It’s funny, but Civil War Memory is a double-edged sword. Being a Southerner, I’m used to the heavy dose of Lost Cause mythology, and several years ago, I finally came to the point where I could start to distinguish between myth and reality when it comes to the history of Southern Confederates in the war. That said, I’m also starting to see something else in my work with Marylanders in the Union army… Southern men in blue. Keep in mind, I’ve been aware of “Won Cause mythology” for sometime, but I’m finding some really interesting stuff in my work with western Marylanders in blue. Remember, it was a border state, and many of these folks did consider themselves Southerners (rightfully so, consider the geographical location as designated by the Mason-Dixon line), and Maryland was a slave state… but… anyway…
First, it wasn’t always “all for Lincoln”; I’ve provided snippits about the political interests of western Maryland in some posts here in the past. Likewise, in the case of some units (Potomac Home Brigade) that were intended for service to protect the homefront… specifically, that they were taken beyond that line and into points further to the south, into the Shenandoah Valley and into what is now West Virginia, I think some soldiers may have become a little testy about the nature of their service… at least as told to them when they enlisted. Additionally, I can see where slavery was a touchy matter with some of the Maryland boys in blue. Clearly, some of these fellows thought that Unionism was the way to go… and that it would see to the preservation of the institution of slavery. This isn’t your traditional “Won Cause” storyline for the boys in blue, but it’s all good. The “Southerness” of these Maryland men in blue helps to shed some light on a number of things, not only does it challenge what “Won Cause” mythology has done to our Civil War Memory about the men in blue in general, but it also adds more light to the challenges to “Lost Cause” mythology. Understanding these Southern men in blue provides us with a better understanding of the Southern men in gray.
As an after thought… balance is the ability to see the whole story and appreciate it all for what it is… not just look at it and take an angle that you think fits a certain agenda… or fits Won or Lost Cause mythologies respectively. More to follow… in good time.
Cenantua's Blog 
Francis Hamit
April 1, 2010
The principle counterpoint character in my novel “The Shenandoah Spy” is David Hunter Strother, who was from Martinsburg. He was as he later said “A Virginia Yankee” and was his cousin David Hunter’s Chief of Staff during the infamous Valley Campaign of 1864. As a Unionist he was very firm that the war was NOT about slavery. There are strong indications that slavery was going away because it was no longer economically viable. The lifetime maintenance of a slave was very expensive and younger men who inherited those of their fathers’ tended to free them, not just because it was popular or right, but also less expensive than keeping them. Lincoln freed the slaves, but not all of them. It was a war measure because, as John C. Fremont had already observed, slaves were essential to the Southern war effort. They were not in arms, but they drove the wagons and built the fortifications and nursed the sick and cooked the meals and repaired the railroads. Encouraging their wholesale desertion would end the war faster. Slaves would soon be replaced by machinery and many were freeing themselves; buying themselves from their masters.
Robert Moore
April 1, 2010
I don’t want to stray too far from the nature of my post, as it was intended to focus on reflections of western Marylanders in blue (and more specifically, “Won Cause” mythology), and how it also helps us in understanding Southerners at the time of the war as a whole. But, for what it’s worth…
D.H. Strother is one of my favorite Southern Unionists as he was a Virginian. That said, however, the viewpoint of slavery and the causes of the war were delivered from his perspective and individual perspective is just that. Strother’s greatest concern was the “insanity” ( to paraphrase his actual words) that he saw in secession and the dissolution of the Union. Still, and as a sidebar, he was quite aware of the illusion that many Southerners were under regarding their slaves.
My integration of the discussion of slavery in my post was a reflection based on what I have seen in western Marylanders. To many of them, the war was more about the preservation of the Union than slavery, but, they were quite aware that slavery was a serious linchpin in the whole affair. They were not, however, willing to forsake Union for the institution of slavery. Many of these Marylanders pinned their hopes on the Union, seeing that siding with secession would expedite the end of slavery even more, spinning the economy in a direction that slaveholder and non-slaveholder alike did not (for obvious reasons) want. Maryland’s inevitable decision to self-emancipate lays bear the pains that slaveholders and non-slaveholders from the deep South feared most. We have to keep this in mind, because it was certainly in the minds of many Southerners who were concerned about their own economic welfare at the time. Immediate emancipation was horrifying to those concerned about their well-being, for many reasons.
Likewise, we cannot dismiss the potential impact that was laid bear when slavery was prevented from expanding into the territories. Equal representation between slaveholding and non-slaveholding regions was also a great concern. Southerners were losing a foothold in national representation because of the issue of the expansion of slavery. Again, we cannot dismiss the fact that this was in the back of the minds of many of those who moved that the Confederacy come into existence.
Incidentally, you mention that Lincoln did not free all of the slaves. In fact, though not obliged to do so under the Emancipation Proclamation, Maryland freed its own slaves in 1864, as the result of self-legislation.
MSimons
April 1, 2010
Thanks for showing that boys in Blue had various reasons for fighting just as the boys in gray did.
Robert Moore
April 1, 2010
The problem is keeping the generalizations from becoming a “blanketing fact” amongst any large number of men, blue or gray. In most cases, we will never know what the opinions or “reasons” were behind the majority of the individual soldiers. We should, therefore, remain conscious that there were many different opinions and reasons, as made obvious to us by various forms of evidence. This should be a more dominant factor today, in the way we go about remembering the people of the past.
Richard
April 2, 2010
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I know you can be proslavery and a Unionists at the same. Or just want to stay close to home like the men hanged in Kinston. They were homeguards and when their units were merged with the regular Confederate Army and told to go to Virginia they deserted and went to the Union. Many of the men in Eastern NC also had grandfathers that fought in the Revolution, destroying the country could not have been an easy thing. I think the “won cause myth” that you describe applies to both Southern and Northern troops.
http://ncbuffaloes.wordpress.com/
Richard
April 2, 2010
I forgot to make one other point. Unionists activity may exist but how does one put it in perspective with regards to the overall picture. How do you prevent yourself from developing tunnel vision, especially about a topic you are passionate about. Dont know the answers just asking. I think we are in a unique period in history where those who were left out of the story may finally have a voice.