I feel fairly certain that I was the only attendee at today's Banner Lecture at the Virginia Historical Society who drew a connection between a Confederate soldier's quote and a line from a song by the National.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Author and historian Jeffrey McClurken was doing the talking today and his topic was his new book Taking Care of the Living: Reconstructing Confederate Veteran Families in Virginia.
I was impressed with his inspiration for writing the book, a Baptist minister's quote after the war, that while "It was fine to raise monuments to the dead, but more importantly to take care of the living."
And with nearly 20% of white men of military age (that would be ages 13-43) dead by the end of the war, there were a lot of families needing attention.
McClurken spent two years compiling a database of the men who served, using military records and census records (some future historian/author will be eternally grateful for my census efforts in J-Ward someday).
Two years!
His research showed that having a family member return from the war maimed, sick or having been imprisoned was nearly as financially devastating to the family as if the man had been killed.
Household incomes fell more than 80% as a result of either circumstance.
What surprised me most was that having a male in the family return from war healthy and unscathed still resulted in a 70% drop in household worth, so the stress levels on families must have been terrific.
To the aid of these desperate families were churches, rich folk, the state asylum (Western Lunatic Asylum) and State Confederate Aid, which amounted to a limited social welfare system exclusively for whites (are we surprised?).
With the war framed as the central event of every Southerner's life, it's hardly surprising the number of people who developed psychological issues as a result of participating or witnessing the horror.
As one applicant for state aid was described, "He was discharged from the army...and has been a very delicate man ever since."
As Matt Berninger of the National describes himself in the song Lemonworld, "This pricey stuff makes me dizzy. I guess I've always been a delicate man."
Historically or musically, I would say that delicate men have always held a certain fascination for me.
I'm sure that's nerdy, too, although I've not yet sure how so.
And are you really surprised?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Imagine yourself as a current day southerner of modest means with knowledge of your family history. And suppose that history included land, a business, slaves and money.
ReplyDeleteThen suppose you know that some people who lived north of you didn't like your way of life and they decided to change it, by force of arms, causing your family to lose everything.
It's not a great stretch to see why, to this day, there is still southern animosity towards the north. The reality of who and what we are as a people and a nation is shaped not only by contemporary events but by our history and by how we see ourselves through the prism of that history. A
ll of this presumes that we know our history but sadly, you and I both know, that most people haven't got a clue.
Allow me to give you a perfect example of just that.
ReplyDeleteAs I was leaving the Historical Society, there were two older men behind me talking. We'll call them OM1 and OM2.
OM1: My wife wanted to come to this because the speaker teaches at Mary Washington and that's where she graduated.
OM2: So why didn't she come?
OM1: She's in Boston. Better her than me.
OM2: Yankee town.
And, by the way, that last coment was made without a trace of irony. I even turned around to see if he was at least smiling as he said it. He wasn't.
'Cause we should go out of our way to feel sorry for the people whose lives were built on the subjection of other people. The "way of life" in question is just wrong and there's no way around it.
ReplyDeleteForgive me for not weeping.
I know nothing of history, but my initial (nerdy) thoughts on reading your post was how your preference for delicate men appeared to follow a certain evolutionary imperative:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/node/16271349
This line caps it off: Once again, it looks as though two male strategies may be in equilibrium: the hunk and the troubadour, perhaps. What is clear from both studies, though, is that no matter how hard males compete, they will always be outwitted by the wiliest, most subversive competitors of all: females.
Sorry if this is "off topic". just thought I'd share.
That was the point of my story about the two gents' conversation as I left today. I am amazed at the attitudes that still exist 145 years later.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment, Publius, the studies come down to one simple conclusion as far as I'm concerned: "Small males, in other words, could overcome the handicap of their stature and win mates through prodigious chirping."
ReplyDeleteI, for one, am completely uninterested in male plumage or stature. What grabs my attention is "chirping," that is, brains, wit, conversation and company.
And you are anything but off-topic. Your offering helps substantiate my feelings, so thank you for that.
And thank you too for your attention to my ramblings. You seem to be paying attention and that pleases me no end.