Just a quick thought, but…
What is one’s personal Civil War heritage? I see it as that link to the past through ancestors. So, if heritage is a part of us… the blood of our ancestry running through us, I’m wondering…
With each generation, there comes the possibility/probability that a new line of heritage is infused into the previous, more pure line. So, at what point, in the name of honoring your heritage, in connection with one ancestor, do you run the risk of betraying the heritage that connects to another ancestor, whose blood also runs through your veins? Let’s say, you have Union ancestry vs. Confederate ancestry…
But, what if your heritage is all Southern?.
In that case, one may be descended from a Confederate soldier who served for the full course of the war, 1861-1865, AND ALSO from a Southern Unionist, or a “leave aloner”. Maybe that Southern Unionist wore blue. Maybe that “leave aloner” hated the Confederacy, and was conscripted. Who knows. The point is that there are several possibilities in which one part of your heritage is at odds with the other. In this case, who shall you call a traitor? Which side will you choose? If you choose one side over the other, why?
There’s an old saying… “you can pick your friends, but you can’t pick your family”.
When it comes to the Civil War era, are you siding with one ancestor (or set of ancestors) and purposefully ignoring the other(s)?
Cenantua's Blog 
Andy Hall
February 8, 2011
For my money, those are questions that need not be asked. No one needs be called a “traitor,” and one needn’t choose “sides.”
My family history hasn’t (so far) turned up any Southern Unionists, but I think it would be fascinating to find one. I certainly would want to understand his or her thinking, just as I would some fire-eater hidden back in the branches of my family tree. (Haven’t found any of those, either, at least not closely-enough related to count.) But then I see research and genealogy of my fore-bearers more as an historical exercise, a framework to better understand the past on a small, individual scale. I see my connection to various Confederates as more of happenstance than of a profound “heritage,” than has deeper meaning about my own identity. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s pretty neat to have all those old guys back there in the tree, but I don’t think their beliefs and actions confer either honor or ignominy on me, personally.
That probably puts me in the minority when it comes to Civil War bloggers/buffs/historians who have a personal, familial link to the war. But it’s always a puzzle to me how some people — most often Southron Heritage™ types, but not always — can work themselves up into a righteous lather arguing on behalf of some relative (1) they never knew, (2) never knew anyone who did know them, and (3) actually know little-to-nothing about, except perhaps through some vague, half remembered family story passed down through multiple generations. They know next to nothing about these folks, and fill in the gaps with reassuring generalizations and warm-but-vague attributions of the ancestors’ beliefs and motivations. It’s a fixation on an imagined, whitewashed past that is largely fictional, and (IMO) almost certainly unhealthy.
I don’t get it, frankly. Maybe the t-shirts are right.
Robert Moore
February 8, 2011
I agree, Andy. The sad part is, I know people who fall into these categories, and deny their Union and/or Southern Unionist ancestors. I also find it odd how some like to claim them to prove a point about a Confederate ancestor. All very bizarre indeed.
You’re right. There is no need to deny either, and, personally, I think much mote “honor” is done to these people of the past by doing the legwork in trying to grapple with the unconventional, as opposed to merely embracing the legacy of the Lost Cause so blindly. Some embrace it so tightly, they can’t see that there is anything else to the story of the South in that war.
Craig Swain
February 8, 2011
“In this case, who shall you call a traitor?”
Sort of depends on what you mean by “traitor.” There are two basic definitions.
If we say it is a person who betrays a cause, then we’ve got to define what cause was betrayed – the Union, or the Confederacy. And of course that sort of moves the discussion into a whole new level. What was the cause and what would it take to betray such cause?
If we say a traitor is a person who committed treason, then we need to consult the document where treason is defined. That discussion is, in my opinion, a shorter one as we are pitted to the legal point as opposed to someone’s subjective definition of a cause.
To me I don’t get all worked up about labeling traitors in the context of the Civil War. I know there are some out there who swear up and down that to be Confederate was to be a traitor. To which I respond, as above – then provide your definition. Like Andy, I just don’t get all excited about what my ancestors believed, might have believed, or didn’t believe.
Now as for my opinion about those who DO get worked up about the beliefs and what “cause” people followed… well … I’ll save that for another discussion!
Robert Moore
February 9, 2011
Craig, Agreed, but that final comment centers around the inspiration for this post. There are some that believe they carry sentinent and cause from ancestors, and it blinds them in their very ability to connect with the past… even to the point that they can’t see reluctance and dissent in some of their ancestors who wore gray.
Historicist
February 8, 2011
I have no ancestors who served in the Civil War (my people were all in Ireland at the time)…but if I did, it wouldn’t matter to me what side they served on. I’ve lived in the Boston area all my life, and I’d like to say that I had an ancestor who fought for the Union. But if I found out I had an ancestor who was a Confederate, then so be it. Might sound like stating the obvious, but history is what it is. You can’t change what your ancestor did. It’s done. You don’t have to agree with them, but rather than pass modern day judgments on ancestors (like “traitor”) people should try to learn a bit more about them and get over it!
Robert Moore
February 9, 2011
Couldn’t agree more.
Richard
February 8, 2011
I have them all, Confederate, Yankee, and Southern Unionists. The Southern Unionists are the most interesting to me because they went against the norm. When I started looking at the old family tree they started falling from everywhere, WTF. I remember as a child my father telling me about how proud he was of his G Grandfather who joined the Union Army in NC, this was in the early 70s. He is the reason I put time into this thing called the Civil War. My wife on the other hand thinks this Civil War thing is a big waste of time and she does not understand why people devote so much time and energy to the subject, or history in general.
“But then I see research and genealogy of my fore-bearers more as an historical exercise, a framework to better understand the past on a small, individual scale. ”
Could not have said it better.
Robert Moore
February 9, 2011
I’m descended from Confederate soldiers and Unionists. In fact, some of the fathers of the Confederates were Unionists. Likewise, some of those who wore gray were conscripted… even begirethe first conscription act, while others appear to have been solid Confederate from the get-go. Distant uncles is where my “men in blue” lines start. But even so, the indirect connections are of equal interest. Their opinions of each other THEN, was just that. We live in today, not yesterday.
Susan Evelyn McDowell Cole
February 9, 2011
One of my closest relatives was Union General Irvin McDowell. He was however, also the grand nephew of Ephraim McDowell MD, from Kentucky, a slave state, and the great grandson of Samuel McDowell, who served in the House of Burgesses of Virginia. I also have relatives named Connor and Jones who served in the Civil War. Does it matter how they served?
No. Not to me.
One of the people I admire is General Robert E. Lee because he made the decision not to pursue guerrilla warfare and surrendered Confederate troops at Appomattox. Generals who served in both sides of the war decided that the United States would not degenerate into a long guerrilla war as happened in Ireland. Both sides served and both sides learned. That is why we honor both.
I am a Yankee of Irish descent who was born and raised in New Jersey. I am proud of this country. I still think there are lessons to be learned from studying the Civil War.