I’ve been thinking about this for quite sometime…
As Southerners pursuing a better and more complete understanding of our Southern heritage AND accepting the fact that the legacy of the Lost Cause left us with a rather narrow glimpse at the realities that surrounded Civil War era Southerners, what sort of organization might best encompass the full breadth of understanding without all of the symbology and what-not? In what ways can we, as Southerners, both appreciate our ties to our ancestors who were Confederate soldiers, appreciate the fact that the Confederacy did not define the diversity of the Southern populace at the time of the Civil War, and even embrace the fact that many of our Civil War era Southern ancestors didn’t get an all around “warm and fuzzy” about the Confederacy? How can one organization embrace Southern heritage that is inclusive of ancestors who were Confederate soldiers, dissenting Southerners, Southern Unionists (civilians), Southern Union soldiers, the generally indifferent, slaves, free blacks, disaffected Confederates, and disillusioned Confederates?
I’m willing to entertain suggestions, but to make a suggestion (and be among the approved comments) to what might be the preamble of this more enlightened order of Southerners, by making a comment, you readily acknowledge that the Confederacy did/does not define the Civil War era South and you signify that you are able to appreciate the differences of a culture of diverse sentiments that has been so incredibly misrepresented over the years, often because of a rather heavy-handed Lost Cause mythology. The floor is open…
Cenantua's Blog 
victoria bynum
June 26, 2009
I like this idea, Robert. We can’t seem to emphasize enough that “southern” isn’t synonomous with “pro-Confederate” for whites as well as blacks. I find it particularly irritating when Southern Unionists are called “Southern Yankees,” meaning you were a Southern Northerner if you supported the Union in 1861-65.
Vikki Bynum
Renegade South
cenantua
June 26, 2009
Hi Vikki,
Yes, I agree. I don’t care for the phrase “Southern Yankee” as it is an expression (an out of time-period one to boot) meant to attack more than one that reveals an understanding of Southern Unionists. It’s interesting that, just the other day, I responded to a comment at the Chronicles site regarding the different ways that Southern Unionists are referred to.
Craig Swain
June 26, 2009
Robert,
Would you go as far to link “pro-Confederate” to “racist.” Or would you say the two threads are intersecting at points, but not particularly dependent on each other?
One school of thought, as you know, implies that the “Confederacy” was singularly tied to slavery. And slavery was an extension of the racism felt within Southern society. Thus by implication, “all southerners (whites) must have been racists.” Or perhaps, amended in the scope of this conversation, that all “pro-Confederate Southerners must have been racists.”
From my research, it is sort of hard to draw that conclusion as a solid fact. Seems to be a lot of variance among the sampling.
Craig.
cenantua
June 26, 2009
Hi Craig,
I’d say there are overlaps/intersecting points, but they are not dependent on each other.
The views on racism on interesting. We always have to consider what we consider racism today and then what they considered racism in the 1860s… and was “racism” even a commonly use term back then?
Robert
Naim Peress
June 26, 2009
You should write a book or a set of books on Southern Unionists. People will always wrongly identify Southerners with the Confederacy because of the Lost Cause myth. Only the publicity and careful scholarship of a book will start to change that misconception.
cenantua
June 26, 2009
Naim,
I’ve definately been thinking about putting together a published work about Southern Unionists…
Naim Peress
June 29, 2009
Have you read State of Jones? I just bought it and I’ll be reading it soon. You’ve gotten me fired up on the subject of Southern Unionists. It might be a good model for any book that you might wish to write in the future.
cenantua
June 29, 2009
Naim,
I haven’t read it yet. I’m still working on “Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight.” An excellent book. Many of the things I am encountering mesh will with what I doscovered (and continue to discover) in the wartime population of the Shenandoah Valley.
Vicki Betts
June 28, 2009
I think the phrase “Southern Yankee” can be traced at least back to Daniel Hundley’s _Social Relations in Our Southern States_, published in 1860 and available full image in Google Books. Of course at that point he was not talking about Southern Unionists during the Civil War, but about Northern men who had come south and become cruel plantation owners without the “benevolent paternalism” of those born within the Southern “way of life.”
BTW, is there any commonly agreed upon percentage of Southerners, particularly white Southerners, who were pro-Confederate, pro-Union, or uncommitted that could be compared to similar percentages of Americans during the American Revolution (pro-independence, “Tory” or Loyalist, and uncommitted)? I realize of course that there are all shades of levels of commitment between the three.
Vicki Betts
cenantua
June 29, 2009
Hi Vicki,
Thanks for commenting and providing us with the origin of the term “Southern Yankee.” I would agree that the phrase took on a new meaning once the war got underway.
I don’t know that there is a commonly agreed upon percentage. It’s still incredibly difficult to get a firm grip on Southern Unionists. Yet, it would seem that with Southern Unionists, the uncommitted, the disillusioned, and disaffected combined, the number would cut sharply into the total number all too frequently over-represented today who embraced the “Cause” between 61-65.
The comparison between Southern Unionists and Rev War Loyalists would make for an interesting full-blown study. I tapped into it a bit in a paper I wrote for a course while at William & Mary.
Robert
Richard
June 29, 2009
You may have read this article before but it brings up alot to think about. http://www.rrphillips.com/1st2ndNCInfantry/Buffaloe/warwithin.htm
In my humble opinion southern unionist have always gotten the shaft. Both northern and southern historians have neglected their contributions. I think this is due in part to the class system that exists in America. Who cares about poor and working class whites? I like to use the term “Survivors” in describing Southern Unionists.
cenantua
June 29, 2009
Richard,
I too am growing quite fond of the phrase “Southern Survivalist” as it captures yet another interesting group of Southerners who did not embrace the Confederacy as warmly as many would prefer to suggest in contemporary times.
Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it.
acwresearcher
July 4, 2009
To follow your idea of a preamble:
We, the decendants of Southern dissidents during the American Civil War, in order to promote a better understanding of an intensely complex era, provide balance between the “accepted” view of the South and what actually existed, examine personal motivations on a variety of levels and embrace the contributions of these ancestors to the fabric of American history, do ordain and establish a Southern tradition that breaks the Lost Cause mold.
(Tongue planted in cheek, but not firmly!) 🙂
Seriously, a determined effort to organize a formal group to make this aspect of American history more accessible, in the same way Union and Confederate descendants have, would bring light to what is currently an under-studied and little understood aspect of the American Civil War. In looking at contemporary history texts for middle schoolers, Unionists are presented more for their intense objection to Confederate conscription than for any loyalty that might exist for the United States. While that might have been a primary motivation for some, there was a huge variety of sentiment in Texas, as I am sure there was elsewhere, and not all of it was based on a hate and fear of being drafted into the military. I just think “balanced” teaching and learning of American history demand us to face these realities.
cenantua
July 4, 2009
LOL! I rather like quite a bit of your proposed preamble…
I really think that a “visible” order of descendants with these things in mind is something that needs to become a reality in order to help others understand the historical realities.