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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I’ve definately been thinking about putting together a published work about Southern Unionists…

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