I don’t delve into these things like I used to do, usually because I find the time spent equates to wasted time, and really, I have little patience (and thus, I will officially issue a word of warning when it comes to commenting on this post) for dealing with the responses typical of many modern Confederate advocates (which, sadly, often equates to those who look at Southern history with blinders fastened firmly around the eyes and heart).
Still, there seems to be a buzz among these same folks that the “Southern heritage war” (if you will… albeit a very poorly selected and misleading phrase when it usually really means “Confederate heritage war”) is no longer simply a matter of the “traditional” Southerners contesting Northerners in an effort to prove the Confederate cause was right. The “crisis” has expanded to include a defense against other Southerners (amusingly resulting in a resurgence of the use of the word “scalawag”) who see the flaws in the Confederate cause, and, in some cases, realize that not all Civil War era Southerners embraced the Confederate cause.
No doubt, the latter is a punch where it seems to hurt most, but, history is what it is. Realizing one’s Southern ancestors (or just simply that other Southern folks, and not necessarily one’s own Southern ancestors, didn’t always side with secession and the Confederacy) embraced Unionism can send some into a tizzy. Yet, to others who become aware of this, it can be almost epiphany-like, resulting in the mind beginning to open… and beginning to see/realize the many different layers of the people of the Civil War South, who have been otherwise concealed by the monolith of the Lost Cause, constructed in the postwar years.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that one suddenly abandons one’s Confederate ancestors (though, I suspect some may have done that very thing, fueled also by other reasons). In fact, in my experience, an awareness of Southern Unionism has only helped me to see just how complicated/complex things really are in defining a Confederate soldier… even more… the Civil War era Southerner. I think I have a fairly good handle now on who, in my family tree during the Civil War years, appears to have embraced (willfully or with some trepidation) the cause, remained stand-off’ish to the cause, left the cause to which they had originally committed, or avoided secession and the Confederacy like a plague. Every one of my Civil War era ancestors were Southerners, but that by no means, means that they all jumped whole-hog behind secession and the Confederacy. As far as judging any of them… I simply can’t do that. I won’t do that. Each had their own reasons for doing what they did, and, I can only guess (emphasis on guess) what some of those reasons may have been… mostly because there is little to nothing left that states, without any doubt, why they did what they did. We’re left to “reconstruct” their stories, but care and caution need to be our guides, especially if we care more about the history than about ourselves.
As for the former… Southerners who have simply realized the faults in the Lost Cause legacy, and have not necessarily become aware of Southern Unionism… well, people are who they are. They have minds of their own, and have formulated opinions based on a range of reasons. It is, after all, a reflection of the freedom to think for oneself, as opposed to going barreling off a cliff with the herd. Of course, this can also irk the modern Confederate advocates, and, in my experience, they usually like to play-up the “these people have been brain-washed by the liberal academics” argument. If that’s the best they can do, that’s a lame argument, and frankly, I find that the true enemy to the contemporary Confederate advocates… are themselves. Until they are able to admit this to themselves, things won’t get any better for an honorable reflection on the Conferate soldier among larger audiences. Just as a couple of examples… fighting battles over Confederate flag prom dresses, flying huge battle flags near interstates, and putting up Confederate flags where the Confederate veterans themselves didn’t even do so… that’s just silliness, plain and simple, and, honestly, to a number of Southerners… is a mockery of what is respectable and honor-worthy in our remembrance of our people who were Confederate soldiers.
But… you remember as you see fit… and I’ll do the same. Of course, I have to wonder… just when, exactly, your method of remembrance might go so far as to impair not only your ability, but also my ability to do so.
Cenantua's Blog 
gerard
April 26, 2012
yep, its history to be remembered. Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. Today is the gift ,so cherish it!
WD
April 26, 2012
Thank you so much for writing this piece! Despite the fact that I have a dozen ancestors that served in the Confederacy, and only two generations seperate me from from those that served on my father’s side, the majority of my interest and research for the last thirty years has revolved around Southern Unionists. There are many reasons for this, but the one that drove me was the ignorant way I was treated by fellow Southerners, other reenactors, etc. when I chose to portray a Federal soldier to help balance the nubmers at a reenactment back in 1982. It lit a fire under me that hasn’t burned out yet. I suppose the other “thing” with me is that there are 200+ years of “Southern history” that have nothing to do with the Confederacy.
I could go on, but I’ll refrain. Again, thanks for a great piece!
Robert Moore
April 26, 2012
Thanks, WD. So, do you portray a Southerner when reenacting as a Union soldier? If so, well done!
WD
April 26, 2012
Yes Robert, I do, when the situation allows. All of my wife’s ancestors were Kentucky Unionists, and when we met, I really latched on to those folks and their story in order to build up my portrayal. I’ve still got filing cabinets of research, and more to do. My dream is to publish some of it one day. A dear friend just defended his PhD on Kentucky Unionists, so I’m inspired right now.
Robert Moore
April 26, 2012
Excellent. I’m working toward gearing-up my interpretive living history of a civilian Southern Unionist. Certainly both such military and civilian impressions are needed out there, and I think now more than ever… in the midst of the Sesqui.
WD
April 26, 2012
I do too. Of course, I do this when the site or opportunity presents itself, which is not always the case. I highly recommend Benjamin Franklin Cooling’s book “Fort Donelson’s Legacy: War and Society in Kentucky and Tennessee, 1862-1863” for anyone that is interested in the struggle for Southern Unionists, Federal efforts to win hearts and minds, their failure at this, and the results of pushing some Southern Unionists into the Confederate camp, etc. It paints a great picture of just how “porous” the Upper South really was during this time period in my very humble opinion.
Spoke to my boss today at the historic site where I now work about doing some Federal living history. I’m wanting to portray Kentuckians of course. 😉
Robert Moore
April 26, 2012
Thanks. Incidentally, I too have Kentucky Unionists in my lineage… 3rd great granduncles in Co. B, 27th Kentucky Infantry (US). One died in Corinth.
WD
April 26, 2012
My wife’s people were all in the 11th KY Inf. and 25th/17th Ky Inf.
Janet
April 26, 2012
Why did you pick the term “Southern Unionists?” The reason I am asking is this: I downloaded all the Valley articles from the Daily Dispatch for 1861, 1862, and 1863, all the Annals of Augusta County for 1861 and 1862, and all the Hotchkiss letters for 1862. When I did a 2 page summary of our compiled information for a project, I kept using the term Yankees, Federals, and Northern Army. A relative suggested that I intersperse the essay with the term “Union.” I said that nobody ever used that term in any of the several hundred pages of materials that I have, relating to the Valley. I searched the word in Jan. of 1862 and also in Dec. 1862, in the Daily Dispatch. Northern papers used “Union” and “Rebel.” Southern correspondents used “Yankee,” and “Federals.” The term Union described “men,” but not the army. By Dec. the southern correspondents were just beginning to use the term “Union Army.” I even searched some of the Official Records for the Valley campaign. They mostly referred to themselves using the term “United States.”
Anybody could have a lot of tiresome fun with the Semantics of the situation. The news commentaries are too numerous to mention, but the war seems to have been fought with words in the media with as much gusto as on the field. When the Port of Richmond was seized at the beginning of the war, the term “late Union” was used. During the Peninsula Campaign, in an article published June 12, Mr. Turner of New Kent claimed to be a Union man, but the Union soldiers called his bluff when he referred to the Rebel Army as, “Our Army.” In Richmond a couple of weeks ago, they titled their events using the term, “Emancipation Day.” I saw one reference to the “Abolition Army” in the New Kent news collection for 1862. The expression stood out as being different from the usual way of describing the Yankees. The term “Southern Unionist” conjures up a vision of somebody who also wants to do……. just like the Yankee soldiers did, described day after day in the news.
Robert Moore
April 29, 2012
I didn’t really “pick” the term. It’s commonly used when referring to Southerners who did not opt for secession and the Confederacy, and remained true to the Union. “Southern Unionists”, “Southern Unionism”, and “Southern Loyalists” are the typical names. I suppose, out of animosity for their neighbors and friends who remained Unionists, you might encounter the word “tory” or “tories” among secessionist Southerners during the time.
Southern Unionists weren’t “Yankees”… although, even saying that gets complicated, as there were some former Northerners who found homes in the South (in years before the war), who could be counted under a subclass of Southern Unionists.
Andy Hall
April 30, 2012
That reflects my situation as well. None of my ancestors were Unionists, as far as I know, but I also have no idea, in most cases, how personally committed they were to the Confederate cause. One was a state legislator who voted to authorize the Texas secession convention, but that’s about it in terms of them, as individuals, going on the record as to their views on secession and taking up arms against the Union.
I don’t think it does these long-gone Confederate soldiers and civilians any particular honor to project onto them the simplistic, patriotic tropes and modern political/culture war ideologies that are part-and-parcel of the modern Confederate heritage movement. Most people, myself included, actually know precious little about their Civil War-era ancestors as individuals; often all we have are family oral traditions, filtered down through three or four succeeding generations in a genealogical variant of a child’s game of “telephone.” We much always be wary of that, and willing to admit what we do not, can not, ever know. It’s not disrespectful to say, “we don’t know what motivated this person or why he did what he did,” but it is damned presumptuous to make up warm-and-fuzzy fantasies about them, for no other reason than to reinforce one’s own beliefs and biases.
Robert Moore
May 2, 2012
Agreed. Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Andy.
WD
May 2, 2012
Andy, I couldn’t agree more. Funny, but only two generations seperate me from my Confederate ancestors on my father’s side, yet I have no oral tradition, stories, much less anything of a physical nature from that time in my family’s history. As you said, I can only guess at best about their motivations and reasons. When I was a child, and that side of my family would (relunctantly) discuss the war with me I was always left witht he impression that while they were not ashamed of their grandfathers’, grand-uncle’s, etc. military service, there was always a note of “what we did was wrong” at the end of the converation. That has always stuck with me. Whenever some neo-Confederate radical gets in my face about how I view “The War”, and I bring this up to them, they usually respond that my family was brain-washed or some other perposterous tripe. Really? They know better than those who actually knew the family members that lived through it?