Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday"
From McClurken Wiki
(New page: The textbook war waged by the UCV and the UDC had the interesting outcome of causing Northern publishers to pander to Southern narratives out of fear of a boycott of their products. This ...) |
Wtimmons1861 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Do you read the trends in juvenile Civil War fiction in the 1880s as an attempt to instill the ideals they supported (white supremacy, white reconciliation, etc.) or were the writers simply responding to the market? – Erin B. | Do you read the trends in juvenile Civil War fiction in the 1880s as an attempt to instill the ideals they supported (white supremacy, white reconciliation, etc.) or were the writers simply responding to the market? – Erin B. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The issue over the "truthful" history of the Civil has been a common link between all the various readings this week, especially in McPherson's essay concerning textbooks. He mentions how Rutherford created her own "facts" surrounding the Civil War which were completely false. How do you think this push by the South to embody the Lost Cause rhetoric in textbooks has affected the memory of the war today? Also, do you think these "facts" presented by Rutherford should be considered as historical interpretations of the war despite their untruthfulness? -ABratchie | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I have never learned about some of the beliefs that Grant had about the Civil War that he wrote in "Report to Congress." In particular, Grant said that South's advantages offset Northern superiority and that Northern soldiers fought just as well and under more difficult circumstances to that of the South. Do you agree with these statements? Do you think the South really did have more advantages in the war or was this just a ploy by Grant to get people to believe the North had to work harder in order to win? -Avanness | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | To add to our conversation from Tuesday, the essay in Fahs and Waugh on textbooks talked about how veterans wanted to keep the "Confederate heritage alive through children of veterans." Do you think these textbooks and the push to get the "correct" history of the war written down from the South's perspective are two reasons as to why the Lost Cause view is still around today and just as popular especially in the South? Were the ex-Confederates trying to create a legacy they knew would continue to be alive more than 100 years later because of their children and future relatives? -Avanness | ||
| + | |||
| + | Waugh talks about Grant's ability to write "clear and forceful battle reports" and how this was the same for when he was writing his memoirs. Do you think that his ability to make himself look successful makes his autobiography more of a work of fiction? -MK | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the trends of the children's books, Fahs argues that both Optic and Page used notions of white supremacy and white reconciliation and how because of this African Americans were typically left out. Do you think that the only way for the Union to reconcile was through the ideology of white supremacy? -MK | ||
| + | |||
| + | Why do you think many of the Southern monuments allude to the Romans and Greeks? -Megan Mc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Are there any other Civil War Memorials/Monuments dedicated to noncombatants. Is John Calhoun's in Charleston the only one? What might have prevented the creation of other memorials like his? -Megan Mc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Why was Grant afraid of leaving the legacy of the war in politicians' hands? How would/could they have altered the legacy? Is his fear unfounded?- Aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Truth was derived from facts but not dependent upon them." (pp. 21) Both Waugh and McPherson touch upon this theme of revealing the "true" history. But Waugh emphasizes that Grant's memoir was perceived (at least by his fans) as the correct version of the Civil War. Is he presenting the truth (as he claims is his purpose) or is this merely another example of derived-truth?- Aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | McPherson and Fahs discuss the relationship between Civil War memory and children through memorial services and literature. One thing that wasn't mentioned is the trend of naming children (and grandchildren) after Civil War figures. Has this been effective in creating "living monuments" as McPherson discusses? Is the name-legacy still prevalent (and if so, is it more for southern memory or northern)? Is it an effective method of instilling Civil War appreciation in descendants of veterans?- Aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Waugh’s article about Grant’s memoirs, she discusses how Grant was aiming to set the record straight and tell the world the “truth” about why the war was fought. Similarly, the South was attempting to do the same thing, but their “truth” was quite different. Why did Grant and his truth fall to the wayside when up against the South and their truth? - Angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it interesting in Fahs article how the themes in children’s civil war stories changed from during the war to after the war. For example, during the war, wealth was portrayed as a negative characteristic, but afterwards it was a good characteristic. It’s not surprising that people’s priorities change as the country changes, but I do find it surprising that stories from the same author and about the same event can have such different themes in them. - Angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Confederacy's statesmen and military leaders were all forced into retirement, while the Republicans held the reigns of power and placed their greatest war hero in the highest seat of government. Did this negatively affect the legacies of the northern combatants? Or did the south's revisionist predilections make that inevitable? -GStan. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Waugh discusses how proponents of the Lost Cause attempted to discredit Grant by destroying his reputation and enhancing Lee's. Do you think they were successful in their attempts? -ABratchie | ||
| + | |||
| + | Waugh represents Grant's memoirs as filled with the theme of reconstruction. Do you agree? How is this represented? And what about the deminishing of Grant's reputation compared to Lee's, do you think that had any influence on his personal feelings that might have been represented in his memoirs? - Victoria Y. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Was the criticism often thrust upon Grant's leadership, and in general the leadership of Union Generals during the war fair? Or was the criticism Fah's explains just the product of Southern views against him? -AJ L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If Grant's career during the war hadn't been attacked so much by the south so much do you think his memoirs would have been so focused on why he did certain things during the war and in general the war itself, becoming, as was stated, "the single contemporary document which explains, why the North won the Civil War" at that time? -AJ L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the first pages of the Grant chapter are little hypocritical on everyone’s part. I think that it is odd for Grant to condemn slavery and say the North was fighting to end slavery when he had owned a slave in his life. Why are we so quick to say that Grant is right and dismiss every southern general’s memoir as wrong? My do we dismiss other generals opinions like McClellan’s about what the war was fought over. They all were there in the same time period in the same event. Is this a case of the victor is right because he won? Logan T | ||
| + | |||
| + | Grants opinions of Lee’s generalship can be turned back on him. He explains that Lee prolonged the war by staying in trenches and not fighting in the open where Grant would have defeated him. But Lee was never able to defeat Grant in the same way he defeated other Union Generals because Grants men were firmly entrenched in those campaigns. In these campaigns both sides used trench warfare. Has the attempt to counter the lost cause veiws elevated Grant’s generalship higher than it should be? Logan T | ||
