U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites

GETTYSBURG, Pa. (Reuters) - The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery.

Nowhere is the project more striking than at Gettysburg, site of the largest battle ever fought on American soil, where plans are going ahead to build a new visitors center and museum at a cost of $95 million that will completely change the way the conflict is presented to visitors.

"For the past 100 years, we've been presenting this battlefield as the high watermark of the Confederacy and focusing on the personal valor of the soldiers who fought here," said Gettysburg Park Superintendent John Latschar.

"We want to change the perception so that Gettysburg becomes known internationally as the place of a 'new rebirth of freedom,"' he said, quoting President Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" made on Nov. 19, 1863, five months after the battle.

"We want to get away from the traditional descriptions of who shot whom, where and into discussions of why they were shooting one another," Latschar said.

The project seems particularly relevant following the furor over Republican Sen. Trent Lott's recent remarks seeming to endorse racial segregation, which forced many Americans to revisit one of the uglier chapters of the nation's history.

When it opens in 2006, the new museum will offer visitors a narrative of the entire Civil War, putting the battle into its larger historical context. Latschar said he was inspired by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., which sets out to tell a story rather than to display historical artifacts behind glass cases.

"Our current museum is absolutely abysmal. It tells no story. It's a curator's museum with no rhyme or reason," Latschar said.

It is also failing to preserve the 700,000 items in its collection, including 350,000 maps, documents and photographs, many of which were rotting away or crumbling into dust until they were put into temporary storage.

Around 1.8 million people visit Gettysburg every year. Latschar said a disproportionate number were men and the park attracts very few black visitors.

In 1998, he invited three prominent historians to examine the site. Their conclusion: that Gettysburg's interpretive programs had a "pervasive southern sympathy."

The same was true at most if not all of the 28 Civil War sites operated by the National Parks Service. A report to Congress delivered in March 2000 found that only nine did an adequate job of addressing slavery in their exhibits.

Another six, including Gettysburg, gave it a cursory mention. The rest did not mention it at all. Most parks are now trying to correct the situation.

Park rangers and licensed guides at Gettysburg and other sites have already changed their presentations in line with the new policy. Now, park authorities are taking a look at brochures, handouts and roadside signs.

According to Dwight Pitcaithley, chief historian of the National Park Service, the South had tremendous success in promoting its "lost cause" theory.

The theory rested on three propositions: that the war was fought over "states' rights" and not over slavery; that there was no dishonor in defeat since the Confederacy lost only because it was overwhelmed by the richer north; and that slavery was a benign institution and most slaves were content with their lot and faithful to their masters.

"Much of the public conversation today about the Civil War and its meaning for contemporary society is shaped by structured forgetting and wishful thinking" he said.

The war, which ended up costing 600,000 lives, was thus unnecessary, and only ended up being precipitated by Lincoln's hasty actions, which were just bad statesmanship -- ....

I wonder. I wonder if Lincoln simply misunderstood and misplayed the Upper South .... or if he understood, but was determined to fight for a total victory, so that there would be no misunderstandings later on, that the federal government was now the Master, and not merely a creature of the People of the various States?

Was Lincoln, in other words, an absolutist who insisted on absolute capitulation to his inventions? He may have felt <speculation warning> that his inventions concerning the nature of the Union were tender enough, that their maintenance and consolidation required maximal destruction of the potential opposition.

To imply that every Southern soldier was fighting to keep slavery and every Union soldier was fighting to free slaves is Politically Correct historical revisionism......Polybius

No one is suggesting that, so I don't see what the problem is.......WhiskeyPapa

That comment was not directed at you, Walt. Although we may sometimes disagree, I respect your deep fund of knowledge of the war and I know that you would never make such a statement. Any serious student of the war knows that abolitionist sentiment is not what inspired most Union men to put their lives on the line.

However, that is the Politically Correct revisionism that Park Superintendant Latschar is engaging in:

The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery.

"We want to change the perception so that Gettysburg becomes known internationally as the place of a 'new rebirth of freedom,"' he said, ......... "We want to get away from the traditional descriptions of who shot whom, where and into discussions of why they were shooting one another," Latschar said.

I believe that I am on solid ground with all serious students of the war to say that the vast majority Union soldiers were not fighting to free the slaves. They were fighting to save the Union.

If U.S. Grant suppossedly fought the bloodbath at Cold Harbor "to free the slaves", it was not too much to have expected him to show who wore the pants in the Grant family and insist that Julia Grant free her own slaves.

With 20/20 moral hindsight, it would be nice if one could say that the Union armies were driven by the noble goal of freeing the slaves. However, such a revision of history is a fairy tale for children on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line.

Perhaps you could elborate. My brief google search comes up with contradictory bits about Lee and slavery. But I am sure you have studied the issue, and can synthesize it.

Here is an excerpt of the Lee letter to Davis, 1/11/65:

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an elightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of the relation unless it be necessary to avert greater calamity to both...I should prefer to rely on our white population; but in view of the preparation of our enemy it is our duty to provide for a continuous war, which, I fear, we cannot accomplish with our present resources. It is the avowed intention of the enemy to convert the ablebodied negro into soldiers and emancipate all. His progress will thus add to his numbers and at the same time destroy slavery in a most pernicious manner to the welfare of our people. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it ends in subverting slavery, it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, that we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our soldiers' social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ tl1em without delay.

I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guarantee of military efficiency. We can give them an interest by allowing immediate freedom to all who enlist and freedom at the end of the war to their families. We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. In conclusion, I can only say that whatever is to be done must be attended to at once."

Lee was clearly a supporter of slavery.

Walt

The war, which ended up costing 600,000 lives, was thus unnecessary, and only ended up being precipitated by Lincoln's hasty actions, which were just bad statesmanship -- ....

I wonder. I wonder if Lincoln simply misunderstood and misplayed the Upper South ....

The war kept getting bigger and bigger and President Lincoln couldn't understand why. He couldn't understand why anyone couldn't see that A) slavery should be eliminated and B) that union under the Constitution was not the best for all. He consistently thought that union sentiment in the rebel states would rise up and support the government in Washington. In this light, he said on 7/4/61 that perhaps only is South Carolina were secessionists in the majority.

He said once, before the shooting started, "my plan is to have no plan." He was being a bit too clever on that occasion. But he wanted "the better angels of our nature" to "once again swell the chorus of the Union."

This is why he revoked emancipation documents from Generals Hunter and Butler in 1862. This is why he pursued relocation and emancipated compensation schemes in 1862.

But after a year of trial, he took a new position, which included the emancipation proclamation as it appeared. He was determined to leave no card unplayed in preserving the lawful government.

Lincoln was pretty canny, but he wasn't perfect.

Consider this letter:

Thurlow Weed, Esq.

Executive Mansion

March 15, 1865

My Dear Sir,

'Every one likes a compliment. Thank you for yours on my little notification speech, and on the recent Inanugural Address. I expect the latter to wear as well as -- perhaps better than-- any thing I have produced; but I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almight and them. To deny it, however, is to deny that there is a God governing the world. It is a truth which I thought needed to be told; and as whatever of humiliation there is in it, falls most directly on myself, I thought others might afford for me to tell it.

yours truly'

So Lincoln is taking some of the blame for the war on himself.

It was, as he said earlier:

The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."

Walt

Slavery was clearly fading in the mid-19th century -- except in the American south, where it was retrenching inspite of the spirit of the age.

What concerned President Lincoln and the loyal union men was that democracy was --not-- growing. There were no functional democracies any where in the world except the United States in 1861. And to the glee of the Europeans, that -one- appeared to be coming apart at the seams. It had to be shown that men could rule themselves -- that a government of the people, by the people and for the people was not just a utopian dream. That's what Grant helped to show, irrespective of whether or not you make modern day judgments on his actions.

Walt

So Lincoln is taking some of the blame for the war on himself. -- Wlat

"We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay." -- Abraham Lincoln [quoted by Walt]

Contrary you, it seems to me that he is bringing in the Almighty to shoulder the load instead. Easy for voters to criticize "Lincoln's war", a little harder for them to criticize a war ordained by God.

Yeah, you showed us.

Freeing -some- of the slaves was an expedient that Lee saw to preserve the so-called CSA. He clearly in the same letter said that the best relationship of white and black was that of master and slave.

You might be surprised to find out that the rebel congress, although it did narrowly approve a bill for the enlistment of negro soldiers, included a provision that both the slave's master and the state in which he resided had to approve the freeing of any slave.

That sort of lacks the moral force of the emancipation proclamation, don't ya think?

But let's quote Lee:

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an elightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of the relation unless it be necessary to avert greater calamity to both."

Compare that the what Lincoln said:

"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood..."

Now, considering what both men said, who today could call Lee a hero, or call Lincoln a villian, when the reverse so clearly applies?

Walt

You might want to familiarize yourself with some on President Lincoln's writings:

"It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

that was 3/4/65.

In his letter of 3/15/65, President Lincoln said the blame fell on him as much or more as anyone: "and as whatever of humiliation there is in it, falls most directly on myself..."

It's no wonder that Clifton Faddiman called Lincoln the "martyred Christ in Democracy's passion play," is it?

I mean after all, it was this speech that Frederick Douglass told Lincoln was "a sacred effort" wasn't it?

Walt

Are you under the illusion that there is actually even one person who is going to read that cut-and-paste crap?

I think cutting and pasting is pretty cool.

About five years ago, my mother said she wanted to learn about "that dot.com stuff." I was a little skeptical about mama at age 72 getting any PC skills, but I gave her a 386 mhz machine I had. It had Word for DOS on it. She is a very prolific letter writer. I tapped out a couple of sentences and said, "look mama, you can take this sentence and put it below that sentence, or you can arrange them any way you want."

She said, "why would I want to do that?"

In any case, I don't see why the simple act of using the word processing technique of cutting and pasting gives the neo-rebs so much hassle. I think it's probably the content you object to.

You took issue with a simple statement that I made: that these "immortal 600" were treated 'like for like' with the way the rebels were treating US POW's. The official records of the war show that this was the case. I am sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

Mama now uses her PC all the time to research her Bible study and keep up with her geneology buddies through e-mail. You may recall I mentioned that she had identified two of our relations that were in the Army of Northern Virginia at the very end of the war; we are also related distantly to Francis Scott Key.

Whenever I see a picture of General Dan Sickles, I say, "that sumbuck shot my relative," as Barton Key it was who was cuckholding Sickles, and was shot for his troubles.

Walt

WP to Aurelius: You took issue with a simple statement that I made: that these "immortal 600" were treated 'like for like' with the way the rebels were treating US POW's. The official records of the war show that this was the case. I am sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

It wasn't exactly like the records you cited (why does that not surprise me?). From Capt Henry Dickson of the 2nd Virginia Cavalry, one of the 600 Confederate prisoners:

"A Yankee colonel, exchanged, came into the pen and commenced telling what rations he received at Charleston. Colonel Hallowell was with him and exhibited to him the orders requiring that we should be fed as the prisoners in Charleston. The order was not read out and we then found that someone had been daily cheating us of the rations ordered to us. ... The Yankees insisted on giving us a gill of soup and cooked rice, although the prisoners in Charleston got daily one-fifth of a pint of raw beans and rice, which, cooked, would make twice the quantity we got." (Joslyn, pg 130)

Some of the Confederates died of starvation and attendant scurvy and dysentery on this diet of half what the Federal prisoners got at Charleston, which was imposed for a long time.

What concerned President Lincoln and the loyal union men was that democracy was --not-- growing. There were no functional democracies any where in the world except the United States in 1861. And to the glee of the Europeans, that -one- appeared to be coming apart at the seams. It had to be shown that men could rule themselves -- that a government of the people, by the people and for the people was not just a utopian dream. That's what Grant helped to show, irrespective of whether or not you make modern day judgments on his actions.

The topic of this particular thread was that the National Park Service is revising history to say that "the reason why they were shooting at each other" in Gettysburg was because the Union rank and file and the Union field commanders were motivated to risk life and limb by a desire to free the slaves.

I am saying that is false and the motivation of the vast majority on the Union side, be they officers or enlisted, was to save the Union.

You say that "It had to be shown that men could rule themselves -- that a government of the people, by the people and for the people was not just a utopian dream" which is your way of saying that they were fighting to save the Union.

It seems that we both agree on this particular point.

Some of the Confederates died of starvation and attendant scurvy and dysentery on this diet of half what the Federal prisoners got at Charleston, which was imposed for a long time.

Found this:

"...Ms. Joslyn mentions the allegedly poor treatment they received after being moved to Fort Pulaski (they were only on Morris Island for a couple of months, I think). Yet the overall death rate for these men was substantially lower than for POW's at Andersonville or Elmira, and was close to the figure for Fort Delaware, the prison from which they were taken. IOW, the argument for their being severely mistreated falters rather badly on the facts.

I don't know the overall figure, but for the prison they were taken from (Fort Delaware), the average figure was (IIRC) 6.9 deaths per month per thousand, while for the 600 (actually, 583), it was 7.5 per month per thousand."

-- from the ACW moderated newsgroup.

Walt

I don't think Lee was anti-slavery. He saw the evils in slavery and experienced some discomfort about it, more for its effects on Whites than on Blacks. Lee thought in time it would disappear, and that would be very much a good thing, but he thought that slavery had useful work to do until then. He strongly disapproved of efforts to rush slavery's end. More here.

Lee might have been a good thing for the Union. He's been reproached recently for wasting Southern manpower with his attacks. If he'd been at the head of the Union Army of the Potomac, his aggressiveness and intelligence might well have been rewarded with victory early in the war. But he wouldn't have led the Union forces once Virginia cast its lot with the Confederacy, nor would he have been able to sit still on the sidelines.

Winfield Scott, George Thomas and other Virginians fought proudly for the Union, as did Lee's cousin, a Union admiral, and Thomas suffered ostracism from his family for it. Maybe Robert E. Lee was too much a "man of family" with paternal ties to Colonial Virginia to remain loyal to the Union as Scott did. Certainly, it was easier for a Navy man like Farragut or Samuel Phillips Lee, away from home for long stretches to be responsive to the national idea.

If the war had ended very early, there wouldn't have been an Emancipation Proclamation. It's likely, though, that Republicans would have pushed for the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery as a condition of reconciliation. The 14th and 15th amendments might well have had to wait for generations.

The same elites would retain rule over the Southern states and the color line would be marked by legal segregation. To the old abolitionists this would have been unconsciounable, but it's what in fact happened in our own history. We probably wouldn't have seen 50 or 80 years of Republican domination after the war. Politics probably would have been much more tumultuous though.

We'd still have "Lost Cause" romanticization of the Confederacy. Whether there would have been more or less of such sentiment is unclear. Because the defeat hadn't been so crushing and destructive, there would have been some sentiment for a rematch, but wounds wouldn't be as deep or resentments and the sense of victimization so bitter.

That's my opinion on a subject about which only opinions are possible, anyway. What would have happened had the Confederacy won a short war is another question.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.