tv The Civil War Divided Families in the Civil War CSPAN March 3, 2018 6:00pm-6:58pm EST
person discusses how families cope with divided loyalties between the union and confederacy before, during, and after the civil war. she is the author of "the divided family and civil war america." the library in virginia, richmond, the american civil war easy them, and a virginia center for civil war history -- museum, and a virginia center for virginia birth -- forget the civil war history cohosted this event. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you so much for joining us for the american civil war symposium. ordinary people, extraordinary times. next up on our roster -- where she received the 2016 great teacher award. of -- at the unif
new york in the state of albany. she received her phd studying under dr. -- and dr. gallagher. dr. taylor is a member of the board of editors of the journal of southern history and advisor editor for the civil war monitor magazine and coeditor of the university of georgia press is on civil war series. her current book project -- of the manyy thousands of men and women and children who fled slavery during the civil war and examined how their day to day experiences shaped the way emancipation unfolded in the united states.
book derived from her dissertation provided family in the civil war. in 2005.published that book is the topic of her program today. i present to you dr. amy morel taylor. >> it is indeed a real pleasure to be back here in virginia, where much of my research and interest in this history was ignited. i want to start today with this image. i think i'm not the only one out takes a specific book, a specific moment, a teacher, may be a story that first
ignited our interest in this history. booke part of me was this that part of my interest was this book. in 1887.blished a pectoral book of anecdotes and incidents. it looked old, therefore looked kind of cool on the shelf. occasionally i would find myself in moments of boredom, picking it up. and starting to look at some stories that were contained in this ready thick volume. stories of the unusual, stories of the outlandish. i had sort of been raised to assume the civil war was not funny. my eye was drawn in particular to headlines like love and
treason. that rebel is my brother. stories of divided families. families that could not work for their political differences. families in which brother sometimes guns and turned around and killed one another in the process. husbands andhich wives found themselves arguing over slavery and secession and union. me that i part of would assume these stories were really made up because they are dramatic and eye-catching. they couldn't be true, right to? .hey make a good story there are a number of authors out there who have made these stories are integrated them.
wrong, and that's what i learn in the years i followed the discovery this book. and began looking more deeply into the lives of civil war families. they existed and surprising numbers. their stories were every bit as dramatic as they described in a book like this. i'm going to tell you about some most of families and all about the struggle that was so elemental in this war. i think we often have the came.tion that war they stuck with that side and was pretty clear-cut. these families show us how wartime allegiances can be quite conflicting, quite agonizing. they could change over time.
the civil warof up your far less clear-cut than their stories. this is health misery newspaper put it in 1861. there is scarcely it -- scarcely a family that is not divided. he wrote that there are thousands of families in the same situation. out, is noit turns exaggeration and low balls the total number. in states and the upper south and border region, states like missouri and tennessee, kentucky and maryland, delaware, and right here in virginia. this is where the civil war most often hits families. this is also the region where we see members of statehouses against one another. region as one kentuckian
put it, where treason and loyalty overlaps. it's the region where mary todd lincoln came from, from kentucky, from lexington. kentuckian herhe found herself facing half sibling on the confederate side. stonewall jackson found himself pretty painfully divided from his sister. those are two of the best-known cases but this is the phenomenon that affected the ordinary in keeping with our team today. i think it's important to point out that this is a phenomenon deeply connected in many ways. this is something that white families experienced. lee talked about the hardships of african-american families, the way they were torn
apart in different families. did,s what white families african americans of course were pretty unified around the union. this existence of whites divided families is all the more when one considers how these americans in the middle of the 19th century. cherished about family. constant, onene belief shared by americans north and south, east and west, it is that family life was to be private. occupy life -- what they consider to be public life. family was to be a protected space.
increasingly considering a heartless competitive public world. this is especially important to the civil war generation as they had lived through some pretty wrenching change already. the united states was increasingly no longer a land of independent farmers, but a place where factories are being established. a place where cities were markets,p around those where immigrants were coming to populate those cities, and where railroads and canals and steamboats were allowing immigrants to raise rates all across the land. -- panic came and went . a war with mexico in the 1840's. throughout the wrenching change, the family was idealized. it was supposed to remain that way during the civil war.
at least that's what brutus clay's -- brutus clay thought. , you mayclay immediately think of henry clay. brutus had a brother named cassius. named brutus and cassius. i don't have to explain. cassius was an outspoken abolitionist at the time. a member of the kentucky state house -- brutus was a member of the kentucky state house. the civil war was about saving the united states from ruin. owner.clay was a slave he owned 100 men, women, and children.
he believed slavery was best protected in the union. he felt this was so obvious and self evidence that he couldn't even imagine why some kentuckians would consider -- orng or watering wanting their state to secede. son beganwn expressing some secessionist 1860's he had begun attending pro-secession rallies. in time he to, despite being the son of the unionist father, began talking like a diehard sympathizer. a dilemma on her hands, we might
say. it was and who tended to be home toh zeke, watching over metric matters while brutus was away at the state capital. the first one to figure out that father and son may seem to be heading down these divergent paths. what should she do? should she tell brutus what is going on? that would undoubtedly infuriate him. she wanted to avoid that as much as she could. she even believed to zeke in the first place. she knew zeke was a bit of a hothead. she thought this was useful acting out. maybe when over time things will settle down. she kept quiet.
the war changed and seek did not settle down. one day she came upon him on her living room where she was on the charges -- gun cartridges. he merely said i'm just making these for my father. he told and he was going loon hunting. that's not what he was doing. that evening off and left behind this note. i leave for the army tonight.
i beg forgiveness. goodbye to you all. it says you will hear from me soon. that's the kind of note i would leave for my parents. and clay was infuriated come it was bad enough he had gone off to join the confederacy. he had to fight his father. brutus, upon hearing the news, and i will use the note to stand heard thee, when he news he didn't stop to fume or to write a response. he simply announced he would immediately disinherit seek.
he wrote back and said can i keep my wristwatch? he had his priorities. zeke'sy's reaction to partner was -- others were quick to see their sons departures. just like another coming-of-age struggle on a young man's road to adulthood. that is the most common pattern. you do not tend to see a confederate father with a union son, it was usually the reverse. this was a boy who wanted to assert his independence from his father. of course a boy like that is going to be seduced by the mystique of the rebels. parents did not see this as an act of deeply felt politics. brutus was not about to start debating politics with his son. matters -- the war
may have rudely intruded on their family life. possible to deflect the awards -- deflect the wars again. that was brutus clay's way of doing that. when he announced this he will be dealt with. i'm going to reassert my power over him. some opted to retrieve their sons from the confederate army and make them stay home. still others refused to send money or aid when their sons asked for it, using the leverage of their accustomed parental support to force their sons return home again. briskly may have opted for the most extreme form of punishment summit's inheritance against zeke. and maybe in part because he was already feeling pretty powerless over another errant child, his daughter, martha.
i don't have her picture, either. in the 1850's, martha had married a man named henry davenport and moved with him to jefferson county, virginia, now, west virginia. and although she was initially sympathetic with the north in the secession crisis, when her new husband opted to side with the confederacy in the war and actually join the confederate army, martha switched loyalty to the south. she became pretty outspoken about her newfound confederate loyalty and her letters home to her father, and reading them, is are we dealing with zeke and now he's getting letter from martha -- letters from martha that are very pro-confederate and sentiment. in nearly drove him mad. he wanted to do something about it, but it took the unlikely intervention of his brother, clay. -- caches he says i figured to overlook
her secession is him, because it is a virtue and a woman to go with her husband and all things very so don't think about her politics, don't take the politics that seriously, what's important is she is deferring to her husband, let's honor that marital relationship read -- relationship. that's exactly how u.s. army major from vermont approach his own situation in -- situation. willard may be filled -- familiar to you. like to stay in high-end hotels, you know the willard hotel. the was named after joseph and his brother, who were owners of the hotel during the civil war. course is where the lincoln stage, before lincoln's first inauguration, it was also the site of so many visits and meetings between union political
and military notables during the war. joseph did not begin the war he left ite hotel, behind in the hands of his brother and when often served in the new army. by march 1863, he was assigned to guard duty at old capital prison in washington. in that month he was called on to escort a new prisoner there. a woman named antonio ford. ford was the daughter of a prominent local merchant in fairfax, virginia. as well as a loyal confederate. she had been61, camp an honorary aid to cade for jeb stuart. and sometime in the intervening years, she worked her way into a position spying for the confederacy. a entirely surprising, women were some of the confederacy's best spies.
because there were plenty of men out there who were unwilling to believe that a woman would mix yourself up in such matters, and so her gender provided a great cover. unit officials eventually wised at oneord's actions and point, accused her of providing key information to the confederacy that enabled a successful confederate raid on the new headquarters in fairfax courthouse. after doing that, union authorities arrested her. forward -- brought ford to the prison and to joseph willard. they struggle conversation pretty quickly and this would continue over the six months that she was imprisoned at old capital. forde end of it, antonia founded that she would quote love you as long as i live. the confederate spy and reunion guard had fallen for one another. they weren't the only ones. the war created all sorts of
situations that brought enemy men and women together, from the occupation of towns that run unit soldiers and women together on the streets, to the prisons that incarcerated disloyal women like ford, to the hospitals that mixed surgeons, nurses, patients, and volunteers. and very often their interaction was very bitter, often violent. and there is some really important research that being done right now about assault and rape that certainly emerged from these sorts of interactions. though, as this case suggests and many others, familiarity doesn't always breed contempt and violence. enemywere other ways the men and women responded. that's what the little daily journal noticed when it sent a reporter to nashville. theite the women walking streets with pistols and getting arrested for spitting on union officers, the paper noted that over time, such hostilities
seems to be softening in nashville. a number of young ladies of nashville who were at first very fierce towards the u.s. officers, have come around. we said they would. another paper reporting from nashville -- these are union papers, the missouri statesman wrote women in the city by early 1865 or quarter" dropping off into the arms of union soldiers. ifl the boys down in dixie they don't return soon, they won't find a single girl or widow below conscript age in these parts. the national daily press noted that a number of such relationships had formed among volunteer nurses, patients, and doctors in the city. mds seem 1864 that the to make the most headway in marrying the fair daughters of dixie. what a world we live in, it exclaimed. these relationship for fascinating and very likely
exaggerated and even made up his newspapers. echoi cannot go -- can what he said about newspapers. they made a a lot and they loved to make up stories about these families. why would they do it? in some of these cases, but these articles are really doing is jabbing at those confederate men. look what's happening in your absence. you're not only losing your women, they certainly are not paying attention to you anymore. what kind of men are you? the kind of gender warfare, you might say. even if these are all exaggerated or made up, intersectional romances did exist. those involved were less fascinated by the situation then worried in the time of war. they wanted nothing else than to keep their relationships secret and out of the press. they didn't want people talking about them. because one thing, the reputations were on the line.
the loyalty could be called into question. joseph willard knew this well. what would it look like for a union officer to fall for a confederate woman? even worse, what would it look like for a man to fall for a woman who failed to defer to his politics. it's a virtue of a woman to go with a husband and all things, so what kind of man was he to put up with something else? joseph willard could not let her go either and they began envisioning the future together. at one point, joseph proposed to antonia, suggesting they get married secretly. but there, antonia drew the line. you know i love you, she said, but major, i can never consent to a private marriage. instead, she offered another way out. i know you are true to the government and i love you nonetheless for it, she continued. but the obstacle is with you, not me. joseph could remove that obstacle by resigning from the
union army. he laugh, just wait. joseph considered her plan seriously, but was concerned, again, not telling his superior officers that he wanted to resign to marry a confederate. with either accept his resignation on those grounds? probably not. but then he gave with another plan. he would resign, on the grounds of needing to tend to his family's business back in washington, d.c. and that's what he did. he did resign, they married and went quietly to the willard hotel in washington and had three children. you might wonder how on earth is actually worked. there wasn't that much discord between them. ?ow did they make this work the key was similar to what we saw with fathers and sons.
retreating into private life and making sure both spouses were no longer talking more acting publicly on their loyalty. men had to resign and willard was not the only one who did the best thing. women had to stop getting involved publicly, parading their politics visibly as antonia ford had done. it was less like that to attract attention and to attract critics. they could kind of live with their opposing sentiment and manage it as long as it was contained in the family and the private sector. as long as the kind of domesticated their differences. this was much harder to do for siblings divided across the union confederate border, especially brothers. they quickly realized that differences in political opinion can translate into opposing sides in an actual battle.
during the wars opening months, some of them tried to take action to prevent that worst-case scenario from happening. one confederate decided to rush to volunteer first before his brother did, thinking it might discourage his brother from then volunteering for the other side. as he wrote to their sister, he must not take sides against me, i am the oldest and have a right to the first choice. and if i decide to fight, is what he is saying. but that eventually, conscription came, leaving brothers with less of a choice about whether to take up arms, and in many cases then, this was met with quite a change in june. -- in tune. if he is ever exchanged a mutiny on the battlefield, i will fight him or anybody else wrote a missouri unionist on hearing the news of his confederate brothers imprisonment. i would strike down my own brother if you dare raise a flat -- a hand to destroy that flag wrote another unionist in virginia. in still another -- if i could
meet any of my relatives or my brother on the battlefield, they were there be considered as my enemies and treated as such. some of this may be the kind of bluster we would expect in a time of war, in the heat of the moment. it was also in keeping with the pervasive sense of honor possessed by civil war soldiers. this was another way they could prove themselves to be diehard partisans for their cause, if they said they were willing to confront their kin in battle. brothers though, more than any other family relation divided by this war came to embrace the idea that there can should be treated like an enemy. and yet they still have their limits. this is only how they related to one another in the heat of battle. as soon as the fighting stopped, though, something different took over. that enemy became a brother again. i'll give you one example. that appeared in an article in the little daily journal -- louisville daily journal,
reporting from perryville. , theding to this article regal battle, there were two brothers with the last name hopkins. they didn't identify the first names. one brother was a confederate and the other was a unionist hopkins. and fighting is broken out and a one point, the new miss shoots into a crowd of confederates and shoots his own brother, and he falls. according to the article, the union brother approached his wounded brother immediately thereafter, told the mortally wounded confederate that he had quote done on purpose, and then left. night, as things that settle down, the new brother returned to the scene of the battle, brought water on a blanket and stayed with his ailing brother for half the night. the weber explained the actions of that brother by the fact that he was quote a man of fami this is quite a story treated --
story. stories ofers loved brother against brother. you go through any civil war newspapers were going to see " brother shoots brother" as a title to the stories. some are exaggerated or made up. that is how i viewed the perryville story. i assumed it was made up. until i went to kentucky. i provided some of the staff. the storynterested in and have confirmed there were two brothers named hopkins. they were there that day. maybe this was true. who knows3 -- knows? illustrate a more widely repeated pattern of brothers divided.
relationship.l as one brother put it, we are enemies but private friends. even as these families with two varying lengths to separate their private lives from public conflict, there was something else working against their efforts. that was less inclined to believe that a husband and wife could safely maintain their relationship or that brother still love each other yet maintain loyalty to each side. something preferred to look upon these families with more suspicion. someone is a collective, government officials on both sides. union and confederacy looked upon divided families with suspicion. might these families use their personal connections to pass
torets, offer treasonous aid the enemy, or otherwise support the cause? cause?ert the can these families be trusted? it is a question that union marshal officials asked in many places. they worked to prevent families from traveling across the lines. there were restrictions affecting anybody trying to this war, buts in divided families got little understanding. they were deemed suspicious and not allowed to travel across the lines. it was a question, can these families be trusted? whoas asked by mail sensors would, when families try to send mail across the line, they would find their mail opened and read. there was a union policy that if you wanted to send a letter across the lines, not only did you have to pay the postage of both sides but your letter can only be one page long and it had
to be focused only on family and domestic affairs. to the policy, it is supposed be benign. centersthese mail sounded a little troubling to see these warm sentiments being passed across the lines between family members. i will come back to that in a moment. this whole question, can families be trusted, it was asked of abraham lincoln and his extended relatives. family included. she found herself subject to scathing news accounts in the weeks that followed. aid and comfort for the enemy, that was the title of one of the news accounts. in the story, the reporters accused her of smuggling gold in her skirts on the way back to the south.
went further, accusing lakin of being overly indulgent of his confederate family members. ,ome went so far as to say well, lincoln, he has offered aid and comfort to the enemy. the union is thus a trade in the white house, according to one newspaper account. these were great exaggerations. it was no quincy and's that the most exaggerated stories of martha tod trip came from democratic newspapers. lincoln's greatest critics in the north. air.was his reelection the it was a story trumped up to help jab at him in an election year. the lincolns became exhibit a for why divided family should not be trusted. when that distrust led to these policies, howve
could these divided families expect to maintain any sort of emotional bond if they lived on either side of the line? up with somee interesting ways of maintaining contact. 1863, the richmond inquirer in new york daily news launched an ad exchange. it is an interesting moment of a northern and southern newspaper in the war working together. they launched an ad exchange. somebody could take out a personal ad in the new york daily news and the richmond inquirer would repent -- reprint those ads so that people in virginia could read it. the reverse was true as well. takingmembers started out the short asked to try to communicate with a family member in the other state i will read one to you. you can see this one on the screen. it is from albany, new york.
she is writing to her mother. she says, your communication was thankfully received. i was anxious to hear from you not having received anywhere from you since april last. it was welcome. home. well and at hoping to meet soon. this is a daughter in new york to her mother in richmond. here is another one. folks all well. no news from kate. and sarah dead. money in bank for you. have startedhotel, twice to see you but cannot get there. heard from you sometime ago an answer. from you again.
check. a very short amount of space. he jammed all sorts of updates and. it is short, very public, not intimate. it seems innocuous communication across the lines. deal.ally much of a big it does not seem like it should be from the vantage point of a union or confederate authority. there was one union of who found it problematic. this is the union judge advocate general joseph holt. when he got wind of this ad exchange, he quickly shut it down. he concluded the system was a violation of the laws of war. why? the ads offered aid and comfort to the enemy. affect ina very great inducing them to persevere in it there disloyal and traitorous purposes. getting this expression from love from a
family member in new york is giving them enough comfort to continue on for their fight for the confederacy, that is what holt is seeing. what both newspapers criticized him for this decision. the new york daily news lamented aat the judge believed mother's affection is treason. they had no choice. old newspapers compliant -- complied and shut it down. it showed that no matter how these families thought they could handle their differences on the run privately, no matter how much they thought they could separate their private relationship from the public loyalties, there were plenty of others around who were less confident in their ability to do so. even a private relationship with problematic in this war. well, for years of work, what happened to them? families.ned these by the end of the war it took real work to --
have these relationships survive. it was common to see a union family member reach out to a confederate in their family. sometimes they would reach out by offering practical assistance. , do youht offer money want to come live with me? offer help in appealing to union authorities for a parole or a pardon for a confederate family member. a sense of duty kicking and for some of these family members. recognized that their confederate family had a long way to go to get back on their feet. in the clay family, i will come back to them, what happened? 1865, rude as had been elected to congress from kentucky. he was elected in 1863. he was a democrat.
in january he writes home to his wife and clay and says he had gone straight to the top for help in getting his son some assistance. what did the kidney? zeke need? imprisoned. brutus saw an opportunity there to get him a little bit of help. disinherited his son. he wrote, i called to see the president today in regards to ezekiel. he treated me kindly and gave me has promise to release him as a prisoner of war on his parole to go on. you may therefore expect him home soon. getus had gotten a deal to ezekiel out of prison. art of the deal was that he was not going to be going back to
fight. he was going to be watched over by his family again. among the willard's and ford in this case, you would expect the war to have taken quite a toll. among the 750,000 killed in this war, antonio ford lost a brother who have served in the confederate army. the two remained married. i had their children. after the work, joseph willard all of france. he upper for some of her younger siblings to come live with them and he would pay for their education. one of her sisters did agree to come and do that. antonia died in 1871. not too long after the war. joseph never married. they had a son also named joseph who went on to serve in the virginia house. he became lieutenant governor of
virginia. he can be ambassador to spain. he had a daughter who would later marry kermit roosevelt. have this virginia new york family into marrying -- intermarrying. other families found it harder. if they offer gestures of practical assistance over the lines, it was difficult to achieve any full reconciliation. any sort of emotional reconciliation. these families felt the permanence of war. these divided families tried not to let that happen. they tried not to let resentment and anger overtake any affection they once had for one another. the most common way they tried to do it was to urge one another to simply forget what had happened. forget the war. forget what it was all about. fear get what we differed over.
-- forget what we differed over. i cannot say the number of times the following phrases are included in the letters. let bygones be bygones. let the dead past bury the dead. they are imagining a reconciliation but one that requires forgetting. forgetting quite a bit. that is a big thing task. how can they forget after four years of war and 750,000 killed? how can they simply put the civil war and everything that this war was about behind them? they had a hard time. the emotional wounds remained very raw. some families correspondence stopped over time. it had continued after the war but it would eventually die out. some cases a portrait was turned against the wall of a family member. some never saw each other again. george henry thomas here in virginia never visited his
confederate sisters again. uniquenessackson's to ar had been married confederate. they eventually divorced. survived,nal scars even if family duty could to some degree survive as well. in many ways the stories of these families are very difficult and incomplete reconciliations became a metaphor for the nation. it became very useful in the later decades of the 19th century. americans were grappling about for ways to remember this war ways to forget slavery and much of what this war was about. these divided families became useful. image in thentral fiction of the time, in the poetry of the time, in the cartoons of the time. as avision the nation
family that is divided and is now reuniting is to envision the nation in reconciliation in a way that forgets what divided them and emphasizes what has always kept them there from the start. i will leave it there. thank you for your attention. [laughter] -- [applause] i'm also happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you so much. wonderful talk. a couple of questions, thinking about peter's work about generational divides. you mentioned the sons rebelling against, joining the confederacy against the uniqueness father. -- union father.
i have a question about the change over time aspects. with the confederacy, there were times when women due to hardship at home demanded the husband luxuriating in serving in the confederate army in coming home. when union armies invaded the home, women moved back towards being the fiercest confederates of the all -- them all and attacked their husbands and sons for cowardice. >> great question. you brought up generation. thisf our speakers later afternoon has written a wonderful book about generation and southern men in this war. women, the scenario you just described, there are plenty of confederate women out there who get disenchanted with the war effort but not the confederacy.
they draw a distinction in their minds. they might want their husband to desert and come home, but they are not becoming a unionist necessarily. there is important distinction to draw there. i was just wondering, i knows -- notice you drop the 750,000 sicker. >> i just threw it out there like it is conventional wisdom. i think it is becoming. i do not know when this was. there was incredible work done to recalculate the civil war dead. there was an article in the journal of civil war history by jacob hacker was the lead researcher on this. he took a different approach to accounting. he did a complex analysis of the
census, getting into the postwar. i cannot explain to you how it works. i found it convincing. i am not sure if that sounds convincing to you. i think 750 now is the new conventional wisdom. >> thank you for your talk. i'm intrigued by the willard story. antonia ford, any further context? did she just stop her spying? was that true? anymore context there? any did not find every -- evidence of further spying. that would be a coup on her part. there was not any indication of that. she has an interesting story. denialas some postwar that she ever really spied for
the confederacy on the part of some union men and some confederates. into a lot of the documents of the time, it is clear she was up to something and there was a reason why the union arrested and imprisoned her for six months. the was a bit of postwar denial wanting to diminish the significance of not just what she did but some of these confederate women in general, or any woman who was acting and such a political sort of way. continuede that she spine. -- spiking. -- spying. >> i was curious about the clay and davenport families. i'm sorry.s -- the letters. where are the best sources for those folks that you used?
>> in that particular case, their family papers are in manuscript form. when i started this book, it just started as a curiosity thing. i did not know if i would find any examples of this being true. ng te. to go find, i wanted family papers. i did not want to we're about it from the newspapers to start with. i wanted to hear it from them. it was a difficult task to find those collections. they are not catalogued under divided family. it was not easy to find. you goed to find that if to an archive in kentucky or you are or missouri, not going to have trouble finding some. i happened upon the clays. i had read some older works about the clays that had
mentioned some family division. that gave me a clue. this was all in their papers that they left behind. >> thank you for that. i want to follow up a little on adrian's question about generations. a hardeneded rolesicity with distinct for private space and public space. that a bully amongst northern leaning households and southern winning households? i am thinking back to older generations of photography that might describe southern public platforms for masculine honor. you find that this hardened domesticity in southern households as well, what does
that suggest about southern family life in contemporary america the time? >> yeah. just to bring anybody up to speed. there has long been an assumption that in the 19th century ideals about family went a shift. we see it coming out of the north, out of the industrial north, andurban middle-class families in particular who could start to envision work as something separate from their household. they were no longer living in households that were productive units and farms. they were starting to be able to live in households where a man would leave and go to work somewhere else during the day. this sort of shift started generating a belief that this was the ideal. this was how things should be. there should be this difference between public and private. this hardened domesticity.
we have long assumed that the andh with its plantations households that are very much focus on production that the south would not have attached themselves to this idea. what i found was, they still talk that way. a big difference between the way people talk and what they aspire to and what they think is right. there is always a gap between that and what things really are. see in thesewe can families a lot of intersection between public and private lives. journals, inrary their magazines, they are talking about how there should be a great distinction between public and private. is, youse family show can talk this way. families are never going to be insulated from public life. .t is always going to intrigued every single one of these families shows that, north or south.
>> you mentioned something about how many times you have read let a bygones. icons -- it made me think about all the monuments, memorials, confederate flag having been erected then. it is still around. i thought about, well, if we completely forgot about it it would be over now and it would have saved a lot of time on social media and stuff. was this forgetting movement in the memorialization of the movement to separate movements or were they part of the same thing? if they were separate, how do they feel about each other? >> they are all part of the same thing. what i described to you in these families is a mode of more
inlicit impulse that is also the monuments. family are saying is, let us not talk politics or slavery, let us not talk about all the things that bothered us. part of the 19th century when you see these thisents go up, part of lost cause memorialization effort, a lot of what it is doing is forgetting or setting aside so that we cannot see the difficult issue of slavery that was behind this war. it is all of one piece. that is why these families become a useful image and metaphor of that memorialization effort. see a dividedot family step 2%, but a lot of the same people behind the monuments are loving stories of these families that emphasize the nation as a family. we can come together based on our shared past, our shared
when you envision the nation as a family you are emphasizing what you share, you are downplaying what divides you. >> thank you. i really enjoyed your talk and the topic here. however, i was mostly intrigued by your first slide. the book that had drawn your initial interest. i had not seen anything like that. when was this published and how big was it? what was in it? there, i gott -- it. it is part of an interesting genre of anecdote book. dr. robinson has a huge library. he probably knows more about this type of publication. they pulled from newspapers at the time from the civil war years.
i do not know where they get some of the stories. they are very short, less than a page. it is exactly what it says. and i don't of the rebellion. sometime in the latter part of the 19th century, people want a little bit of humor and fun about this or two. it is still a piece with the memorialization effort. thank you. [applause] >> you are watching american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span3. join the conversation, like us on facebook at c-span history. the home to 38 federally recognized native american tribes. this nation is one and has a strong presence here. join us as we visit their culturer