Civil war. From its cause to its purpose to the details of 100 battles, we argue. We cant even agree on its name. To rephrase variously depending on the perspective of the namer, the war of northern aggression the war between the states, the war of the rebellion which was once the official u. S. Government name for it the war for independence, the second american revolution, the war for emancipation, and probably two or three dozen more. In no other time do we have a historical memory so carefully considered, so consciously shaped and manipulated as a civil war. No other event in our lifetime has active constituent groups that patrol the intellectual universe trying to ensure that americans see this event in a particular way or from a particular perspective. Today, i would like to engage in a bit of a discussion, engage you in a bit of a discussion posing you some questions, answer a few, but i have no idea what the answers are. All of it is to provoke some thought and some consideration among you. Now, bear with me, some of these questions may seem a little discordant, scattered at first but i will try to bring them all together here at the end. I want to start with something that i have been thinking about the last year. America preserves battlefields somewhere between 6080,000 acres. Just a quick informal survey online suggests that americans have preserved more Civil War Battlefields than the rest of the world combined has preserved for all wars in all of history. Im talking about formal preservation. More preserved battlefield land related to the civil war exists than rest of the world combined for all wars fought. Why is that . How did that come to be . Why is it that a society that likes to think of itself as being nonmilitaristic, and in our essence we are, preserves battlefield land to such a degree . Now, this is one i will offer some ideas on. Our traditional view of the civil war was born of the postwar. One of the most remarkable phenomenons in American History or World History is the reconciliation from the reunification of our nation. Think about the fact that in the United States capitol today are seven statues to men who supported the rebellion against the federal government during the American Civil War. They dont do that in syria or libya. They do it here. That is remarkable. Now there are lots of ways, and the reconciliation was incomplete in some areas as scholars have shown. How did that come to pass . Part of the answer is that when you want to make up with somebody, you find the Common Ground. A place were you can both be comfortable. You do that in life, and some degree we did it on a national level. The aftermath of the civil war , race was an immense issue in america. Slavery and its legacy was a painful one. But there were a few things that everybody could agree on, at least most people, not everybody. And that was that the american soldier, be he dressed in gray or blue, was an amazing phenomenon of history. And so in our search for Common Ground, we found that ground literally on the battlefield. All of the great movements for preservation of battlefields was initiated in the 1880s and 1890s. When these veterans were at the height of their power in terms of serving as government and Industry Leaders it was because the battlefields ironically, these places of conflict, could for a nation seeking Common Ground become places of comfort. And so americans have always put tremendous emphasis on these places as a tool of reconciliation. Manassas, the key part of the battlefield, which came from the sons of confederate veterans donated to the park services, stipulated that the government would care and preserve this battlefield without prejudice to north or south and not subtract from the glories due to confederate heroes. The dedication speech at frank fredericksburg, the park i help manage, in 1927, it said we do more than dedicate these fields and memories of things that are passed. We consecrate them in the spirit of lee and lincoln to a more perfect understanding between south and north and to an abundant increase in brotherly love. The National Park service took responsibility for these battlefields five years later. For the next 50 years or so, they would faithfully carry out that charge. To manage these places as places of reconciliation with the rhetoric of affection that surrounds them always, where americans can come together and understand the war on a very human level. Just to give you a sense of how deep this tradition is and how it is perceived by the public, a couple of years ago a colleague of mine and i were doing a tour in fredericksburg for black churches in town. We were doing a tour of slavery related sites. We were going around and it was a great day. People were very interested. About halfway through, one of the older gentleman in the group pulled me aside and said to me are you going to get in trouble for doing this . I said, what do you mean . Are you going to get in trouble for doing this tour . Are you allowed to do this sort of thing . I share that story to point out how deep the perception is. Now, heres another question for you. 50 years ago, the nation came together to celebrate ubiquitous centennial of the American Civil War. The 150th has a different tone. Everything anything, that smacks of celebration has largely doesnt happen. There is a more contemplative commemorative approach. Consciously so. We talk about that in our organization. But that is our goal. Why the change . What in 50 years has changed . We have gone from celebrating to consciously, and in a reflective way, commemorating this war. I think there are a lot of things. One is, since 1963, however many years that is, 40 some years, we have been at war for 24 years. In my lifetime, our country has been at war for 24 of my 56 years. There is no other time in American History that approaches that. We are tired of war. We are tired of war. For sure. But there are other things. Our culture has changed. The late, great Jeremy Russell who is the great advocate for battlefield preservation, and as many of you know what often would often argue against the complexities of these stories. He said, and it applies, it was his view, but it applies to the centennial time, this nations future and survival rests on all americans having a shared experience, a shared understanding of American History, a shared language, and a shared culture, culture that unites us, not when the divides not one that divides us. One version. Common understanding and a single memory. The obvious question is whose memory . White southerners . Is it northern abolitionists . Was it emancipated slaves . Whose memory do we take . Of course, prior to the centennial, that was an easy question. Because history, to some degree always reflects those who , possess or are in power. Of course since the end of the , sesquicentennial, since the beginning of the centennial, the dynamics of our political conversation, the dynamics of power within our society have changed dramatically. Womens rights movement, you hear a great deal more about civilians than you ever did before. I think most of us are glad for that. It is an important part of the story. The civil rights movement, of course africanamericans are going to seek to hear their story in our nations history. And so it goes on. New scholarship scholarships the job of academics, is to , agitate us all and some fashion, to provoke us, and they do. They challenge us. They ask questions. Some of them we dont like. Some of this makes us feel a little uncomfortable or unstable. Now, all this and a lot of new scholarship on something called memory, memory studies that have flooded the market in the last 10 years, have convincingly shown us that thoughtfully consumed that many cultural assumptions about the war, though simplicities that we cherish so much, were indeed purposely shaped in order for in order to help the nation achieve reconciliation. And now, we are in a different time, and so many of those assumptions are being challenged. Slavery was not benign. We treated our slaves well. You often heard that. I heard that in my career. We have all heard that. We know that is simply not true. Nor was it an honest last legs in virginia in 1860 or 1861. The emancipation proclamation was not meaningless. Grant was not simply a butcher. Lee was hardly the void of political thought. Lincolns views evolved as the war progressed. Slaves did not standby loyalty stand by, loyally rooting for or standing by southern independence and confederate victory. All of these things have been challenged and most of them have been demonstrated to be, at the very least, far more complex than the simplicities that we once embraced. Some of them have been proven just flat wrong. Now, none of this should be a surprise to any of you or any of us, because americans always challenge each other. That is what americans do. We challenge each other to be better, constantly be better in the present, and we challenge each other to see our history more clearly as well. Sometimes, that challenge comes from think tanks and people sitting in big towers, or in the houses of congress or white house. Just as often, it comes from the people themselves. It is this process of constant challenge that renders what one generation believes insufficient for the next. It has always been so. It always will be so. Content as we might be with our perspective on certain issues today, our grandchildren 50 years from now are going to look back and say, what were you thinking . Just as we look back on those state troopers at the Edmund Pettis bridge or pick a dozen moments in American History. What were they thinking . This process of challenge and revision and improvement is what america does. It is noisy, raucous, sometimes painful, but arguments and failure and discord are every bit as much a part of the American Fabric as success virtue, and community. Americans will never sit quietly. Its conscience will never be calm the. Its just the way that we are. From the first day to this day. In the 50 years since the centennial, we have changed. We should not be surprised by that. In the 50 years going forth, for those of you here for the bicentennial, we will have a very different conversation. And you will wonder, what in the world were they thinking . So here is another question. Why do we argue so though severus sleep over whether or not slavery provoked secession and therefore the civil war . Is there a single topic in American History where there is a wider span of opinion than that western . A louder volume of discourse than that question . This was a question from 150 or 60 years ago. Why do we argue about it now . If you roll back time to that secession of 1860 in 1861 and sat down with the delegates of the virginia secession or the South Carolina secession and said to them, we know what you are doing and it has nothing to do with slavery. They wouldve said, what . Because at the time, of course they said it had something to do with slavery. Not everything to do with slavery, but certainly something to do with slavery. But after the war and i would suggest the main spring in an answer to this question as to why we argue it, is rooted in our very, very personal connection to this war. How many of you are related to participants in the war . Holy cow, probably 60 of you. How many of you are related to a confederate who fought in this war . Most all of you are. And so when the president of the daughters of the confederacy in 1902 stood before her convention and declared that what lies before us is not only loyalty to memories, but loyalty to principle, not of building monde monuments but the vindication of the men of the confederacy, when a former confederate general gave the charge of the veterans to the sons of confederate veterans, he said, to use sons of confederate veterans we give to you the vindication of the cause for which we thought. If you want to google that, it appears online more than 8050 times, the charge for the sons of confederate veterans. And john gordon, one of the great postwar romantics of the civil war, would write, the unseemly things which occurred in the great conflict between the states should be forgotten or at least forgiven, and no longer permitted to disturb the harmony between north and south. So what were those things that should be forgotten . The things upon which could not be agreed. So you see by these issues of it is complex, of course. Pardon me for engaging in simplicities myself. But, the issues of slavery, the cause of the war, reconstruction all of these things didnt , disappear from postwar discussions. The bitterness did not all go away. In many ways, they were over all overawed by the search for Common Ground and that search , for Common Ground focused on the common virtues that northerners and southerners shared, which are found where . On the battlefields. Even extends in today, a former heritage for the sons of confederate veterans said, we dont need to give visitors an entire history of the antebellum south so they come away with one side as the villain. Why is there this sensitivity . Even today . I would suggest to you it is because as this room evidences so Many Americans have not just an intellectual or patriotic or scholarly connection to the war, but a personal connection to the American Civil War. If slavery caused the war, what does that say about your ancestors . Does it make you uncomfortable . It certainly makes many people uncomfortable. Now, i would suggest to you that we ought to be at a point in our National Development where we can see that the deeds of our forebears are not always a testament on their character. Indeed, ought we not to see those deeds rather as a testament on the morals of the time . I think all of us hope as we sit here today and ponder our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, thinking back upon us, and saying, what . That they dont interpret the issues that have permeated our lifetimes and with which we have struggled as a society as a testament on us as individuals but rather as a testament on our times. And times change. So, another question. You can start squirming any second now. [laughter] did the Union Soldiers, some of them racist dockworkers from boston and philadelphia, or illiterate farmers from western new york or minnesota, or even lawyers from new york city, the Union Soldiers who marched and into farmville on april of 1865. When they marched, did they march for freedom . Did they march to end slavery . Let me put the question differently. That might provoke some shaking or nodding subheads. Did the confederates who rushed onto the field at gainesville or gains milk, or held the Stonewall Inn fredericksburg, did they fight to preserve slavery . To perpetuate it . I dont see anybody offering up any opinion in terms of shaking or nodding their heads. If you have worked at a civil war site for any amount of time, ron has heard it, patrick has heard it, you will hear Something Like this. My great great grandfather is from the shenandoah valley, or, pick your place. He did not own any slaves there he sure as hell did not fight to preserve slavery. He fought to defend his home the way of life, and the community and his city. The civil war was not about slavery. You are wrong to tell people that it was. Have you had that happen . We have all had that happen. In fact, weve had it happened a weve had it happen a couple times a month, if not more. And so, what do you say . Oh, yes, the war was about slavery. Your grandfather fought to preserve slavery. Thats not likely to receive well, thats likely to receive a letter to a congressman more than anything. Americans have gone to great efforts to redefine and sometimes reunderstand the issues that surround the war. Most descendents see the war through the lens of their personal connection to it. Their great great grandfather from woodstock, virginia, who joined the second virginian infantry, for example. Most presume that their ancestors did not fight, were not motivated, did not march off to war saying, we need to preserve slavery. We need to keep black people in bondage. And, most people who tend to believe that or believe that about their ancestors, many of them might be right. Some surely did. Many surely did not. Does that mean that the war was not central, or that slavery was not central to the war . I raise this issue and use this to make a point. And that is that we have done a very poor job in our nation of making a distinction between the nation and the soldiers who fight for it. We have in america, to a degree that in many ways is astonishing allowed the personal motivations , of why soldiers fight to define the National Purpose for which they fought. If my grandfather didnt own slaves, the war could not have been about slavery. But you know what . Soldiers go to war, choose to enlist and carry a weapon and enter places of danger for a million reasons. To defend their homes. They love their country. They have been asked, told. A million reasons. Most of them noble. But nations go to war for a list of reasons far narrower than that. That list also bears very little resemblance to the list of reasons that motivate soldiers. So one of the things we have not done particularly well, is to make the distinction. That distinction. Nations go to war for policy and purpose. We understand those generally not so much lately but generally we understand those pretty well. Soldiers go to war for many, many reasons. A couple of years ago, i was doing a program. We were talking about the legacies of war. A man looked at me and said, the he was an africanamerican gentleman, and he said, the confederacy is toxic. It is offensive to me. It is toxic. How could he have such a different view of the confederacy than you might . Because he does not see the war or the confederacy, through the lens of personal connection. He sees the confederacy through that lens of National Purpose. The confederacy fought to sustain and perpetuate the differences that it saw between itself and the rest of the union. That is what brought on the war. The differences. And t