ECW News: The War Over Memory at Manassas
What part of this sign is factually incorrect?
It’s a trick question: none of it is factually inaccurate.
But as The New York Times reported last week, this sign at Manassas National Battlefield Park was slated for removal this week because of the last sentence in the second column. (Go ahead and take a look at it again.)
According to sources at the park, historians have been told they can rewrite the sign, omitting the “offensive” passage, rather than remove it. It’s more than a bit ironic that a story about contested memory finds itself at the center of a controversy contesting its content.
Emerging Civil War’s Tyler McGraw recently paid a visit to the battlefield to offer some context about the sign, the story it tells, and how it relates to the very creation of the national battlefield itself.
I find the sentence clumsily written; I find the assertion that the South’s battle for its rights was a myth to be offensive. I believe that the best way to settle these recent arguments once and for all is to ask a Socratic question: When did the argument of Constitutional Rights versus Slavery as the cause of the war begin – in April 1865 or just a couple decades ago? The reply will settle the matter.
Slavery as the cause of the war was established BEFORE the war by the Southern states themselves in their Articles of Secession. I refer readers, again, to the primary sources: https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/01/22/primary-sources-slavery-as-the-cause-of-the-civil-war/
The idea of “Constitutional Rights” (a clever attempt at reframing the old “States Rights” label in modern parlance!) came about in the aftermath of the war as disgruntled former Confederates tried to excuse away their loss in terms more morally palatable than their defense of slavery. Tried Pollard’s “The Lost Cause” and any number of Jubal Early’s writings. This has been well documented over the last sixty years by any number of credible historians.
So, yes, the answer settles the matter quite clearly.
Well said
Hey Socrates … sorry you’re offended … but there is no need to rehash the answer to this question … your confederate heros proudly answered it in 1860 when seven slave holding states seceded because the Republican party — opposed to the spread of slavery — won the presidential election … you should read about it — it’s in all the history books.
When was the sign with the wording in question placed at Manassas? The view that slavery was the chief cause of the war became the dominant view a short time ago. The placement of the sign is itself a part of the ongoing battle over memory. If one reads the farewell addresses U.S. commanders made to their commands one will find that most of these officers said they fought to preserve the Union, not for any other purpose.
The Commander in Chief disagreed with you:
“Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”
-Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865
“ According to sources at the park”
What sources? Who? On what authority? What changes were suggested, were other alternatives suggested?
Looks like a park person with an agenda is leaking.
Until a letter or something is produced, I am suspicious.
This post is not suitable for ECW
Alas, we’re all in such a poisonous political climate that a lot of folks are afraid to speak publicly about sensitive issues for fear of reprisal. I would contest the characterization that “a park person with an agenda is leaking,” but if that’s the conclusion you want to leap to, I can’t stop you. But because I’m editor-in-chief, I do get to decide what is suitable for ECW and what isn’t–and this certainly qualifies as suitable.
Signs, then monuments, then desecration of Confederate graves: that’s why I don’t visit CW sites anymore, especially in Virginia.
Good video.
I am all for putting CW monuments in their proper context, references to the Lost Cause and slavery included … but this sign steps over the line in both the “facts of the matter” and then The Lost Cause stuff which occupies two thirds of the sign … NPS missed the boat on balance.
First, i am certain that Stonewall’s “Mr. Universe Physique” was not a sop to inspire a nation “wracked by the depression and fearful of decent into another world war” … the artist likely started the sculpture well before the German’s invaded Poland … and in August 1940 we were nowhere near getting into the war in Europe … if there’s a primary reference which supports this statement I would love to see it.
Second, sometimes a statue on a CW battlefield is just a statue … and since you are a self-professed “Jackson fan-boy,” I am sure you can appreciate paying homage to the soldierly virtue, discipline, and martial skill of Jackson on the battlefield where he earned this moniker … so, I would have appreciated more about Jackson at Manassas, the artist and his rather odd representation, and far less on the Lost Cause … again, looking for a little more balance.
Finally, this is precisely the sort of stuff that should go on ECW … there’s nothing like a spirited debate on things that matter … thanks for this one.
The keynote speaker at the 1940 dedication ceremony was Douglas Southall Freeman. Freeman was a huge proponent of the Lost Cause and specifically encouraged the audience to look at the Jackson statue as inspiration. In his speech he made reference to the ongoing world war and hinted at possible U.S. involvement, exclaiming, “If America faces another war…[it] need not have no fear for her present security if she will truly apply the lessons of war as taught and practiced by Jackson.” While it is easy to write off statues on Civil War battlefields as simply that, it is impossible to separate them from the meaning and symbolism of the groups or individuals who design, fund, and dedicate them. Hope that primary account sheds light on the wayside’s wording and the larger context of the monument’s dedication.
Yup, I agree completely … again, just looking for a little balance … as a casual visitor to the battlefield park, i would appreciate a historical word or two about who was General Jackson, how he got his nickname and some commentary on the statue and the artist’s rather odd representation … then, context about the Lost Cause, history and memory is needed and entirely appropriate … thanks for your comment.
I think the sign should stay along with it’s current wording. It puts the memorial in the context of the point in time it was erected. No matter what changes are made, someone won’t be happy. It’s a shame too that the lost cause still has not died the death it richly deserves.