What follows is one of my comments to some of the other comments on Peter Carmichael’s post on Black Confederates…
I’d like to add to/take another angle on Kevin’s comment about the SCV and what appears to be the SCV’s use/exploitation of black Confederates to promote the ideals of white Confederate ancestry.
Honoring blacks who served in the ranks of the army is a challenging thing. If it can be proved (and I think I’ve found proof that one African-American from my home county actually did, at least enlist, in the Confederate army), conclusively, that a black served in the ranks of the Confederate army and did so honorably, sure, this falls within the mission of the SCV. However, as Kevin points out, this does seem a bit awkward considering the very nature of the Confederate government.
I will also add that finding conclusive proof of honorable service is a difficult thing as Confederate military records pose a huge problem to researchers. The information on paper cannot be taken at face value. There is a need to look between the lines (in the case of white soldiers, I challenge many to look at the enlistment dates of soldiers and create a timeline, comparing dates of enlistment with the enforcement of the three – though I would argue that there was also an unwritten “fourth” – Confederate Conscription Acts… it makes one ponder why those men enlisted only at that time). After transcribing the records of twenty-seven Virginia artillery companies from the late 1980s through 2001, even I did not realize the need to read between the lines until the last few years (something, I think, that would have made me more critical of the way that I wrote the unit histories).
Furthermore, as many who have plowed through the Combined Service Records know, in 1864, most records end leaving a major question as to what happened to the soldier. Enlistment records are also vague, often not clarifying if an enlistment was actually a conscription (I’ve come upon this situation more frequently in the last couple of years where military records do not list conscription, yet the statements of other veterans make it clear that some soldiers were conscripts… and sometimes very unwilling at that).
All of this said, it concerns me a great deal that there are a number of people in the SCV who like to, as Pete mentions, play a “numbers game” and throw out large numbers, “guesstemations,” if you will, about the number of blacks in the ranks of the Confederate army. To me, this is an effort being made to justify the nature of the white Confederates’ reasons for fighting and de-vilify the darker side of the multi-tiered symbolism of the Confederate flag. After all, how could Confederate soldiers possibly be for slavery if the slave is fighting side by side with the white soldier? Furthermore, if blacks fought in the ranks of the Confederate army, how could it be that the Confederate flag would be found offensive to blacks? It’s all a part of the “make everybody feel-good effort about the Confederate flag” being made by the SCV. So, to me, the effort to find “thousands” of Black Confederates purely in the name of honoring those African-Americans is anything but pure… the motivation becomes more clear each time unverifiable numbers are thrown on the table by the speculators.
I think this is a sorry way to make a positive point about the nature of the Confederate soldier and the Confederate flag, especially when the spirit and quality of the soldiers can stand on their own merit. Though the effort to find the black Confederates is an interesting addition to discussion about the complexities of the Civil War/WBTS, the gross speculation deteriorates both intelligent discussion of the topic and does nothing for the new-era Confederate remembrance effort (except those who make themselves feel good/justified by touting numbers).
Bottom line, if blacks served in the Confederate army and did so honorably, and the white Confederates found that service so honorable, why wasn’t there any stronger efforts made by those white Confederates (they were in many cases, after all, the “best of friends”) to support “thousands” of pensions for those Black Confederate soldiers and servants. Why wasn’t the effort made when the Confederates themselves were lobbying their state government officials to make the veteran pensions possible in the first place?
Lastly, Rick, no disrespect intended, but as for the Virginia Servants’ Pension Act of 1924, how many black servants have you actually found on the rolls of that pension? This is a sincere question as my own research, though limited to one county (so far), turned up nothing but white pensioners. There wasn’t an African-American among the number.
Cenantua's Blog 
Mark Stoneman
July 26, 2008
I’m glad to see more people taking up Kevin’s call to quit abusing the memory of these slaves in the service of a kind of modern-day Confederate patriotism. The mere fact of being in or with the Confederate army says nothing about their motives.
billyank1864
July 27, 2008
Great post…gives people a great deal to think about.
Corey
cenantua
July 27, 2008
Thanks for your remarks Mark and Cory. I think we live in a great time for discussion of these topics, especially as the 150th anniversary approaches.
billyank1864
July 28, 2008
I have often wondered how much of this black confederate talk on the behalf of the SCV is in response to adding Slavery into the story at parks in the NPS?
Corey
Jim
August 28, 2008
First off, Kevin Levin’s blog is both severely pro-Union and equally anti-southern. One survey I conducted found that over half of any random month’s posts were anti-southern.
I imagine the SCV’s efforts to report the multi-cultural makeup of the Confederate Army are partly to reveal the complexity of the Civil War (maybe social bonds were stronger than political bonds), and partly in response to the denigration of the Confederate flag, the latter of course grossly outweighing all efforts to “de-villify” the flag.
Regardless of the motivation, it is unlikely information that any pro-Union historian, like Levin, would ever undertake and disclose in full light. Therefore, it is welcome. And I’m concerned that anyone would question the motivation at the expense of leaving that information uncovered.
Regarding pension effort to support black soldiers, one has to ask why did it take another 100 years for the US government, effectively controlled by the victorious northern states after the war, to bring equal civil rights to its black citizens? I see more ethical parity between whites of all regions than I do in the mythical “great transformation” of the North.
cenantua
August 29, 2008
I’m certainly one to appreciate bringing to light a much more complex war than many care to imagine. However, in the case of many (not all) in the SCV, I believe that the motivation is not so scholarly in nature.
Also, the problems faced by former black Union soldiers in receiving pensions is really no great mystery. One only needs to look at how black soldiers and sailors were looked upon during the war to begin to understand that matter. Certainly, the abolitionists had a significant voice, but not everyone in the North shared in abolitionist opinions about the disposition of African-Americans after the war. Then too, in the South, while most soldiers in the ranks were not, per se, fighting for slavery, the thought of more all African-Americans being free in the South must have certainly unnerved the greater number as it meant a tremendous change in the Southern social system. Borrowing from another title about a different aspect of the war, in retrospect, some might say that there was “plenty of blame to go around” when considering the acceptance of African-Americans into the social order, North and South.
In the end, those who want to see the war in a truly objective light must understand that there is a substantial amount of mythology left in the wake of the war from both sides of the fence. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the war, we must continue to read between the lines (not add to the distortion) to understand something that we, as a society, have yet to completely grasp and appreciate.
On a personal note, I have been mulling over some things. What, for example, is in the value of one person saying that his ancestor, three, four or even five generations back, was right or wrong? Is it really a matter of right or wrong, and do we really have the ability and right to criticize the motivations of generations so far removed? Are we even able to say that we are “proud” of our ancestors for actions that they took? Instead, I think that those of us who continue to have a fascination with the war and the history surrounding it (and even the interesting “connection” with it through ancestry) do more “honor” to our ancestors/heritage and all people who were in that war by taking off the “blinders” and acknowledging, at the very least, that a broad range of possibilities exist (though many of these are more than many would care to accept). My personal “beef” is not with those who lived in that era (I don’t feel that doing so is “our right”), but those who live in this era and continue to distort history for their own benefit and ultimately cite or flaunt it unecessarily as “justification” for their ancestors’ service and/or actions.
Jim
September 3, 2008
Cenantua,
I’m so glad you discussed the issue in a balanced way. Regarding the “connection” one claims to his ancestors and their actions is a natural one and seen in many cultures. As an example, it should be no surprise that a region can be conquered militarily but not in spirit. That rebellious spirit can be passed down, distorted or not, to future generations.
As the victor is allowed to write subsequent history and policy, this can come into conflict with the ideals and memories of the defeated. The losers can even be villified. Next, popular culture can lay an undue burden upon this segment of the population making any remembrance, memorialization, and honoring of their ancestors in any form an impossibility.
To say that one cannot be proud of playing a role in the significant events of our history seems to be unrealistic in my opinion. It may not always be objective, but it has to be natural and unsurprising? Can one really question the motives of the SCV and not be eligible for membership? Will one really understand this culture unless they come from the inside?
I wonder if the views regarding the genocide of the Native Americans will get as much controversy and scrupulous attention as the Civil War. Can the same arguments be made for Revolutionary War heritage?
cenantua
September 3, 2008
It’s interesting that you see my discussion as balanced. Some might (and probably do) disagree and accuse me of playing the “political correctness” game in my approach to history (I think this is more than likely because I’ve raised some questions that challenge their “perceptions” of the war).
You mention a great deal and I’d like to briefly address each one. It might look like I’m dissecting your comments, but please don’t take it that way. I’m just replying to what you mention.
A connection with ancestors – It is indeed a natural process for some. The “spiritual” connection (though one may have never known the ancestor) can be great. There is nothing wrong with that as long as any need to embellish is suppressed, and I think that is where the spiritual connection gets a little out of hand with some people. “Understanding” an ancestor three or four generations removed should equate to never understanding an ancestor at all. We can capture bits and pieces of “understanding,” but we can never capture a fraction of what it takes to deliver “testimony” that might imply a complete understanding or even empathy. The thing I most dislike in this respect is the manner in which some have remanufactured “memory” of that ancestor and therefore, the entire war (which, as I have witnessed, can also include a “supposed” return to the anger and hate believed to have been present in ancestry).
Conquered militarily, but not in spirit – again, I agree. That “Rebellious spirit” and distortion stuff though… I agree that some ancestors may have had just such a spirit, but I also think that there was an evolution of “rebellious spirit” over the years, to the point of masking a more temperate spirit that prevailed in their ancestry (or did not become truly rebellious until the years after the war). It’s on a case by case basis, but I’m afraid I’ve encountered far too many who have just gone out of control in this regard. In reflecting upon the past, a lot of folks I’ve encountered need to swallow the good with the bad. Not only that, but in their remembrance of the past, they need to learn not, out of convenience, forget the bad.
As for the victors writing the history… in pop culture, I see your point, but it’s not necessarily true across the board. The South was actually able to keep a thumb on how their history was told in the South. There are some interesting things out there that discuss the postwar textbooks and who influenced what was put into print. Confederate veterans and their children frequently had a great amount oif influence there. It may be that in the years after WW1, this may have changed.
Villification… this is interesting as well. The heritage defense effort, feeling that the South has been villified, has, in recent years, returned the favor. The manner in which this has been carried out has perpetuated a new wave of mythology that draws more attention (I think it is attention that they should not want) against the newest heritage remembrance effort. I think that the manner in which this has been conducted is not in line with “gentlemanly conduct.” In the name of “heritage defense,” the integrity and “honor” so strongly emulated in the South, has been diminished and shamed. Humility, as a rule (and as exemplified by Robert E. Lee in his years after the war), seems to have been forgotten.
Popular culture and its perception of the war – that’s another problem that has spiraled out of control, but far too large an issue to address in a reply.
Pride in “playing a role” – I take it that you meant pride in our ancestors who played a role? I don’t think we should or can “identify” with a person from the past. We carry too much 20th and 21st century baggage that makes the water rather muddy in this respect. It cries out even more for the need to be able to reflect and be more objective (even critical to a degree… the salt shaker needs to be handy for the occasional “grain of salt”). Otherwise, we continue to feed the mythology mill and we never gain enough footing to gain ground in getting the truth out in pop culture.
Pride in our ancestors who played a role in history…??? Isn’t pride defined as a virtue of respecting oneself? Therefore, to have pride of ouselves when we reflect upon our ancestors… I just don’t think that’s right. We can reflect upon our ancestors and can even feel, because of the connection, an almost mystical fascination, but I don’t think pride is really in the right place in reflection upon ancestors.
Questioning the motives of the SCV and being eligible for membership – ok, you got me here. I’m directly descended from eight Confederate veterans (and a former member of some 20 years). However, within the last seven or so years, I think I’ve found more reasons to disagree with the way that the past is being remembered. I’ve seen some tremendous problems with memory of historical events, most especially memory that is, again, more “convenient” than truthful.
Lastly, I think that the same arguments CAN be made for the other items you mention (the Native People and the American Rev), but I don’t think they will ever gain the same degree of attention that the Civil War draws.
Thanks for your reply and follow-up! You have raised some excellent points for discussion, all of which probably have a place in different posts!
Jim
September 13, 2008
Thanks for the reply. You definitely have some interesting thoughts, but I have not yet seen the bottom-line conclusions from you at this point. When you say “swallow the good with the bad”, is that objective? And I would really like to know what someone should or would take away from the war if they were to strictly adhere to your suggestions.
For example, how would we interpret and judge the participants? What are the main takeaways? If I am unable to feel and express pride, then I must be equally unable to experience shame or disapproval. But where in our minds and media are these emotions absent?
As a child, I was fortunate to spend time with my great-grandparents. One of them always sat with me and pulled out a large box of faded black and white and even tin type photos. She knew the detailed stories of many of their lives, lives that participated in the Civil War. My own grandmother is the daughter of a CW soldier. She remembers many direct conversations with him and has relayed them to me. So, it’s possible that many take great pride in genealogy and remembrance that goes beyond your comment that it was just too long ago to process.
I have children, and it’s natural to want to try and mold some of their perceptions and beliefs to conform with mine. I don’t see how that would be different with CW veterans and their children and grandchildren. Therefore, there may be more of a direct link of perceptions than you believe.
The main concern of mine is that something will be lost with my identity if I am to re-learn “history” that changes the real and perceived historical and political climate where my family’s past is marketed in a less than honorable way. The history of a nation as large as ours is a patchwork of dynamic cultures that is best served without irreverance to past participants. I feel that there are groups and individuals who apply divisive perceptions for political purposes, and I feel the need to try and push back against the ones I identify. Thanks for listening to my rants.
cenantua
September 23, 2008
Jim,
Just a quick note to let you know, I haven’t forgotten about your comments. In short, I think you aren’t finding a bottom-line conclusion in what I am saying, because there isn’t necessarily a bottom-line conclusion. Also, I’m not, by any means, saying that we should abandon our facination with our ancestors and the role they took in history. I do, however, think we need to keep our fascination in-check; sort of like most things… in moderation, it isn’t a bad thing, but when taken to excess and extremes, it can become a problem. As one example, when does fascination turn into escapism and when does escapism overcome us to the point that it redefines our character?
On another note, I’m a bit hung-up lately on the over-use of the words “pride” and “proud.” I think maybe we, as a society, have redefined or reinterpreted how we use these words. Something, I’m sure, for another post on another day.
As for re-learning history… I don’t see it that way, because it isn’t necessarily a re-learning process. The best part of historical studies are those “a-ha!” moments, and I’ve had my fair share over the past six years or so. It’s not re-learning, it’s learning new things. It actually adds more color to the study and… I literally felt like I removed my own blinders when I was able to begin to accept the fact that many more possibilities exist than are allowed under one… um, particular mind-set. Again, it is the ability to accept the fact that other possibilities exist.
I don’t look back at my Confederate ancestors and feel a sense of guilt for what they did. I don’t have that right. Likewise, I don’t look about my Union cousins (the closest relation that I have to the boys in blue are in distant uncles and cousins) and feel ashamed for their ability to stand up for what they believed in. We can appreciate ancestry and even be fascinated with it, but when we begin to incorporate one strict and unbending line of thought from it for ourselves (without recognizing that other perspectives did exist in other ancestors), to the point that it begins to define us, it can go too far.