Revisiting one of my earlier posts in which I offered my thoughts on a post made by Kevin Levin in his Civil War Memory blog, and having seen this post in another blog, I’m again drawn to some of the thoughts that I’ve had regarding the way that “Black Confederates” are being “remembered.”
Regretfully, we still know little about the service of the two men recently recognized in the media in N.C. as “Black Confederates,” and, quite honestly, I’m curious. I would just like to know more. As the blog post indicates, a descendant mentions that the “two soldiers were stationed at Ft. Fisher.” I’m not at all doubting this, but I am left quite curious about the nature of that service. Were they actually on the rolls as soldiers or were they at Ft. Fisher in another capacity (slaves, body servants, etc.)? Was this service willfull? What do the family stories reveal?
I have noted that the headstones indicate little about their service other than that each is recognized simply as ”Confederate Soldier.” There is no specific unit affiliation… and the headstones leave no record through the ages to simple cemetery walkers that these men were ”Black Confederates” (I’m curious as to why). A comment made in Kevin’s blog post shows that Nichols did, in the 1910 census, indicate with ”CA” that he had served in the Confederate Army. What about Sandy Oliver? Furthermore, there appear to be no pension records for either man. So, could somebody just give the details behind why (not theoretically, but based on the historical information) we would remember these men as “Confederate Soldiers?”
All this being asked… I’m not quite finished.
In that same blog post, there is a quote about “solidarity of blacks and whites both during the war.” To me this remark sounds as if it is suggesting a pervasiveness in racial harmony and sympathy to “Cause,” and that is where I detect something other than simple remembrance of the service of these two men. It may be that family stories tell of how these two men felt this way, and it may be that other family stories such as this dot the landscape, but I sense a suggestion being made that is impossible to present as a statement of fact blanketing a larger population, specifically the population of African-Americans in the South during the American Civil War. There is a significant amount of evidence to show that this was not the case. Nonetheless, if a case is to be made that such sentiments did exist even in the presence of something quite to the contrary, the case needs to be presented in a manner other than in statements such as this.
If this is simply a remark taken out of context, then clarification needs to follow. However, if this is a suggestion of pervasiveness, then this is nothing more than a form of ”mis-history” that blurs our ability to more effectively grapple with the complexities surrounding the truth about the lives of African-Americans in the Civil War South.
I’m not going to even bother with the “as many as 60,000 Americans of African origin served in the Confederate armed forces during the Uncivil War” remark made at the event.
Crystal Marshall
February 14, 2009
I am curious as to why some would be so eager to draw quick conclusions about the “Black Confederates”, when we have so little information regarding their actual service. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for honoring these men if they actually did serve as soldiers; I am all for honoring them even if they were cooks or servants, or even if they never served in the army in any capacity during the war. Regardless of their role, they should be honored–but in order to truly honor them we must do so in the right way, to honor them and not to validate any of our own self-serving assumptions and biases.
For those who would be so quick to assume about the actual service and motives of these men, I wonder what the motivation is? What are they trying to accomplish and/or prove? It is not worth misinterpreting past history in order to suit our modern needs. Let us truly honor and respect the lives of these two African-American men by not jumping to conclusions. In any case maybe this will motivate some in the historical field to conduct more research in areas that may have been largely ignored or neglected, i.e. African-Americans and their participation in the armies of the Civil War.
cenantua
February 14, 2009
Thanks for your comment Crystal.
I think a lot of folks assume too much about too many people back then. All the African-Americans who “served” the Confederacy, no matter the capacity, should not be called “Black Confederates.” It suggests favoritism to “cause,” and that’s just the beginning of the problem in presenting the facts surrounding the history. While some may have favored the “cause,” certainly it was not the case for all, and probably most. I think the same can be said of whites in the service of the Confederacy. While the estimates vary, let’s take the number 850,000. Is it fair to assume that all of these men favored the “cause” and the Confederacy? Certainly not. Nonetheless, many who celebrate and remember the Confederacy, like to lump everyone under the idea that all were “brave Confederate soldiers.” It’s absurd when one understands the complexity of service in that war. Just as there were conditional Unionists, the same could be said of those in the ranks of the Confederacy. I would say most were “conditional Confederates,” and the desertion numbers suggests that these “conditions,” no matter how varied, were not being met. Additionally, while enthusiasm may have been greater at the beginning, just how far were all of these men ready to go in the name of “independence” from the Union? Considering the large number of desertions, the significant numbers that avoided service until forced to enter service only as they faced the threat of conscription, those who avoided service altogether, and those who could be classified in the many categories that make up Southern Unionists, I am just about ready to say that the people of the South favored the Confederacy and it’s cause much less than many try to suggest. There was no “solid South.” Therefore, the manipulation of “Black Confederates” in modern remembrance is a part of a new-found headgame to suggest something greater than what it actually was. As you point out, we have a lot of research ahead of us.
S. Campbell
February 22, 2009
I agree with you cenantua. If we are going to honor these men, we really need to get the information on them correct. A great injustice is being done, I believe, when memorializing them and having the wrong information on them. Not only that, but a great injustice is being done to us all, for possibly getting history wrong and spreading incorrect information at these memorials.
In my time in the S.C.V. I’ve certainly seen a lot of possible incorrect history being spread around and some that was definately incorrect. All the way to which way stars on the battle flag need to be pointing.
I can understand that there should be some sort of unit affiliation on the stone, but I don’t really think that there needs to be anything that says that they were black Confederates. I think if there was something that said they were black Confederates then it would just another “in your face” thing to people that don’t like the battle flag. Also, to me it would just be playing into a racial thing where race just dosn’t matter. As long as groups (S.C.V. or NAACP types) are making a big deal about the color of somebody’s skin, there will always be some sort of racial problems.
S. Campbell
February 22, 2009
I think I accidentally hit the enter button and sent an unfinished comment. If I did, I’m sorry. The following is the finished comment
I agree with you cenantua. If we are going to honor these men, we really need to get the information on them correct. A great injustice is being done, I believe, when memorializing them and having the wrong information on them. Not only that, but a great injustice is being done to us all, for possibly getting history wrong and spreading incorrect information at these memorials.
In my time in the S.C.V. I’ve certainly seen a lot of possible incorrect history being spread around and some that was definately incorrect. All the way to which way stars on the battle flag need to be pointing.
I can understand that there should be some sort of unit affiliation on the stone, but I don’t really think that there needs to be anything that says that they were black Confederates. I think if there was something that said they were black Confederates then it would just another “in your face” thing to people that don’t like the battle flag. Also, to me it would just be playing into a racial thing where race just dosn’t matter. As long as groups (S.C.V. or NAACP types) are making a big deal about the color of somebody’s skin, there will always be some sort of racial problems.
cenantua
February 22, 2009
Mr. Campbell,
I tend to think that most of this “Black Confederate” thing is an “in your face” drive. Emphasis is being placed on the suggestion that any African-American, being “found” as tied in anyway to “service” with the Confederacy should be 1) considered a “black Confederate,” and 2) all be considered “soldiers” who was were performing “willfull” service. I am sure that may well have done service willfully, but by no means all of them, and I question even that a majority of them did. At least, until something can be produced on each and every one of them to show that they wanted to be there, it should not be presented to the public as such. It is a tactic that is a shameful practice of agenda-driven exageration to the general public, and diminishes the importance of what we should consider in those who DID perform service willfully.
The same can be said of whites who “served” in the ranks. Shall we also think of ALL white men who wore the gray as willing participants? Absolutely not. We need to grapple with what THEY would have wanted, and we can only do this by assessing the service of each and every man, one man at a time. Blanket flagging in a cemetery, as an example, may be just as great a misrepresentation as misrepresenting all African-Americans who “served” the Confederacy under one category and one category alone.
Incidentally, your mention of the particulars in the presentation of the Confedederate flag bring to mind something I wrote about a year ago, in the manner in which irresponsible flagging is being conducted (the 7-star First National over the graves of those who came from states that seceeded after the first seven states). That’s just a fine example of not knowing or fully understanding one’s own history… the very history and “heritage” that they claim to be “honoring.”
Thanks for your comments!
S. Campbell
February 23, 2009
All said is correct. There is way too much “in your face” stuff. You can catch more flies with two things. Honey and manure, but which one would make everybody involved feel good when your dishing it out?
On the service issue. All veterans must be taken on a case by case basis, white or black. What do we do if the veteran was Confederate, but crossed the lines and now has a Union marker? We can’t very well force a Confederate marker in there too, or a battle flag, unless it was the will of the family.
I can understand your point about the 7 star 1st National flag over veterans graves that came from the later states, but do they even make 12″ x 18″ 13 star 1st Nationals? Maybe the 3rd National would be good as a blanket flagging flag. It dosn’t necessarily say the veteran willingly served the Confederacy, but it does say that the veteran did serve and lived in a state that was part of the Confederacy.
cenantua
February 23, 2009
But the flag atop a grave suggests something to the passerby. Take, for example, a conscripted person, taken from his home and forced to serve in the Confederate army. Would he necessarily want a Confederate flag atop his grave? Wouldn’t he prefer that you recognize his trials and sacrifices as a man over the suggestion that he made those sacrifices willfully and in support of the flag that flies over his grave? The flag does not embody the nature of the man’s service. So, how do we more accurately credit the nature of the service and reflections of the man’s point of view?
S. Campbell
February 23, 2009
That’s all true, but here’s a good local example of how I don’t think it can’t be helped. We have a local cemetery that has one of the largest concentrations of Confederate dead from Knoxville to Roanoke. The only problem is that the majority of them only have numbers and were never identified until the more recent years. It has always been known as the Confederate section of the cemetery. If we were all to wait to get all the information in some cases, then these men might be forgotten all together.
I certainly believe in doing everything that the deceased would want, because they aren’t here to speak for themselves.
Back to the number stars on a flag. They only make 50 star 12″ x 18″ flags, so we can’t give the right number of stars to veterans that served in a less numbered state union. So what would we do for our own grandfathers, who served when there were less than 50 states.
Tonight we had our S.C.V. meeting. Our speaker does a real good power point presentation about Confederate flags. He showed us a picture of a battle flag that is in a museum collection(which museum I can’t remember) which had 17 stars. It is an actual flag, but nobody knows the reason it had 17 stars. They can only guess.