Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten by Gary Gallagher - Essay Example

Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: A Book Report In Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know about the Civil War (henceforth, Causes), Gary Gallagher presents a riveting analysis of the impact of film and art on the historical imagination of the Civil War, through an exploration of more than a dozen recent movies and thousands of pieces of artwork appearing in three of the leading Civil War journals. Using his expertise as a Civil War researcher and personal experiences, Gallagher weaves the context of the interpretive framework that influences popular perception of not only the historical events of the War itself, but also their continuing legacy in today’s times. In Causes, we find how visual representation may – knowingly or unknowingly – color our understanding of past events, and discover the many ways this has occurred in the specific history of the Civil War in the United States (US). Gallagher employs a lucid framework of analysis: he identifies four major “interpretive traditions” that find their way on screens and canvases, namely the Lost Cause, the Union Cause, the Emancipation Cause, and the Reconciliation Cause traditions (2008, p. 2). The Lost Cause regards the Southern secessionist call as a nation building movement of valor against insurmountable odds, with scant attention to slavery. The Union Cause portrays the North’s unflinching commitment to both retaining a united American nation in the face of Southern secessionism and preserving democracy. The Emancipation Cause deals squarely with the issue of black Americans’ liberation, and the Reconciliation Cause attempts to emphasize the uniquely American values that both sides stood for, even though they sought different ends (Gallagher, 2008, p. 2). As the author maintains, though each of these have remained distinct interpretive scales of judgment, they have experiences a fair degree of overlap. But, Gallagher is careful to determine the remit of Causes’ scope at the onset and says that he “make[s] no claim to offer a history of the Civil War in American film,” (2008, p. 9) and reaffirms that his analysis does not stretch to the television. He says: “Whether intentionally or not, films [and artwork] convey elements of the four interpretive traditions, and how well each of the quartet has fared sheds light on their comparative vitality” (Gallagher, 2008, p. 10). In Causes, Gallagher identifies the emergence of two key themes: firstly, he finds that the Lost Cause tradition has gradually done worse in films since the days of Gone with the Wind but has strengthened in art; secondly, he argues that the Union Cause tradition fares poorly overall in both films and art, and at best plays second fiddle to the Emancipation and Reconciliation Causes. His explanation for such patterns hinge on the romanticism associated with the Southern cause and the indistinct idea of the “Union” in the North’s political and military platform. In the former case, slavery and nation building are distantiated, and though the public discourse on the South’s role in the Civil War underwent a gradual change, individuals still retained the option of privately maintaining solidarity with the cause by commissioning portraits of Southern leaders – like General Robert Lee and Stonewall Jackson – and other canvases of the Confederates. Since such commissioned pieces were largely not in the public view, Southern sympathizers neither feared nor faced any social judgment. On the other hand, the Gallagher claims that as compared to the other two Northern interpretive traditions, the Union Cause is a more abstract idea that fails to capture the North’s cause in any simplistic formulations such emancipation or reconciliation (2008, p. 13). Moreover, parallels between the “Union” and the current political and economic climate in the US are easy to draw, disenchanting many Civil War enthusiasts and reflecting, therefore, in the Union Cause’s poor performance on screen or canvas. These two themes form the gist of the author’s exploration in the book, and we turn now to his specific analysis to understand whether Gallagher succeeds in his attempt to explicate the influence of film and art on the historical imagination. It is important, however, to point out – as Gallagher does – that the development of three out of the four interpretive traditions mentioned above came almost immediately after the War’ termination (the Union and Emancipation Causes in the North and the Lost Cause in the South), while the fourth followed a few decades later but has since remained a popular explanation for the War effort (2008, pp. 16-17). The emergence of these Causes led to a contested historical interpretation and legacy of reasons for the War’s outbreak and the major determinants of its outcomes. These contesting ideas persist today, regardless of the evidence provided by generations of academic scholarship, due to the influence of Civil War-related films and artwork that allow the injection of preferences and sentiments in their narratives or depictions, thereby cementing particular (and often inaccurate) conceptions of the past in public memory. We shall return to this point below, but for now it becomes prudent to consider the core analytical categories of Causes: films and artwork. At the onset, it is important to point out two things. Firstly, the analysis of every case Gallagher examines is beyond the scope of this report. Secondly, we must take into account the author’s case-selection criteria: he looks only at the last 20 years (mostly for films), because these have seen a resurgent interest in Civil War themes after a few fairly fallow preceding decades. One must also comment on these selections by noting that given the information revolution, it is no longer difficult to scrutinize and glean historical facts from fiction. Yet, particular histories abound on film, and it is interesting to study the perpetrators. Gallagher first looks at the depiction of the Southern movement – the Lost Cause interpretation – on film. For the historical record, the author maintains that: “The Lost Cause narrative flourished in films for nearly half a century before losing ground, and eventually supremacy, to the Emancipation and Reconciliation Causes....Even during the Lost Cause heyday, Hollywood typically featured an element of Reconciliation and often at least a tincture of the Union Cause in its Civil War films.” (Gallagher, 2008, p. 42) Therefore, on the one hand we find that films extolling the virtues of one Cause or another were not completely exercises in pandering, but the upshot remains that the cursory treatment the ‘other’ Causes received may well have been to clinch the commercial viability of the production. Most Hollywood movies depend on a large and diverse audience for success, and it has been, perhaps, expedient to maintain a smatter of opposing viewpoints. The earliest, full-length, exponent of the Lost Cause tradition on film, Gallagher says, is The Birth of the Nation, a movie by D. W. Griffith that was based on Thomas Dixon’s “noxiously racist” novel, The Clansman (2008, p. 42). The film is steeped in idealism about the ways of the Old South, a seemingly idyllic setting where slaves remain content and their owners peaceful; this peace, however, is disturbed with the election of Abraham Lincoln as the President of the US. Griffith’s portrayal shows the struggle of the South to retain their sovereign rights in the face of the Unionist onslaught. The film is replete with glorifications of the Confederate cause, while its technical prowess more than obviated the strong racist overtones that are germane to the plot. However, an even more glamorous spectacle to venerate the Lost Cause tradition appeared in 1939, with the release of David O. Selznick’s Gone with the Wind. Selznick’s film has probably been “…the single most powerful influence on American perceptions of the Civil War. It remains part of the cultural landscape through repeated airings on television, its canonical characters and scenes available for comparison with more recent cinematic treatments.” (Gallagher, 2008, p. 45) From the its sheer popularity and continuing influence on popular perceptions of the Civil War, we can understand the impact that a singular cinematic or artistic interpretation can have in the shaping ideas and discourse on a historical event. One of the most important aspects of the film was remained its treatment of slavery, depicting the same as a paternal responsibility of the South. The idea of the Confederate nationhood, along with the deified idea of secession form the fabrics which bind the narrative; however, Gallagher warns us that the South’s “state sovereignty” was perhaps more repressive that the image projected of the “big government” North. What we must take from films such as The Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind are not skewed perspectives or inaccurate interpretations, but the influence a creative process presented in a visual format can have on the memories and conceptions people retain of specific events. Without doubt, films or artwork are more animated than pages of a history text and are wont to capture one’s imagination more quickly and vividly. The reason why the Lost Cause tradition persisted as the most ‘popular’ Civil War tradition, therefore, is perhaps that the first two full-scale cinematic treatments of the War adhered to this particular interpretation. These two epoch-making movies formed the backdrop for more recent depictions of the Lost Cause on screen, and were followed by such films as Santa Fe Trail and The House Soldiers. These productions delicately dealt with portrayals of the Old South and the Confederacy, while sometimes being “laughably inaccurate in terms of historical details” (Gallagher, 2008, p. 51). The first major break with this pattern, as the author points out, came with Shenandoah, which was released in the wake of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and takes a predominantly anti-Confederacy stance. Through this endeavor, the stringent conscription measures of the Confederates along with the disillusionment with the ideas of slavery and black servility found portrayal on a platform so immense for the first time. Shenandoah marked a watershed for the Lost Cause on film; Civil War-related productions in the last two decades, beginning with Glory in 1989, saw topical films dealing squarely with the conflict and its particular aspects. These included – but are not limited to – Gods and Generals, Cold Mountain, Dances with Wolves, and starting with Gettysburg, the author argues, they also provide a chronology of decreasing enchantment with the Lost Cause. Gallagher traces this gradual decline with consummate aplomb, and chooses poignant moments and sketches from the above films to drive home his point. This begs the question of what changed since the release of Shenandoah. In the opinion of this report, it seems that public perception is deeply affected by the social, economic, and political conditions of a given point of time. Opinions are formed not only within the context of a visual representation, but also the greater themes and events which constitute the zeitgeist of an era. The Civil Rights Movement at home and the gradual but increased US involvement in Vietnam opened the door for a more critical interpretation of history. If the idea of big government suffered (or indeed, continued to suffer), the historical record was also set straight in terms of the Confederacy and its inhumane policies. Control and domination, two ideas central to slavery, came under attack in the larger political context of the 1960s and beyond, and their representations on screen suffered a dramatic, yet corresponding, backlash. Gettysburg onwards, the glorified idea of Confederate nationalism in films also started its death march, as the Cold War and communism created the space for reification of American values and unity. As is evident, the decline of the Lost Cause tradition also coincided with the rise in the Emancipation and Reconciliation Cause traditions. As the author explains, that is not the case with the Union Cause: “Historians often place freedom alongside Union as an equivalent northern war aim, and of the two, Americans more easily grasp freedom as a noble goal worth great sacrifice. The concept of Union is much more nebulous; indeed, it is almost impossible to convey to a modern audience why the Union meant so much to so many millions of northerners.” (Gallagher, 2008, p. 92) The earliest emancipation narratives were Friendly Persuasion and Raintree County, followed by Shenandoah, all of which embraced the theme of the equality of men while shunning black stereotypes. However, it was 1989’s Glory that had the most resounding impact on the popular imagination of the Civil War post-Gone with the Wind. The film’s narrative expressly follows the fortunes of Col. Robert Gould Shaw and the black soldiers in the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, fighting alongside white soldiers to emancipate the enslaved in the South. The greatest merit of Glory, undoubtedly, resonates from its near-perfect treatment of the historical record, and Gallagher adds that what remains missing from the story is the Union Cause as a motivator. A slew of Civil War-related movies followed in the wake of Glory, of which Gettysburg, Little Women, Pharaoh’s Army took up the Emancipation Cause in varying degrees. CSA: Confederate States of America, though embracing the same tradition, was highly – and inaccurately, Gallagher argues – critical of Lincoln’s role in the War, claiming that it was his thirst for power and control, which motivated him to drive the US army to war against the confederates. This interpretation has since become common and bears testimony to how far visual representations can skew our understanding of the past. Gods and Generals and Gettysburg also feature the Reconciliation Cause themes, though more conventionally than Robert Ford’s How the West Was Won. But, it is instructive to remember that the Reconciliation tendency has been evident in Hollywood Civil War productions since The Birth of a Nation, and has consistently featured as the undertone, if not the dominant theme of such films. But Gallagher reminds us: “Emancipation has achieved cinematic dominance, with Reconciliation maintaining a steady but secondary presence in a number of films” (2008, p. 92). In terms of artwork, however, the story reads a bit differently. The Lost Cause tradition has seen a remarkable dominance in this field with three Northern traditions languishing in the distance. Though this reverse trend may be puzzling, Gallagher’s exploration of close to 3,000 samples of artwork advertised in three Civil War-related journals: Civil War Times Illustrated, North & South, and Blue & Gray Magazine. Of course, this empirical study allows the author to delve into statistical analysis of the Lost Cause’s dominance, while also unearthing interesting explanations of the trend. One of these is the impact that movies such as Gettysburg and Ken Burns’ television series, The Civil War, have had a great impact on the art market, with many artists being commissioned for completing Civil War-related canvases and portraits. Another factor that emerges is the romance and idealism associated with the Southern cause, leading to a thriving primary and secondary market in artworks with Confederate themes. Finally, as elaborated in the opening sections of this essay, artwork has a more personal rather than public accessibility. While representations of the Northern traditions on film displaced the Lost Cause on screen, the canvas rejuvenated the latter through the patronage of sympathizers and enthusiasts who could choose to disagree and support their own beliefs in an individual capacity. Overall, Gallagher presents a captivating narration; his prose is lucid and filled with anecdotal references, and his analysis of the subjects in question is refreshingly bold, eschewing technicalities for factuality. It offers a fresh perspective on the specific conceptions of the Civil War that are retained in public perceptions, and his attempt is not to side with any of the traditions he devises, but only to set the historical record straight. Within this framework, Gallagher’s book emerges as a highly commendable work of scholarship. He shows us that, indeed, Hollywood and art do shape our ideas about the War to a certain extent, and he succeeds in pointing out many of the fallacies that can take hold in such circumstances. References Gallagher, G. W. (2008) Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know about The Civil War. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Read More