D. H. Hill, 1859-1924

D. H. Hill, 1859-1924

Daniel Harvey (D. H.) Hill (1859-1924), the son of Confederate general D. H. Hill, was an important figure in the commemoration of the Civil War and Reconstruction in North Carolina in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries through his historical writings and his participation in memorial organizations.

Lee, Susanna

Daniel Harvey (D. H.) Hill (1859-1924), the son of Confederate general D. H. Hill, was an important figure in the commemoration of the Civil War and Reconstruction in North Carolina in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries through his historical writings and his participation in memorial organizations. Hill had a long history at NCSU, serving as one of the first five faculty members as Professor of English and Bookkeeping from 1889-1908, Faculty Secretary and Treasurer, the first College Librarian, Vice-President of the College in 1905, and President from 1908 to 1916. He authored several historical works covering the Civil War and Reconstruction. He was active in historical organizations, especially in forming the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association and serving as Chairman of its Executive Committee. He was appointed a member of the Advisory Board to assist the State Librarian in the selection of the books for the State Library and then as a member of the State Historical Commission. He was also involved in the North Carolina Society of the Sons of the Revolution, United Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Southern Educational Association. Through his historical writings and participation in memorial organizations, Hill primarily adopted a white supremacist interpretation of the Civil War, but that he also included elements of the reconciliationist interpretation. Hill exhibited many white supremacist aspects of Civil War memory, including a promotion of slavery as a positive good. But, unlike many Lost Cause writers of the post-Civil War generation, he did not de-emphasize slavery as the cause of the war and instead focused on threats to the institution as the main impetus for secession. His story of the war itself reflected typical patterns of both white supremacist and reconciliationist interpretations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in that he focused mostly on battles and ignored ideological issues during the war. His attention to Reconstruction exhibited many of the same arguments of the white supremacist interpretation, particularly those presented by historians of the Dunning school who identified the time period as characterized by “negro domination” imposed by northerners on a prostrate South. (SCRC n.d.)