Appealing to Slavery and Race When It is Convenient

In the wake of Governor McDonnell’s amendment to his Confederate History Month Proclamation, representatives of the Sons of Confederate Veterans did their best to convince America that slavery and race have little or nothing to do with understanding the war.  Actually, the SCV has no problem discussing these issues – in fact, they are obsessed with the subject – as long as they control the terms of the debate.  As a result we are introduced to thousands of loyal black Confederate slaves and other distortions designed to redirect the conversation away from the central role that slavery played in the Confederate experience.  A few days ago I suggested that the SCV’s preferred view of the past has been on the defensive for the past few years and is on a fast track to becoming completely irrelevant. The responses from SCV members that I received served to confirm this prediction.

Reading accounts of yesterday’s dedication ceremony of the Davis-Limber statue at Beauvoir points to the extent to which the SCV’s agenda has been minimized and forced to remain on ground that they maintain. The statue is a case study in SCV propaganda and outright bad history.  The SCV has never been interested in Limber’s story; rather, he functions (as do “black Confederates”) to steer any discussion of the war and the Confederacy away from race and slavery.  Here are a few choice quotes from the ceremony that make my point:

In the name of the Sons of Confederate Veterans of all the people of the south of all the people of good conscience and righteousness throughout the world, we dedicate this statue of Jefferson Davis.  That it may stand as eternal testament to a duty well done.  Well, in the south, we know it takes a family to raise a child, and that’s what Jefferson Davis was willing to do.  — Chuck McMichael

This really humanizes Jefferson Davis, tells a story which isn’t really told very often,” said Bowling. There are two young children standing next to Davis with arms linked. One of the children was rescued by Davis’ wife during the war.  Jim Limber, the black child being beaten up and pushed around by an older man, and she hopped out of the carriage and pushed him away and grabbed Jim Limber and took him home where he became a functional member of the Davis household. — Brag Bowling

As you can clearly see, this story has nothing at all to do with little Jim Limber.  It’s about an act that was performed, not by Jefferson Davis, but by his wife, Varina.  Why isn’t she featured in this statue?  What is truly disturbing, however, is how little we know about Limber as well as the very brief period of time he spent with the Davis family.  In William J. Cooper’s massive biography of Jefferson Davis we find not one reference to this boy, though the author spends a great deal of time discussing the Davis family.  Joan Cashin’s recent biography of Varina Davis does include a few brief references to Limber, but it raises more questions than answers.  She notes the incident in Richmond that led to Limber joining the household, but as to his place in the family Cashin suggests that he functioned as a “playmate” to the other children.  In fact, it looks like it was Davis’s biological children who took a liking to the boy and pressed the issue of whether he could stay.

If the SCV wishes to be taken seriously than they should have no problem pointing us to the primary sources that support the claims that were made yesterday and at countless other times.  [Oh…just in case you need to be reminded, Rickey Pittman’s book does not count as scholarship.]

I won’t hold my breadth because as I said this isn’t really about Jim Limber and, ultimately, it may not even be about the Davis family.  Tell em’ Mr. Bowling:

“It wasn’t about slavery. It was about freedom, and the Jefferson Davis statue symbolizes freedom”

Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War’s Most Persistent Myth

“Levin’s study is the first of its kind to blueprint and then debunk the mythology of enslaved African Americans who allegedly served voluntarily in behalf of the Confederacy.”–Journal of Southern History

Purchase your copy today!

48 comments… add one
  • Andy Hall Nov 14, 2010 @ 10:09

    While poking around in some early 20th century newspapers, I came across this item in the February 23, 1913 Elyria, Ohio Evening Telegram. The mindset of the family, and the situation of the African American child in question, strike me as disturbingly parallel to the likely relationship between the Davises and young Jim Limber:


    Parents of “The Hundred Million Dollar Baby” Have Taken Little Negro Boy as Their Fostering

    Palm Beach, Fla. Mr. and Mrs. Edward B. McLean, parents of “The Hundred Million Dollar Baby,” nave taken a little negro boy as their fostering. He is John Winbush, Jr., 5, of Washington.

    McLean’s attorney brought the boy to Palm Beach after having prepared papers which the child’s parents had signed for a consideration relinquishing their right over the boy forever.

    By the contract the child is not to bear the name of McLean, or to inherit from the estate except as specified in the contract He is, however, to be treated as an equal of young Vinson McLean and furnished with every luxury until he is 15, when he is to become Vinson’s valet. McLean made this statement:

    “I do not want my boy to grow up living the life common to children of wealthy people. I am getting this boy for my son’s playmate because he is a healthy, normal, simple minded child. The companionship of this child will keep my son mindful of the fact that he is one of the people. I don’t want a son of mine a snob. The trend of wealth is in that direction.”

    The McLeans “prepared papers which the child’s parents had signed for a consideration relinquishing their right over the boy forever.” In short, they bought the child. He was taken in as a playmate for their own son, but would not take the McLean name or inherit from the estate as a son. And when he reached the age of 15, he would become a household servant.


    • Kevin Levin Nov 14, 2010 @ 10:30

      This is a very interesting account. Thanks so much for passing it along.

  • Marianne Davis Apr 27, 2010 @ 15:31

    I feel somewhat responsible for this long string of comments after my “vile accusation” that Jim Limber was a pet in the Davis family. It has already been noted most cogently that black children often served as playmates in slave-holding households. This is an extension of a longstanding British elite tradition of having the children of servants, or even genteel impoverished cousins, fill the same roles. No one is denying the possibility of great affection or real heartache at parting. But affection is not kinship. As for Limber’s post-war disappearance – when you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras. A black child freed after the war was hundreds of times more likely to be reabsorbed into the local black community than to have been murdered by Yankees. Union soldiers had little reason to discredit Davis, they had defeated and arrested him.

    • Kevin Levin Apr 27, 2010 @ 15:41


      It was a perfectly reasonable comment and one that is confirmed by Varina Davis herself. That Robert has trouble understanding this is his problem.

  • Robert Apr 26, 2010 @ 12:06

    In the midst of carrying on the burdens of leading a fledgling nation fighting for its very existence, Jefferson Davis brought an orphan black child into his home where he was cared for and treated as a member of the family, from what limited testimony we have on the topic. When the Davis family was captured in May, 1865, the yankees had to rip Jim Limber away from the family and he apparently put up a fierce struggle and wept unconsolably. Mrs Davis tried for years after the war to find him. Why he disappeared is a mystery, but wouldn’t be surprised if he was quietly murdered by the yankees or left somewhere to die since he would obviously be a public relations disaster for those already clamoring for Davis to be hanged.

    How many of you people on this blog, sneering at the Davis family, have brought an orphan child of another race into your home?

    • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 12:25


      I wonder if you might be willing to provide the evidence for this scene that you set in May 1865. It seems to me that you are the one who feels threatened here. I pointed out the latest scholarship that you might expect would cover this story given its apparent popularity. Unfortunately, the available evidence makes it impossible to say much of anything about Limber’s place within the family as well as his life after the war. No one is “sneering” at the Davis family. In fact, I suspect that most people, including myself, would love to have more primary source material. It’s potentially a fascinating story. That said, we don’t get to invent stories when doing serious history.

      Do you have anything constructive to add? If not, please do not send in any more comments.

      • Robert Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:10

        19 comments in this thread prior to mine and all but 1 or 2 cast some aspersion on the relationship between the Davis family and Limber, one person going so far as to suggest he was a “pet” – which is a vile accusation – and another one off on a tangent about penny crushing machines at Beauvoir, which I notice you didn’t feel obliged to admonish with your “please respond to orignal topic only” warning.

        The abduction scene is recorded in Unconquerable Heart, the biography of Davis by Felicity Allen. If you like, I can look up the page number and references.

        • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:16

          There is nothing inappropriate about referencing what was a common practice during antebellum times. The point was to suggest that black children were sometimes used to entertain the children of the planter class. A number of scholarly studies have explored this aspect of slavery so there is nothing to be offended by. I am familiar with Allen’s book, but I am not as much interested in the page number as I am in the primary sources that she used to construct that scene. Since I don’t own the book why don’t you go ahead and look it up. Again, no one is casting aspersions on the relationship. What I have done is challenge the SCV’s handling of this history, which given the lack of documents seems justifiable.

          • Robert Apr 27, 2010 @ 13:15

            Forced Removal of Jim Limber from Davis family at Port Royal harbor in May, 1865 – page 24, Jefferson Davis – Unconquerable Heart, Felicity Allen. Citation: Varina Howell Davis, Memoir 2:642 & 645n.

            “He was little Jeff’s playfellow…they were always together….When Jim realized he was to leave the Davises, he fought like a little tiger….he screamed…had to be held to prevent him jumping overboard…kept on scuffling to get loose (from union officers); he was wailing as long as he could be …seen by us”

            Some pet.

            • Kevin Levin Apr 27, 2010 @ 13:23


              Don’t you read the other comments? It was Varina Davis who referred to the boy as a “pet.” As for the passage it tells us next to nothing about his status within the Davis household. Is it any surprise to you that Limber would not want to be taken by complete strangers? What exactly do you think this passage demonstrates about his place in the family and his relationship with Jefferson Davis, which gets us back to the SCV statue. Keep in mind that no one is denying that bonds of affection did not exist between Limber and the rest of the family, but that in and of itself doesn’t get us very far.

              • Robert Moore Apr 27, 2010 @ 20:33

                Sorry about being off-topic, Kevin, but just wanted to say that I’m curious about Limber’s life before the Davis connection (though I’m sure we won’t know much about that), and if he had experienced a forced separation from family because of a slave sale at an earlier point. If this is the case, it certainly makes sense that another separation from any family who may have showed him any kindness must have been traumatic. Whether those taking him were Union soldiers or anyone else, the youth may have had a great deal to confront because of previous experiences.

              • Robert Apr 28, 2010 @ 6:36

                Whatever his status was – officially adopted, informally adopted, foster child, whatever – this is child who was seen being beaten and abused in the streets by his (black) guardian, who was taken into the Davis home to live for about 1 1/2 years and who expressed anguish and put up a fierce fight against the prospect of being removed from them. Good grief man, if you can’t tell from this basic outline that he was, at a minimum, a de facto part of the family then I think you are just being peevish. In terms of familial relationship, the lines between blood children, adopted or foster children, relatives and even some household servants became blurred in ante-bellum families. My wife had an aunt whose family gravesite at the church in small town Louisiana included graves for some of their slaves alongside the family members; the slave had saved one of the daughter’s during a hurricane and was considered part of the family. I don’t know why that concept is so hard for people get their heads around these days; maybe its the MTV generation.

                • Kevin Levin Apr 28, 2010 @ 6:53


                  The problem that you are having is that you want to interpret this relationship completely divorced from the institution of slavery and race relations in the antebellum South. What we are trying to get across is that how whites and blacks interacted depends on this broader context. Remember, we are trying to understand a relationship that existed under specific conditions that had come to be well established by the end of the antebellum period. I can only approach this based on the extensive readings that I’ve done in the area of slavery and race relations. Unless you have additional information, there is no evidence that Limber was considered to be an equal member of the family or that he was viewed as one of the Davis children. That does not mean that certain emotional connections were not forged. I would suggest you do some reading on this subject as a way of beginning to think about the broader questions that I and others have raised.

                  • Robert Apr 28, 2010 @ 12:26

                    Excuse me, but I think I’m fairly familiar with race relations in the South, having lived here all my life, having family here for the past 300 years or so, and having ancestors who were slave holders as well as various elder acquantances whose parents or grandparents were slaveholders, in addition to reading various studies on the subject. Its not merely an academic study for me.

                    The limited evidence we have in the case of the Davis-Limber relationship demonstrates to any resonable observer that Jim was:
                    – taken and and given a home with the Davises when seen being abused
                    – was an intimate of the Davis children
                    – was either introduced or introduced himself to various visitors to the Davises including Mary Chesnut and Alexander Stephens
                    – was brought along with the other children when the family evacuated Richmond in the April, 1865; a time of extreme stress and hardship
                    – protested and fought against being forciby removed from the Davises
                    – was sought out (unsuccessfully) by the Davises for years after

                    You can fashion whatever term you might think for this kind of behavior; I think anyone with half their wits about them will recognize it for what it was: the bonds of family.

                    • Kevin Levin Apr 28, 2010 @ 12:34


                      You may have spent your life in the South, but I assume you did not live during the antebellum period. I’m not sure what the fact of your residence has to do with a question that has everything to do with a certain time and place. It seems you are comfortable with the available evidence in drawing your conclusions. On the other hand I’ve been trained to ask different questions and unfortunately many of them cannot be answered given the available evidence. I guess there isn’t anything more to be said so thanks for the comments.

                    • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 28, 2010 @ 13:40

                      Anyone with half their wits about them will recognize it for what it was: the bonds of family.

                      That’s an extension, a speculation, beyond the point at which the evidence ends. More to the point, the evidence that is there revolves almost exclusively around Varina Davis — not her husband. On that, the historical record seems to be virtually silent, and that’s a problem, given that the SCV and Beauvoir is using the new statue to make a specific point about Jefferson Davis that is wholly unsupported. They would have been on somewhat firmer soil, as a matter of historical record, to make a statue of her, rather than him.

            • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 27, 2010 @ 16:09

              Thanks for posting that, although Kevin had previously posted a link (below) that made that part of the text available.

              It’s to be expected that Jim would protest and fight against being taken away from the Davises; any child in that situation would. It must have been a frightening, horrific thing for a child who’d seen too much hardship already.

              No one here denies that Jim had found a home (of some sort) with the Davises. The question is what his relationship was with the family, and specifically with Jefferson Davis himself. The evidence on the former is vague, at best; evidence on the latter is lacking altogether.

              • Robert Apr 28, 2010 @ 7:43

                He apparently didn’t put up a struggle or express any anxiety at being taken away from his previous guardian the way he did when being removed from the Davises. That alone should give some indication that he felt secure and loved with the Davises, but not with his prior or subsequent caretakers.

                • Kevin Levin Apr 28, 2010 @ 8:45


                  Part of the problem is that we don’t know much of anything about his life before his time with the Davis family. I guess you could assume anything you want, but that’s the problem here and one that a serious historian doesn’t play with.

                  • Robert Apr 28, 2010 @ 12:30

                    True, we don’t know a lot about his life prior to the Davises other than he had no family; he was either orphaned through death or abandonment and was seen being beaten in the street by his “guardian”. We do see however that his life was improved immeasurably through the compassion of the Davis family.

        • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:39

          . . . one person going so far as to suggest he was a “pet” – which is a vile accusation

          Ms. Allen’s endnotes, available through Amazon’s preview feature, quote (p. 594) a note by Varina Davis referring to Jim Limber as “a great pet in the family.”

          Both Amazon and Google Books give only limited previews of the book, but I cannot find the abduction scene indexed, so it would be great if you could post that specific passage, along with the relevant source notes.

          • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:40

            Thanks for clarifying that. For a second I forgot that it was Varina herself who referred to Limber as a “pet.”

            • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:56

              One could argue indefinitely, without answer, what exactly Mrs. Davis meant in using that term. To me, it’s (1) clearly a term that shows some affection, and (2) clearly one that differentiates young Jim from family.

              I do hope Robert will post the relevant passage and citations — it’s impossible to assess such an assertion at second- or third-hand.

              • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:58

                The citations are mainly letters that Varina Davis wrote, which you can find at the Google Books site. I agree that the term probably is, in part one of affection, but as you say it also draws an important distinction between the children.

              • Denise Apr 27, 2010 @ 8:03

                My family has a long history in VA and while many aspects of slavery were never spoken of, the “old ladies” of the family did speak derisively of white families who referred to their children’s black playmates as “pets.” This is the affection one associates with puppies, kittens and baby chicks. These human pets were kept close at hand doing little tasks until adolescence arrived and the relationship had the potential to become something other than playful. No doubt some affection between all children will occur but at the onset of adulthood everyone knew their place in the society such as it was.

                I too want to see the proof of this Davis family fable.

                • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 27, 2010 @ 16:47

                  Something similar carried on into the 1920s (at least) in my own family, judging by old photos. African American children appear (it seems) as playmates of the young white children, but they drop out of the photos about the time the white children start school, never to return.

                • Hubert Kraus May 2, 2010 @ 4:17

                  Finally someone who makes some sense.

          • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 14:50

            You can search in Google Books and follow along with the references:

            There is really nothing substantial except the few brief references made by Varina. But that’s the problem with the SCV’s statue. There is really nothing about Jefferson Davis’s relationship with the boy, which is what this statue depicts. This is so absurd.

            • Margaret D. Blough Apr 26, 2010 @ 16:12

              Excellent point. Based on what little we know, the Davis in the group of statues should be Varina, not Jefferson. Whatever her motivation, she is the only Davis about whom there is some hard evidence to support actions taken that benefited the child.

  • toby Apr 26, 2010 @ 5:34

    Diarist Mary Chesnut mentions Jim (I presume it is Jim Limber) once. For Feb 16, 1864, she mentions seeing “the little negro Mrs Davis rescued yesterday” in “Mrs Howell’s room”. Mrs Howell was Varina Davis’ mother. I presume she lived with the Davis family?

    Mrs Chesnut was a close friend of Varina Davis, but never mentions the little boy again.

    She mentions that Jim was rescued from “..his brutal Negro guardian”. It seems that this guardian was Jim’s uncle. Was he a free man? Could Mrs Davis have intervened in the same way if the guardian was white, or if the guardian was a slave, whose owner wanted his or her property returned?

  • Nat Turners Son Apr 26, 2010 @ 5:28

    Kevin, I have seen solicitations for funds to rebuild and restore the Library in the SCV magazine in my Local Library.

  • Nat Turners Son Apr 26, 2010 @ 5:24

    I think this is one of the saddest stories in the CW and a Great Mystery. After being taken by Union Soldiers where did he go and what happened to him? His seems to disappear into the fog of the war.

    • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 5:57


      What happened to Jim Limber after the war is unknown. That he disappeared must be seen as a problem for the SCV since Limber apparently made no attempt to contact members of the Davis family. Perhaps he wasn’t in a position to do so or perhaps he never identified them as part of his “family”. Whatever the case may be, the story the SCV wishes the general public to believe has very little basis in the available primary sources.

      • Nat Turners Son Apr 26, 2010 @ 7:28

        Thanks Kevin I knew that and that is what picks my interest on this issue. The lack of evidence is quite strange for someone who was “connected “to the Davis Family.

  • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 25, 2010 @ 15:59

    The linked article concludes:

    A Presidential Library is currently being built on Beauvoir’s property.

    To hold — what? Does Beauvoir have significant archival hoildings? Is is an established research center? (I’m asking ’cause I don’t know.) I presume it must, because otherwise it would look like they were building a presidential library just ’cause all those Yankee presidents have them, and that just can’t be the motivation.

    • Kevin Levin Apr 25, 2010 @ 16:04

      I haven’t heard much about this project, but this has the potential to be a worthwhile endeavor. Of course, I hope it functions as a real research center as opposed to an arm of the SCV’s propaganda machine.

      • Glenn Beck's Chalkboard Apr 25, 2010 @ 16:30

        I didn’t see anything on the Beauvoir website about archival holdings or research facilities, so it seemed a reasonable question. But I did see that they have a new penny-squishing machine — “turn a Lincoln head penny into Jefferson Davis’s likeness for 51 cents!” So it’s all good.

      • Marianne Davis Apr 26, 2010 @ 5:49

        It would not serve the SCV’s interests to establish a legitimate research center. To preserve their view of history they need to find, or bend, facts to fit their mythology. The vehemence with which they hold those myths to be true is a solid indication that they recognize their growing irrelevance in the nationwide culture.

    • Lisa Apr 25, 2010 @ 18:32

      The Presidential Library existed pre-Hurricane Katrina and survived the storm, although the building had to be demolished and the books and archival material are currently in storage. There’s a wealth of information to be found there, much of it rare and hard to find. However, what it will be like when the new one opens, I can’t really say. Much has changed in the SCV and Beauvoir governance since the Library was last open.

  • Corey Meyer Apr 25, 2010 @ 14:36

    Kevin, I think you hit the nail on the head here. The SCV does not want to discuss anything unless it has full control of where the discussion will go. Is it any wonder then that they posted the article on their blog site but the blog does not allow for comments. No comments…no discussion!

    • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 2:40

      Although they are using Google’s blogger they are not really using it as a blog. Rather, it functions as a space to cut and paste news items and other stories.

  • James Bartek Apr 25, 2010 @ 7:35


    You beat me to it. I was thinking the same thing: “pet” rather than playmate. Varina sees him being kicked around on the street, picks him up and brings him home, where he becomes a “functional” member of the family. And what was his “function,” do you suppose?

    • Kevin Levin Apr 25, 2010 @ 7:45

      You get the sense that he was a curiosity or pet for the Davis children. There is no evidence whatsoever that this boy was perceived as legitimate member of the family. I’m not sure if it matters, but I would like to know where he slept.

      • Margaret D. Blough Apr 25, 2010 @ 18:18

        From what I understand, it was a very common practice in wealthy families to assign or “give” a slave child to a young member of the family to be a playmate/plaything and ultimately a personal servant. However, the distinction between each child’s status was never forgotten. I’ve read that it wasn’t unusual for the slave child to sleep on the floor of the white child’s room. It also enabled the slaveowning family to get some use out of a slave who was too young to work in the fields, etc.

        • Kevin Levin Apr 26, 2010 @ 0:48

          Yes, you can find plenty of references to this practice.

  • victoria bynum Apr 25, 2010 @ 7:29

    How absurd that “Mr. Bowling” would state “It wasn’t about slavery. It was about freedom, and the Jefferson Davis statue symbolizes freedom.” Black slavery defined the very essence of white freedom among slaveholders of the antebellum South. They knew, and often acknowledged, that their cherished freedoms, their very way of life, depended on maintaining slavery. Stories about individual slaveholders’ (or their wives’) kindnesses to slaves are irrelevant to the central role that it played in the Civil War.

    Vikki Bynum
    Renegade South

    • Kevin Levin Apr 25, 2010 @ 7:48

      You are absolutely right, Vikki. This organization claims to be protecting history and yet statements like that reflects the level of misunderstanding in the highest reaches of this organization. What I fail to see is what any of this has to do with protecting the heritage and history of the common soldier.

  • Marianne Davis Apr 25, 2010 @ 6:43

    The SCV is either missing or obfuscating a painful point. Jim Limber is not the only case of ayoung black child playing with the legitimate children of white slaveholders. The role young Jim played appears to me to be clear, particularly given his disappearance. He seems to have been, at least for a time, a cherished pet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next post:

Previous post: