I think it was interesting how little time, comparatively, Campbell spent writing about the actual Civil War itself. Maybe he felt that the time during the war wasn’t as important as the aftermath of the war, and how it affected racial tensions in Richmond. On paper, the major foundation of the Southern economy (slavery) had just been eliminated with the passage of the 13th Amendment, and society should have been in shambles after fighting and losing a war. Yet, there wasn’t a seismic shift in racial equality, and discrimination/segregation still occurred. Even vagrancy laws preserved elements of slavery in a post-Civil War society.

The imagery of a burning Richmond seemed very cinematic, in a way. Between the people drinking liquor from the gutters, troops evacuating the city, and the fire burning behind it all, it just feels like that was a moment where maybe the all of the underlying tensions of a city at war were unearthed and brought to light. The city, and the Confederacy as a whole, knew that they were on the brink of crumbling. I think the actions that people take in those kinds of situations can be very telling.

One thing that stuck with me was how the history of Virginia regarding slavery and the Civil War was rewritten to show the South in a more favorable light. I’ve learned about this a bit in a history class I took in high school. The teacher posed an interesting question – in what other war has the losing side been allowed to influence how the story of that war is told? History is written by the victors, except in the case of the American Civil War. In most wars, the losing side is eliminated entirely. But because the South was allowed in large part to retain its identity and culture even after rejoining the Union, it was able to erase parts of history and rewrite them to its advantage.