Success Found in Defeat Charles Reagan Wilson’s Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920 was greeted upon its release in 1980 with praise for breaking “new ground in Reconstruction and New South history” (Jones 263). The work has been called a sensible and not condemnatory interpretation of southern post-Civil War mythmaking based on the observation that “Southerners cannot escape their history,” and neither pacified nor at peace “did not really want to” (Jeansonne 2205). The subject matter was indeed familiar, but Wilson adopted a new approach to deciphering how Southerners, despite failing in their attempt to establish a separate political identity, managed to achieve “the dream of a separate cultural identity.” He admittedly relied upon sociologist Robert N. Bellah’s influential 1967 article “Civil Religion in America,” in order to present his own “relatively new and untested concept” of the existence of a dual civil religion, an American and Southern version (Jones 263). He proposed that it was the existence of this Southern civil religion that allowed Southerners to cope with “apparent defeat” (Wilson 73) and in seeking reconciliation and vindication, “link a sense of Southern destiny with the Northern sense of American mission” (Jones 263). Wilson revealed that a “blend of evangelical Protestant religion emerged” to meet the “profound concerns of postwar Southerners” (Jones 264). They understood that the outcome of the Civil War had “clearly given them a history distinct from that of the North” (Wilson 13). By creating a romantic myth of the Lost Cause, much like the “creation of an independent Highland tradition” in Scotland (Trevor-Roper 16), the Southerners successfully separat... ... middle of paper ... ...d some might argue that it still lives on, as a powerful, sacred presence. Works Cited Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1991. Grissom, Michael Andrew. Southern by the Grace of God. Gretna: Pelican, 1999. Jeansonne, Glen. “Baptized in Blood.” Library Journal 105 (1980): 2205. Jones, Donald G. “Baptized in Blood.” American Historical Review 87.1 (1982): 263-4. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979. Stalin, Joseph. “The Nation.” Nationalism. Ed. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. 18-21. Trevor-Roper, Hugh. “The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland.” The Invention of Tradition. Ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. 15-41. Wilson, Charles Reagan. Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865- 1920. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1980.
On the question as to whether states’ rights was the cause of the Civil War, Dew references a speech made by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, during his inaugural address as one that “remains a classic articulation of the Southern position that resistance to Northern tyranny and a defense of states’ rights were the sole reason for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy, he insisted. ‘Our present condition…illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established’”(13).
The book ‘For Cause and Comrades’ is a journey to comprehend why the soldiers in the Civil War fought, why they fought so passionately, and why they fought for the long period of time. Men were pulling guns against other men who they had known their whole lives. McPherson’s main source of evidence was the many letters from the soldiers writing to home. One of the many significant influences was how the men fought to prove their masculinity and courage. To fight would prove they were a man to their community and country. Fighting also had to do with a duty to their family. Ideology was also a major motivating factor; each side thought they were fighting for their liberty. The soldier’s reputations were created and demolished on the battlefield, where men who showed the most courage were the most honored. Religion also played an important role because the second Great Awakening had just occurred. Their religion caused the men who thought of themselves as saved to be fearless of death, “Religion was the only thing that kept this soldier going; even in the trenches…” (McPherson, p. 76) R...
In James McPherson’s novel, What They Fought For, a variety of Civil War soldier documents are examined to show the diverse personal beliefs and motives for being involved in the war. McPherson’s sample, “is biased toward genuine fighting soldiers” (McPherson, 17) meaning he discusses what the ordinary soldier fought for. The Confederacy was often viewed as the favorable side because their life style relied on the war; Confederates surrounded their lives with practices like slavery and agriculture, and these practices were at stake during the war. On the other hand, Northerners fought to keep the country together. Although the Civil War was brutal, McPherson presents his research to show the dedication and patriotism of the soldiers that fought and died for a cause.
Many historians have tried to offer their ideology on the outcome of the Civil War. McPherson in his “American Victory, American Defeat” writes about what other historians have decreed their answers to why the Confederacy lost. He tells us the reasons that could not be the explanation for the loss, and explains the internal reasons but leaves the true cause of the loss untold. Freehling explains the defeat by discussing what could have been and then gives reasons to negate some of the cases that he states for the outcome of the Confederacy. Both McPherson and Freehling both agreed that there were other factors besides battles that needed to be looked at.
America has gone through many hardships and struggles since coming together as a nation involving war and changes in the political system. Many highly regarded leaders in America have come bestowing their own ideas and foundation to provide a better life for “Americans”, but no other war or political change is more infamous than the civil war and reconstruction. Reconstruction started in 1865 and ended in 1877 and still to date one of the most debated issues in American history on whether reconstruction was a failure or success as well as a contest over the memory, meaning, and ending of the war. According to, “Major Problems in American History” David W. Blight of Yale University and Steven Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania take different stances on the meaning of reconstruction, and what caused its demise. David W. Blight argues that reconstruction was a conflict between two solely significant, but incompatible objectives that “vied” for attention both reconciliation and emancipation. On the other hand Steven Hahn argues that former slaves and confederates were willing and prepared to fight for what they believed in “reflecting a long tradition of southern violence that had previously undergirded slavery” Hahn also believes that reconstruction ended when the North grew tired of the 16 year freedom conflict. Although many people are unsure, Hahn’s arguments presents a more favorable appeal from support from his argument oppose to Blight. The inevitable end of reconstruction was the North pulling federal troops from the south allowing white rule to reign again and proving time travel exist as freed Africans in the south again had their civil, political, and economical position oppressed.
Over the course of his decades-long career as a respected and influential man of letters, he also wrote an extensive collection of critical essays. In such piece, “A Southern Mode of Imagination,” he argues that the renascence of Southern letters occurred because of a shift in the way Southerners thought; a change from what he termed the extroverted “rhetorical mode” of tall-tales and politicking, to the introspective and hitherto primarily Northern “dialectical mode.” From his unique position as both a critic of the Renaissance and one of its vanguards, Tate posits that the antebellum Southern mind lacked the self-consciousness necessary to produce great writing because it was wholly occupied with defending slavery against the attacks of the North upon the ‘peculiar institution.’ The mind of the South focused outwards in response to those attacks, seeking to justify itself with one foot “upon the neck of a Negro Slave” ; that is to say, Southerners were rhetorical in defense of the indefensible. Their all-consuming and unwinnable defensive stance absorbed any potential for great literature even well after the cause was lost: Southern literature was practically non-existent prior to the publication of the first issue of The Fugitive in 1922. According to Tate’s theory, it was not until the South underwent a shift in its “mode of the imagination” that it was capable of producing writers like those of the Renaissance. Tate theorizes that this change occurred in part because the South ended its self-imposed isolation with the advent of World War I and “saw for the first time since 1830 that the Yankees were not to blame for everything.” The South’s mental energies were no longer entirely engrossed in resistance to Northerners ...
Following the defeat of the Confederacy and to lift the morale of a shattered people momentum gathered to enshrine the Myth of the Lost Cause which would transform the Southern soldier living and dead, into a veritable hero.
In conclusion, the Civil War ended in principle and name only with General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. White Southerners would not accept the freed blacks as equals specifically with full civil and voting rights as granted by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments (28). Lamar accomplishes his goal of defining the last battle of the Civil War. Southern whites’ use of physical violence, political maneuvering, and public persuasion resulted in Redemption not for freed Blacks, but for the southern whites. A victory so sound that it would sway historical accounts of what Reconstruction was actually about.
The Civil War in America is known to this day for being the pivotal turning point for slavery. But all the events in American politics that took place in the years prior to the war are just as crucial. Slavery was the solid foundation to America’s Political history because tremendous impact that the compromise of 1850, abolitionist/proslavery incidents, and the election of 1860 had. It is interesting to think about how different America would’ve been were it not for these exciting times in history. How much longer would America have been divided over the battle involving slavery? Although that will never be known, it is undeniably true that these events defined and changed our nation in a time of crisis.
This quote is just another way of saying that the Civil War was going to occur no matter what either side, the North or South, did to try to stop it.
When looking at the civil war in America the dilemma over autonomy vs. responsibility is an interesting one. Its uniqueness is highlighted when looking at the question: to whom are they responsible.
It is true that the CSA found slavery to be an incredibly important part of their national mission, as evidenced by Alexander Stephens and his speech outlining black slavery as the “cornerstone” of the Confederate government (Stephens). But it was not the reason for secession, nor the sole difference between the Union and Confederacy. The long history of conflict in the Union resulted in what many saw as an unavoidable ending, but what was really a conclusion stemming from a line of precise and certain events which aggravated the relationship between the two parts of the country. The crux of this conflict—the disagreement over slavery—would prove to be the catalyst for the chain of political and social events leading up to the war, but not as the reason for secession.
Renascence: Essays on values in Literature 59.2 (2007) : 93. Literature Resources from Gale Web. 24 Feb. 2010. Hatcher, Melissa. A. McCrory. The “Mythlore.”
The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s thoughtful and entertaining exploration of the role of the American Civil War in the modern world of the South. The first meaning alludes to Horwitz’s personal interest in the war. As the grandson of a Russian Jew, Horwitz was raised in the North but early in his childhood developed a fascination with the South’s myth and history. He tells readers that as a child he wrote about the war and even constructed a mural of significant battles in the attic of his own home. The second meaning refers to regional memory, the importance or lack thereof yet attached to this momentous national event. As Horwitz visits the sites throughout the South, he encounters unreconstructed rebels who still hold to outdated beliefs. He also meets groups of “re-enactors,” devotees who attempt to relive the experience of the soldier’s life and death. One of his most disheartening and yet unsurprising realizations is that attitudes towards the war divide along racial lines. Too many whites wrap the memory in nostalgia, refusing...
Their initial victory was “followed by an ensuing struggle to implement change”. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male suffrage and the middle classes were determined to resist the demands of the lower classes....