Shifting Consensus

[MikeyB]

One interesting aspect of the Civil War is that it has been studied for so long, from contemporaries to near history historians to the Catton and Footes to modern historians.

What are some of the big "consensus" or "generally accepted truths" historian positions that might be different today than they were 50 years ago? Either due to new records and data or just evolving scholarship?

 

[jackt62]

To me, one of the biggest positions that have evolved over the past 50 years is the heightened importance given to the role of African-American soldiers and sailors. Back then, the significance of the roughly 180,000 troops that enlisted in the Union ranks was hardly a topic of conversation.

 

[Bruce Vail]

It's an interesting question, and obviously can be approached at a numerous different levels.

As someone whose interest in the Civil War began roughly 50 years ago, perhaps my perspective will be useful.

To the extent that "consensus" can be clearly defined, I'd say the biggest change I have observed is that the Civil War in the 1960s and 1970s was viewed as a whte man's war, and that African Americans were only passive participants. It seems to me that that has changed and very few people today would regard the role of African Americans as passive.

 

[Bruce Vail]

To me, one of the biggest positions that have evolved over the past 50 years is the heightened importance given to the role of African-American soldiers and sailors. Back then, the significance of the roughly 180,000 troops that enlisted in the Union ranks was hardly a topic of conversation.

Looks like you and I are on the same chapter, if not exactly on the same page. I agree 100 percent with your point about roughly 180,000 soldiers and sailors, but would also include the role of the slaves who resisted servitude in the Confederate state, who abandoned the plantations in significant numbers, and who aided the Union army in many different ways.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Fifty years ago(1970), I think the eastern campaigns were organized in a narrative: Confederates win all the battles, the high water mark at Gettysburg, the turning point of the war, then the Confederates lose all the battles, or at least don't win them until Appomattox. It has a nice dramatic structure, and even when I teach it, its hard not fall into making it a Greek drama: Lee the great hero, with the tragic flaw(he was overconfident) brings ruin. Basically, the movie Gettysburg.

I'm pretty sure I'm speaking pretty loosely and i'm sure that most of the posters have more sophisticated knowledge, but I'm thinking about 50 years ago.

 

[jackt62]

Fifty years ago(1970), I think the eastern campaigns were organized in a narrative: Confederates win all the battles, the high water mark at Gettysburg, the turning point of the war, then the Confederates lose all the battles, or at least don't win them until Appomattox. It has a nice dramatic structure, and even when I teach it, its hard not fall into making it a Greek drama: Lee the great hero, with the tragic flaw(he was overconfident) brings ruin. Basically, the movie Gettysburg.

I'm pretty sure I'm speaking pretty loosely and i'm sure that most of the posters have more sophisticated knowledge, but I'm thinking about 50 years ago.

And to pick up on that theme, 50 years ago the western campaigns were not given the same level of attention and importance as the eastern campaign were (specially Lee's campaigns).

 

[MikeyB]

Would you say Grant's image has improved or deteriorated, today versus what they were writing in the 70s?

And from my brief time on the boards, it seemed like Bragg was getting seen in a new light, perhaps the opinions were universal in the 70s

 

[matthew mckeon]

Would you say Grant's image has improved or deteriorated, today versus what they were writing in the 70s?

And from my brief time on the boards, it seemed like Bragg was getting seen in a new light, perhaps the opinions were universal in the 70s

Grant has definitely got an upgrade.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Grant has definitely got an upgrade.

Yes, that's right. Grant's stock has risen, and Lee's stock has fallen. Lincoln and Davis unchanged, I'd reckon.

 

[DixieRifles]

And to pick up on that theme, 50 years ago the western campaigns were not given the same level of attention and importance as the eastern campaign were (specially Lee's campaigns).

I agree. I'm sure I still have a tourist brochure from someplace that I visited during the Centennial that said "90% of the battle were fought in Virginia".

 

[Bruce Vail]

I agree. I'm sure I still have a tourist brochure from someplace that I visited during the Centennial that said "90% of the battle were fought in Virginia".

Not completely inaccurate to say 90 percent of important battles were fought in Virginia, depending on a rather narrow definition of 'important battles.' That quibble notwithstanding, I can tell you that future historians are being taught in universities today that the War was won in the West. I can't speak to what history scholars were saying 50 years ago, but it is definite a dominant theory now.

 

[damYankee]

One thing that has changed so much is the access to information, historical archives, first person accounts, and the countless books that are online.
Not to mention the affect of history forums, the sharing of ideas and opinions, family history and antidotes.

 

[jackt62]

Would you say Grant's image has improved or deteriorated, today versus what they were writing in the 70s?

And from my brief time on the boards, it seemed like Bragg was getting seen in a new light, perhaps the opinions were universal in the 70s

For sure, Grant has seen an uptick in his reputation in the past decades, and in particular his presidency which was previously assumed to be a failure because of the financial scandals that engulfed it. But recent scholarship has pointed out the achievements of his administration such as fighting the KKK and at least trying to impose a non-military solution to the Native American situation.

I can't necessarily say that Bragg has been getting seen in a new light. If anything, much of the attention focused on Bragg has been negative and has highlighted on the infighting between him and his subordinates that hobbled the AOT for much of his tenure.

 

[jackt62]

I agree. I'm sure I still have a tourist brochure from someplace that I visited during the Centennial that said "90% of the battle were fought in Virginia".

It was during the Centennial (when I was a bit younger than now) that my interest in the Civil War began. As far as I can recall that pretty meant only Virginia and the East and that was reinforced by family visits to Gettysburg and the eastern sites that of course, were within driving distance of our home.