As proud Arkansasian, I have witnessed first hand the re-writing of the history of the Civil War. The Civil War, in Arkansas, is seen as glorious and romantic war that the South nobly fought till the end. It is the notion that the good people of the South were not fighting for slavery, but were fighting for Southern Rights; the idea that States of the South should have the power to choose their own laws and govern themselves. According to this revisionist history, the Civil War was not about the idea of slavery, but the idea of Northern Aggression. The idea that the North was imposing their will upon the people of the South and if Southerners did not take action, the Southern would lose their way of life altogether.
On the surface, this argument makes sense. Southern politics, social life, and economics were vastly different than that of the North. The family structure was different. The importance of religion was different. In the South, daily life was slower, kinder, and more welcoming. There was a lot less of the competitiveness that existed in the big cities of the North. "Southern Hospitality" became a term for a reason. But at the root of this way of life is slavery, something that in post-war Southern history is minimized.
After the loss of the Civil War, Southerners knew that slavery was dead in America. But, still mad at the North and determined to enshrine the South in the history books, Civil War veterans, and groups, such as The Daughters of the Confederacy, began to rewrite history. They wrote books, traveled around the country, and gave speeches in an effort to win the war of the history. They decided to preach what has been described above, that the Civil War was not a war about slavery but a war over the Southern Way of Life. In many retrospects, they were wildly successful. Late 20th century and early 21st century Civil War movies, such as Gettysburg, depict the Southern cause as something that was noble and glorious. Many monuments and statues were erected celebrating Lee and Davis. 20th-century textbooks taught students the propaganda of Southern Rights and that this was a noble fight for freedom.
However, in the last year or so, we have decided to wake up and truly understand our history. I have been encouraged by our efforts to take a look at the statues and monuments that lay around our country. This is an important step to better understand Civil War. That being said though, I do not think people should go around just tear them down, there needs to be a democratic process. If the people of a town do not want to take down a state, fine, and if they do, great, but we should not force a city or a town to do something that it does not want to do. We were built on the ideals of freedom and democracy, let's use them.
C. Shell
Great post! I think you bring up a really good point in considering how one's identity can lead to historical bias. Oftentimes, I believe that people write something so decisively, without realizing that their bias is influencing what they are saying. In particular, people often rewrite history to paint themselves in a better light. This is similar to what we discussed at the beginning of the year in "Myth of the Eastern Front". Thanks for sharing your firsthand experience with how personal bias influences the telling of history!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree with your post. Historians can re-write history in a way to make people perceive the conflict in a different way, and I agree with Teagan, we have discussed this effect during class. It is interesting to observe the effect this re-writing has on the population. For example, the South's glorification of the Confederate side of the Civil War still has people feeling pride over the Confederate army. They see the War as a noble war, rather than a war over slavery. This re-writing is still having effects even today, shown by the protests in Charlottesville over a Civil War statue, which some groups felt protective and proud of.
ReplyDelete