theory, the Lost Cause movement, is based on the idea that the superiority of the north would eventually undermine the south's ability to win the conflict.  Of course, at the time, the south thought the code of honor and duty they saw so present in southern values would allow them to win the conflict.  Grant did not agree with this theory, recognizing the difficulty of an offensive verse defensive operation, and he claims, the North out-fought the south.  

In the old PBS series on the Civil War, I recall one commentator, perhaps Shelby Foote, saying the North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back.  National expansion continued during this time, but certainly the war effort kept Lincoln up much of each night. This comment seems to play into the Lost Cause narrative as it was only a matter of time that the North would come in with the left hook to the jaw of the South.  Yet, the Lost Cause movement attempted to downplay the roll of slavery in the "Cause" and uphold other ideals such as self-determination and State rights.  

Second, let us recognize that slavery was inherent even in the nation's constitution.  The Constitution accounted for "Other persons" as 3/5 of a whole person when it came to apportionment of representatives.   While a war was won to end slavery, that did not immediately change everyone's mind.  If minds and hearts had been changed, would the "alt right" be so prevalent today?

Third, after Lincoln's assassination, a group of congressman known as the Radical Republicans attempted, rightfully so, to allow gains of equal rights for African-Americans in voting and other measures.  However, in the end was the nation ready for these moves?  Was it an over reach for the time?  Into this political conflict the Democratic party would take control of the south and they would create the Jim Crow laws and undertake other measures to retain discrimination.  Steven Holmes, writing in a column for CNN this past week noted that Jim Crow laws were at their zenith from 1889 to 1918, which coincided with the great monument building by groups such as Daughters of the Confederacy.  The whole idea of the Lost Cause gained further momentum from DW Griffith's film, Birth of a Nation  and the block buster novel (and movie) Gone with the Wind. Both would idealize the planter class, offer a picture of content slaves, and an economic and socio-cultural system in which all was well, only to be disrupted by the North.  

Fourth, the North was perhaps war weary and ready to take on other adventures, after all it fought the war with one hand behind its back.  The economy was booming, immigration and settlement of western lands was well underway  to realize the nation's "Manifest Destiny" was in full swing.  My own Hovel relatives would arrive on the shores of Baltimore in July 1868.  In other words, was the north too preoccupied to worry about the narrative?  They won the war why be concerned about what history would say?  Into this vacuum would rise the Lost Cause movement which was accepted and perpetuated for years by professional historians and others.  The Lost Cause was a way for the South to feel better about the loss, about their effortz and to salve their conscience. It may have been away to bring them to terms with the loss.  What began as a literary expression would take on more tactile efforts--creation of monuments.  Many attribute the expansion of the Lost Cause narrative, although not the first use of the term, to former Confederate General Jubal Early.  Let us also recall that some current US Military bases are named for generals who served the Confederacy.  Fort Bragg is one that comes to mind.

Yet, as Holmes also points out, at play was a latent racism and dislike of Republicans. He uses the example of Confederate General James Longstreet, a right hand man to Lee, and how few monuments in the south are related to him.  He asserts it is because Longstreet supported Grant for President, and led a mainly black militia against white supremacists in New Orleans.  The Lost Cause narrative would blame him for the Confederate loss at Gettysburg. 

Abraham Lincoln would walk through Richmond, VA on April 4, 1865, just ten days before he was shot at Ford's Theater.  Sensing the end of the war was near, he had been spending several days with Admiral Porter and crew on the River Queen from which he would confer with General Grant and others.  As he was walking through Richmond on that spring day, he stopped to examine Libby Prison, which as reported by James Swanson, was a place of suffering for thousands of Union prisoners.  The crowd, according to Swanson wished to pull it down, but Lincoln said no, that they should "leave it as a monument."  This certainly was not the type of monument the Daughters of the Confederacy would promote.  On April 10, 1865, the day following Appomattox, in a spring rain, Lincoln addressed a crowd gathered outside the White House. Near the end of his address, he requested the playing of Dixie.  Even though in the speech he commented that the North had "fairly captured it" Swanson imtimates that perhaps this was the start of the Lost Cause narrative.

Monuments provide a tactile way for generations to understand events of the past. As with Libby Prison and death camps of WWII, not all monuments glorify an event.  What the nation needs is a better understanding of why the North allowed the South to control the post war narrative. Did the Southern narrative become a boulder speeding down a hill that was too fast to stop?  The Lost Cause movement was a basis for many of the monuments that are today controversial.  The nation would do well to understand the history of why the monuments were built. It may be uncomfortable, but only in recognizing our past can we as a nation fully understand how the pro-Southern monuments came to be present in the courthouse squares, parks and cemeteries of the nation (it is not as if the south would be inclined to erect monuments to northern heroes).  In the why of their creation is the real meaning of the history of the monuments.