The Indiana GAR Opposed “Birth of a Nation”

Last month, on a beautiful 63 degree day, I (perhaps foolishly) decided to go to the Indiana State Library to learn more about the Grand Army of the Republic in Indiana. I found some pretty neat and noteworthy information that I hope to research further and possibly incorporate into my thesis.

In future posts I will expand further on the who, what, where, why, and how of the Grand Army of the Republic, but for now I’ll explain that each year from 1866-1949 (with the exception of 1867) the Union Civil War veterans that composed the GAR met in a National “Encampment” in which they held lavish parades, listened to speeches, remembered the sacrifices of Union veterans who had died in battle, and had “campfires” where the “Boys” had a chance to fraternize with each other and relive the experiences of war. The same “Encampment” style gathering also took place on the state level. Indiana was one of the first states in 1866 to have a functioning department of the GAR, but they fell into disrepair by 1875 and didn’t begin to have regular state meetings until 1879.

Fast forward to 1915. New technology in the form of motion picture film is beginning to gain popularity throughout the United States. A film demonstrating new camera techniques–including panoramic shots and night photography–and a captivating narrative about redemption in the wake of tragedy entitledis released and sweeps the nation to become one of the most popular, yet controversial films in cinematic history. For those not acquainted with the film, we turn to David Blight, who describes it on page 395 of his book :

Birth of a Nation[Civil] Birth of a Nation[Abraham] [Frederick]

Blight goes on to point out that most African Americans vehemently opposed the film’s showing, with local NCAAP chapters throughout the country distributing pamphlets and actively protesting to get banned in movie theaters. Blight concludes with this statement on page 397, which leaves us with the impression that few others cared, including the Union veterans who played their own role in helping to end slavery sixty years earlier:

[of the Civil War]

To be sure, this period in American history was what James Loewen has described as “a nadir of race relations” in the United States. Over the next 35 years would make $50 million, with many whites North and South praising the film for its exciting visuals and historical accuracy. Yet Blight’s conclusion is problematic. He oversimplifies the nature of Civil War memory(ies) by suggesting that reconciliation with former Confederates necessitated the acceptance of white supremacist views and by concluding that Civil War memory(ies) were even settled at that point. They were not. Furthermore, one gets the impression from Blight that whites accepted as the definitive film for depicting the Civil War, Emancipation, and Reconstruction, when in reality that was far from the truth, especially from many Union Civil War veterans. As Barbara Gannon has pointed out, the GAR was an integrated institution in a period where segregation was the norm, and some veterans spoke out for better treatment for African Americans. They rejected the “Lost Cause” and all that entailed.

In 1916, at the annual State Encampment for the Department of Indiana GAR, comrade Milton Garrigus had this to say about and what Union veterans could do to counter it:

The Committee on Reports for the Indiana GAR accepted Garrigus’s statements, so we know that at least a majority of the Indiana GAR, if not the entire department, agreed with him.

I don’t see anything about reconciliation with the South or giving into any white supremacist views here. In fact, we see a reaction against state leadership in Indiana for allowing the movie to be shown, a claim that it would “poison” the minds of children, and a book recommendation that would help readers get to the “truth.” Historians of Civil War memory(ies) have profited greatly from the work of David Blight, but it’s safe to say that we’ve still got a lot more to learn.