Not so much a matter of content delivery this morning, and more about a thought that’s been lingering with me for a bit…
About a month ago, a friend of mine attended a reenactment, here in the Valley (the Cross Keys/Port Republic event held on… the Cedar Creek battlefield). When he had an opportunity to talk with one of the Confederate reenactors – who was at the time actively engaged in some living history – he asked him what he thought about Southern Unionists. The gray-clad fellow responded, “I don’t think there were really that many.”
Of course, when my friend told me this, I cringed. My reaction wasn’t over the failure to acknowledge “numbers”, but a reaction over the quick brush of the topic under the rug. Then too, there’s that matter of the absolute ignorance of the significance of Southern Unionists… after all, their story contributes much to identifying a much more complex (darn that word!) picture of Civil War era Southerners. They simply weren’t as monolithic (yet another one of those annoying words that keep popping up) as some seem to want to make them out to be. How incredible it is to so easily dismiss the subject. It’s too bad that my friend didn’t follow-up with a question asking, “What do you think about “leave-aloners?” I wonder if it might have blown the reenactors circuitry.
I suppose that’s the way Southern history has treated its own, thanks to the legacy of the Lost Cause…
It’s a funny thing, actually… considering how determined some have been in the last decade to prove the significance of Black Confederates… and yet can be so dismissive and denying (deliberately?) when it comes to those Southerners who can be so much more easily documented. Personally, I believe there’s more behind the motivations of finding and putting numbers on Black Confederates than there is in doing the same for Southern Unionists, but I’m not getting into that just now.
Still, if we really want to put numbers on Southern Unionists, what would that number be? In his book, Lincoln’s Loyalists, Richard Nelson Current has an excellent appendix on the effort that has been made over the last 100+ years, in that regard. I’ll come out and say, however, that I don’t really agree with his conclusion… and, no, it’s really not about the bottom-line number. But, since there’s much more to say about this, I’ll have to write more about that on another day.
Getting back to that remark, “I don’t think there were really that many”…
I’m also struck by the “power” of the “authority.” People go to reenactments and living history programs either to be entertained or educated… and sometimes a little of both. It’s that “education” thing that bothers me most, especially when the so-called “living historian” make comments such as this. I wonder how many in search of education consume such information as if “living historians” are authorities*, and how many know just how much salt to take with what some “living historians” have to say. I suppose it depends on the “educator” and the consumer. Let me be clear, however, that I do acknowledge the fact that there are some living historians/reenactors who do a service to history, but there are also others who drag down the credibility of the same group, as a whole.
Perhaps I shouldn’t bring up the Stonewall Jackson impressionist who appeared in this same area not long ago, and said that the Civil War really wasn’t about slavery…
Cenantua's Blog 
Janet
July 13, 2012
History has traditionally been written by gate-keepers – professors, publishers – and has been restricted by the old common-law copyright for unpublished works which ended in 2003. The walls are tumbling down by leaps and bounds – legal, technical, financial – faster than anybody can keep up with. Opportunities for access, copying, publishing, and marketing are exploding. The areas of research are endless.
I don’t feel we can find fault with people who haven’t read everything about everything. Nobody has time for that. Even people who are in positions of importance are limited in their knowledge, and do the best they can with what they have. There are hundreds of books to read on these subjects, and which ones do you pick?
The Virginia Historical Society has put together nice programs, and it is interesting to read their blogs.
Civil War life in these blogs appears to have been viewed in a vacuum. Anybody can do a quick search for “slave codes” and “black laws” and see that. A random search for the term “slavery” in a civil war newspaper database would fill in major gaps in understanding. When I first read these blogs, I had never heard of Contrabands, and didn’t know that Maryland was a slave state – neither of which they mention.
The blogs on the VHS site have an opportunity for comments, so the learning process is ongoing, and we all learn from each other instead of getting a narrow view of history. We can get compilations with 90 % commentary and 10% original documents, and vice versa. Compilations are good, because that is what history is. A selection, organization and arrangement (according to the copyright definition) – and the arrangement is chronological.
Thanks for letting us be your guests on your site.
Robert Moore
July 13, 2012
“I don’t feel we can find fault with people who haven’t read everything about everything. Nobody has time for that. Even people who are in positions of importance are limited in their knowledge, and do the best they can with what they have.”
Actually, I feel they should be responsible to some degree, just for the fact that they are self-appointing themselves living historians by donning an outfit, with the intent of engaging an audience, who they know, full well, will be asking questions. I say this because I too have reenacted (going back as far back as 1981), and conducted living history programs. In fact, I’m still in the process of building my latest living history program as… a Southern Unionist.
When someone conducts living history… if they don’t know the answer, then they should say so. If their answer comes in the form of an opinion, it should be stated outright… “It’s only my opinion, but…” In the instance of this fellow stating what he did, he should have made it clear that he wasn’t well-read on the topic, and concentrated more in another area. I think conducting living history requires anticipation of the questions one might field. You can’t anticipate them all, but…
There are various levels of living historians. Those who are trained generally know how they should engage the public. Those who are not… well… they do what they do, and sometimes it can be at the expense of the education of the audience(s). There’s no “living historian police”, but I guess it’s something as simple as “buyer (the person seeking the education) beware”.
Janet
July 13, 2012
Well-taken and insightful.
Regarding the Slavery vs. States Rights issue, I found an interesting announcement by SC’s secession committee: “The Causes of South Carolina’s Secession.” The Daily Dispatch: December 24, 1860. It refers to the formation of the federal govt. by the states, the Constitution, Fugitive Slave Laws, slavery, abolitionism, slave insurrections, sectionalism, the election of Lincoln, his hostility to the South, the balance of power in Congress, proposals under the new presidential administration, and fears for safety – – which is understandable after glancing over 200 years worth of slave codes, some of which were enacted after bloody slave rebellions.
Russ
August 24, 2012
I do think that many of us would prefer to keep everything in nice little boxes. While its one thing to be proud of your heritage, its another to deny the facts. Unfortunately if you have ever had to try to explain to a mature gentleman that the nice cannon out in front of the UDC headquarters aren’t battlefield captures, from the Feds of course, you know the extent of the problem.