I just added a link to Greg Rowe’s blog because… he gets it. Through his words I can see that he is one of a growing number of Southerners who, after a long journey, is like me and is still learning to appreciate ALL facets of Civil War-era “Southern heritage” and is not caught up in “selective remembrance.” It’s good to see other Southerners with open minds… people who do greater “honor” to Southern Civil War-era ancestry by trying to understand the complex history of these people.
I’ve said it before… I’m a Southerner. I was born in Virginia, raised in Virginia and North Carolina, and can claim Virginia lines that go back as far as Jamestown. When it comes to the Civil War, and I’ve mentioned this before as well, I have eight direct Confederate ancestors and a long line of other family members who wore gray… as well as Southern Unionists (which is more difficult to explain and has more “tiers” than one might realize). However, I’m not so caught-up in focusing on the “Spirit of 1861 Confederacy” in defining my Confederate ancestors. Furthermore, among all of those Confederates… and those who were Southerners during the years of secession, I have a pretty good idea who was willing, who was reluctant, who was unwilling, who remained to the end, who became disillusioned, and who became disaffected… all being an accurate definition of what it meant to be a Southerner under the rule of the Confederate government. This is how Southerners and Confederates should be “remembered” in “remembrance.” I don’t find it acceptable to define my collective Civil War-era Southern heritage in terms of a heritage defined alone by the memory of the Confederacy. Doing so would be a pathetic display of discriminating (picking and choosing that which is worthy to be remembered) within my own Southern heritage, as the complexities of my Southern heritage are more accurately defined through the facts surrounding the lives of my people as Southerners. Why would I possibly want to “pick and choose” and misrepresent the diversity of truths that make up my Civil War-era Southern “heritage” and why would I want to selectively remember AND misrepresent Southern heritage to others as Confederate heritage? Is doing so a validation of my “Southerness?” The facts behind Southern history make it clear that it does not. So, because of my ability to see and appreciate the diversity of spirit in the four years of the Civil War South, perhaps I am in fact, more Southern than those who choose only to remember “Confederately.”
Does this mean that I am ashamed of my Confederate ancestors? Of course not, and any suggestion of my being ashamed of my ancestry is a reflection of the ignorance of any such person who makes such claims. Furthermore, while my discussion of “Southern heritage beyond Confederate heritage” might be hard for some to swallow, and because I can see the complexities of the four years that made up the history of the Civil War South, by no means does it suggest that I don’t love the land of my Virginia ancestors (as well as the rest of my Civil War-era Southern folk, by the way, who lived in western Kentucky and western Maryland… ALL culturally Southern, but Unionists…) or that I have lost a “connection” with the land and my Southern ancestry. If anything, I have a greater appreciation for the land and the people who lived on it, knowing the varied sacrifices made by a variety of people during the war (and that, most certainly, includes the Southern Unionists and the disillusioned Confederates) to hold on to the land passed down to them from several generations and to continue to sustain that land for generations to come. I’m able to look at the Civil War South and appreciate it for ALL that it was… and that it was far more complex than to wrap in one package (the “1861 Confederate package”) to be sold to others.
Thanks for some interesting reflections as a Southerner, Greg. Obviously, your writing prompted some thoughts of my own. I look forward to being a regular visitor to the blog.
Cenantua's Blog 
David S.
February 20, 2009
Well said. Anyone delving into history will quickly find that things are not as clear cut or simple as one might like.
A person has to ask themselves, after all the reading and studying, exactly what is the return they are wanting to see from that investment?
Are are you trying to more fully understand the the complex personal relationships dynamics of people and how that shaped our present world? Or is it about advancing an ideal? Do you want raise others’ appreciation, or do you simply want to make converts?
This has implications for both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, it is typical in politics to re-invent a myth in order to romanticize one’s own group. Northern Ireland, the Middle East, US western expansion, etc…
cenantua
February 21, 2009
“exactly what is the return they are wanting to see from that investment?”
David, I agree and will add to that… just what are some people trying to persuade (with an upper case “P”) others to believe? Why do some think it is necessary to paint a perfect picture and sell it to others? I don’t want the one-dimensional picture. It’s boring.
acwresearcher
February 21, 2009
Robert-
Thanks for the add. I’m looking forward to the challenge. I’ve yet to see any negative comments, but I’m sure they are on their way!
David-
Some aspects of all your questions in your third paragraph are goals, but about the only thing I want to convert people to is a serious study of all the evidence. People have to make up their own mind, as Robert said, whether they want to accpet a more complete memory of Southern heritage or be selective in their memory and confine it to Confederate heritage. But it not only limits the memory, it also makes the memory very one-dimensional, and who really wants to see the world as flat and in black and white?
cenantua
February 21, 2009
That’s an interesting point Greg. People need to accept (the key word) that there are many dimensions that make up Civil War-era Southern society to move beyond that one-dimensional view. Of course, that’s no easy task, as many see it as “the leftist agenda” or “revisionist history.” The irony of it is that the Lost Cause myth was the original revisionist history and it effectively blotted out a good deal of memory of the “other” part of the South in the war.
S. Campbell
February 21, 2009
I completely agree with your post. Just a few days ago I made a posting on my blog with similar sentiment.
I’m also from Virginia and have many family members that served the Confederacy. So far we’ve found no family from Virginia that served the Union, but we do have family from Ohio and have found at least one uncle from there that served the Union.
All these men, Confederate and Union alike need to be remembered. That coming from an S.C.V. camp commander.
If I were to knock the Union veterans for any reason at all, then I would also be knocking my own father, who served in Vietnam and my grandfathers who served during WWII. My grandmother’s brother served in the Normandy Invasion and the Battle of the Bulge. All these men were Union veterans. If I were to knock my 3rd great grandfather for surrendering to Union forces so close to the end of the war, it just wouldn’t be right. He was my granddaddy and I don’t know what was in his mind at the time or the conditions in which he was surviving. I have to love him and respect him for whatever decision he felt was the best at the time.
People paint history as black and white, but it’s always going to be gray. It seems many are unwilling to step away and get their noses off the canvas to get a good look at the whole picture.
cenantua
February 21, 2009
Mr. Campbell,
Thanks for commenting. Like I have said before, not all in the S.C.V. think the same way… but I wish a few more would think the way that you are. There are lots of them in the S.C.V., but they don’t want to “play” in the upper echelon politics, and quite honestly, I can’t blame them. On the other hand, the down-to-earth folks need to take the organization back.
kevlvn
February 21, 2009
Given the overly simplistic rhetoric that regularly comes from the SCV, Mr. Campbell’s comment is a breadth of fresh air. I particularly appreciate his connection between his Union ancestors and those that served in more recent wars.
Greg Rowe
February 21, 2009
If more guys like Mr. Campbell were in charge of the SCV, the organization might possibly be seen as a historical preservation group rather than a heritage preservation group.
S. Campbell
February 22, 2009
Maybe one day I’ll run for Commander in Chief.
Richard Williams
February 23, 2009
Mr. Campbell:
Based on what I’ve read on your blog, I’d support your candidacy.
Mr. Rowe:
The SCV is both a historical preservation group AND a heritage preservation group.
“To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier’s good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations.” ~ Lt. General Stephen Dill Lee, Commander General,
United Confederate Veterans,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 25 April 1906.
acwresearcher
February 23, 2009
Mr. Williams-
I’ll not argue this point with you on someone else’s blog space, but I will work up a post on my own blog to this comment. I invite you to read my own musings on the topic of my Southern heritage at http://acwresearcher.wordpress.com.
Richard Williams
February 23, 2009
Mr. Rowe:
Thanks much for the invitation, but I’m not going to argue or debate the issue, here or on your blog. It is what it is. There are several facets of the SCV and different members join for different reasons. I’m more than familiar with the debates and controversies.
Personally, I’ve been involved in both aspects of the SCV – heritage preservation and historical preservation as well, (and not just “Confederate heritage”). There’s a place for both, whether others agree or not. Like you, I’ve decided to post my thoughts and comments on my own blog as I’ve learned the hard way that debating these things on other blogs are, for the most part, unproductive and a waste of time.
Best,
RGW
S. Campbell
February 23, 2009
Mr. Williams,
I didn’t even know who you were until I followed the link to your own blog. Support from you would be awesome. We’ll see how it goes over the next years. I think it would take a good bit of money and time to campaign and maybe even a trim o’ the beard.
renegadesouth
February 24, 2009
Reading Campbell’s thoughtful post, it struck me that a relevant article in regard to these discussions is C. Vann Woodward’s classic, “The Irony of Southern history,” published in the Journal of Southern History back in 1953.
Vikki
Sherree Tannen
February 25, 2009
Hi Robert,
I have another perspective to add to remembrance of the Civil War, having finally defined for myself what that perspective is. I am a white Southerner with an emancipationist view of the war, and that emancipationist view was not imposed from outside of Southern culture, but grew, instead, from within Southern culture. Also, my ancestors were not Unionists. My view of the war came from the interaction for generations of my family with the black community of our area, as I have discussed with you before. Therefore, what I am dealing with as I continue this “journey”, as you so aptly call it, is sorting out what is fact and what is myth in the emancipationist view of the war, having never held the Confederate view to start with. It is interesting, to say the least, and your blog and Kevin’s blog are very helpful. Also, I have just read a post on Greg’s blog that was truly insightful, and will, after leaving here, go on to Vicki’s blog. Thank all of you for your research and hard work in this area of our nation’s history. Sherree
cenantua
February 25, 2009
Hi Sherree, Thanks… that’s a perspective that I really haven’t thought about much, but I’m sure it holds some interesting twists as well (especially being a Southern emancipationist view). And, before you say you don’t have one Unionists in that Southern family tree, are you absolutely sure of it? 🙂 I found them in the family trees where I thought for sure there would not be one. On the other hand, I know someone who you would think is a dyed-in-the-gray modern “reb” and you wouldn’t know it, but he has two direct Union soldiers in his family tree, both of them with the same surname AND from NEW YORK, no less… LOL! He dared me to find one Yankee… and not only did I find two from NY, but two Southern Unionists as well!
Sherree Tannen
February 26, 2009
Hi Robert,
Well, I am not absolutely sure about anything, especially not when it comes to the topic of the Civil War, lol. To clarify: of the ancestors I know about, none were Unionists. The ancestor who most intrigues me, however, since he has been in my imagination since age seven or eight, when my grandmother began to tell stories to me (No, that was/is not a myth about Southerners, they were/are storytellers) was in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Yet, he left a legacy of promoting racial equality that would rival that of an abolitionist. I find that legacy worthy of preservation, and not just because he is my ancestor. It is worthy because it is what happened, and it is a history that is not being told. In fact, the history of the Civil War era has, in many respects, been collapsed into meaningless stereotypes, as was noted by a reader on Kevin’s blog in reference to another aspect of that history. I still have, within my own imagination, stories about my ancestors passed down to me by my grandmother, her sister, and two of her cousins, as oral history. I have checked the records concerning the stories, and what is remarkable about them, besides the true gift of storytelling that each storyteller possessed, is the veracity of much of the information. If oral history is a valid source of information for one group of people, then it is a valid source for another. The oral history that I do know, along with the actual history that I, myself, experienced, have provided a pivotal point in my thinking as I make my way through the conflicting, competing views of the Civil War, none of which fit my actual history. That is why, in my view, there is great potential in the study of the era. Also, it would not be true to my ancestors, or to the black men and women who are part of my extended family, and vice versa, to say that the racial harmony we achieved amongst ourselves was taught to us by anyone outside of the area, because it is simply not true. We–and our history–taught it to ourselves. Every time I look into the eyes of my mother’s best friend, or hear her voice on the phone, I know where I learned about race and what it means to be from the South. She is the South–this brave black woman who suffered the injustices of Jim Crow, yet who does not hate–and to say otherwise is to dishonor her. My mother is the South, too. I am the South. You. Greg. Vicki. Kevin. So, the part of the emancipationist theory that is false is the Redeemer myth. That is a paternalistic stance that equals the paternalistic stance of the Lost Cause adherents, in many ways. The Lost Cause adherents seem to say that their ancestors were the vehicles for the grace of God to save the black man while simultaneously enslaving him, and the emancipationist adherents who go overboard, seem to say that, no, it was not God who saved black men and women, but the Union Army. The Union Army did not save black men and women; black men and women saved themselves.The army was the blunt end of history correcting the mistakes that were made when the country was founded. On the other hand, four million slaves were freed by the Union Army, which is a staggering fact. Unfortunately, myth informs history, to a certain extent. When I read an author who is operating under the influence of the Lost cause myth, I stop reading, because it is pointless. I do the same when I read an author who is enamored of what I am calling the Redeemer myth. Most Union soldiers were fine men. There is no doubt of that, and they need to be honored, and have been. Not all were, however, just as in any army, or group of people. The turning point for me in evaluating the two competing myths came when I read about the Ebenezer Creek tragedy. Anyone who tries to spin that tragedy to fit either the Lost Cause view of history or the emancipationist view, is doing just that–spinning–and I know that serious scholars do not do this. The Ebenezer Creek tragedy is a terrible tragedy in which both Union and Confederate troops acted in the most disgraceful manner possible. That is war, however, which is another point that is glossed over. Men (and women) do unimaginable things in the heat of battle, and when race enters the picture, the unimaginable gets even more unimaginable. The heroes of the Ebenezer Creek tragedy wore neither blue nor gray. They wore the ragged clothes on their backs as the Union deserted them and the Confederacy murdered them, and they–the black men and women of the Ebenezer Creek tragedy, and of this nation–are the voices that need to be heard in this opening decade of a new century. Thanks, Robert. Didn’t mean to go there, but looks like I did. Hyperlink textual thinking, you called it? (What did you call it, lol?) Thanks for including me in the discussion. Sherree
S. Campbell
February 26, 2009
I really find these conversations about race extremely interesting. Especially when it includes contradictions to the extremely general beliefs of that time period.
For an interesting perspective and look into a multi-racial family of the 19th century I highly recommend
“Freedom’s Child: The Life of a Confederate General’s Black Daughter”. Here’s the Amazon link to read more about it.
A friend of mine had an uncle that was too old to join the Confederate Army, but went along as a cook and to watch over the boys of the family. The family didn’t believe in slavery, but when the uncle heard that the Confederates were going to be fighting black Union soldiers, he picked up his gun and decided to go fight them because back then black men weren’t supposed to be soldiers period.
I find it interesting that people nowadays can’t seem to get that there was a difference between abolishing slavery and equality for blacks. Not only that, but even back then if you had 10 people in a room they would all have 10 opinions about one single issue, because they were individuals, just like now. We need more line blurring. The line has become to fine with this 19th century stuff.
cenantua
February 26, 2009
Thanks Sherree for that insightful comment. It’s interesting to see how different people come to understand their ties to the people who were in that war.
Mr. Campbell, Thanks for bringing up that book. I’m familiar with the story of J.R. Jones. Regretfully, his white wife divorced him because he acknowledged (and supported) the child he had with his former slave, Malinda Rice. Overall, a very interesting story, especially considering the determination that his daughter, Mary Rice Hayes Allen, had in the effort to secure civil rights.
On another note regarding Jones, I found his headstone in Woodlawn Cemetery in Harrisonburg to be quite modest.
Sherree Tannen
February 27, 2009
Thanks, Robert, as always, These issues are complex, as you know. I read your post today on the potential of virtual reality tours in augmenting the study of history Watching the video clip you posted made me a little dizzy, lol, but it did give a look into an interesting approach. Also, the Japanese was a little hard to follow. Other than that, looks good. Thanks again. Sherree