What Is the Future of Confederate History?

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
So, this program in Richmond is "sold out" but the question it addresses is one I thought that those of who can't get in could discuss here. Please confine your comments to the issue of the future of Confederate History. This is not about statues or flags, but about how serious students and scholars of history will, or should, approach this field. -Pat

csahist.JPG


After Charleston and Charlottesville: The Future of Confederate History

Thursday, October 18, 2018 - SOLD OUT
7:30 pm
Ukrop Auditorium, Robins School of Business, on the University of Richmond campus
Free, reservations recommended.

How have - and how should - the national soul-searching about the Confederacy and its legacies affect the way students of Civil War history engage with their subject? What does the future hold for the study of Confederate history in the wake of Charleston and Charlottesville?

The 2018 Elizabeth Roller Bottimore lecture will address those and other questions in what promises to be a thoughtful and freewheeling discussion between two of America's most prominent scholars and Civil War public historians - Dr. Gary Gallagher and Dr. Edward Ayers.
 
I keep reading this quote, but other than evidence of the existence of Santayana, is there any evidence the quote is correct?

In the field of policy making, more than once I've heard some wonk cite a failed policy of the past that was brought back, and then failed again. It's hard to give examples without going into modern politics, but one or two immediately come to mind. Bringing back failed policies is an example of repeating past mistakes.

- Alan
 
Vote Here:
Without memory there is little ability to link actions and consequences. Though history may not repeat itself, without memory there is no chance to direct history. The same cycle of prosperity and collapse, can just run over and over again.
The harsh conditions of European civilization making contact with unknown and hostile cultures, did not repeat itself. But without knowledge of the progress of mutual assimulation, the conflicts of the 17th century just roll on, never changing.
Studying the Confederacy might have value in unexpected ways. Studying who stayed, and who left the Confederacy might yield understanding of why a distinct regional identity emerged.
 
Vote Here:
In the field of policy making, more than once I've heard some wonk cite a failed policy of the past that was brought back, and then failed again. It's hard to give examples without going into modern politics, but one or two immediately come to mind. Bringing back failed policies is an example of repeating past mistakes.

- Alan
That matches what I see although IMHO it is modern politics regardless of age.
 
Vote Here:
Here is Churchill's version of the quote.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We must always look forward, but we have to understand our history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I have seen too many instances where people continue to pursue wrong courses of action because they do not take the time to think critically about what has happened in the past."
 
Vote Here:
Here is Churchill's version of the quote.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We must always look forward, but we have to understand our history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I have seen too many instances where people continue to pursue wrong courses of action because they do not take the time to think critically about what has happened in the past."
The idea, IMHO goes back to the Romans.
 
Vote Here:
With respect to the Confederacy, it might be well to consider how it formed. What was the demographic condition of the southern population in the Gulf states with respect to cholera, typhoid fever, malaria and macro-parasites among poor people who went barefoot? Why didn't more immigrants go there? How many dissenters left the south? A handful, hundreds or thousands? Disease created a large part of history prior to concrete knowledge of germ theory.
 
Vote Here:
View attachment 205787

But was Santayana correct?

Do we have many examples of history repeating itself? I think we can find examples of similar events, but history doesn't exactly repeat itself because conditions change over time, so each situation is different and each historical event differs in some respect.

I like the quote that many attribute to Mark Twain [I haven't seen any compelling evidence he said it, but it's often claimed he said it]: "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."
Thanks for the background quote. The online book can be found https://archive.org/details/lifeofreasonorph01sant/page/n5

Not only do situations change, but influential people will emphasize the differences to achieve their objectives. The phase from the financial world is 'This time is different' before embarking on risky behavior because the risky behavior is profitable until it isn't.
 
Vote Here:
Profs. Ayers and Gallagher have definite research interests. But I have never seen an adequate explanation of why Kentucky did not secede. The history of the Confederacy was that with a minimum of support from the northern people, unionists could successfully obstruct secession. What is the explanation?
The professors are oriented to literate people who remained in the Confederate states. But has anyone looked at how that sample population formed. That excludes people who already left, most of the enslaved and free blacks, and a large segment of poor people who remained illiterate.
 
Vote Here:
With respect to the Confederacy, it might be well to consider how it formed. What was the demographic condition of the southern population in the Gulf states with respect to cholera, typhoid fever, malaria and macro-parasites among poor people who went barefoot? Why didn't more immigrants go there? How many dissenters left the south? A handful, hundreds or thousands? Disease created a large part of history prior to concrete knowledge of germ theory.

What do we learn from the Civil War applicable to 21st-century society?

What previous history would have warned the Secessionists that secession would not succeed?
 
Vote Here:
What do we learn from the Civil War applicable to 21st-century society?


Good question for the historians.
1. The material conditions of life involve more than a conflict between labor and capital. Shoes, clean water and primary education, affect everyone.
2. High sounding rhetoric about rights and tyranny can be very deceiving.
3. Foregiveness and retribution are not the same. Christian/Judeo concepts of contrition and atonement are never obsolete.

I pose those as statements, but in my old age, I refuse to claim any answers.
 
Vote Here:
What previous history would have warned the Secessionists that secession would not succeed?

On that one, I would say nothing could have warned them.

The facts became apparent in pieces. The published results of 1860 census, available in 1862, were an indication, for people in Washington, D.C. and New York and London, of just how great the disparity between the regions had become.
And results in South Carolina and on the Mississippi indicated the balance of power between ships and forts had shifted in favor of the ships.

As a caution, it is possible that Napoleon's early successes concealed the fact that when he came up against a naval power, and the populations of Europe rose against him, he failed.
On that score, perhaps the Confederates would have left open the possibility of re-union if they had considered that the US had the navy, and Britain did like Napoleon, or slavery.
 
Vote Here:
There should be general lessons from history:
It's easier to get into a war, then out of it.

When one group of people has great power over another group, that leads to atrocity
When we divide people into groups and assign different values of worth to each group, that leads to atrocity
Ideally, but "it's different this time seems to be seductive".
 
Vote Here:
It is. I really appreciated the author's preface, "Until at least the middle of he 20th century, biographies of Hampton were exercises in hero worship..."

"Later historians have avoided biographical portraits...and studied his political stances...especially as they dealt with race relations..."

In other words, modern scholars will measure Wade Hampton against the yardstick of their own choosing, to advance their own agendas. It's really refreshing to have someone try honestly to figure out what made him tick in his own time and place.

More accurately, historians writing about Hampton have often been biased. Portraying him as a romantic hero is no better than portraying him as an evil racist.

Question: is this Confederate history? It would seem so to me. But how many people outside the academy would think that a Confederate scholar would look to gain expertise on this subject matter? For a lot of people outside the academy, Confederate history is about Lee, Stonewall, the common soldier, et al, and all the battles they fought. Runaway slaves and the reaction to them from white Southerners would not come to mind.

The Confederacy is, understandably, seen mostly through a military lens. But as a result non-military events in the Confederate states 1861-1865 seem neglected. Has anyone written a history of the CSA that focuses on the national and state governments and/or social issues and skips the battles as much as possible?

No history should be "deleted" for any reason. It is history, warts and all. Ask Schwally and the other German members what it's like to have 12 years of your history erased and banned from even being discussed.

Those 12 years of German history shouldn't be deleted, but they should be recognized as a serious mistake.

Readers would be provided with the complicated facts, representative of all those involved, and allowed to draw their own conclusions, based on their own political and ideological beliefs.

Generally this is the goal, but it has limits. For example, while I don't want to be browbeaten about how slavery was bad, I don't want anyone to say "Was slavery bad? Decide for yourself."

What do we learn from the Civil War applicable to 21st-century society?

Union good.
Slavery bad.
States Rights bad.
Secession bad.
Cronyism bad.
Letting aristocrats tell you who your enemies is the road to ruin.
 
Vote Here:
So, this program in Richmond is "sold out" but the question it addresses is one I thought that those of who can't get in could discuss here. Please confine your comments to the issue of the future of Confederate History. This is not about statues or flags, but about how serious students and scholars of history will, or should, approach this field. -Pat

View attachment 205656

After Charleston and Charlottesville: The Future of Confederate History

Thursday, October 18, 2018 - SOLD OUT
7:30 pm
Ukrop Auditorium, Robins School of Business, on the University of Richmond campus
Free, reservations recommended.
How have - and how should - the national soul-searching about the Confederacy and its legacies affect the way students of Civil War history engage with their subject? What does the future hold for the study of Confederate history in the wake of Charleston and Charlottesville?
The 2018 Elizabeth Roller Bottimore lecture will address those and other questions in what promises to be a thoughtful and freewheeling discussion between two of America's most prominent scholars and Civil War public historians - Dr. Gary Gallagher and Dr. Edward Ayers.







History, is History. The confederacy and that it implies is part of the history of the United States. But, the history of the confederacy as contained in the 'Lost Cause' mythos; that may be another matter.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top