After yesterday’s post, I began to think more about the organization, formed as the male heirs of Confederate veterans, telling a “Southern perspective” of the Civil War. I think it would be more appropriate, as an organization formed of male descendants of Confederate soldiers, to tell the story of the Confederate soldier. However, like telling the “Southern perspective” of the war, the story of the Confederate soldier must not be limited to what equates to the “held-on-high”/”white-washed” version. If someone really expects to do justice to the story, and “honor” the man behind the story, then the complete story must be told. If one does not take the time to try and understand the man that is the soldier, then how can an accurate and complete story be told? For example, “hardships” faced by the soldier are not limited to the general stories of life in camp, on the frontline, and in the pow camps. Nor can it be a story that remains solely persistent in defining the soldier as fighting for his “home and hearth” and that his wife and children are at home, supporting his decision. To tell this one-tracked story is misleading.
What sort of things did the soldier experience that are missing from the common stories being told? What about the definition of fighting for “honor?” In fact, fighting for “honor” could be defined as enlisting before the conscript men came and forced him from his home. The fact that three conscription acts had to be passed by the Confederate government in order to sustain the armies is sorely absent from the “story of the Confederate soldier.” In this case, to “fight for one’s honor” could also be inclusive of the idea that one enlisted just before the conscript act could be enforced. After all, how in the world could a man face his neighbors and family if he did not enlist and the conscript patrols came to take him away? Some men continued to fight for their personal honor by remaining “on the line” and not “going across the line.”
Indeed, if we are to define the Confederate soldier, how can we possibly ignore those who went across the lines? In most cases that I have seen, this was not a decision made alone, by one soldier. In most of the cases, this was a decision made between siblings, messmates, or friends. Not all in those parties had the courage to do it. Some had severe disagreements. Yet, for those friends that did not go across the line, how did this impact their feelings about the war? Some letters and diaries reveal how they felt, and, in some cases, there are stories written by those who crossed the lines.
For the Confederates who crossed the lines… there is no shame or dishonor… it is not ours to give that label; for who are we to sit as armchair judges nearly 150 years after the end of the war? Their story is a part of the overall story and factors into the story of those who remained, and fought until the end… whether that be the end of the war, or their own end in the war. Many of the same men were among the first to rush to enlist. How can we possibly understand what went through the minds of these men? We can read, but do we fully gain an understanding? What made their decisions so difficult and how did they deal with those decisions after the war? This is a part of the story of the Confederate soldier. Understanding these men is a part of understanding the Confederate soldier. It is not simple, but it as complex as defining the war itself.
In all, I have to admit that this is not really a good topic for a blog post because it can be dissected from all angles and there is not nearly enough room in one posting. So, that said, the point is that the story of people in the Civil War should not and cannot be so narrowly defined. We must tell the story in a way that does justice to the people who fought as they were human and were not immune to the mixed emotions that existed because of a very complicated war and time in American history. “Honoring” the memory of the Confederate soldier, or Union soldier for that matter, can only be accomplished by making a more ambitious effort to understanding the man who was the soldier.
Sherree
September 4, 2008
Thank you.
Michael Aubrecht
September 5, 2008
A very interesting couple of posts indeed. Still, I can’t help but feel when I read posts like this (and others who have been critical of Confederate Heritage and/or ‘Southern’ pride as some refer to it) that you consider the South to be the ‘bad guys’ in the Civil War. I’m not trying to be over simplistic at all, but is it possible that ‘if’ some people do consider the South to be the ‘villains’ in this story (whether because of slavery or insurrection etc.) then isn’t that a bias in itself, and would not such a bias in turn affect one’s perspective of the history of the war. Those who ‘root’ for the North so to speak in their interpretations may be just as guilty as those of us who favor the POV of the Confederate Cause when reflecting on the War Between the States. It goes both ways right? The war itself divided the country between two ideals and the history of those events still divides the country between two memories. In some ways we’re just as guilty of practicing hypocrisy as both the Lincoln and Davis administrations. Thanks for the insightful post.
cenantua
September 5, 2008
Thanks for the comment Mike. That said, o.k., item by item of your comment…
“Still, I can’t help but feel when I read posts like this (and others who have been critical of Confederate Heritage and/or ‘Southern’ pride as some refer to it) that you consider the South to be the ‘bad guys’ in the Civil War.”
Well, not only has your comment hugely mispresented my beliefs in implying that I am among those “who consider the South to be ‘bad guys,’” but, as if almost instinctive, I felt insulted by that comment. FYI, out of my direct bloodline ancestory, 100% were living in Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky at the time of the war. But rest assured, I’m grinning here and not ready to call you out for pistols, tomorrow at high noon! (well, at least not yet).
So, no, I don’t see “being Southern” as being the “bad guys.” Not only that, but you’re probably not aware of what I have done over the past 30 plus years (and continue to do) that is “mindful” or “conscious” remembrance of the men who were Confederate soldiers. In more recent years, however, I feel that I have become more conscious of each man among them, for their individual and, sometimes, different beliefs. For example, to be a Confederate soldier does not automatically mean that the soldier was sympathetic with the spirit of “the Cause” …or even in respect for the beliefs of a father… or even planned to remain there in the first place.
For someone today to be critical of morality or ethics of most soldiers who lived during the war is somewhat silly. We can’t put ourselves in that mindset of those people. Excepting the cases where letters, diaries, etc. are available, we can only hope to capture a fraction of understanding for the mechanics of that person’s decisions. That is where we have to dig deeper, if we really want to try to understand… and not play the “one size-fits-all game” that is too often played in describing Confederate ancestors.
Also, “Southern Heritage” can be defined in different ways and, in one case, it would be defined as a Southerner’s ancestry. So, to be critical of “Southern Heritage” in this sense would mean being critical of MY OWN ancestors (of which, no less than eight direct ancestors served in the ranks), which I am not. However, you need to be mindful that “Southern Heritage” is not necessarily “Confederate heritage.” My own includes eager volunteers for Virginia’s ranks, reluctant volunteers, men wounded and/or killed in action, died of disease, died in POW camps, men who were still present with the ANV in 1865, conscripts, deserters, men who were killed by conscript hunters, AND… much to the disgust of those who like to look at history in the silly manner in which they do… what some would call the “detested” Southern Unionists and “Yankee” soldiers (among those were Marylanders and Kentuckians, who were not, culturally, “Yankees” at all, but Southerners who opted for defense of Union). I have seen evidence that my western Maryland ancestors saw themselves as “Southern” in the cultural sense as well. Some of them fought for the Union while others were engaged in the railroad business up that way (and to this I add that, in retrospect, it might be said that one set of my ancestors kept the other set very angry for tearing up the tracks of the B&O).
On the other hand, if you say that I am critical of “Southern Heritage” as defined by the way in which some (key word being “some”) have decided to remember the war, then in this, absolutely, I am very critical. The “bad guys” are not the people who lived at the time of the war, nor the people (in the broadly defined sense) of the South today. Rather, the problem is with those of today who have done and continue to do an injustice to their own people… not to mention history itself.
But, I have digressed, a lot!
“I’m not trying to be over simplistic at all, but is it possible that ‘if’ some people do consider the South to be the ‘villains’ in this story (whether because of slavery or insurrection etc.) then isn’t that a bias in itself, and would not such a bias in turn affect one’s perspective of the history of the war.”
Yes, I agree. I’ve even said that “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” created an image of the South that was not representative of the entire South. Stereotypes and generalizations kill me. On the other hand, the complexities of the war… now, they fascinate me.
“Those who ‘root’ for the North so to speak in their interpretations may be just as guilty as those of us who favor the POV of the Confederate Cause when reflecting on the War Between the States. It goes both ways right?”
Yes, it goes both ways. There are problems in the the way in which both sides have been remembered. Each can be rather narrow-minded, yet that which is presented, by some, in the name of the Confederate soldier, is by far, the most “pronounced”/loudest. Anyway, there is no need to “root” for either side. A person might empathize with one side or the other, because of ancestry or some aspect(s) that are appealing, for whatever reason(s). Bottom line however… the war ended almost 145 years ago… some people don’t think it did, even in theory, and that’s part of the problem. The neo-secesh crowd that ties into the modern “Confederate crowd” is the worst.
“The war itself divided the country between two ideals and the history of those events still divides the country between two memories.”
Yes, but, as I told someone the other night, “don’t say it was North against the South. That’s misleading.” The division ran a lot deeper than that, and included people of both regions ultimately pitted against themselves (but most especially in the South where even fathers and sons were caught in the divide). But, to my point on this… over time, the memory of even that inward division has been eclipsed and a Southern identity has evolved into a cultural identity that is heavily laden with what some might see as an identity with the Confederacy. By eclipsing the bigger, more complex picture, too many Southern people have grown to misunderstand their own heritage. I say this having seen it on more occasions than some might think possible.
“In some ways we’re just as guilty of practicing hypocrisy as both the Lincoln and Davis administrations.”
All I’m going to say on this is that there were problems with the way that both leaders worked in different things. This is a critique of actions, not of the men. However, on that same note, I despise the way that some in the SCV like to tout DiLorenzo as the one person who defines a system of beliefs by which those who memorialize Confederate ancestors should think. I think the DiLorenzo argument is a pathetic tool used by some in the manner in which it is used to justify the “Cause” of a Confederate soldier/veteran. It is representative of “heritage defense” sinking to an all-time low. It’s unnecessary garbage that has no place where it is. The memory of the Confederate veteran doesn’t need that as a tool for understanding either the man or the soldier.
You’ve raised some interesting points for discussion and I welcome further discussion, if you choose to do so.
Michael Aubrecht
September 5, 2008
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. My comment was more of a generalization that was inspired by your two previous posts and my point was in regards to the differing perspectives that are almost impossible to escape in historical memory. I took your comments on those ‘crossing the line’ to be a slant on the Confederates that stayed (my mistake). I think everyone is influenced and biased in one way or another, but the Southern interpretations seem to be on the hot seat much more than the Northern is (IMO). I too found a great deal of surprising contradictions when researching the Unionists here in Fredericksburg. I was not aware of the great social, spiritual, and political differences that existed here for generations leading up to and during the war. This is new territory for me and I am fascinated by it. Much like the Loyalists of our area during the Revolution, the anti-slavery and ant-secessionists played a big role in the story of the town. When examining Civil War history its fair to say that the ’causes’ on both sides had its share of both merits and faults. People ‘root’ (for lack of a better term) for either side for a myriad of reasons and I think if people accepted the diversity of historical memory while placing equal respect on all sides, many of these arguments would be moot. It is possible too to feel a connection to one aspect of the conflict while giving gratitude to the other. An associate over at Shotgun’s Civil War summed up this idea perfectly when he said “I am a Southerner by birth and a Rebel by choice. As I read and study, I pull for Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet. As I live, I thank Grant, Lincoln, and Democracy.”(BTW: Your comments on analyzing individuals one at a time was right on.) You’ve done great work on this subject and given me much to think about.
Kevin
September 5, 2008
Robert, — I find it hilarious and somewhat strange that my two most vocal critics, who believe that I am somehow anti-South and pro-North, were not even born in the South. Just the framing of the issue along these lines reflects little interest in serious historical thinking and a simplist mind.
cenantua
September 5, 2008
I’m not positive, but I thought one was born in the South. As for those without ancestral connections, I’ve encountered it before and became quite curious how one adopts a particular side, relating to something or someone. For that matter, it might be an interesting task to analyze those with Union ancestors who show little interest in their heritage and have more interest in all things Confederate.
Michael Aubrecht
September 5, 2008
It is very sad that I cannot comment on another’s blog without being criticized for the 100th time by Mr. Levin. If he read my comment to the latest post he would see that I am trying to discuss a mindset. I also acknowledged in the following post that I am learning to broaden my own POV. And Kevin, I’m no critic of yours anymore. I don’t even bother with you. Yet you seem to feel the need to criticize me wherever I go.
Michael Aubrecht
September 5, 2008
I have no ancestors on either side who were in America at the time of the war. I am only a 3rd generation citizen and was born and raised in western-PA, but moved to VA at the age of 21. Both my wife and my relatives still live there. However, we built our house in Virginia, raised our 4 children in Virginia, belong to a southern-Presbyterian church in Virginia, and I would not hesitate to stand with Virginia. My personal attraction to the Confederacy comes from many sources, my admiration for the faith of Stonewall Jackson, my empathy and shared disgust with the U.S. Government, and living here in Fredericksburg, a kinship with the legacy of the hallowed ground that surrounds me. I’m not anti-North by any means, but I do get agitated with anti-southern biases at times. I’m also a die-hard Yankees fan and historian, and I have never been to New York. You can do that you know… Thanks.
kevlvn
September 5, 2008
Excellent point Robert. I find this identification with “Southern heritage” by those from outside the “Old South” to be a refection of the pervasiveness of certain narrative strands that for any number of reasons continue to provide meaning for those who find the present to be less than satisfying. I would also be interested to know how many white Southerners who identify with these memes actually trace their family histories to Southern Unionists or some other kind of dissenter. What then does that do to the identification?
I may post something on this tomorrow. By the way, these last few posts have been first-rate.
Richard Williams
September 6, 2008
FYI:
I have 3 great-great grandfathers who were Confederate soldiers – Crutchfield, Coffey, and McGann. All 3 were wounded and 2 of the 3 spent time in yankee prisons. I also have a great-great grandfather – Williams (all four men were adults during the WBTS) who came to Virginia as a carpetbagger from Pennsylvania after the war, but who eventually served the Commonwealth with distinction and honor in other ways. I’m proud of all four of these ancestors’ sacrifice for Virginia.
Sherree
September 7, 2008
Hi Robert,
This is Sherree.
I have enjoyed your posts very much. Thank you for considering my comments.
I have a request.
Would you guys please knock it off?
I sincerely believe that everyone who has expressed an opinion here has a genuine interest in the Civil War, and that if we could all somehow get past our different perspectives we might reach some true understanding that might actually benefit the present.
Your books sound wonderful, Robert, and I will purchase one as soon as the next paycheck rolls around. I am particularly drawn to the story of your ancestors in the Shenandoah Valley. I am also very grateful to you for your years of research and your attempts to begin to help Southerners understand that our past has been distorted and that we must start anew. Your blog is brilliant.
Kevin, you already know how much I applaud your brilliance, your nerve, and your dedication. I will copy this comment to you, but not post it to your blog, because I feel that I have taken up too much time on your blog and that you have other readers whose interests need to be addressed.
Richard, I visited your blog and could relate deeply to a comment you posted beneath a picture that looked out over a field, in which you said, “This is what they were fighting for”. I have a deep connection to the land in Virginia as well, so I understand that.
Michael, I don’t know you, but you seem very genuine, and it is wonderful that you have adopted Virginia as your home.
It is time to get this right. There are anti Southern biases and there are anti Northern biases. There are rural vs urban biases and urban vs rural biases. There are men vs women biases, women vs men, women vs women, men vs men, etc etc etc. Enough.
Soon the Civil War will again be publicly commemorated. Are we, as a country, going to miss this chance to redress the grievances of the past? The war WAS about slavery. It was. It was. It was. Please, can we reach a consensus on this? It was also about defending land, family, home, and hearth. All of the players were human beings–flesh and blood–Union soldiers, Confederate soldiers, the wives of all, and the black men and women whose very bodies did not belong to them.
I was shocked that there was such controversy over putting a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Museum of the Confederacy. I don’t understand that, and I am a Southerner with three ancestors who were in the Confederate army, two of whom died in battle. I consider the controversy an affront to my ancestors’ memory. The Union and Confederate soldiers who fought and died in the Civil War paid the price for all of us to live in the country we now live in, and when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the war should have ended there. It is not up to subsequent generations to fight the war again. The Union was preserved. Abraham Lincoln is to be honored. So is Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S Grant. And so is Frederick Douglas.
What concerns me is that I see both sides in this debate inadvertently dehumanizing the other side. Black men and women were not happy to be slaves, just as “yeoman farmers” were not mechanical players in a gender based, race based, class oriented hierarchy, madly rushing off to defend slavery. These arguments are simply absurd at their worst, and not helpful at their best. I am fairly certain that no one will agree with me on that, so I will leave that statement as is, and note, that the statement is, of course, just my opinion.
I would like to close with a bold statement–an idea– maybe even a dream. Why not have the descendants of Confederate veterans voluntarily retire the Confederate flag at the commemoration of the Civil war in 2011 and embrace the black men and women for whom the war truly never did end? How about putting a statue of Frederick Douglas in the Museum of the Confederacy? How about honoring both Lee and Lincoln as great men? How about stopping this continual ridicule of “rednecks”? How about stopping this continual ridicule of “Yankees”? How about honoring all members of this great nation, without demeaning other members? How about it?
Thank you, Robert. Thank all of you.
Robert Moore
September 7, 2008
Hi Sherree,
Thanks for your comments and remarks regarding my blog.
You raise a lot of interesting points. I’d like to spend more time a little later on responding to each one. In the meantime, however, I do want to address one item… in thinking that descendants of Confederate veterans retiring the flag is a reasonable solution (and of course, you admit that this is a bold statement).
Essentially, it returns to the reasons why “heritage defense” has become a real issue in, for example, the SCV. The very thought is more agitating than a method of healing wounds (at least for one line of thought). I think it is more feasible to really put forward the effort to educate, and not just in the “halls of the academy.” It may sound oversimplistic, but I think more attention needs to be given to the way in which the facts are put out to the general public. The question is… how? More on this later.
Sherree
September 8, 2008
Thank you, Robert, for posting my comments and for responding.
You are right. Education is the key, and education in which one group is not either mythologized as more courageous, more moral, and of superior character to another group, or pitted against another group. I see this happening on all sides. None of us is superior to the other–Southerner, Northerner, white, or black–not now, and not then. To my Native American friends, the American flag is a symbol of racial massacres and white supremacy. To my First Nations’ friends of Canada, it is the Canadian flag that represents oppression. The soldiers who went West after the Civil War, and who were both Union and Confederate veterans, committed horrible atrocities against the Lakota, the Cheyenne, and other Indigenous Nations. One of the commanders of those troops, Colonel Chivington, had been a staunch opponent of slavery. Yet, he ordered the massacre of innocent women and children at Sand Creek as an American flag was flown by the Cheyenne to show that the group was friendly to the US government –a massacre that included the mutilation of the bodies of the victims. General Sherman, who went West, too, helped to set the policy of indiscriminate killing of the buffalo, which helped starve Indigenous men and women to death. In some ways I think that it was so easy for Northern white men and women to reconcile with Southern white men and women and bury the hopes of black men and women for centuries, because, at heart, they were brothers and sisters, and at heart, it was the white race that mattered.
We, as a society, have a chance to change this now, and we have changed it quite a bit over the past forty years, following the lead of courageous black men and women, and courageous men and women of all races. For me the Confederate Flag represents Bull Connor clubbing innocent women and children and the nation’s soul to death, and it shoudl be retired by white Southerners. I just want to add the voice of this descendant of Confederate veterans to the conversation. I am positive that there are thousands of white Southerners like me, who have no idea what is going on while we are out trying to make a living. To read about that ugly demonstration over the Lincoln statue in Richmond, brought back some very bad memories for everyone. As I stated on Kevin’s blog, my moral compass is my late mother’s best friend, who is black and who almost lost twins she was carrying in the Jim Crow era until a white doctor made the white hospital admit her. I visited her this summer and she said that the continued display of the Confederate flag “troubled” her. That means it troubles me. That woman is the heart and soul of America, as are women and men like her and like my late mother. Retire the flag. It is the only gentlemanly thing to do.
Thanks, Robert.
Sherree
September 8, 2008
For the sake of accuracy–a correction. The Sand Creek massacre occurred before the Civil War ended–November 29, 1864.
Thanks again, Robert, for adding my voice to this conversation.
Sherree
cenantua
September 24, 2008
Sherree,
In a quick comment to your latest comment… yes, essentially, humans are brutal to each other and the track record, whether it be the manner in which blacks were treated, the manner in which Native people have been treated (fyi, I have been told that “Native people” is preferred over “Native Americans”), and even how Africans treated Africans in the peak years of the West African slave trade.
However, I think we need to focus on realistic education in the way that we tell the story of the Civil War. We also have to be realistic in our expectations. To say that you want to see descendants of Confederate Veterans retire the Confederate flag isn’t realistic and, in fact, would probably invoke more anger and resistance. I even cringed a bit at the suggestion.
The problem with the Confederate flag is that is has historical “layers.” One of those layers, as it represents a group of people for their courage and bravery in battle and their resistance as a people, is the one that I would prefer would remain intact. The problem is… all of the other layers. Also, another problem is that, as a symbol, there are too many different “perspectives” that rally around one common symbol; the problem really being that there is way too much baggage in this rally around one common symbol and it ends up tainting the whole.
Sherree
October 14, 2008
Hi Robert,
Yes, you are right–the Confederate flag is a controversial symbol. I again thank you for adding my view on this subject.
I knew that the idea of retiring the flag was unrealistic when I proposed it. Yet, I hoped that by proposing the impossible that perhaps a different conversation would start to take place.
There are those men and women for whom the display of the Confederate flag causes much distress. I will not reiterate what I have already stated above. It is the gentlemanly thing to do to consider that distress as real and meaningful and not to dismiss it, however, and you have done that very carefully and thoughtfully in this and other posts. I thank you–and I compliment you as well–for your attempts to present all sides of this issue.
My mother’s friend who was pregnant with twins and almost lost them when she was refused admittance to the white hospital is old now and not well. She may live to see the first African American President elected. She HAS lived to see the first African American nominated to run for President–something that was not even dared to be dreamed in the 1960s, as you know. She has also lived to see the Confederate flag brought back into public spaces again, too, however. The flag is not a symbol that brings happiness to her.
I do not know what the answer to this dilemma is. I just know that the men and women who suffered the abuses of Jim Crow have the right to have a say in how and where the Confederate flag is displayed. Whether we like it or not, the flag was used as a symbol of race hatred by many. To ignore that dishonors the men and women who suffered on all sides of this issue, including the Confederate soldier.
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary, Robert.
I do believe that you are right on target on this issue.
As far as terminology goes when it comes to Indigenous men and women–you are right about that, too. Most men and women with whom I sit in sweat lodges or dance at pow wows prefer the term “Native” to “Native American”. I used the latter term for the sake of clarity for your readers. In all actuality, “Native” is not even preferred, but the nation to which a man or woman belongs–ie. Cherokee, Ojibway, Cree, Creek, Nez Perces, Arapaho, Seminole–to name a few
Sherree
cenantua
October 14, 2008
Thanks for the comment Sherree. Just a few more days and I’ll be able to get back into the swing of things here. – Best, Robert
Sherree
October 15, 2008
You’re welcome, Robert. And thank you for posting my comments.
I understand. Study.
Good luck on your exams! Talk to you when you can talk!
Regards,
S