Dr. Elizabeth Varon’s lecture portrayed the complex legacy of Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9th, 1865 in the context of what it symbolized for the South, the North, and African Americans, what it’s practical implications were, and how it differs from our modern rendering of the event into folklore. Depending on their allegiance to the Union or to the Confederacy, people perceived the events that transpired at Appomattox very differently. Dr. Varon first addresses Lee and the South’s view of Appomattox a restoration of peace, with no obligations for the South to repent or change their ways. It was a noble defeat in the eyes of the Confederates in which Lee “had not stooped his proud head one …show more content…
When Andrew Johnson succeeded Lincoln as president on April 15th, 1965, he betrayed what Grant viewed as the “promise of Appomattox” through amnesty and rapid Reconstruction of the South that neglected reform of Southern lifestyle. Southerners pushed back against any attempts to change their way of life, citing the “remain undisturbed” term of surrender, insisting that any forced change was inherently punitive. Grant was extremely disappointed by this wasted opportunity to push change upon the South. He began to favor black suffrage in order to keep Southerners from thinking they could control the nation. Likewise, African Americans were disappointed by the lack of change they saw in the years following Appomattox. Initially they saw the event as a symbol of hope that their rights and their liberation where finally secure . They had served as Union soldiers who played an instrumental role in defeating the Confederacy, so naturally they believed that they had earned their freedom undeniably. Although slavery itself was abolished, living as a black person in the Jim Crow South was slavery by another name. African Americans were still bound to serving white men through labor contracts, marriage restrictions, anti-enticement laws, and many other discriminatory terms of the Black Codes that sprang up all throughout Southern states after passage of the war amendments. Many African …show more content…
Varon frames her analysis of the legacy of Appomattox as contrasting the mythical story that people make the event out to be. In folklore, Lee gracefully represented the proud gentility of the South and Grant the mud-splattered working man of the North, and together they reunified the North and the South. In reality, it was vastly more complex, layered, and open to interpretation than stories make it out to be. Even an event as iconic as Appomattox remains rich with questions of motives and implications and deserves extensive historical
Ross’ story is told in a structurally unique way through Kennedy’s pen and with the theme of courage resonating throughout. Ross makes the decision to sacrifice his political career for the sake of saving the country of what ironically the Anti-Slavery radical Republicans were fighting so hard to vote against; freedom. Without his descriptive detail in his use of words, phrases and quotes, it’s message would be difficult to replicate. Without his subtle but significant use of rhetorical devices, he would never have able to persuade the audience to join Ross’ cause without even telling them his motives. Kennedy writes in a way which keeps the reader on the edge of confusion and enthrallment for Edmund G. Ross.
Due to high causality figures and with constant confrontation, Sherman come to a decision to broaden the weight and Emotional distress of the war further than rebel soldiers and to include the civilian advocators Particularly, the common People in general of the Confederacy who filled the ranks of the confederacy. Sherman considered that forcing civilian to feel what he called the “hard hand of war” was a military essential. Making the war ruthless and remorseless would bring victory more swiftly and with a minimum loss of life. He considered that by doing this Confederate morale would be weakened and irregular armed force that were fighting the union forces by sabotage and stalking would withdraw. This would disseminate the message that
Before and after the Civil War, people loved and respected Robert E. Lee. Not because of the side he fought for, but because he was an honorable man with strong beliefs; as a general he was a fatherly leader his soldiers looked up to; and he was a very clever tactician. Although Lee fights for the Confederacy, many people greatly revered him, even to this day. Robert E. Lee showed how honorable he was when he chose to fight for his home state of Virginia over the United States. He joined the Confederacy because his “mother” state would be fighting with the Confederacy.
Allen Guelzo and Vincent Harding approached Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the eventual abolition of slavery from two very different viewpoints. The major disagreement between them is whether the slaves freed themselves, or Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation freed them. Harding argued the former view, Guelzo took the later. When these essays are compared side by side Guelzo’s is stronger because, unlike Harding, he was able to keep his own views of American race relations out of the essay and presented an argument that was based on more than emotion. Allen Guelzo
Movies and Hollywood have captivated our ideas of history whether it being movies such as 300 or my current topic Glory. Movies have profound impact on our historical perception and even though these movies try to stay accurate they still present major inaccuracy. Now in this paper I will be reviewing and detailing the historical validity of the 1989 Civil War blockbuster Glory, the movie is centered on the Massachusetts 54th regiment that was predominately made up of African American free men and their commander Robert Gould Shaw, who was the son of a prominent Abolitionist family in Boston. Shaw was originally was apart of the 7th New York who had aided in the defense of Washington and later join and rise up the ranks in the 2nd Massachusetts.
In this chapter of the Founding Brothers, Ellis centers the idea of Slavery. He employs the idea of both hindsight and foresight to explore the collapse of the Congress. He displays the Congress to not stand up to its expectations at both private and public means. Confidential affiliations were tested as the North and South commissioners opened and unraveled their hardships and resentment.
Through his incredible array of sourcing that includes both primary and secondary sourcing, there is much to take away from this book that previous works do not include. While there are brief areas of criticism that can be stated about this book, Walter Johnson provides the literature of the Old South with a comprehensive, yet a refreshing take on the importance and devastation of
A few days after the civil War ended, President Lincoln was assassinated and never had the chance to implement his Reconstruction plan. The Reconstruction Era occurred in the period of 1865 to 1877 under the reign of President Andrew Johnson who was the predecessor of President Lincoln. Congress was not scheduled to convene until December 1865, which gave Johnson eight months to pursue his own Reconstruction policies. Under his Reconstruction policies, the former Confederate states were required to join back into the Union and heal the wounds of the nation.
Nash’s article focuses on the reexamination of symbolism encompassed within the Liberty Bell through use of African American history. Nash’s article targets the INHP and their lack of commitment to create a “close collaboration with historians and other scholars, as well as the public, in arriving at a final exhibition plan” (Nash, 101). Beginning with Nash’s many challenges to change the INHP’s exhibition plan of the White American history, he questions the INHP’s conscious decision to ignore the “deep historical significance of the site” (Nash, 80). This “deep historical significance of the site” revolves around the slavery within the William Master’s Mansion, later to be the home of George and Martha Washington, who was “probably Philadelphia’s largest slave owner” (Nash, 78).
Robert E. Lee’s (1807-1870) contribution to the United States as a war general and commander received positive connotations for his commitment, attitude and inspiration on the battlefield. However, it is debateable about his contributions because of Robert Lee’s association in the Civil War (1861-1865) to the Confederate Army that fought for the Southern States. Robert Lee lead many successful campaigns and battles including the following; helping defeat Mexican armies that lead to U.S land gains and westward expansion, battles against a more powerful army in the Civil War. Despite these achievements Lee’s loyalty for the Confederate Army that fought to uphold slavery undermines his success and is highly debateable about whether his contribution is justified or not. Robert Lee’s contributions to his nation begin before the Civil War in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
There’s a raggedy American flag hanging outside my house. I know I should take it down, but I’m afraid. For the past 15 years, I lived in various apartments in upstate New York. After accepting a new job at the University of Mississippi this summer, I moved into a university-owned house down the road from William Faulkner’s home, Rowan Oak, in Oxford. Nothing about the new house or neighborhood surprised me more than the American and old Magnolia flags hanging in front of neighboring colonials, ranches, and bungalows.
Oakes’ masterful command of the broad literature of slavery, race, and the Civil War era allows him to trace the parallel journeys of two iconic American leaders. Oakes tells an absorbing and didactic story, shifting between accounts of Lincoln and Douglas and ending with their meetings in the White House. By portraying Douglas as a character of equal significance as Lincoln, Oakes not only provides insight into Douglas’s life but also enriches the study of Lincoln. The convergence of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas during the nation’s greatest crisis reveals “what can happen when progressive reformers and savvy politicians make common cause”
He explains that a lack of perspective and superficial analysis meant that the constructive accomplishments of the Civil War era had been ignored . Essentially, “the two-dimensional characters that Dunning’s followers highlighted” reflects exaggeration and a failure to acknowledge the abolitionists’ efforts as “the last great crusade of the nineteenth century romantic reformers.” In additional Some of Stamps works have also focused on the idea of a ‘guilt theory’ where he details that the political impacts of succession during the Civil War era resulted in southern defeat due to an “internal collapse of morale among southerners.” However the plausibility of this argument remains questionable due to stamps lack of empirical evidence.
On September 2nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln famously signed the Emancipation Proclamation. After that, there’s been much debate on whether Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation truly played a role in freeing the slaves with many arguments opposing or favoring this issue. In Vincent Harding’s essay, The Blood-red Ironies of God, Harding argues in his thesis that Lincoln did not help to emancipate the slaves but that rather the slaves “self-emancipated” themselves through the war. On the opposition, Allen C Guelzo ’s essay, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, argues in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and Guelzo acknowledges Lincoln for the abolishment of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Reconstruction (1865-1877) was a period during which the life of the defeated South was to be returned to normal; it was also a time when the Black Americans attained some rights thanks to Lincoln and the Republican part of the Congress and despite Johnson’s intentions. An extremely violent time, it is sometimes called “the darkest period of American history”; still, it brought many important progressive changes to the US. Abraham Lincoln is known for proclaiming the black slaves Emancipation in 1863; he was convinced that it was necessary for the North to win the war. Lincoln believed that the Confederate states needed to be reintegrated back into the US while preserving the abolition of slavery; however, the 16th President wasn’t planning