(This has been inspired by recent events. I
figured rather than writing an essay explaining my feelings, I’d use this.)
Alex
surveyed the lecture hall, jam-packed on the first day of class. Visiting
professors almost never got this kind of enrollment from students, but, thanks
to the internet, her reputation preceded her.
“Well,
now,” she said, adjusting the position of her headset microphone. “The last
time I checked only history majors required this course, and my roster shows
that nearly half of the students in here have different majors. I assume that
means you came for the, shall we say, ‘other projects’?”
A murmur of
laughter swept through the room.
“I thought
so. Well, anyway, Welcome to Historical Enquiry. Even if it doesn’t fit into
your major, you’ll get some upper division elective credits. I try to make
these lectures as interactive as I can, even if there are three hundred of you.
So, how many of you, by show of hands, attended or watched a video of the
special lecture about Robert E. Lee?”
More hands
went up than did not, which made Alex smile.
“Well,
then, does anyone have a question? Feel free to shout it out. I promise I won’t
be able to identify and embarrass you in a crowd this big.”
A low
rumble of shifting and whisper followed, as was typical in any undergrad class,
but then, someone got the courage up. “Most historians disagree with your
theories about Lee purposefully losing at Gettysburg, that he was a staunch
slave owner and not an abolitionist at all. How do you justify going against
established facts?”
The voice
was male, and came from somewhere on her right, with an echo-y quality that
made Alex think it was about halfway back.
“That’s a
good question. Most of my evidence comes from Lee’s strategies and his general
sentiment towards the United States, but I have to take this to abstraction,
first. You see, the history you were all taught—as far back as elementary
school—was wrong.
“I need to
qualify this. As an example, let’s examine abolitionists and slavery during
this period. It’s true that Lee was no abolitionist as you have come to know
the word, but then I’m willing to bet no one in this room truly understands
what the abolitionists were.
“Of course,
there were those that regard the word as we do today, wanting slaves to be
freed and receive the same rights and privileges as whites. Sadly, those were
considered zealots of the movement, taking things to the extreme. They were even
called, ‘ultra-abolitionists,’ led largely by the Quakers and men like William
Lloyd Garrison. This kind of thinking was not what most who called themselves
abolitionists meant.”
She began
walking across the stage, deliberately walking away from the podium. Using her
small tablet, she called up slides from one of dozens of prepared presentations
and sent one to the room’s projector.
“The
literature majors in the room—and there are few of you—will most likely
recognize this man as Walt Whitman, poet of the mid-nineteenth century. His
famous book Leaves of Grass point
that he was against the institution of slavery, and so, an abolitionist. But do
you know that he was also an editor for The
Brooklyn Daily Eagle? He frequently availed himself by writing editorials
dealing with political topics.”
She clicked
over to the next slide, bringing up one of the quotes she had memorized. “In
the September 1st, 1847 edition, page 2, he wrote ‘The truth is that
all practice and theory . . . are strongly arrayed in favor of limiting slavery
to where it already exists. For this the clear eyes of Washington looked
longingly; for this the great voice of Jefferson plead, his sacred fingers
wrote; for this were uttered the prayers of Franklin and Madison and Monroe.’
From these words, it would be easy to conclude that the man is a staunch
abolitionist, working as hard as possible to stop the extension and progress of
slavery to new states, possibly—many would hope—to lead to the practice’s
extinction.”
A murmur of
agreement ran through the hall. Alex caught sight of a knot of students nodding
their heads in a knowing fashion; most likely a knot of literature students
clustering together for protection.
“However,”
Alex held up an admonishing finger, waggling it to caution everyone. “However,
this is only part of the story. Earlier, in the same editorial,” Alex clicked
to the next slide, “Whitman explains that ‘Slavery is a good thing enough,
(viewed partially,) to the rich—the one out of thousands; but it is destructive
to the dignity and independence of all who work, and to labor itself. An honest
poor mechanic, in a slave state, is put on a par with the negro slave
mechanic—there being many of the latter, who are hired out by their owners.’
“Here we
see that Whitman is not concerned with the moral plight of slaves, that it is
wrong for one man to own another. Instead, he is concerned about ‘the influence
of the institution of slavery is to bring the dignity of labor down to the
level of slavery, which, God knows! is low enough.’
“And while
he clearly equates negroes and slavery with the lowest levels, he feels quite
strongly about ‘the indomitable energy of the Anglo-Saxon character.’ So, yes,
while he does want the practice of slaver ended, it’s not because it’s immoral,
but because it hampers the economic development of lower-class whites.”
The
sound—as Alex liked to think of it—of epiphany rippled through the room.
“Whitman
was not alone as an abolitionist who didn’t care about granting rights to
slaves. There is John O’Sullivan, who is responsible for the phrase ‘manifest
destiny’ in his article ‘Annexation.’” Alex clicked to the next slide, showing
the cover for United States Magazine and
Democratic Review.
“He believed in ‘the eventual voluntary
abolition of slavery,’ as simply a matter of course. However, he also wanted
the ‘ultimate disappearance of the negro race from [U.S.] borders.’
“In fact, many Americans desired
not just the end of slavery but for those slaves to leave the country, so much
so that the American Colonization Society was founded in 1816 to establish Liberia,
specifically for former slaves to emigrate from America. But the number of
slaves far outnumbered what this small colony could hold, which is why
O’Sullivan proposed ‘The Spanish-Indian-American populations of Mexico, Central
America and South America, afford the only receptacle capable of absorbing that
race [negroes] whenever we shall be prepared to slough it off.’
Alex paused a few seconds to let
that sink in. “Whitman and O’Sullivan are not alone. I could go on, easily,
dredging up articles and editorials from dozens of publications, not to mention
what we would find in actual Congressional records on the matter.” She brought
up a new slide listing the names of authors, editors, lawyers, judges, and
politicians who published their thoughts.
“And these are only the written
records we have. What about the illiterate and uneducated masses who voiced
their opinions in local taverns and by their election of these officials to
represent their sentiments?”
She brought up another slide, a
giant question mark, meant as a time for students to ask questions, but she
repurposed it on the fly. “The question, now, is, what is the history? The
version you know from school or what I have just revealed to you? History as
you have been taught it bears the immutable concreteness of carvings in stone.
It is presented as permanent and irrevocable. It is also shallow and conceals
the marble within.
“We are facing controversies now
where many seek to tear down Civil War monuments that take up the side of the
Confederacy. Tear down Lee and Davis; tear down the Confederate Flag. These are
history’s losers, who were bigoted and not worth our remembrance.
“In doing so, it’s a glorification
of the Union and their staunch support of antislavery and civil rights for
African Americans, but as we have just seen, that is an inflated and
romanticized version. It’s long been stated that history is written by the
victor, and is often the case. Many civilizations would even attempt to erase
the history of dissenting parties, seeking to eradicate the ideas they
represent by banishing the legacy. Frequently, they are successful. But of
course, history will repeat itself. The only guard against that repetition is
to learn from the lessons of history.”
She brought up a slide showing the
Mission Statement of US Holocaust Museum.
“We need reminders of dark times.
We need to face that which makes us uncomfortable; denying and changing history
to suit our sensibilities will only allow that history to repeat. We must keep
our discomfort alive to remind us to keep changing.
“And I suppose I should finally get
around to giving a more direct—roundaboutly, anyway—answer to the original
question. I’m glad so many of my colleagues disagree with me. I want them to
question my sources. I want them to examine Lee’s tactics, the words of his
generals, and the man after the war the same as I did. I want them working hard
to look for cracks to prove me wrong. Dissenting opinions regarding history are
good. We must examine everything. We must advance ideas which are contrary to
the established belief. Only by doing so can we chisel away at the unnecessary concrete
to get at what is real underneath. Sometimes I am wrong. I admit it, but that
is no reason for me to stop advancing new ideas. And I do so by the process of
Historical Enquiry.
“The study of history involves
looking at all sources, in delving into all records to try and shine a light on
the past, but in addition to looking at records, writings, and remnants, we
must look at what we don’t have. What has not been said that we would expect?
An omission can be just as telling as what’s been recorded. We must consider the
tapestry of history as a whole to look for inconsistencies in the warp and
weft.”
She brought up section of tapestry
where the threads were reversed over one another in one particular section,
making a slight distortion to the overall picture. “Inconsistencies are rarely
mistakes, aberrations to be ignored; they reveal something more, a larger
narrative and truth to themselves.”
The tapestry zoomed back to reveal
the whole picture, the Bayeux Tapestry, and several spots of inconsistency
appeared, but also formed a pattern, that of a five-pointed star.
“We must look to the whole to
understand the individual points of inconsistency. This thing I call Historical
Enquiry is disjointed at best, more usually maddeningly frustrating as the
patterns refuse to identify themselves. It is only by advancing unpopular and
irreverent theories that we can hope to make sense of them.”
Using a blue laser, she traced the
outline, and there were some gasps. “Don’t get too excited,” she cautioned. “I
Photoshopped that in there to illustrate my point. If finding patterns was as
easy as that, my job would be considerably easier.”
That drew some laughs, and Alex let
it continue before moving on, and taking on a more somber tone. “The greatest
tragedy, when it comes to history, is that one version is advanced as the version of history, a version which
has such popular support as to become not just concrete, but forever enshrined
in marble mausoleums. The study of history needs to be alive, not just because
history is constantly being created, but because we must continue to uncover
what that history actually is.
“When I see the current controversy
regarding Confederate monuments, I’m saddened at the very idea. We sit in
judgement from what we believe is a lofty, superior position without true understanding.
History is not democratic; the number of ‘likes’ ‘retweets’ or comments it
receives does not make it the most valid. That is the way of tyranny. History must
have informed discussion, and be motivated by curiosity. We truly enquire when don’t know answers, not when we are sure
of them. But we have poured the concrete and let it set in the shape we wish it
to be. We create and elevate one faction while disparaging another. History is
complex, and the reduction of it to popular, concrete sentiments is as
damaging—if not more—as erasing and ignoring it.
“We must reveal, rather than
conceal or obscure, our history, for only through such revelation can we truly
know and understand history. The naming of dates and places is not history. The
story, the full tapestry is what teaches us not just about the fact of the
events, but the motivations and historical forces at work. To study the Civil
War is to study what happened before and after. Stretch it back even beyond the
earliest colonization to the roots of institutions of slavery among ancient
peoples. Then carry it forward to the present day and see that sentiments are
still present, that we, as a people, have not changed as much as we claim to
have.”
Alex checked the time, seeing that
the class was nearly over, the entire time spent on that one question. Only
some of the students also checked the time, and fewer still started packing up
their bags. “Well, I believe I answered that question in far more depth and
roundabout detail than even I anticipated. I usually save this lecture for my
grad students. I’ll have to come up with new material so they get their money’s
worth.”
A ripple of laughter went through
the hall, but Alex picked out several faces who were deep in thought, their
brows wrinkled or fingers rubbing at temples as if to lend extra power to
mental mechanisms.
“I had hoped to launch a discussion
about what our first special project should be, but let me ask instead, who
would be interested in pursuing the ideas of the Civil War and slavery?”
Hands shot up across the room, such
an overwhelming majority that those who didn’t raise their hands looked mildly
confused at those who did.
“Very well. I’ll generate some
ideas for us to decide on for next class. Class dismissed.”