I had to toss this up on the blog.
I’m currently engaged in an exchange on a Civil War ListServ in which someone else has compared the labor provided to the Confederacy by African-Americans (let’s take, for example, a personal body servant) to the labor provided by American POWs (let’s say, as in the case of an American civilian who was a POW to the Japanese during WW2). Like I’ve said here plenty of times, we have to look at each person and situation, one by one, but I think there are several instances in which a personal body servant, or even a cook acted in a manner that would not have all been the case for a POW from WW2. I even think there are distinct differences in the manner in which labor was performed for the fact that there was a relationship between slave and slaveowner. One would not, I think, find a similar relationship in “forced labor relations” in a Japanese POW camp filled with civilians. I think it’s like comparing apples to oranges. I think that the typical reaction of a body servant (of a Confederate soldier) had more to do with personal relationship than it had to do with the “Cause.”
Richard Williams
March 3, 2009
I agree with you here. POW’s were viewed as “the enemy.” Regardless of where you may stand on the Black Confederate issue, I don’t believe that’s anywhere near accurate regarding their service in the CSA.
“Like I’ve said here plenty of times, we have to look at each person and situation, one by one,”
I also agree with you there, every instance was unique.
And, I would tend to agree with this as well:
“I think that the typical reaction of a body servant (of a Confederate soldier) had more to do with personal relationship than it had to do with the “Cause.”
Though I do believe, in some cases, blacks felt their “home” was being invaded and saw Federals as “the enemy”, especially when some realized their treatment by Federals was as bad or ever worse than that of their Southern masters.
However, when I think about it, I’ve often heard modern soldiers talk more about “fighting to save their buddies” than fighting for the political goals of their Nation. In other words, the relationship was actually more important than any “cause.”
cenantua
March 3, 2009
Richard,
Thanks for commenting… and agreeing.
Actually, the person was comparing WW2 civilian POWs forced to perform labor to slaves who labored for the Confederacy. In generic settings (slaves serving labor roles away from familiar persons), I might be able to see some degree of comparison, but it is by no means an absolute comparison. When labor comes to the point of a slave performing, say, a role as a body servant or cook, then I think, in different instances, I have seen where the relationship between slave and owner goes beyond “Cause” and is focused on personal loyalty. I’m not saying it was the case in all as that would be suggesting far too much, but I feel safe enough to say that in some, the intimate relationship was there and I don’t think we can totally grasp that when limited to looking through our 21st century lenses. That’s not to say however, that there were those who took the opportunity for service closer to the front to break away and head toward freedom. In my own findings, I have found more slaves staying with the slaveholder, even when behind the lines in Pa. (that particular incident, I documented in my book about the Charlottesville Artillery).
As far as Federals invading the “home” of slaves, for some, yes, and for others no. I don’t think we can quantify this, but we can find evidence to suggest both. I’ve even found where slaves were Unionists (I think this was a by default situation just for the promise of freedom), were treated harshly (in the taking of property), but still held firm to the idea of Union because of the freedom behind it. Despite the treatment by Union soldiers, the measure of it against either the treatment by the slaveholder or the fact of being held in bondage did not measure up to the chance to be free.
I’ve seen where some have discounted (a bit much) the idea of Civil War soldiers fighting for their bodies… or even localism being the factor behind cause more than the Confederacy.
kevlvn
March 3, 2009
One of the reasons I stay as far away from listservs as possible. Quite while you are ahead.
Kevin at Civil War Memory
cenantua
March 3, 2009
Hi Kevin, I watch and read more than I interact, but this time, I felt the need to interact. It’s still a valuable learning device just to see the Civil War memory from the other side of the pendulum, most particularly in this case.
kevlvn
March 3, 2009
Look at you with the threaded comments. How do you like it?
cenantua
March 3, 2009
Kevin,
I’m liking it a lot. We’ve needed this for quite sometime. The “conversation” makes more sense with structure to it.
caswain01
March 3, 2009
Lets see…. POW in Japan – “Work or we will kill you.”
Slave servicing a master who is on campaign in 1863 – “Work or I will sell you!”
Seems to be a distinct difference there.
As you say most recent scholarship regarding motivations of soldiers focuses on camaraderie over any over-riding sense of a cause. I suspect in part that is true in all wars.
However, I would caution that finding a motivation behind a person’s service is all too often elusive. I’d personally find it hard to explain parts of my service beyond saying “I felt obligated.”
Kevin is right though, stay away from Listservs, except maybe when searching their archives. Subscribing to one is like having a root canal by installments without any anesthetic.
cenantua
March 3, 2009
Hey Craig,
Yes, motivation is elusive, we can’t always come to a conclusion, but we can identify various possibilities…
I may have to remedy the root canal without anesthetic. Energy spread out a bit too much.
caswain01
March 3, 2009
And in reference to your own past, why in the world would you step into one of those iron barrels and go underwater? Sounds just as crazy as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane!
cenantua
March 3, 2009
Well, long story on that one, but in part 1) I didn’t want to go to a carrier (what, 1 of 5,000?!) and 2) I wanted to do something different than being a normal surface swabby… and SEALS just wasn’t the level of different that I wanted. So, I still got to do stuff that was sneaky and that I couldn’t talk about… doh! Shhhh, somebody may be listening…
cenantua
March 3, 2009
And… they “ain’t” made of iron…
caswain01
March 3, 2009
I stand corrected.. you are right. But then again I’m just a landlubber.
cenantua
March 3, 2009
Being that you are a landlubber, I’m sure that good King Neptune will overlook your misunderstanding…🙂
James F. Epperson
March 9, 2009
Permit me to suggest, ever so politely, that you have missed the point of what was said (which might well be the other person’s fault, for writing poorly). IIRC, this came up in connection with yet another allegation of numbers of “black Confederates,” and in that discussion someone suggested that a black slave, working for the Confederacy, could/should be considered as equivalent to a black Union soldier detailed to manual labor. In this context, the comparison is apt. Slaves labored for the Confederate government under compulsion; POWs building RRs for Japan labored under compulsion. It is ridiculous to claim that the POWs somehow were “on the side of” the Japanese; it is equally ridiculous to claim that the slaves are somehow on the side of the Confederates.
cenantua
March 15, 2009
James, I still think there is a difference. I can’t put that in quantative figures, but I see a difference between the forced labor of a POW and the forced labor of a slave. There may have been parallels, here and there, but to line them up equally is oversimplifying the differences. On another note, while I agree that most slaves may have agreed with you that it was rediculous to suggest that they were on the side of the Confederates, I don’t think it can be dismissed that some (my suggestion of “some” being unsupported by quantative figures) may have felt that way.
James F. Epperson
March 17, 2009
There certainly is a difference. I think you are still missing the rhetorical point, though. Someone who claims that slaves working for the Confederacy should somehow be “honored” for their service to the Confederacy is making the implicit comparison. How do you think folks would have felt if the Japanese had tried to “honor” the POWs (mostly Aussies, I think) who built the Burma RR?
cenantua
March 17, 2009
I still see a difference. There was a social connection between some slaves and slaveholders that was not at all a connection that one would find between POWs and the Japanese. Nonetheless, don’t get me wrong when it comes to “honors.” That’s an incredibly sticky item with me and I’m not one to quickly jump on the “honors” bandwagon. I think it’s far too overdone. Nonetheless, “honoring” faithful slaves has been done for years. I do however, think that some (maybe more than “some”)slaveholders were doing nothing more than fooling themselves when it comes to thinking they fully understood their slaves and their “loyalty,” however. A fine example is the way that some slaveholders reacted with shock when slaves who they thought so loyal and dedicated to them hit the road when the first opportunity for freedom came during the war.
Incidentally, I think there is (or was) once a monument in or around Rock Hill, South Carolina “honoring” faithful slaves. I want to say it was erected around 1914 or so. It especially gets complicated when you see former slaves partaking in the honors events of the past.
James F. Epperson
March 18, 2009
There certainly is a difference in the situations. The point of this comparison is to highlight the absurdity of saying we should “honor” (or “recognize”) someone whose work was done under compulsion. I’ve made this comparison many times, never with the intent of saying the situations were perfectly comparable. I’ll be more explicit with my caveats in the future.
I thought the monument to “faithful slaves” was in Mississippi? I suppose there could be two such things…
cenantua
March 18, 2009
The one that is perhaps the most popular is in Fort Mill, SC. There is another, but it slips my mind right now where it is… even after looking through Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves just last night (I suppose age is catching up with me). I think it is in Natchitoches, La.
cenantua
March 18, 2009
Here is the Google Books link to the chapter in Standing Soldiers. Kneeling Slaves that addresses the “faithful slaves” monument effort.
Sherree Tannen
March 26, 2009
Hi Robert,
I am having a little trouble navigating around the new layout of your blog, so this comment should go elsewhere, but I can’t find the comment section beneath the appropriate post. At any rate, I just wanted to say “hello” and to wish you well on your thesis. I have started reading Renegade South and communicating with your fellow blogger who moderates that blog. Vikki is a delightful person and a truly outstanding scholar, as I am certain you know. Thanks to you and Kevin for giving your readers the heads up on her blog, and again, good luck with your thesis! I feel certain it will be excellent. I have recently thought again about your idea that the Confederate flag has “layers” of meaning to it, so know that your thoughts do have meaning for others.
Sherree
cenantua
March 26, 2009
Hi Sherree,
Thanks for the well wishes!
To access a comment section for a post, just click on the title of the post and it will open in a new page with the comment box at the bottom. I’ve realized there are a few things different with this theme. I hope to design my own customized theme in the near future that will incorporate different features that I’ve grown to like over the last year, but for now, this was a nice change.
Vikki is a great addition to the blogosphere. I’m especially pleased that with increased participation in our respective Unionist-focused blogs and in the open exchanges that we have, we are bringing a greater awareness to the part of the Southern Civil War perspective that has been absent for far too long! Still a lot more to do, but I think it’s a great start.
I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on the meaning of layers!