"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us."
Grant was framing not only the narrative of his life but also the national themes of reunion and reconciliation among former combatants in 1885 that predominated following Reconstruction.
There was, of course, a countervailing regional 'Lost Cause' narrative whose embers still glow today. and others that would not be seriously confronted at the national level until the Civil Rights era. Still, Grant gave expression to a sentiment that had great persistence in Civil War memory for more than a century: one that 20th century reunions of aged veterans who embraced their former foes on the battlefields of their youth only served to strengthen.
Today the great-great-grandsons and granddaughters of those old men, to the degree that they give any thought to the meaning of the Civil War at all, are obviously not informed by direct experience of those times, or even personal contact with those who lived and took part in the events of mid-19th century America. My grandmother told me what her mother told her, and her mother was born in 1874 and so heard it from an earlier generation. We may draw on the powerfully compelling second-hand narrative spun in Ken Burn's PBS documentary, or on agendas that have much more to do with personal politics and identity than with an informed and dispassionate understanding of Civil War history.
We are also in a different place in our national dialogue than our predecessors were even 50 years ago during the Centennial. In some cases we seem to have moved forward, as our discussion at the national level now emphasizes the importance of slavery and African American memory in our interpretation of the causation and significance of this conflict. But there is a notable backlash as well, and not only from unrepentant racists but also among those who feel that personal and collective values of Southern pride and heritage are threatened by accusations that what their ancestors did for the Confederacy was treasonous and in defense of white supremacy.
One hears the same old belief of an affirmative right to secede that Lincoln so compellingly dispelled in his his first inaugural address. Our "bonds of affection" that he urged his fellow countrymen in the South not to break in 1861 make it virtually unthinkable today that a region of the United States would be willing and able to secede from the Union today, but so does our Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation in a deliberate effort to establish a national government that could withstand fragmentation by entrenched sectional interests.
Why is it so important to some of our fellow Americans to defend what their ancestors did in taking up arms in the cause of secession? Why is it so difficult to say today, as Grant did in 1885, that the valor of their Confederate ancestors is beyond dispute, while acknowledging that they did not go to war primarily because of tariffs, or the rights of States to self rule, but first and foremost to preserve and defend a way of life and personal identity sustained by the enslavement of people of color? Why are these two sentiments incompatible?
Pride and shame create a powerful dissonance that warps and distorts memory and prevents us from seeing with clear eyes. We who admire our forebears do not want to be condemned by their actions, and all of us stand on the shoulders of those who came before, no matter how firm the foundation that grounds their feet (sometimes feet of clay). Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but only the very foolish and irresponsible would march through Little Italy on Columbus Day in black shirts waving the banner of fascism marked with "Heritage not Hate" and claiming it was about nothing but Italian Pride.
"Above all, the prophets remind us of the moral state of a people. Few are guilty, but all are responsible".
We are talking about the responsibility that we the living have to the past and to society - a responsibility that understands the need for honest appraisal of historical evidence as well as causality. I am not guilty for what my ancestors did, but I have a responsibility to understand them as social actors who made choices for good or ill based on what they possessed and what they knew that have consequences extending to our time.
We can, and should appreciate the impact of slavery on the economic and social stratification of the United States throughout its history and in all regions of the country. It does not excuse the actions of those who supported Secession that northern economic interests benefited from slave labor, or that every state in the Union had slavery at the time of the Revolution. It does not make the cause of southern Independence any less about maintaining the institution of slavery that Confederate armies made use of black labor (and eventually a very very small number of blacks under arms). Washington's army at Yorktown, lest we forget, was estimated by a French observer to be fully 25% American American soldiers, not all of whom were free.
I say this in full knowledge that each of us has a core identity that places different emphasis on its various components. Those in the dominant culture, and part of the dominant narrative, may be less inclined to identify first and foremost by region, or ethnicity, or the events of 150 years ago. Those who place religion, or gender, or language, or landscape ahead of other considerations of identity may engage with that narrative quite differently.
At the time of the American Revolution, the various colonies along the eastern seaboard were so geographically and economically isolated from each other that "easterners" from New England considered Pennsylvania part of the south. A strong case could be made that the Continental army was able to draw on soldiers from these disparate regions, though they rarely served all together, because of the unique personal qualities of George Washington, and that otherwise as Ben Franklin so memorably depicted in a political cartoon from the French and Indian War, it was truly a case of "Join or Die".
The Declaration of Independence transformed the fight of the Colonies from armed resistance in defense of their rights as Englishmen to a national struggle for self-determination. The Emancipation Proclamation made the abolition of slavery a central war aim of the Union, but as Lincoln said in 1861 it was always the center of the conflict.
"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."
I believe we can honor our ancestors for their admirable qualities and their misdeeds, without needing them to be infallible or blameless. I believe we can look at atrocities and injustices honestly, whether perpetrated by the victors or the vanquished. I believe that we will still be rehashing the causes and justifications for our Civil War and flogging those old dead horses until and unless we put pride and shame aside, and start taking responsibility to give an honest appraisal of the evidence of history and its legacy today.