When reviewing a Confederate unit history recently, I ran across a remark made by the contemporary author (not a person who actually lived during the Civil War) about the men of Samuel Means‘ Loudoun Rangers (see this link for an interesting history of the unit… strange to say, the author of this article also uses the word “turncoat” in reference to the Loudoun Rangers). 
The Loudoun Rangers were, for the most part, Virginians (at least Co. A… Co. B consisted of more Marylanders) from Loudoun County (and the surrounding area) who not only refused to buy into the idea of secession, but were members of a unit in the service of the Union army. Means’ unit was an example of what I consider Southern Unionism taken to the “nth” degree.
When we really take time to consider these Unionist Virginians, were they really “turncoats?”
Well… I have to say that the word “turncoat” is a poor choice. According to the Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, “turncoat” is defined as “One who traitorously switches allegiance.” At what time did these men switch allegiance? Virginia was a state of the United States… and when had these men, ever, sworn allegiance to Virginia? For that matter, when did they swear an allegiance to the United States? But, before I digress…
Since the men of the Loudoun Rangers did not wear Confederate uniforms before they donned the blue uniforms, the word “turncoat” doesn’t fit.
Maybe some Virginians who bought – lock, stock, and barrel – into the idea of secession and Confederacy, considered these Unionist Virginians as“turncoats,” because the Confederate-leaning Virginians saw things as state first, country second.
On the other hand, the Unionist Virginians of Means’ command probably saw the secessionist Virginians as turncoats, having turned against the United States… the Unionist seeing things as country first, state second.
Bottom line is that the word “turncoat” equates to “traitors.”
Before I go any further, let me be clear here… I’m not going to entertain any comments about the legality of secession, so please don’t submit any. Moving on…
If these dueling Virginians saw each other as traitors, then it was their perspective at the time of the war and I can’t possibly dispute how the two parties judged each other, but I can be suspicious of a contemporary author using the phrase “turncoat Virginians.”
First, I’ll give the author the benefit of the doubt. It may be that the wording is used to immerse the reader more in the mindset of the Confederates who are at the focal point of this work. (I’m personally a big fan of virtual reality in narrative design, but I’m not sure I’m buying it here). The book is a Confederate unit history and the Confederates (or some of them) may have seen the men of the Loudoun Rangers as turncoats against Virginia. Yet, there is no evidence (quotes from the Confederates as to their opinions of Means’ men) anywhere in the text of the book to show that the Confederate Virginians described the Unionist Virginians in blue as “turncoats.”
So, did the author go a little too far? Is this an indication of the author’s personal “sympathies” for the Confederates as well as an indication of a little animosity toward the Loudoun Rangers? Is this an indication that the work is about a “bushel” short of objectivity? Does the author inappropriately weave this sympathy into the history to invoke a sympathetic feeling in the readers for the Confederates and animosity for the Loudoun Rangers?
Unless I can ask the author specifically what his/her intent was in saying this, and because there is an absence of any quotes from the Confederates identifying the Rangers as “turncoats,” my first inclination is to suspect the author of failing in the delivery of objective history. At least it doesn’t appear to be history delivered in a manner for the reader to read, consider, evaluate, and form opinions on his/her own.
Some say that objectivity truly isn’t possible, but would you prefer lack of objectivity being transparent or opaque?
This post is dual posted in Southern Unionist Chronicles.
Harry Smeltzer
August 27, 2009
If I may stray a bit, I have difficulty accepting the whole my-first-loyalty-is-to-my-state “excuse” for turning coat. Those who claim this as a given and primary motivation have a hard time explaining folks like Simon Buckner, John Breckenridge, George Steuart, Arnold Elzey, all of whom served in the Confederate army even though their states never seceded from the Union. I truly believe that other factors – financial, ideological – bore these fellas aloft than did the gossamer wings of “state loyalty”. Of course, these more tangible reasons appear egocentric and far from altruistic. I think some take comfort in viewing these guys as mere sloshes of foam, rolling with the tide of public opinion. I see nothing honorable in such a wuss-like motivation.
cenantua
August 27, 2009
Thanks for commenting, Harry. I don’t think the state-centric motivation was as great as some make it out to be today. Southern motivations (no matter the sympathies) were often diverse and shifting. Even localism played a factor in some and, ultimately, made men desert from the Confederate army, hide out in the hills and snipe at whoever came to bother them and their families, no matter whether those who came wore blue or gray. I like your analogy about “sloshes of foam” and those who take comfort in this belief.
Harry Smeltzer
August 27, 2009
Of course, the sloshiest foam of all in this image is R. E. Lee, whom we are to believe went against everything else he held dear to sacrifice all to state loyalty. Can’t get much more altruistic and noble than that (I feel about altruism as Ayn Rand did). Now, I’m not saying these guys didn’t have their reasons – I just don’t buy the one overiding reason that some folks spew as incontrovertible.
cenantua
August 27, 2009
I was about to say something about Lee myself… about how since he did it for State, so many others think that their Confederate ancestors must have as well… though most don’t have an ounce of evidence to back-up such a claim. It’s about as bad as “I have an ancestor who wore gray, therefore, he must have firmly believed in the Confederate cause.”
I’ve got some pretty interesting quotes from some Virginians coming up in the near future. My personal favorite is from one Virginian, talking about the sacred soil of Virginia… and yet, was a hardcore Unionist and refugee in the western panhandle early-on. In reference to Southern tradition, etc., I’ve got some great info from West Virginia in the hopper right now.
Harry Smeltzer
August 27, 2009
I recently read on another blog someone refer to a person born in West Virginia as a “fellow Virginian”. Hmmm…Which reminds me, in answer to the question “How would Gettysburg have turned out had Jackson lived?” I say “He wouldn’t have been with the Confederate army. He would have resigned when West Virginia rejoined the Union that June.”
cenantua
August 27, 2009
LOL. That’s funny re: Jackson. He was loyal to… not the locality of his birth in WV, but that which was given him courtesy of the culture of Lexington, Va. I suppose the reference to the “fellow Virginian” from West Virginia is a subtle attempt to reclaim what was torn from Virginia? LOL.
Craig Swain
August 27, 2009
I’ve got to bite my tongue a bit, but will say that word choice did trouble me when I first used the author’s work while gaining a background on the Loudoun Rangers.
What also has bothered me is the statement, “Federal Army commanders never really trusted the loyal Virginians.” I have yet to see anything substantial to back up such a statement. Infantry commanders in the AOP did not hide their disdain for inefficient cavalry operating in their midst. So the evidence I’d look for is a statement as those Reynolds said of Stahel’s command. The unit served right up to the end of the war, however. Sort of hard to believe the commanders would rely so much on an untrustworthy unit.
I think, to a degree, the Rangers didn’t receive their due since they operated in the same sector (as did Cole’s) as did two of the Confederacy’s premier small unit cavalry leaders – Mosby and White. As such, they served as “foils” to the post-war narratives extolling the exploits of those commanders.
BTW, Means’ house still stands in Waterford: http://www.waterfordfoundation.org/tour/bond1.html
cenantua
August 27, 2009
Craig, I realized that the comment about Federal commanders never really trusting the loyal Virginians was written in 1908. Like you, I’m wondering what influenced that comment. I’m thinking it was a thought coming in from some time in postwar years. I have to admit, however, that I haven’t seen the book about the Loudoun Rangers. Have you seen it? I definately need to land a copy since I’m giving serious thought to tackling the history of Cole’s Cav.
Harry Smeltzer
August 27, 2009
I think that’s the problem – folks will believe Jackson (or anyone else) was “loyal” to whatever fits. This is why I don’t buy the whole notion of the “loyal to whatever” motivation. It’s not supported by anything.
Coly Hope
August 28, 2009
I have also heard that Confederate commanders didn’t entirely trust Virginia units either.
cenantua
August 29, 2009
Coly, That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that before. Do you recall where you saw that?
Coly Hope
August 30, 2009
I believe it was in a book about Ball’s Bluff but I will look it up.
Craig
August 31, 2009
I can ask the Balls Bluff SME next time I see him, but I think the context was early in the war with White’s Comanches. With war still considered a “formal” affair, White’s men certainly lacked the professionalism that trained officers were comfortable with. Same issue occurred in the West with Kentucky regiments. And as I recall, Jackson had similar misgivings about Ashby’s performance. But I’ve not seen it termed as questions of loyalty, just questions about effectiveness.
cenantua
August 31, 2009
Thanks Craig. I can understand the lack of trust because of lack of professionalism, but the lack of trust among officers because soldiers were from Virginia seems unusual. I can somewhat grasp the thought of a possible lack of trust among officers from the deep South in the early war, so I’m curious to see what Balls Bluff might hold for us in this regard.
Ashby had a serious problem with micro-managing or inability to effectively delegate, but his men adored him so much that Jackson couldn’t interfere with that and lose his cavalry. Of course, Jackson tried to act on Ashby’s situation in April 1862, but ended up backing down.
Harry Smeltzer
September 1, 2009
Good old Jackson. One of his seldom quoted maxim’s: “The only good subordinate is a dead subordinate.” He always seemed to find nice things to say about people, like Ashby, once they were kaput.
cenantua
September 1, 2009
LOL, stirring the pot, Harry?
Then you have subordinates still feeling the pinch of Jackson’s wrath, even beyond Jackson’s death. Poor Dick Garnett… and of course, A.P. Hill might have even gotten a good plug had he died before Jackson… despite Jackson’s supplemental notes to one of Hill’s testimonies where Jackson wrote often of Hill’s statements as “lies.”
cenantua
September 1, 2009
Find anything in the Balls Bluff book, Coly?