engaged in an 80 mile campaign. cautious of rather found the union army in front of atlanta and seemingly content to stay there, while the southern army underwent a change in leadership. union efforts in virginia were more complicated and far more bloody. but for a time, the end result seem just as empty. were driven in flight from the shenandoah valley, thereby leaving pressure on that vital legion. the widely heralded grants was soundly defeated in the wilderness, beaten back in spotsylvania, and almost massacred at cold harbor. krentz managed to slip across the chains and pulled up from the eastern outskirts of petersburg. grant's 100 mile overland campaign contained the most vicious fighting in the war. the once powerful army of the potomac stuck with 65,000 losses in six weeks. northern morality limited. democrats were announcing grant .s a bullheaded butcher they declared, patriotism is played out. we are gone. another union official proclaimed, each hour is sinking us deeper into bankruptcy and desolation. atlanta stood defiant. grant was no closer this summer than george

don't know what you are doing. you think you can tear to pieces this great union without war? there will be bloodshed. the north can make a locomotive or railroad car. hardly a yard of cloth or shoe can you make the review are bound to fail. only your spirit of determination knows that you are prepared for war. that was depressing considering how clueless he was about slavery. he goes north. he cannot find the right command. he is a valuable commodity, suddenly, because the union needs trained military officers. john, who is becoming more significant as a politician, gets him an appointment with abe lincoln. they go to the white house. lincoln is in a room full of people, office keepers of one sort or another -- finally wanders over to john and sherman and sits down within. john says, this is my brother from louisiana. he might be able to tell you something about what they are doing. lincoln says, how were they getting along? sherman replies, they think they are getting along swimmingly. they are preparing for war. to which lincoln smiles and says, i guess we managed. this shocks sh

justify their split from the union and their defeat. he argues that slavery and not ts was the primary reason for secession. he also disputes other reasons for the lost cause myth. defeated lee only because of superior troop numbers and resources. the smithsonian associates hosted this two our event. hour event. >> good evening everyone. can everyone hear me well? i am a program coordinator with the smithsonian associates. i would like to welcome you all to a stimulating program on the myth of the lost cause. it is always a pleasure to welcome ed own cap her back to the smithsonian. through the years, he has presented many outstanding programs to us on the civil war topics. this is his 10th appearance. he is the book review editor of -- "civile editor." he was an adjunct professor at muhlenberg college degrees from old dominion university and muhlenberg college as well as a law degree from jail. theerved as a lawyer with federal government for more than 34 years. as a retired commander in the u.s. coast guard reserve as well. he is the author of six books on civil war history i

marking the beginning of a reconstruction process. second, he looks at the wartime goals of the union and if these were in fact achieved. part ofr long talk was a daylong symposium held at the library of virginia in richmond. >> dr. gregory gallagher is the john -- nau center for civil war studies at uva. gary is such a popular speaker that he allows organizations like ours to work him way too hard. but we do it anyway. he flew in a few hours ago. he was jetting up here from florida, where he was speaking at another conference. we do feel a little guilty for asking him back so soon. gary is not only a prolific speaker and author, but a popular battlefield guide, one of the leaders in the preservation movement, an award-winning teacher, and one of the most important mentors of graduate students in civil war history. as i noted when i introduced gary at the 2014 symposium, he dedicated his prize-winning book "the union war" to his graduate students at penn state and the university of virginia with admiration for their contributions to the field. i know his students reciprocate that admi

americans. historians have said that in doing so, this is the moment when union veterans forgot that they had fought a war ignited by slavery. that they remain silent that the union victory had resulted in emancipation. in doing so, they sold out to confederate memories as a lost cause. this afternoon, i hoped to convince you that the place of the spanish-american war and the story of national reconciliation is much more complicated than this. i want to talk you about the ways that buries groups used the -- various groups used the war to reflect back on the civil war and vice a versa. african-americans for their part pointing out that their participation proved that they were citizens entitled to civil and political rights. former confederates argued that their service in the war proved that they were loyal americans and it simultaneously emboldened their defense of the lost cause. while white union soldiers agreed that former confederates might now be committed to fighting a foreign, a common foreign foe, union veterans have not forgotten that there had been a white and wrong side i

end of the civil war and looks at the wartime goals of the union and if they were achieved. this talk was part of a daylong symposium and now, is the director of center forw -- nau civil war studies at uva. a popular speaker that he allows organizations like ours to work him way too hard. but we do it anyway. .e flew in a few hours ago he was jetting up here from florida, where he was speaking at another conference. we do feel a little guilty for asking him back so soon. gary is not only a prolific speaker and author, but a popular battlefield guide, one of the leaders in the preservation movement, an and onenning teacher, of the most important mentors of graduate students in civil war history. as i noted when i introduced hey at the 2014 symposium, dedicated his prize-winning book his graduater" to students at penn state and the university of virginia with admiration for their contributions to the field. i know his students reciprocate that admiration. as just an example of what gary had done for the next generations of historians, our previous speaker is just one example. we ow

judgments that union officers and soldiers made towards southern civilians in the path of war during the american civil war. so that is where that came from. however, having written that book, i have formed an apparently career-long association with william t. sherman. people seem to think i am an expert on sherman, as well. and i have come to learn a fair amount about sherman, two, mostly in self-defense. [laughter] but i can to you that times are changing regard to sherman. and as with many things. in the summer of 2014, an organization called public policy did a poll, asking for the opinions of georgians on william t. sherman. you might imagine they would have opinions on the subject, given his famous urban renewal project. [laughter] there in 1864. however, 56% had no opinion in georgia. only 26% reported disliking sherman. in comparison, 63% reported that they disliked reality tv star honey boo-boo. [laughter] well, so apparently, the image of sherman have shifted over time. some of it that has begun to interest me over the past year or so, it is taking seriously the concepts of the

former union vets had reunited. in 1865 the refusal of the united states government to bury confederate dead in national u.s. cemeteries alongside the concurrent development of confederate national cemeteries by the lady's memorial associations in the south, the dead in other words had served to hinder feelings of reconciliation in the immediate post-civil war period. that the dead had served to keep sectionalism alive. but in 1898 the dead became the chief symbol of a reunited nation or at least that was the hope of many. once again, the blood of north and south flowed. yet this time it did not do so under the name of contending sections, but beneath the same flag. when newspapers learned that one of the first war deaths was worth bagley, a sailor from north carolina and the son of a confederate veteran, they raved with sentiment. there is no north and no south, wrote the new york tribune. we are all worth bagley's country men. so his death was going to reunite the nation. from tennessee came the story of two fathers, one a union veteran, the other a confederate, who met at the graves

with the union. this happens with other indian tribes, too. you have a war within tribes. >> was that politicians or army officers or business interests? or just a combination of all that? >> what drives the train on these? >> yeah. you said this is the way to do it. >> yeah. >> before the 1860s, there was a sense that -- 1830s when the indian removal act was passed, the policy then becomes removing native americans left in mississippi. and there's a sense that -- what's west of the mississippi? the great american desert? you know? it's all grassland. native americans can have that in perpetuity. we don't care. after the american civil war, turned out white america did want the policy that changed. it's within of cultural extinction of trying to break up sort of the glue that kept any communities together. he thought in terms of killing the indians to save the man. and the reason why i mentioned him is because many regular army officers had a certain ambivalence about the mission that they were being asked to carry out. the policy of their country was to place indians on reservations

or any sort of support or activities from the union generals in the war. granted they were probably fighting what for union, maybe not dissolution of slavery. >> one of the things that grant gets somewhat a bad wrap. grant is sympathetic to the plight of blacks in the south and black soldiers in the south. what's interesting is that blacks southerners want him b k back. black americans, they think he's the one guy that will slap down his former enemies and help blacks and black veterans in the south. so there are people, especially during grant's first term, grant does kind of occasionally rouse himself enough to get involved with this issue. i think for most republicans in congress even, it's just kind of time to move on. that endless kind of struggles in the south, sort of wear down people in congress. it looks like the whites are just never going to give up -- you pass the civil rights act, they respond. you pass the klan act, they respond with low will have level vigilante violence. and most of the country, white country is ready to move on after the war. and so the blacks prett

supported the union war effort. he talks about union victories on the battlefield, including the fall of atlanta and the shenandoah valley campaign. this hour long talk was part of a day long symposium held at the library of virginia in richmond. >> now, let me introduce our first speaker. we've charged him with playing the role of keynote speaker to offer something of a history course in reconstruction. to highlight some of the themes in the debates about the post war era about i'm confident that he's up to the task and not just because he's my boss as the chairman of the museum's board. dr. edward l. ayers is founding chairman of the american civil war museum's board. and previously served on the boards of the civil war center and the museum of the confederacy. over the past eight years he's become the face of public history and of the civil war ses k serving as the past of richmond. he's the professor of humanities at the university of richmond. before he began his pioneering work on the digital history at uva, and the studies of the civil war period in augusta county, virginia and fr

stemming from confederate general robert e. lee's surrender to union general ulysses s. grant at appomattox in 1865. he analyzed whether appomattox was the end of the civil war. second, mr. gallagher looks at the wartime goals of the union and if these were in fact achieved. >> dr. gary w. gallagher is the john l. now the third professor in the american civil war at the history of virginia. now that means in o.w. now is the director of the john now that's in au now center for civil war studies at uva. gary is such a popular speaker that he allows organizations like ours to work him way too hard, but we do it anyway. he flew in a few hours ago. he wasn't here right when we started this morning because he was jetting up here from florida where he was speaking at another conference. we're very grateful to gary that we do feel a little guilty for asking him back so soon. gary's not only a prolific speaker and author, but a popular battlefield guide, one of the leaders in the battlefield preservation movement, and award-winning teacher, and one of the most important mentors of graduat

depicting the confederacy and union veterans coming back together. you can see the little girl with cuba and the crown on her head. this war bringing the sections back together. the popular narrative is that by 1898 white northerners and southerners locked hands together in reconciliation to fight together as white americans. historians have said that in doing so this is the moment when union veterans forgot that they had fought a war ignited by slavery, that they remained silent on the fact that union victory had resulted in emancipation. in doing so, they sold out to confederate memory to the lost cause. but this afternoon i hope to convince you that the place of the spanish-american war and the story of national reconciliation is much more complicated than this. today, i'd like to talk to you about the ways in which various groups talk about the civil war to reflect back on the civil war and vice versa. former confederates argued that their service in the war proved that they were loyal americans, and it simultaneously emboldened their defense of the lost cause. while white union sold

war and reconstruction periods. he argues that union troops in the civil war were, quote, merciful, end quote, towards white southerners. and while property was sometimes destroyed, civilian casualties were typically unintentional and few in number. by contrast, u.s. military attacks on native americans in the west frequently left entire villages destroyed with large numbers of women, children and the elderly among the dead. this hour-long talk was part of a day-long symposium held at the library of virginia in richmond. >> ladies and gentlemen, our next speaker is dr. mark grimsley. mark is an associate professor of history, as the football players always say it on tv, the ohio state university. he has received three distinguished teaching awards. he received the 1995 lincoln prize for his first book "the hard hand of war -- union military policy towards southern civilians." it was after he wrote that book i first met him, he came to the chicago civil war round table where i was a member. and talked about the book. he maintains the war historians.org website, focusing on military