I know… I’ve been incredibly quiet for well over a month, but I’ve been considering various things regarding directions in which to go with writing history. Another topic for another day, perhaps.
For now, however, since “Confederate History Month” (as I was reminded by a post I saw on Facebook this morning) is now underway, it does touch on something else I’ve been thinking about within the last month (and beyond, actually). In fact, in a conversation with a friend, just the other day, I mentioned how I thought the Southern version of the history of the Civil War has… in many ways… virtually obliterated popular (emphasis on popular) knowledge of the the history of the South before the war.
To be honest, I’ve not been a big fan of Confederate History Month, as, regretfully, it too often is a “carnival of half-truths”. I could say… “to each his own”, and those who wish to recognize it have the right to do so, yet, anyone concerned about Southern history (especially those with a “rooted share” in the overall story) should voice concern.
Anyone who has followed this blog for the last year or so, no doubt has seen how I have become even more fascinated with the antebellum history of the Shenandoah Valley. This actually sprang forth from my curiosities about wartime sentiments and how they were influenced. I wanted to step away from the Civil War… backward, not forward… because too much that came after the Civil War actually redefined (warped, even) popular understanding about the Valley (and the South) before the war. I’m a firm believer that the Southern-born postwar narrative has done a gross disservice to the history of the South… even to the point where either people define prewar via the postwar narratives, or where they don’t really grasp much of an understanding at all about prewar South.
Go ahead… ask most who partake in Confederate History Month to give a fair and accurate summary of the pulse of the Shenandoah Valley prior to the Civil War. If you don’t get a story tainted with the Southern postwar narrative, I’d be surprised. While I haven’t gone around to everyone to conduct this sort of survey, I’ve been around enough folks to know where such a question will lead. It’s not an unfair assessment on my part, but one based on actual encounters.
Am I Southern-bashing? Oh no, far from it… it is, after all, my home… and the home of many, many generations from my family, back to the earliest days of Virginia and Maryland. Yet, I’m not looking back that far. I’m more focused on the period which molded the mindset of the generations (that included folks born as far back as the latter 1700s) that existed at the time of the Civil War. It’s become an obsession of mine. In fact, I’ve formulated a question in my mind when evaluating the area… “What good can you find in the antebellum Shenandoah?” I’m not out to sugarcoat the history, but I’m looking for what could be perceived as genuinely good… things that demonstrate a culture of people trying to better themselves and make a better setting for those who were to come… and I’d argue that “making better” did not necessarily mean via the use of slaves (although I’m not saying that to some, it actually did mean that). My approach is also fueled by my aggravation with those who wish only to see the South (and even the Valley, via a “lumped-in” sort of thinking) strictly from the narrowly-focused views of a “place which continued to have slavery”. Those who look at the antebellum South merely through the “South is bad because of slavery” glasses makes a horrible mistake… just as much a mistake as those who continue to look through “glasses” that define the Valley (and the South) through the Lost Cause narrative.
I argue that, culturally, there was value… there was worth. It’s not just something that I’d like to consider… but was something that many of them, at that time, wanted to prove. Perhaps we should spend more time listening to what they had to say, how they said it, and what motivated them to say what they had to say.
Cenantua's Blog 
Rob Baker
April 3, 2014
Well said.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
Thanks, Rob.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
April 3, 2014
Excellent post. You can’t have Confederate history without antebellum history, and you can’t hope to understand the war without understanding what led to the war.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
Indeed, but do you also think that we have lost most of our pre-war history because of the Southern-generated postwar history? It seems to be that so much that was rich has been overshadowed.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
April 3, 2014
I think folks are naturally attracted to the excitement of war. World War I is much studied but the events that led to it is all but unknown to many people, for example. Few people in the US have any real comprehension of the myriad of issues that led to the Revolutionary War beyond the cursory understanding of sound bite issues such as taxation without representation.
And I think that both North and South have been negligent in overlooking the antebelum era. I suppose the war, with so much loss and hardship, and, on one side, ultimate victory, and on the other, ultimate defeat, was bound to prove the defining event of the generation.
In a way, your recognition of this void could be an opportunity. The history is out there; it just hasn’t been compiled, or compiled in a way that you feel does it justice. There’s no doubt it’s an interesting era, especially in your neck of the woods, but it takes the right person to recognize the need and be willing to try and do something about it.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
I agree with you, CBC, that the cultural history of the period and place seems to sit there like a vast void. There are others who might argue that it has been covered, but I wonder if certain aspects, such as slavery, have so dominated the history that we haven’t been able to clearly see any deeper than that.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
April 3, 2014
Yes, it’s not all or nothing but rather a multi-layered period, like any other era, where the populace wasn’t either very rich or enslaved, but was made up of a many, many different levels, from the yoeman farmer to the slaveholder, from the free black to the slave, not to mention women and children. It really has not been covered because many still seem to view the Antebellum South in Gone With the Wind terms, made up of slaveholders and slaves, while not realizing that there were millions of poor whites, a smaller middle class of whites and some free blacks.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
I’ll add that in the wake of the trend (it seems) in finding the “dangling threads” that lead to so much that is considered bad, the thought of reconsidering history for the “good” in places and people (without the sugarcoating/”moonlight and magnolias”) might be savory alternative.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
April 3, 2014
There’s so much from the past that’s simply “interesting.” One example I’ve come across in my neck of the woods is a white man and black woman who lived together for more than 50 years, beginning during the war, and had eight children together. While they were prosecuted for “fornication” in 1890, remained together, and, despite the increasing rigidness of Jim Crow laws, were apparently left in relative peace by the people of the area.
This is the type of story that goes against commonly held beliefs about post-war race relations in the South and, while not common, is one that I find very interesting.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
It’s interesting that you mention this. I ran into a similar situation in my home county in the Valley, during the war. The man was married to a (by census classification in 1860) “mulatto”. He served (it seems a conscript), but went AWOL at some point (if memory serves me).
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
April 3, 2014
The individual in my area also married a “mulatto” but I have been unable to find a record of his service, even though he was in his late 20s or early 30s, if I remember correctly. There are probably not many examples such as this, but I found this particularly interesting given that especially with the rise of Ben Tillman and the promulgation of the 1895 state constitution that, among other things, banned interracial marriage, the pair stayed together and were allowed to stay together by those around them.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
I’ve found that “Mulatto” is a problematic description because it could express the ignorance of the census taker. I’ve seen, in my own family, where ancestors of mine were listed as “mulatto” simply because they were living in a free black community in the 1850s. Ironically, it was another ancestor of mine who was the census taker at the time. Lol!
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
April 3, 2014
Ah, isn’t that wonderful? Let’s just lump everyone in together to get the work done a little quicker. Some things never change, do they?
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
It certainly seems so!
Neil Garrison
April 3, 2014
Excellent words, Robert. Some books come to mind which address much of what you are saying. “The Civil War in Popular Culture, A Reusable Past,” by Jim Cullen, is fascinating as it probes different generational post-war views of the war and the effect of media on people’s mindsets. Of course there is “Confederates in the Attic,” by Tony Horwitz.” In this contemporary work, Tony visits different southern states and gets a personal taste of “places and people still held in thrall by America’s greatest conflict.” Finally, a recent book by Lewis F. Fisher, “No Cause of Offence,” is outstanding as it traces the prominent Union loyalist Lewis family of Port Republic, VA, from pre-war through post-war period in Rockingham County.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
Thank you, Neil. I wonder, however, if books such as Confederates in the Attic (I’ll admit, I need to check on Cullen’s book before passing judgement) focus too much on the aftermath and even serve as a part of the obscuring of the struggles (and success) of Southern culture before the war. One of the things that spurns me on in this “quest” is the efforts made in the 1830s, with the creation of the Southern Literary Messenger. There is a literary culture that the South wishes to show to the world… to prove it has literary genius (albeit, there are varied opinions as to what can be measured as “successful”). Sadly, with the changing of editors, and subsequent changing of “purpose”, any success in proving literary worth seems to have been overshadowed by obsessions fueled by those other editors, to prove other things (such as the counter effort against abolitionist texts generated in the North). In this regard, not only did the war and Lost Cause narrative diminish what can be perceived as “noble efforts”, but also proved as part of the “undoing”, even by their own, before the war. I’m looking at getting to the core of what was “good” and valuable in the antebellum South.
Richard Williams
April 3, 2014
Robert – while I agree with some of your concerns, my biggest problem with the critics of CHM proclamations is twofold:
1: the lack of balance when compared to other proclamations of a historical nature.
2: the fact that these types of proclamations are to simply acknowledge and satisfy certain constituencies and historical events. They’re not meant to be informative essays on the causes of the war, the details of those being honored, etc.
For example, there have been numerous proclamations about President Lincoln which fail to mention his conflicting views on slavery, colonization, etc. Yet we rarely do we see anyone criticize those proclamations for those reasons. If accuracy and a fuller understanding is to be required for one proclamation, then it should be required for all.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
Thanks, Richard. You know… I didn’t even think of the proclamations when I wrote this. It was just the month itself, and some of the activities that I’ve seen take place under the title of “Confederate History Month). It’s the rhetoric that comes out of these that can be concerning.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
Richard, In fact, I’m rather weary of the whole proclamation thing… no matter the focus. I don’t need a governor to set aside a day to take time to do whatever it is I want to do to recognize a person or event of the past. I find it can be either a rather hollow sentiment, or one that is for some political benefit down the road, in some shape or form.
Richard Williams
April 3, 2014
I was thinking back to the McDonnell debacle. Personally, I think it is appropriate for elected officials to issue these proclamations. They have a very long history. But, as I said, I think it’s rather silly to demand these proclamations go into all the nuances involved. That’s way beyond their scope and intent. However, if folks are going to demand the “evil” of the particular subject be mentioned, then that needs to be done across the board. Half-truths are still half, whether it involves the Confederacy or President Lincoln.
BTW, I hope all went well for you with the Docs in C’ville.
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
I was actually going to title this post “Confederate History Month vs. Antebellum South Month”. The problem with that, however, was two-fold (maybe more actually). For one… never rely on politicians to do justice to much of anything to do with history (it all depends on his/her speechwriter or editing staffer, because they usually don’t have a resident historian). Second, “Antebellum South Month” brings about some of the same images that have been brought up with Confederate History Month… and those images are not what I’m trying to bring to mind. So, I backed-off the idea of using that as a title, and wanted to distance myself from the proclamation. Not only that, but my memory truly was jogged by a person who “shared” an image on Facebook, and that’s what helped push this post to reality (coupled with much of what I’ve been thinking about lately and my personal experiences with some Confederate History Month events) .
The doc visit in Charlottesville went very well. In and out in 10 minutes, which is a record! Also, good visiting with you in Staunton, and hope we can do it again!
Richard Williams
April 3, 2014
Yes and lunch next time!
Robert Moore
April 3, 2014
Looking forward to it!
RonElFran
April 8, 2014
What is often overlooked is that Confederate history is not Southern history. I was born and raised in Tennessee. I know from my life experience that if people really wanted to celebrate Southern history, they would include a whole story that is never mentioned in connection with Confederate history – that of the more than 35% of the Southern population that was black.
Moreover, you designate an XXX History Month to celebrate (not just remember the existence of) XXX. At least one third of the Southern population found nothing at all to celebrate about the Confederacy. Certainly only a fringe want to celebrate it today.
So, is Confederate History Month a disservice to Antebellum Southern history? In my opinion, it’s a disservice to all of American history.
Robert Moore
April 8, 2014
I understand what you are saying, and agree that Confederate history, in various ways, also obscures (and incorrectly “alters”) the history of African-Americans in the South. The central problem with Confederate history is the way many take it to “drive” Southern history, as if it (a mere four years) is exclusively Southern history. That, of course, is a mistake, mostly because of the power of the postwar/Lost Cause narrative on popular history. My point in writing this, however, was to demonstrate that I’ve realized (after spending… and continuing to spend… a good deal of time examining the antebellum history of my section of the South, and finding that much has almost completely been forgotten) how the Lost Cause narrative dominates so much popular memory that much of the history prior to the war has been forgotten in popular memory.
The bottom line is that “Confederate history” needs to be placed in perspective. It does not “drive” the history of the South, nor does it drive the history of the South in the Civil War. Rather, the history of the Confederacy is PART of the history of the South… and, in fact, only PART of the history of the South and its people during the American Civil War.
Does it really do a disservice to “all American history”? Yes and no. I don’t really see it as a disservice on all American history because it is so sectionally focused. The problem is the history (sometimes it can be referred to as “mis-history”) that is often “projected” from Confederate history month events and rhetoric. Like I said earlier… events can often reveal a “carnival of half-truths.”
Richard Williams
April 8, 2014
“Confederate history is not Southern history.”
Actually, it is. It’s just not ALL of Southern history, but it most assuredly is an important part of Southern history. It defined the South for decades after the war. The South, to this day, is haunted by aspects of those 4 years. Whether one wants to commemorate it or not, those facts are undeniable. The fact some have taken aspects of that period and perverted it is another matter.