anything, unpredictable and he could easily run as an independent regardless of this pledge. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific, on c-span's q&a. >> professor anderson teaches a class at clemson university on reconstruction and the civil war. it describes this class is about one hour and 10 minutes. anderson: we are back from spring break. when was the last time anyone looked at the syllabus? some time ago. as it happens, i have one in front of me. you remember what course you signed up for? do you remember what the title was? [laughter]

well, not what the internet changed it to, but what was course schedule. ield:leground blood fail reconstruction in south carolina." what is a battleground? fought.rs are ok. have we read some books in here suggesting that reconstruction was -- such as? " is a bigrebellion one. ner'sabout eric fo "a short history of reconstruction." what is being attempted to be reconstructed? >> i would say the south in general. they're not making it into like

a new south, but back into the old south. they're trying to reconstruct the way their lives will be after the war. professor anderson: if you're talking southerners, yeah. but, guided by the republican party, what are they trying to do in his book, generally? society ande labor irror image of what they conceive of the north to be which included what changes? >> something will have to change in the south, right? something will have to be rebuilt, what are those things? >> the freedmen's bureau. social construct. the distribution of land and rights. professor anderson:

turn the south into an area of ideally, small farms, independent p producers. what about friedman? n? >> [indiscernible] anderson: eventually. it becomes the program because reconstruction. incorporate them some way. is that a battleground? a different kind. a political battleground, a social battleground, and some respects, a cultural one. these things are highly controversial, and are contested. you have people struggling over them. is south carolina a battleground

? just what is being reconstructed? what is the battle over? how does he mean it? like the whites tried to still maintain this control and system they had before the war. >> to reestablish the aristocracy. professor anderson: reconstruct what was. foner uses it, it is obviously something that was current in the era. it means something different in 1860. when he uses it, he means, social, political, cultural, and in some ways, economic. and for the other? >> power. professor anderson:

reconstruction of the power that was. defiance. is south carolina a little battleground -- literal battleground? what does he say? it is a continuation of the war. different means. ends.s -- same control of the labor force, this population, how would you describe these means? , violent. professor anderson: is there a different kind of violence than conventional wartime violence? >> i do not know it would be called a battleground, but with the kkk -- professor anderson: it is kind of like a guerrilla war, right? he might go so far to call it terrorism.

until thet stop republican governments are withdrawn. that is out of ground. -- battleground. we mean south carolina is a stay of struggle for these things and with these things. what is a blood field? fieldo you think a blood is? >> battleground is literally a field on which a battle is fought. would be blood field the residual effects. professor anderson: where did you come up with that? [laughter] workingr anderson: wonders, right? what you mean residual effects? >> the effects of the home front nottle, like a war fought --

just the soldiers fighting the war, but their families at home. professor anderson: all right. that is one aspect. do you like that answer? >> i could agree with that. i would definitely say, in addition to that, the idea of a blood field -- the leaving of actual blood on a field, the image it invokes. it is what is left in the wake of war, and, i guess, what was at stake that shed the blood there. professor anderson: do you have a dictionary? did you look that up? nope. professor anderson: it is a word that does not exist, but you are right. it was a proposed word. it was a word proposed to be introduced into the language by james joyce, who do find it just

as you do find it. just as youn defined it. yes, there is blood somewhere soaking that feel, so we have to have some word to connote the aftermath and the images and feelings for all kinds of things, arguments, .hat the aftermath invokes what of course have been trying do, but we have been struggling with is not just the battleground aspect of reconstruction, but we are also talking about the aftermath. the aftermath of the war. different kinds of reconstructions. does that make sense? does the seleka level academic thinking -- does this sound like high level academic thinking?

if we turn to others we have read here -- do you see where i'm going with this? is he talking about the reconstruction? sense.the physical what do southerners do, white southerners do, even as they are struggling politically and paramilitar do, butly? what else are they doing? >> [indiscernible] professor anderson: they are creating a sort of story of society. they are creating this loss that described as southerners who they are, white southerners, anyway. you remember what the aspect of was?loss cause mythology , whaty are building it are they reconstructed? reconstructing?

>> their culture. professor anderson: their culture as they see it. why did they lose the war according to the story? why did the confederacy lose? >> overwhelming force. professor anderson: overwhelming force and numbers never had a chance. it was inevitable. what is that like according to the loss cause mythology? it is a plantation ideal. a paradise where -- still toldies are like that today though. professor anderson: now you're thinking, oh my goodness, this goes from the 1880's and in some places it is still alive and relevant. in some places, it is still are in which is why we here talking about this kind of stuff. builds a cause myth

south which was pure, ideal, which never could have one, which fought for principles, not interest, where the ladies were ladies and gentlemen were gentlemen. what about slaves? are almost like children. professor anderson: paternalism yth.erges in the m are they loyal? yes? happy to be slaves? certainly not the kind of behavior we are getting ready to talk about with this book. happy in slavery. at of that is being built the same time, right?

the mythology might have happened anyway, absent some of the events of reconstruction. say?would he this is how modern nations, or modern hopeful nations, have coped in similar ways. that brings us to why we are here, which is to talk about -- to continue to talk. we have been talking about the fourth book which is merry the civil war ethic . we are dealing with two books acause this book is about much larger book about merry diary.t's

that is what brings us here. what is merry chestnuts rican starting -- reconstructing in this diary? culture.lture -- her professor anderson: why does stern say she is writing an epic? bemary chestnut would writing it because she feels her culture is being defined. professor anderson: it also reaches to the same questions , defining ofy people, the characteristics of a people. it becomes essential to the definition of a people.

battleground side of reconstruction or the blood field? very much and aftermath book. right? we say that both by what we have read, but also by what we know about how it was imposed. do you remember how it was composed? >> during the 1880's, mary chestnut said what she remembered from the diary that she burned in the 1860's. professor anderson: this is not an actual diary of her wartime experience. later that shees goes back to wartime journal, a series of wartime journals that she kept. she goes back and starts reworking these entries,

creating, in a sense. it is a reconstruction of a wartime journal, some of which were burned, as you mentioned. it is something else. she is not trying to create something that is true to daily experience our life. it is very much a literary creation. it has a literary ambition, not meant to be a simple recording of this is what happened on this day, as i experienced it. it is meant to do something else, too be published. it is not published in her lifetime, she dies before that happens, but it is published by her literary executor in 1905 as a diary. what we're going to do here is cerpts.th our ex probably the most famous chapter in this diary, to see if we can

tease out some of the themes, but also see if we can tease out the questions that were probing .- we are probing today the relationship of this diary with the aftermath of the war. she is working on this, some in the 1870's, but in the 1880's, especially. ing ishe is really writ in the shadow of reconstruction. she is writing in a society that has changed fundamentally. about abeen talking slave-based society. now kind of society is it in the 1880's? is it still biracial? still biracial, but what is missing? slavery is missing. is it still agricultural? al?ll rur

what is missing? >> the plantation. professor anderson: large-scale agricultural units exist, but plantations are much more than that. it gathers up much more than the economic resources. it is primarily an economic institution, but over time, we're talking about 200 years of development. the plantation society looks like it has passed. it is biracial, but slavery has passed. is a democratic? >> not really. professor anderson: you are saying not really. you are saying more so. anna says not really. mary says more. someone must be right. [laughter] no, we can'terson:

have the truth, this is an academic institution. >> they are both kind of right. professor anderson: ok. we will split the difference. kind of like coaching the old little league team. you're both kind of right. we will play with that. you are both kind of right. why did you say that? >> i don't remember what i said. professor anderson: you didn't really say much. you just said, -- >> isn't this the point where they are kind of still controlling the ballot through different means? like not letting blacks vote? they are anderson: doing it in different ways in the 1880's. actual legal franchise that doesn't start until the 1890's. they are still trying to control the ballot. >> women cannot vote still.

theyssor anderson: when cannot vote. former slaves, friedman, are being pushed to the margins. is that democratic? not by our standards. you said more so. >> you have more federal instigation in the south. even if they had the pull out their troops, they are kind of going south. [laughter] professor anderson: already going south in the 1880's. still a different kind of atmosphere. you have carpetbagger politicians, some black politicians. professor anderson: you certainly have all of those things in reconstruction. to turn theesire south into a more democratic

society in the context at the time. 1880's, what is changing? rise -- ore sort of the emergence of this. then tillman will come to represent this better than anyone. it is both not as democratic as we would think from our perspective, and certainly not as democratic as it might've been during reconstruction, but this is south carolina, right? south carolina, as we know, and have talked about, has a distinct past. it is sort of the ground zero of reconstruction. if reconstruction is going to work anywhere, it has to work in south carolina.

we know it does not work for all the reasons we talked about. is the aristocracy and south carolina still what it once was? chivalry, as she calls it? else we mightver say. an example of what south carolina was is shifting from the era start -- aristocracy. >> her entire life cell has been demonized. professor anderson: that is a

good point. the whole nation changes. >> was in a kind of more romanticized than demonize? they are talking about the thiss written in all of like southern gentility, chivalry. , butss it was shifting there were still southern ideals. professor anderson: what do you think of that? ,> i think that could be true but the idea did not exist in the south itself. north was entertained by of ladies and nights, and they enjoyed the prospect of

the luxury. professor anderson: that is one of the things the lost cause is morphing into. it becomes the way by which the whole country mythologized the south. this is happening into the 1880's and 1890's. anduld say romanticization demonization rather than being opposite forces are on the same coin. does that make sense? they are occurring at the same time, and for all the similar reasons. we have a society that is biracial with no slavery. a society that is agricultural, but no plantation. , withne of the politics obvious limitations, is more democratic than south carolina had ever fully experienced, and

maybe the nation had fully experienced. about paternalism? is that gone? >> it is not as john's as it was. when the plantation style, this idea of this great paternal figure that was in charge of his family and slaves, that was gone, but it was still there. women still do not have rights. professor anderson: it is still there, but sort of the same thing. as chivalry favorites, so does the return of the stick ideal. it is replaced by different kind of approach towards african-americans. >> [indiscernible] a far morenderson: aggressive white supremacist viewpoint begins to take hold.

you are saying the change and shift as society changes and shifts. this diary is written -- reconstructed -- while those things are going on. it is part of that environment as much as it is part of the environment of the war. let's see what happens if we read some excerpts. let's see if we can get to explain what mary chestnut is sterng, but also how talks about how to approach the book. what she gives us is an approach to the book. let's see if we can't come out with some ways by which we think

about the book, but the way those things might be tied to in thet her experience civil war, but what she freezes at the end of -- experiences at the end of her life. this is the chapter on the .urder case betsy witherspoon, as we already know, since we have talked about this, is a slave mistress. give me what happens very briefly. what happens and when does it happen? slavesstrangled by her in her bed. >> they tried to frame it as she passed away. professor anderson: right. they tried to frame it as though she passed away peacefully in he the night. disturbing.e

this happens when? early in the war, late in the war? 1861. orone knows who will win lose the war. it seems that the slaves have .een awakened, or could be charlotte richardson, why don't you start. how do she set this up? introductions are always important. the introductions are where you -- go ahead. ni nine, the opening scene. [indiscernible]

professor anderson: the most unhappy people are the people who have bad thoughts. she comes home. sick, right? she comes home, she has a fever. she is confined to her bed. she is left with bad thoughts. what kind of bad thoughts are in september and october of 1861? >> not getting off to a good start in the war. professor anderson: thing starting off at -- started off ok at manassas, but a lot of people are complaining that we have not followed up on that, from the confederate perspective. .t is possible to think that what else?

>> loyalty of slaves. professor anderson: is that possible to conceive of? , no. professor anderson: we see that more after the murder. >> i think it is possible before. obviously, slavery is such a big part of the war. professor anderson: the happy people might say, of course not. the unhappiest people are the ones likely to say, remember, south carolina is populated by a black majority, and this is true in the low country, where we know there are movements afoot, federal invasions. what other bad thoughts? what are possible bad thoughts in 1861? student: just seeing both sides

of the coin. you can see the gentility --is that a word? the hypocrisy in it. professor anderson: don't you love the way she uses the patriarch moses, always possible to see both sides of the question. the younger moses becomes a reconstruction era governor. who knows how deliberate that might have been. she is in her bed. she is helpless. have you ever been helpless? i'm sure you were helpless at a very young age. who in here is a bad patient, besides me? i can't stand to be sick, to have people taking care of me.

you get frustrated. no? good patient? morgan says no. i'm happy to be taken care of. [laughter] what else might you think? we might be surrounded by enemies -- student: death taking so many young people away from the home front? professor anderson: she might die. that is how bad this is. she has got to be thinking about death. what does that conversation turn on? how many are lost? how many are killed and wounded? she is coming back from seeing the front, being at the front, being in richmond. she has experienced death that most of the people she is going to be around have not yet.

student: many weren't even dying in battle, just dying. professor anderson: right, not the glorious shot in the chest and go out, just nasty stuff, disease, dysentery, diarrhea, fever. stuff you would prefer not to have on your death certificate. you want to go out a little bit more -- especially coming from chivalry -- you want to go out higher than that. any other bad thoughts? these are southerners, right? are they supposed to be thinking bad thoughts? being tried in battle in a romantic era? student: that the confederacy could not stand -- prof anderson: are we strong enough? are we strong enough?

not just are we strong enough, but littered throughout this chapter are references to fathers, the revolutionary fathers. that scene with squire mcdonald, dissented from jasper mcdonald, all that kind of stuff. are we worthy to be founders of a nation of our own? that is a powerful, powerful fear, if he think about it in the context of 19th-century romantic nationalism. we still, to this day, the founding fathers are enjoying a rebirth right now. they still cast a shadow. people somehow feel inadequate against -- imagine creating a nation that you say is the true america, the true vision of america, how much more significant that feeling might be? what does she do after it?

she introduces it, she talks about crossed eyes, seeing things both ways. she is setting us up here. she is setting us up for uncertainty. where did she go? what do she end up talking about? from their forward? student: [indiscernible] prof anderson: people who visit her, images of those people. student: she goes into the commodores account, facing the charivari so gallantly -- prof anderson: yes, yes.

she has seems that move along but she eventually ends up -- she doesn't begin by talking about the death of mary wurster, which i find interesting, which is clearly the most significant event -- i keep saying meriwether spoon, it is betsy weatherspoon. she begins like betsy. she begins just like her. she is creating a sort of image around it. we finally get there -- we don't get there until september 9. this is 20 years later. mary chestnut knows very well how all of this proceeds. we have to think that what she is doing as a deliberate

re-creation or reconstruction. what are you -- where do we hear about this? why don't you read that? september 19. we go a few pages in a diary, it 10 days of so-called core -- chronological time. go ahead. student: a small war and the ladies in society, president sue bonnie vp, time in full blast. at first there were nearly 100 members, 80-90 always present at a meeting, now 10-20 are all that they can show. the worst is they have forgotten the hospitals where they really could do so much good and gone off to provision and clothes the army, a job in the pocket or ocean. a painful piece of news came to

us yesterday, our cousin of society hill found dead. she was quite well the night before. killed by family troubles, contentions, wrangling, among those nearest and dearest to her. she was a proud and high strong woman, nothing shabby in word, thought, or deed. of a warm and tender heart, too. truth and of brightness it self. few persons have ever been more loved and looked up to, a handsome old lady, i find presence, dignified and commanding, killed by family troubles. if so, it is a third of the family that same has been said of, so they said when john williams died, so uncle john said yesterday. takes fancy shots of the most eccentric kind near home. prof anderson: that goes to the point we just talked about. death is coming everywhere. there is a separation between home front and battlefront -- it doesn't really exist. killed by family troubles. don't you just love that? killed my family troubles.

what is the allusion she is creating? don't we know how betsy weatherspoon dies? do we know that her slave strangled her? doesn't she know that? student: but she didn't know that on september 19. prof anderson: right. student: it creates suspense. prof anderson: we have to think that family troubles is meant to do something else. that we are supposed to think a family troubles not as descriptive, but as a commentary. or a motif. what introduces that? what is the ladies society about? this is just a volunteer organization of ladies -- of ladies -- this is a status distinction -- and ladies who are supposed to be helping out with the war effort, alleviating suffering and what has happened already?

we are only in september 1861. what has happened? student: people are deserting. prof. anderson: people are deserting, which i think is an interesting word. student: they are complaining about -- prof. anderson: they are complaining. student: they are not being helpful where they could be. prof. anderson: they are being selfish. secession. don't you love how she links the political atmosphere with the home atmosphere, and they forgot, right? are these people worthy of the cause? student: no. prof. anderson: was that your answer or mary's answer? both. she has been pulling it out. they are not being true to the

cause, they are not true patriots. student: she is also saying forgotten, as in not actually true. i think when she is saying forgotten, it's like they don't want to see the destruction and death so they can still live in their fantasy. prof. anderson: blissful ignorance, better not to know. it is better not to know of the suffering, but it also might be better not to have to confront it. because then you have to confront your commitment to this thing. student: it seems bizarre to me, though, that death by family troubles is more ok then death from your slaves? student: what could she doing -- it might be a play on paternal, could represent that. like, the slaves would have been considered under paternalism part of the family. prof. anderson: so you are

saying she is using it ironically? student: yes. prof. anderson: death by family. because paternalism -- the ideology of paternalism says that slaves are members of the family, it is like killed by family troubles, wink wink. that is possible. certainly, the metaphor, the image of family that is supposed to define these various features of southern society. it is supposed to define the political confederacy. it is supposed to define the plantation environment. not just the whites who live there, but their so-called slaves. it is a very gripping kind of all-inclusive -- instead of having unity, we are starting to see people assert themselves or at least desert the family. but again, she knows what is

coming. we have to think that that -- it is both a literary device but also a commentary of sorts. how else might we make the argument that it is a metaphor? that it is a trope? based on what follows? it comes up again. that is a good indicator. but how does she build behind that? do we then find out what really happens to betsy? no. and talk about what instead? student: her own family, and the perkins. prof. anderson: how does she describe her own family? or lack thereof? student: i guess, as --unstable

might not be the right word -- but how she talks about her mother-in-law. she speaks well of her but she doesn't respect her. same with her father-in-law, kind of. it is all just built on shallow ground, i guess. prof. anderson: it is a weird relationship because there is respect but it is also like she says very early -- we didn't read this part of the diary -- she is almost able to separate herself out. there are problems in this. as there are problems and -- in every family.

in there, butct also resentment. one of the big resentments is that the patriarch, james chestnut, is still the master. the chestnuts, james chestnut junior and mary still kind of live under that domain. but she makes this turnaround two days later by talking about her mother-in-law, and i'm going to ask jenny to read this one. are you comfortable reading this one? page 198, 2 days later. she is trying to illustrate where this comes from, or this family trouble. student: last night when the mail came, i was seated near the land. mr. chestnut had a little distance call that to me -- look at my letters and tell me about them. i read them out loud.

it was from meriwether spoon. i broke down. homer and amazement was too much for me. poor betsy was murdered. she did not bite easily in her bed, murdered by her own people, her negroes. i remember when dr. kitt was murdered by his negroes. very awkward, indeed. there goes kitt always complaining about the institution. how now? her household negroes were so insubordinate that she lived alone at home, she knew that none of her children would've had the patience she had with these people who had been so indulged by her until they were like spoiled children, simply intolerable. prof. anderson: there we go, we finally get to the truth. and the truth is, she is murdered. very awkward, indeed.

[laughter] don't you just love the way she reports? very awkward, indeed. what is she calling into question by inserting this story? the story of how dr. kitt is killed by his slaves, and we later figure out in florida. what is being called into question here by that? by that coupling of the death of betsy witherspoon and the story of dr. kitt? or the fragments of the story? what is being called it a question? student: i think she is questioning the way the system of paternalism is functioning at this point because we take the position -- the slaves were part of the family and now they are

murdering parts of their own family, it is falling apart. it is failing. prof. anderson: it is failing. it is not just that these slaves are a threat, it is that the whole notion of paternalism doesn't seem to stand up. it is not so beneficent when you are being murdered in your bed, either dr. kitt or betsy witherspoon. she then talks about -- and she goes in an entirely different -- are you ever going to tell us? it's like you are in third grade, tell me a story. story time. be like my wife. she reads the end of every book first to determine whether she wants to read the story.

does anybody else do this? because i consider it very odd, very awkward, indeed. buy a book, read it back, then decide. student: what if it is a bad ending? [laughter] prof. anderson: you are already thinking bad thoughts. student: if somebody hasn't died by the end, i don't read it. [laughter] prof. anderson: how very "deliverance" of you, how very southern gothic of you. you do that? i know you do. so, instead of telling us -- the whole chronology that she established is in some ways a device. it allows her to keep this level of suspense going.

her husband goes off to investigate what happens. so we don't know. we don't know immediately the details of what has happened to betsy witherspoon. so she takes that interferes off veers off to an entirely different direction. what comes next? we don't hear about betsy witherspoon later. student: she talks about the perkins family. prof. anderson: the story of a mother and daughter -- a young widowed lady -- in the mother will let her out of the house. student: or anybody in. prof. anderson: and then what did she talk about? student: the mother-in-law. prof. anderson: her mother-in-law. it is always dangerous to talk about your in-laws. let's just establish that right now, that it is one thing to have a conversation in the corner about them, that when it is in print.

[laughter] this is mary chestnut. this is the woman with whom she has a very interesting relationship, because there is respect. but there is also detachment. how does she portray her mother-in-law? opposites. never thinking bad thoughts. the happiest people the ones that never think that thoughts. what gives her that optimism? student: her blissful ignorance. prof. anderson: her blissful ignorance. which she describes -- how does mary describe her mother-in-law's determined, almost aggressive, blissful ignorance? student: she has created a bubble for herself.

she does nothing but read all day. that sounds kind of nice, actually. prof. anderson: a highly intelligent person. always has the latest novels, always has the latest periodicals from europe. despite a blockade -- she always manages to get the good stuff. she wraps her self in genteel -- basically sticks her head in. what is she refusing to acknowledge? student: changes that are happening in society. prof. anderson: the hypocrisy she lives with every day? she had mentioned something about this hypocrisy earlier, but generally speaking, she is an optimist. we come to this middle portion

of betsy's story where we have a person refusing to have a bad thought. student: but she knows exactly -- prof. anderson: oh, she's not student: she is the cleverest woman i know. student: she pits mary up against perkins, and ms. perkins can see everything and does have bad thoughts, but the mother-in-law doesn't have bad thoughts, but they both do it to protect each other. prof. anderson: what is better, right? this is a question we always think, blissful ignorance or doubt? that is what is turned to creep

-- starting to creep in here, right? that is what she is building toward. they were sure that betsy witherspoon died a family troubles. the longer this thing goes on, the more this confrontation, this collision between blissful ignorance and doubt is -- that is what she is developing. those bad thoughts we started with? they look more possible now after the death of -- student: even those of blissful ignorance are not safe. prof. anderson: good. student: you can be happy until you get strangled by your slaves. prof. anderson: you can be happy and not fearful, but that doesn't make you alive. that is a possibility.

you want to say something, when you go to the chin, that is like a very academic thing to do. the mind is working. student: she starts to reference the blockade around them. prof. anderson: now you start to see these other themes layered on. everybody knows that if the federal troops land in south carolina low country, what might result in that slave population. what is always in this chapter, though? but very rarely directly referenced? the fear of slave rebellion. how about the actual experience? has canada had an incident like

this? in 1860, what is the connection she establishes? it was her father-in-law's slave who revealed -- who ratted out -- even today, it makes you mad rat!ou it was reported in a state legislator, even though he continued to live on chestnut land. some of the best parts of this book or when she is recovering these connections. very chestnut knows that surely as she knows the outcome of what she describes. it is possible that bad thoughts are not just in your head -- they might be real.

they might be real. until eventually, she wheels down to october 11. page 213. all of these things -- we still, you know -- in the meantime, we we find out it happens to betsy witherspoon by the time we get -- we get that she strangled and it is just horrible beyond words. very awkward, indeed. until she gets to the campo. still on the plantation, right?

she actually goes to worship. we have had a slave insurrection, or fears of a slave rebellion, slaves hanging for this, and yet, she goes and includes this scene. go ahead. student: [in a southern accent] with his eyes shut, he clapped his hands at the end of every sentence, his voice rose to a pitch of a shrill shriek. still, his voice was strangely clear, sometimes it wrong out

like a trumpet. there was literally nothing in what he said. the negro suede backward and -- swayed backward and forward -- yes, my god, jesus and savior, blessed lord, amen. i would very much like to shout to jim nelson when he wrote from his knees, trembled and shook as if with policy, and from his eyes we could see ecstasy. prof. anderson: not as good as yours. [laughter]

prof. anderson: i am glad that there was some consultation. you do have the voice. we learn all these bad things, and all of these instabilities and quarrels and murder, and she still ends up in this environment. why do you think that is there? student: to show the fleeting quality of everything that is being fought over, just like how she got swept up in the moment, and she realizes that this is fleeting and maybe she can apply it to the whole grander scheme of things. prof. anderson: she could not understand the words he was saying. she frames that as, they don't mean anything.

but she does -- something happens. none of this leaves a trace behind. she also means -- she can't remember what the words really are. so you are saying, in effect, that it is an illustration of fleet? how so? student: everything that they are doing has no leave except for in relation to the idea of a blood feud, that they would be no blood shed in this case? prof. anderson: who is your "they?" student: the confederacy as a whole, the events that are occurring within southern culture. prof. anderson: everything is in

doubt. every institution you held sacred, every believe you had sacred, the future of the nation, the on you thought you had with your fellow rights -- all of it -- all of these are family troubles. student: the chivalrous husband. prof. anderson: who apparently is not doubting? student: the slaves. prof. anderson: it would appear, but what are they not doubting? student: they are not doubting that things are not going to get worse. prof. anderson: they have a belief in something. what that is, she can't quite figure out because the words -- they have a leave. -- they have belief.

student: it sounds religious. prof. anderson: it is very religious. what do you mean? student: they have a belief in like a higher power, which i would assume she would too, so, that she is -- she doesn't understand what he is saying seems a little weird given that it is "yes, my god, jesus, savior." student: it is not articulated well. it is all about promotion good -- it is all about emotion. prof. anderson: it is not articulated in a way that she can process. student: but she still feels it. prof. anderson: she feels it, right. let me ask you a question, perfectly attuned to the college-age junior or senior. because that world is out there. what is belief?

she goes on to tell this story later -- what is belief? is it truth? student: it is thinking that something is truth. student: it is your own truth. student: it doesn't have to actually be true. prof. anderson: it doesn't have to be true. student: but you trust and hope that it is true. prof. anderson: when you say think -- student: well, i can't say believe. [laughter] prof. anderson: i'm not saying it is a syntactical quandary by not defining the term by a term -- i got that, but, you said think. what does mary chestnut come right up against? student: logic? prof. anderson: she wants to think about what she thinks.

student: but the slaves are not thinking, they are just feeling. prof. anderson: there you go. belief is something you give your heart to. that is why i jumped when you said it sounds religious, because belief is something you give your heart to, whether it is factually true or whether you wish it to be true. student: so because mary chestnut has these doubts and she can't believe, that is why the whole service of the church doesn't make sense to her. prof. anderson: she is aware of it, she includes it because she is aware of these things. let's pull out of all of this and see if we can't come -- if we have talked about the lost cause as a creation myth. is this excerpt, is this lost cause-ish? it doesn't seem so, right?

it is almost counter to a lost cause. in what way? student: the ways in which she portrays the society and critiques the society in general. prof. anderson: very critical of -- not necessarily -- does she want the confederacy to win? yeah. is she a loyal carolinian? more loyal? you say that would in south carolina, she could be in trouble. the words are always shifting. is she more loyal than some of the people she talks about? student: yeah, but she hasn't given her heart to a completely. -- 28 completely. -- to it completely. she can see where the problems are. prof. anderson: why can't she give her heart to it? student: doubt. prof. anderson: she has doubts, she is willing to expose those doubts.

what is her big enemy? harriet beecher, uncle tom's cabin. because it is sentimental. the appeal to the emotions and not the head. and maybe that is what she ultimately finds wrong in the confederacy itself. that it was an appeal to the heart, maybe, i don't know, i'm saying there is certainly room for that interpretation. but this clearly is not a lost cause of story. this is a story that challenges the lost cause, even it as it is the emerging. these are happening at the same time, which tells us that by 1920, the lost cause is the fixed narrative. this is never published in the way she intended. it is published after she dies,

a much shorter version. do remember all of this? student: this chapter was not in it. prof. anderson: now you should be able to see why. , thechapter or this scene witherspoon murder, is nowhere to be found. it becomes instead in 1905 -- can you imagine if it was possible to roll over in your grave? [laughter] isabel martin is her literary executive. with friends like that, right? so it just gives us away, giving -- thinking about -- gives us -- gives us a way to think about how -- what is a possible

alternative to a lost cause nation? but then it also gives you an idea of how strong that lost cause mentality was. it is not until 1981 and that diary ishat this published to the form in which it was intended. it tells us that, if we are going to think about reconstruction, it is those things that are struggled over. a struggle over not just power, but the story becoming powerful in itself. who is in control? who was going to write it? if you can tell a good story, can't you create truth? can't you leave no doubt? yeah.

yeah. yeah. we will end on that. see you guys on monday. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm speaking to you tonight at a very serious moment in our history. the cabinet is convening and the leaders and congress are meeting with the president. the state department and army and navy officials have been with the present all afternoon. in fact, the japanese ambassador was talking to the president at the very time that japan's airships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines, and sinking one of our transports loaded with lumber on its way to who i. by tomorrow morning, the members of congress will have -- be ready for action. announcer: eleanor roosevelt is the longest-serving first lady. all the law, her husband, unknown to the public, was physically limited by the

effects of polio. she dedicated most of her life to political and social changes, and her legacy continues today as she as discussed as the possible -- as she is discussed as the possible face for the $10 bill. tonight on "first ladies," examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. week, american artifacts takes viewers into archives, museums, and historic sites around the country. next, we visit the national museum of health and medicine just outside of washington dc to see in artifact from a field hospital used during the war in iraq -- an