Saturday, April 28, 2012

Happy Birthday, Ulysses S. Grant




 I had a most interesting encounter yesterday.  As I head north on a long trip, I visited the Ulysses S. Grant Birthplace in Point Pleasant, Ohio - one of several presidential sites I aim to see on this trip.  The day of my visit turned out to have been his 190th birthday.  In commemoration, the local historical societies from Clermont and Brown counties, arranged to have a new signs directing traffic towards this site.  The pictures above show the sign, the two re-enactors depicting Grant and (of all people) Custer (!!!), and the cake they baked for him.  The crowd was somewhat meager - probably twenty people.  While they clearly had an economic motive at stake - the local director gave me a dining suggestion - it was nice to see them take their history seriously.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Why the Civil War matters to Canadians.


Someone asked me the other day why the Civil War matters to Canadians.  I had to ponder why this question would be posed.  To me, it is as simple as it gets.  Confederation in 1867 would not have occurred when it did and in the form it took without the Civil War.  The books by Robin Winks and Greg Marquis have made this case beyond reproach.  Yet, despite the qualities of those books, neither appears to have had much effect on Canadian historiography - most definitely in the public realm.  This is, I think, a mistake.  The Civil War was as important to Canadian history as the War of 1812.  

Much of this comes from the perils of writing a 'national' history - crafting a narrative that unites and reassures disparate members of the country.  It seems to me that Canadians have tried to purge any semblance of U.S. influence over the nation’s development, and limit that of the British or French.   The Civil War merits barely a few sentences in textbooks as a causal factor behind Confederation.  While this is true, it is hardly a fair representation.  Such a narrative makes it appear as if the war forced the Canadian population together in fear of a U.S. invasion.  This omits the divided opinion within the colonies on the war, actions in support of both sides, the role of the British government at the time trying hard – and successfully – to avoid greater conflict, as well as the controversial Confederation process itself.  It ties in with the dominant meta-narrative that Canadians appear to have that the U.S. is out to get them.  That the two countries have had extensive interconnections before, during and since the 1860s has failed to budge this idea. 

However, this desire for a ‘national’ history is no excuse for a bad one.  It was impossible for anyone in North America to escape the effects of the largest and costliest war ever fought in this continent.  No one in the United States did, and works on Mexico, the Bahamas, Cuba, the Caribbean, Britain, France, Japan, China, Russia or South Africa testify to its worldwide impact.  Canada felt its effects, and made its effect felt, more than any of these.  I’d like to point out several of these effects:

1)     Somewhere between 18,000 and 50,000 British North Americans served as soldiers, sailors or marines in the Civil War.  Winks and Marquis debate the numbers, but even the low estimate indicates that more British North Americans fought in the Civil War than any other nationality, and even some states.  They also believe that most supported the Union cause rather than the Confederacy.  Many more may have journeyed south to work in factories or on farms in the U.S.  We probably will never know how many made either trip.  It is hard to define or identify them since travel was so common place then.   One of those who fought was Calixa LavellĂ©e, the composer of the music to “O Canada.”  A musician with the 4th Rhode Island Volunteers, he was wounded at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862.

2)     Many of these former servicemen returned to Canada or travelled north after the war and established veterans’ association.  The Grand Army of the Republic had eight branches in Canada, four in Ontario, three in Quebec and one in Manitoba.  This was the second such group in Canada, following the Army and Navy Association of British veterans.  The G.A.R.’s impact on Canada remains unknown.

3)     Little is known about the economic support the colonies gave to the U.S. during this conflict, which Canada has done from the First World War up to the Iraq War.  If British neutrality laws did not impair exports, this could have been a major asset to Lincoln.  It is known that an influx of deserters and draft evaders, as many as 20,000, lowered wages in Canada during the war.

4)     The pro-Confederate actions committed by Canadians to impair the U.S. war effort, such as the St. Alban’s Raid, the seizure of the S.S. Chesapeake, and the escape of the C.S.S. Tallahassee, are omitted.  These acts challenge the idea that Canada was a passive actor in the war.  They contributed to legitimate U.S. concerns about their northern frontier.  Fortunately, they saw a greater menace from the French in Mexico than the British in Canada.  The Treaty of Washington resolved these issues for all time. 

5)     Canadians like to take pride in their role in the Underground Railroad, the last stop on the fabled escape route for the enslaved.  This, however, is only half of the story.  Most left after the war, partly because of the promises of racial equality under Reconstruction, and of hostility in Canada.  If the estimated 30,000 to 100,000 African Americans had stayed, its history would have been changed.  Racially exclusive immigration laws kept the black population of Canada would remain below 20,000 until the 1960s.  Had they remained, Canadian race relations could have been very different.  In areas where blacks lived in numbers, such as Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, they faced all the trappings of segregation and marginalization more commonly found in the former Confederacy, and well into the Twentieth Century.

6)     For all the resentment of the U.S. and its system of government, Canada’s constitution resembled theirs in many ways.  First, the fact that they had a constitution.  Second, the federal system which was unknown anywhere in the British Empire at the time – copied in 1901 by Australia.  Canada modified the division of powers to keep authority centralized rather than devolved, a slight contrast with that of the U.S. 

So, here are six reasons why the Civil War matters to Canadians.  The people, more than their leaders, participated in the conflict in a myriad of ways.  Sometimes they supported the U.S., while opposing them at other times.  It was a major event in their history.  If the War of 1812 ensured that the northern part of North America would remain in British hands, the Civil War defined its style of government, its mixed approach to its southern neighbor and, finally, its racial makeup.  More work is definitely needed on this topic.  

Monday, April 9, 2012

Is the Lost Cause unique?

Today, April 9th, is significant to me for two reasons.  First, as a Civil War historian, it is the 147th anniversary of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.  This traditionally marks the end of the Civil War, though fighting would continue on until June in Texas and indeed November when the CSS Shenandoah gave up her round-the-world sailing mission against United States shipping.  It is also the supposed start of the Lost Cause, the historical vindication of the Confederate cause.  Lee's statement to his troops that "overwhelming numbers and resources" had bested them rather than any shortcomings in their cause, spirit or materiel.

Secondly, as a Canadian, it makes the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge in April 1917.  I was told as a youth that this was Canada's nation-making moment.  Canadians seized and held this important point on the Western Front which had resisted British and French attempts to take it.  It combined all four Canadian divisions in France for the first time, was largely planned by Canadian leaders, and executed by well-trained Canadian troops.  Afterwards, the Canadian Corps would be the most feared Allied unit, rivaled by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC)s.  After the war, Canada would stand as an independent nation.

Such sentiments boil my blood.  Each legacy is fundamentally flawed to the point of dishonesty.  To start, many groups did not participate in the same war or at all in the portrayed event.  The Lost Cause obscured the huge divisions in the South over secession.  To cite only the most obvious examples, West Virginians, Marylanders, and Delaware troops stood with Grant at Appomattox, while Marylanders and other Virginians surrendered with Lee.  Also, United States Colored Troops - many of whom had been slaves four years before - also observed their former masters' capitulation.  Lost Cause enthusiasts (I won't call them historians) merely exclude southern Unionists as traitors or non-existent, while maliciously insisting that blacks fought for the same Confederacy trying to keep them in bondage.  They also portray the home front as unified and happy, even dignified before the 'evil Yankees' showed up.  Civil War historians have sought to correct these images with, I'm happy to say, great success if controversy in public circles.

Canada is no better.   The Canadian troops who stormed up Vimy Ridge on April 9, 1917 were overwhelmingly white and English-speaking.  A handful of First Nations participated, despite efforts by white recruiters to keep them out of the war.  A paltry few Asians or blacks were there too, most of the latter in (of all things) a forestry unit.  Moreover, women and the home front experienced it too, although differently.   Even fewer Quebecers were there, most of them in the 22nd Battalion - now the famous Royal 22nd Regiment or the Van Doos (Vingt-Deux = 22 in French).   They, far more than the others, did not share in feelings of nationhood.  Quebec opposed the war from the start.  They resisted volunteering, or anyone from volunteering. In fact, anti-war feeling ran so high that separatist feeling began and persists to this day.  The memory of the battle, moreover, carried on along these lines.  So, Vimy Ridge can hardly be called a nation-building experience since only part of the country, admittedly the dominant part of it, went through it.  

In this vein, much of Canada's history resembles the Lost Cause.  However, I think all history is like this.  Every society seeks a usable past in order to foster unity, communication and pride.  No one likes being the bad guy.  So, in every society, people write the history that they wish to express.  Sometimes they are careless, other times they have economic interests at heart (what I call the "chamber of commerce" version of history), and sometimes they are malicious in implying unity where it never existed.  Sadly, no matter how many solid, professional-standard histories are produce, this trend will continue.  So, the Lost Cause and Canada's history are reflections of a near-universal trend.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Forget something?

Sorry for the long delay but I've been working on another project lately.

I found this article in the Opelika-Auburn newspaper the other day on my favorite subject: bad history.  The Lee County Historical Society in Loachapoka runs "Pioneer Park", exhibits about what its creators believe 1850s to 1920s East Alabama resembled.  They have a blacksmith's shop, weaving, quilting, spinning, a one-room schoolhouse, a log cabin, an early doctor's office, a dry goods store, and how to do laundry.  They even have a Native American exhibit.

What's missing from this?  The above may have been parts of life in Lee County, but at least half of the population would not have enjoyed their benefits.  Those people were the enslaved workers in the parts of Tallapoosa, Macon, Russell and Chambers counties formed into Lee County in 1866.  Slaves may have worked as blacksmiths, weavers, spinners, laundresses or even in stores, but the above exhibits present them as if they were part of a kinder, gentler age.  They appear as if east Alabama was a self-sufficient, self-reliant area untouched by the outside world.  Well, this is wrong.  The area was, in fact, a major cotton producer and exporter, shipping bales of cotton picked by slaves either by rail to Savannah or Mobile, or by water down the Chattahoochee River to Florida.  Over 100,000 slaves resided in the area, around 50% of the population.  Their lives aren't being presented here.  Where's the auction block or whipping post?

There is a good reason for this, a common one in history: local people prefer an acceptable and tolerable past.  No one likes to be the bad guy in the past, especially in ways they can control.  Lee County is no different than other places that I have seen, such as Russell County Museum in nearby Fort Mitchell, AL, Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta, Heritage Park in Calgary, AB, or Lower Fort Garry in Manitoba.  Each sanitizes the past of conflict, racism, and exploitation in search for a usable past.  Everyone should read Cathy Stanton's The Lowell Experiment for how this worked in a park created from a old Massachusetts mill town.

Sadly, the desire of people to maintain a usable past works against a fuller understanding of history.  It'll be a hard, long fight but it can happen.  I urge patience.

Friday, March 16, 2012

History in Toy Form

Recently, discussions have emerged on several blogs about Civil War-themed toys.  Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory drew his many readers' attention, including mine, to the Andersonville Prison playset.  Many seem mortified by the prospect of children (young and old) using this toy to re-create the horrors of that terrible Confederate prison in western Georgia.  Mr. Levin is quite correct to think this way, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wooden and metal soldiers have been common for the past two centuries, dating as far back as the Napoleonic Wars.  Their proponents allege that they connect young people with history.  In many cases, the uniforms and equipment are authentically presented.  Famous generals receive their own figures.  Plastic replaced them in the mid-20th century, just in time for kids to have their very own Nazi figures.  Even today, one can get a Utah Beach playset.  I wonder why they didn't have one for Omaha Beach.  I once had an Army Men video game for the Playstation years ago.  It was a great game.  But they all have a darker side:

These toys sanitize the violence inherent in war, and if they do not glorify them, they certainly valorize the conflicts they represent.  They present a totally inaccurate view of the past.  It shows, I think, the tendency by the public to see the past in literary terms: heroes and villains, drama, tragedy, comedy, and the like.  All of these views distort the past for profit - although caveat emptor (buyer beware) because self-control is a responsibility.

When I think of this subject, I'm reminded of this scene from the 1987 movie The Living Daylights where James Bond confronts the villain Brad Whittaker in his toy room while he 'plays' with his Gettysburg battle scenes.  Using a gadget and a statue of Wellington, Bond helps Whittaker meet his Waterloo.  Classic Bond humor.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Who Do You Think You Are?

I recently started watching the NBC series "Who Do You Think You Are?" airing Fridays at 8/7c.  It depicts celebrities' travels through their family history.  Some of the journeys are fascinating, particularly those who encounter the 'tough stuff' of the past such as slavery and the Civil War.  Matthew Broderick discovered his grandfather was a hero in WW1, while his great-great-grandfather fought in the Civil War, dying outside of Atlanta.  They discovered his heretofore unmarked grave.  Vanessa Williams found out that her Civil War ancestor, an African-American who proudly spread word to the enslaved of the Emancipation Proclamation, lived in Queens, New York with his white wife.  Reba McIntrye was shocked when she learned that a North Carolina ancestor sold slaves, yet showed more grief over that person's life as a teenager cast out of England to be an indentured servant in the American colonies.  Black celebrities such as Emmitt Smith and Spike Lee discover what their slave ancestors endured during and after the 'peculiar institution' ended.  One of my favorite moments: Martin Sheen's response to the revelation that two lines of his Spanish ancestors had clashed in the 1700s - one, a judge, persecuted a young woman.  Their descendants later married.  Amazing.  I haven't seen all of these episodes yet, but I am hooked.

The series is by far the best advertising for which Ancestry.com could ask.  I have an annual subscription which has helped my research immensely.  I also like seeing some of the familiar archives and historians who appear in the series.  Keep up the good work.  I understand that there are British (where it began), Canadian, Irish, Swedish and other versions of the show.  I wonder how many of their Canadian celebrities find out to their horror that they have *gasp* American roots.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Captain Confederacy

Having been raised on popular culture, I'm interested in the ways the Civil War appears in other mediums.  I've already blogged about video games and movies, but realm of comic books deserves some attention.  A few weeks back, Kevin Levin blogged about Squidbillies cartoon and The Gunhawks comics from the early 70s.  Keith Harris mentioned Les Tuniques Bleues or The Bluecoats a Belgian comic series now bring published in English about a year ago, based on my suggestion.  In each, the authors and artists join forces to discuss the Civil War.  Though a kids cartoon, the Squidbillies brilliantly mocks the commercialism surrounding Confederate heritage.  The Gunhawks purports to show biracial cooperation between a master's son and a slave during the war and afterwards, a difficult thing to believe.  The Bluecoats follows the antics of two Union soldiers, one dedicated and the other malingering, through the war.

I found another that takes a different approach to the topic: Captain Confederacy.  Written by Will Shetterly and drawn by Vince Stone, the alternate-reality comic first appeared in 1986.  The plot of the first installment, "The Nature of the Hero," follows a fake super hero, Captain Confederacy, and his white female sidekick Miss Dixie, aka the Dixie Duo.  The Captain aims to uphold "justice and the Confederate Way" - meaning paternalism towards African Americans, and the independent slaveholding republic (North America is divided into several countries, including the US, the CS, Mormon-led Deseret, the People's Republic of California, Pacifica, Indian-led Great Spirit Land, Republic of Texas, and the Free State of Louisiana).  The Captain, however, suffers a crisis of conscience when he discovers that he is a tool for government propaganda.  Merely an actor who received the Ultimate Potential serum, his sole job is to maintain the status quo.  His nemesis, Blacksnake (!!!) is also an actor named Aaron Jackson.  He is exposed as fraud and eventually becomes a rebel to the Confederacy.  In the end, the Captain is forgotten and replaced by a new duo, Kid Dixie and a new Captain.

Shetterly produced two other volumes, "Yankee UFO" and "Hero Worship" but neither are as erudite as "The Nature of the Hero" in discussing the war.

Captain Confederacy strikes me as a commentary on the Civil War, racism, gender and the superhero genre. As an alternate-reality idea, it shows what the Confederacy was: a lie.  It was based on a stern, conservative, patriarchal system that resisted change.  Whites and blacks, men and women - as well as a half-Chinese, half-white character named Lee to mess with the narrative - had their places, and one could not stray from those roles.  He and Miss Dixie represent the ideal Confederate (white) man and (white) woman - one strong and virile, the other feminine yet submissive.  Blacks are expected to accept white rule for their own good.  Two black characters, Aaron Jackson (whose father is the 'richest Tom' in the CSA) and Kate Williams, struggle against the system.  Captain Confederacy is forced to reject the system he symbolized.  Readers should call him the anti-Superman - he derives his power from a drug, his reputation exposed as a government plot, and his worst enemy is himself.  In this sense, Captain Confederacy presages the "CSA" documentary by several years.  The two argue that slavery and slaveholding lay at the heart of the Confederate experiment.