A few days ago, I took a trip to see the Museum of the Confederacy. The trip downtown was quite an adventure, but then when I finally reached the museum I was a little disappointed. The atmosphere within the museum was dull, desolate, and to be honest depressing. The museum was broken up into three separate exhibits, and I decided to look at two. The first exhibit, called “The Confederate Years” was a “year-by-year introduction to the Confederate military history, the soldiers, commanders, campaigns, and battles.” I vividly remember this section as being the “blue walled battle” section of the museum. This section glorified the South, and their decision to secede. One of the most prominent sections of the museum was the “Why Succession? Why War” section. As a Northerner, I came into the museum biased. I had always thought that the Union was the “right” side, and when I came into the Confederate museum, I knew that I would disagree with a lot of what was said or done. Although, I might have my own bias, I also thought that the Confederate museum, in the capital of the Confederacy, would also be biased. I assumed that the museum would favor the South, which it did. The information at the museum said that the tensions between the North and the South, over slavery and the tariff, had been a tension since the Mexican War, in 1846-1848. It was not until 1860 that the tensions between the North and South escalated which consequently forced the South to secede. The museum made it seem as though the South’s succession was reactionary and the North’s intolerable actions/rules caused the South to secede. Interestingly, the museum did not mention how the election of Lincoln was also a large cause of the Civil War, because Southerners believed that Lincoln was against slavery and in favor of the Northern interests. Evidently, the conception of rhetorically revealing and concealing is at play in this section of the museum. The curators of the museum revealed certain things while concealing others. The next information tablet, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Succession of South Carolina From the Federal Union,” continued to validate the reasons for South Carolina’s succession. At this point, it seems as though the museum is trying to prove the reasons for the South’s secession. Rather than pointing out what happened, the museum uses specific diction such as “justify” to validate why the succession was “rational.” The tablets on the wall continuously attempted to validate and explain the reasons “why they fought.” Personally, I felt as though this museum was an example of the South attempting to explain why the Civil War was started and justified the South’s secession.
The museum continues chronologically to go through each battle of the war. Throughout the exhibit, I kept reading about death and casualties the South suffered. I understood that war involves casualties on both sides, but I never heard about how many casualties the North lost. I started to feel bad for the South, and sympathize with Southerners because they had lost so many men. However, I did not think of how many men were lost in the North. This was a strategic way that the curators of the museum manipulated the visitor to sympathize with the South. As I traveled from battle to battle, I noticed there was an exaggeration of the language when speaking about battles. The curators used words such as “disastrous,” “greatest loss in history,” and “devastating.” As I read this it seemed that all of the loss and devastation was caused because of the North, and started to side with the South. I even started to lose sight that the South was the first to secede and commence this war, because the tablets had made it seem the contrary.
The next section of the museum that I personally found intriguing was called, “Between the Battles.” The exhibit focused on the time soldiers spent between the battles. In fact, “comparatively little of a soldier’s life is the army was spent in combat. The majority of the soldiers career was spent in camps, on garrison duty, or marching from one camp or garrison to another.” This exhibit explored the daily life of the Confederate soldier between battles. The difference between the first exhibit and the second was profound. However, both exhibits attempted to manipulate the visitor into siding with the South. The “Between the Battles” exhibit made the visitor empathize with the soldier because the visitor realizes that these men were mundane human beings. As I walked through the exhibit, I started to identify with the soldiers. When I identified with them there was an emotional connection, which made me feel as thought the North was the enemy for killing so many young men. For example, the curators included a section on “Recreation and Diversion.” This section showed all the ways that the soldiers occupied themselves. For example, they played sports like every other person would such as horse racing, boozing, early forms of baseball and even ice hockey. They also played music such as the guitar, harmonica, and even the fiddle to make their camp seem as though it was a “home away from home.” Throughout this section, my heart went out to the soldiers. I emotionally felt like I understood them more, which I think is a key strategy to manipulating the visitors into siding with the Southerners.
I will conclude by stating that this museum was definitely not my favorite. My expectations were definitely not met and I was quite frankly disappointed. I believe the museum is one sided, and purports a different side of the war, and obviously favors the South. Although, I may be bias, I do believe that the museum’s organization and the information that was given manipulates the visitor into sympathizing with the South.
No comments:
Post a Comment