Is This What James Longstreet Meant?

"Forever Marching" by Ed MurinA historian friend of mine recently decided that he needs to add another 22 ft of shelf space to his library.  To achieve this he decided to unload some back issues of the old Civil War magazine and asked if I was interested.  Of course, I jumped at the offer and within a short period of time I found myself with issues going back to the mid-1980s.  I don’t remember the magazine when it was known as Civil War Quarterly, but I am quite impressed with the quality of the writing.  One issue in particular stood out, which featured an article on Lee at Gettysburg by Kent Masterson Brown and a painting of Lee that I have never seen before [Jan-Feb 1993].  The painting is titled, “Forever Marching” and was done by Ed Murin.  I tried to find some information about Murin, but came up short.  Since I couldn’t find an image Online I took one with my camera which you can see here.

I’ve never seen anything quite like this image of Lee.  I would place it on the extreme opposite end of those silly prints of Lee reading to a child or praying with Jackson. [How about the jigsaw puzzle version?]  As far as I can tell the closest image to Murin’s is L.M.D. Guillaume’s “Gen. Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville.”  Lee appears bloodthirsty as he sends his men into battle and over what appears to be the graves of their comrades.  What I find so striking is Lee’s eyes, which seem utterly lifeless.

Is this what James Longstreet meant when he noted in his memoir that at Gettysburg “Lee’s blood was up”?  And is this a side of Lee that we would rather not be reminded of?

8 comments

Confederate Memorial Day As a “Line in the Sand”

UVA Confederate CemeteryI had a few hours to kill today so I decided to attend our annual UDC/SCV Memorial Day commemoration here in Charlottesville, Virginia.  The ceremony is held at the Confederate cemetery at the University of Virginia.  It’s a wonderful little spot that includes your standard soldier monument as well as the graves of 1,097 Confederate soldiers from all over the Confederate South.  I decided to stand in the rear to take it all in.  These ceremonies are pretty standard.  They typically include the Pledge of Allegiance, a salute to the Confederate flag as well as old favorites such as “Dixie’s Land” and “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny.”  Who can resist the lovely Lost Cause imagery in “Carry Me Back”, especially when the lyrics were composed by a black man:

Carry Me back to old Virginny/There’s where the cotton and the corn and taters grow/There’s where the birds warble sweet in the springtime/There’s where this old darkey’s heart am longed to go/There’s where I labored so hard for old Massa/Day after day in the field of yellow corn

The prayers included typical references to the “Spirit of ’76”, “Died for states rights”, “overwhelming numbers”, and the SCV’s rallying charge of “unequivocal confidence in the righteousness of the cause.”  One reference, however, got me thinking.  One of the speakers remarked that the graves, along with the monument, reflect a “line in the sand between modern day evils” and a “strong moral code” that animated the men buried, and, I assume white Southern society before modernity set in.  If you look at the profile of the audience the reference makes perfect sense.  There were reenactors with the 19th Virginia in attendance as well as members of the UDC in period costume.  More to the point, it is safe to say that the average age of the audience (approximately 100) was somewhere between 55-60.

There are two problems with this view.  First, it’s self destructive.  To argue that modern society is void of morals or individuals who care about morality/ethics is a sure fire way of alienating a very large constituency.  Unfortunately, today I didn’t see people who wer defending a way of life.  I saw people who fear modernity, which is fine, but it also means that the sound system you’ve been using for the past 50 years may not work when needed.  Let’s face it, given the profile of the SCV/UDC it is not a stretch to suggest that their days are numbered.  Seriously, how many of these chapters will be left in 20 years?  The bigger problem is that their view of the past is much too simplistic and anachronistic.  This notion that white Southerners resisted many aspects of modernity simply does not hold up under close scrutiny.  Many Virginians eagerly embraced industry and other forms of technology as a way to improve their lives and reclaim their rightful position as the leader of the nation.  Even the wealthiest planters hoped to encourage farmers to adopt modern soil practices and, according to John Majewski, vigorously pushed the Virginia state government to become much more active in encouraging the subsidizing of railroads and agricultural societies.  My point is that these were not people who were trying to turn back the hands of time despite what is posted at the entrance to the Wilkes family plantation.

I enjoyed the hour long ceremony.  I got to catch up with my friend and fellow historian Rick Britton who spoke eloquently about the 19th Virginia.  And I was also pleased to hear that our local UDC chapter is working to raise money to place grave markers for all the soldiers buried in the cemetery.  It’s a worthy endeavor and they’ve already managed to place an additional 60 markers since the program began and include the two markers in the above image.

13 comments

Trouble on the Horizon for LSU Press?

waugh_grantThere has been some Online chatter about the future of LSU PressThe Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that the state is planning major budget cuts for the school, which may lead to the dismantling of the press.  For those of us who are serious about Civil War and Southern history this would be a major blow.  LSU is one of the top publishers in both of these fields and is responsible for some of the most important studies of the past few decades.  My guess is that the publisher will survive the budget woes, but it may have to cut back on the number of titles.  Let’s hope the quality doesn’t suffer.

On the other hand I just received the latest catalog (Fall/Winter 2009) from UNC Press.  They are slated to release a healthy selection of new titles in both fields.  Forthcoming titles include Joan Waugh’s long-awaited study of Grant as well as Wayne Wei-Siang Hsieh’s study of West Pointers (his UVA dissertation).  You can also look forward to books by Howard Jones, William L. Shea, Michael Perman, William Blair ed., and Judith Giesberg.  Most of these titles can be found in Gary Gallagher’s Civil War America series.

On a completely different note I just accepted an invitation for next Wednesday to talk to a Cub Scout troop about the Civil War.  I am going to see if we can meet at the Confederate cemetery at UVA, which would make for the perfect setting.

9 comments

Earl Ijames’s Silence is Deafening

I have to admit that I am just a little surprised and disappointed that we haven’t heard from Earl Ijames in response to my most recent post.  If you remember, Mr. Ijames left a spirited comment in response to my critique of his position on so-called “black Confederates.”  One particular comment included a reference to one John W. Venable, who supposedly served in Co. H., 21st North Carolina.  As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject, no additional references were given by Mr. Ijames to support the claim.  I must assume that while Mr. Ijames most likely believes that many cases can be debated that this particular example is an open and shut case.

Well, it looks like this is not the case at all.  My post of May 18 offered a detailed overview of a number of documents related to Venable’s connection to the Confederate army and it even included two updates.  All of this information was provided to me by two excellent archivists at the North Carolina Department of Archives and History.  At this point and taken together, the evidence clearly provides a sufficient reason to doubt that Venable served as a soldier in the 21st North Carolina.  Again, additional evidence may come to light and it may even be possible to interpret the available evidence in a way that connects Venable to this particular regiment, but what I find striking is that Mr. Ijames has not added his own voice to this discussion.  After all, Venable is his guy.  It looks like Mr. Ijames conducted another one of his “workshops” on the subject at the Greensboro Country Club on May 19.  I would love to know what he said about Venable and how he supported his preferred interpretation.  Did he do so having read my most recent post on the subject?  I welcome a comment from Mr. Ijames on this issue and I am even willing to feature it as a guest post.  It would no doubt be instructive for all of us.

Until then I want to leave you with one thought.  If this little discussion about Venable has helped with anything it is in reminding us of just how difficult it is to research and confirm the existence of legitimate black Confederate soldiers, as opposed to those who were present with the armies as slaves.  How many times has someone offered a piece of evidence and suggested that it alone demonstrates the presence of a soldier?  Research takes time; it involves knowing what to look for and, most importantly, how to interpret the documents.  For an example of this, take a look at the short essay in North and South Magazine by Thomas Lowry, which focuses on three case studies that involve claims made for the existence of black Confederate soldiers.  All of them begin with a primary source and all of them collapse with a little persistence and attempt to confirm and/or supplement the data.  I think the problem here is that if you want to find black Confederate soldiers you can.  The challenge is doing so in a way that can be analyzed and discussed in a public setting.  This is one of the reasons why it is so important to publish findings in in places that include a peer-review process.

As for Mr. Ijames, the ball is in your court.

15 comments

Should Barack Obama Place a Wreath at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington?

Update on 5/22: Quoted in Judy Pasternak’s piece at the Daily Beast.

Shistorian ociologist James Loewen and Edward Sebesta (his blog) have written a letter calling on President Obama to discontinue this practice as party of Memorial Day exercises:

Since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, presidents have sent annually a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument. Prior to the administration of George H. W. Bush, this was done on or near the birthday of Jefferson Davis.  Starting with George H.W. Bush, it has been done on Memorial Day.  We ask you to not send a wreath or some other commemorative token to the Arlington Confederate Monument during your administration or after.

Their letter, along with a number of signatures by notable historians, was recently published on the History News Network.  The content of the letter outlines the racial and political context of the early twentieth century by citing a number of the speeches that were given at the monument’s dedication, including President Wilson’s.  Yes, the monument is a reflection of the Lost Cause myth, which emphasizes the bravery of the men who fought in Confederate ranks.  It downplays the role of slavery as the cause of secession/war and emphasizes states rights; in addition, the monument gives expression to the myth of the loyal slave both before and during the war.  In that sense, the monument has much in common with most Civil War monuments that were erected between 1880 and the first few decades of the twentieth century.  As interpretation, I have very little problem with the content of this letter, though the tone of it is likely to alienate rather than engage the general public in an open dialog – no surprise there.

While I am sympathetic with their view of this matter, I think it would be a bad idea for Obama to end this practice.  While I do not agree with all of Obama’s policies, the one thing that I have come to appreciate is his willingness to engage constructively with those he disagrees.  The president’s visit to Notre Dame this weekend is a case in point and reflects his enthusiasm for taking on extremely complex and emotionally-charged issues in a mature and honest manner.  There are no doubt moments where the president must be decisive in making specific decisions, and this will no doubt alienate and/or disappoint others, but this man cares what others believe and even seems to be willing to amend his own outlook when presented with a compelling argument.  I value having a president who is thoughtful, who listens, and who makes me think.

My problem with this letter is that it is a non-starter.  It is unlikely to lead to anything approaching constructive dialog and it is likely to lead to increased tension and misunderstanding.  Just check out the comments section of the HNN post for evidence of this.  It’s not simply a matter of picking and choosing one’s battles, but it is also how intelligently we choose to take on certain subjects.  Under extreme pressure, President Obama has already demonstrated that he can intelligently address some of the tough questions, from his Philadelphia speech on race back in May to this past weekend’s speech on abortion at Notre Dame.  I will leave it to Loewen and Sebesta to explain what good a refusal to send a wreath to Arlington would do in the short- or long-term.

52 comments

David Herbert Donald (1920-2009)

539w-1Today I learned that we’ve lost one of the great Civil War/Lincoln scholars of the last 50 years.  One of the first books I read back in 1995, that started me on this journey to better understand this period of American history, was David Donald’s Lincoln Prize winning biography, Lincoln.  Since then I’ve read Donald’s other biographies of Charles Sumner and William Herndon as well as countless essays on a host of subjects.  I can honestly say that he’s proved critical in my understanding of the Civil War and Lincoln.  In the many interviews that I’ve seen Donald always appeared to be the consummate gentleman.  While an employee for Borders Books and Music (Rockville, MD, 1995-98) I organized a day-long Civil War event that included a number of well-known scholars.  Having recently read Donald’s Lincoln biography I decided to invite him to take part.  Of course, I knew it was a long shot and while he was unable to attend we actually talked on the phone for close to 30 minutes.  We talked all things Civil War and he provided me with an essential list of books to read.

Thanks Professor Donald

5 comments

Was John Venable a Black Confederate Soldier?

Update as of 5/20: My contact at the NCDAH checked the Adjutant General’s “Roll of Honor” and did not find John W. Venable listed. This was a list (in no way complete) of soldiers serving in NC regiments compiled between 1862 and 1863 or ’64.

Update as of 5/19: So here is where we stand.  First time John Venable is listed in the census he is a free black in his dad’s household – Jeff (which I take it is Jefferson) Venable who is a blacksmith in 1850 and again in 1860 in Surry County.  in 1870, John is listed as head of household and a farmer – his brother is a blacksmith however and they are in Yadkin County.  Ten years later John is listed as head and a blacksmith and living in Yadkin.  Being in Yadkin explains the affidavit from Sawyer who was in Yadkin (explains as in makes sense geographically).

We still have a number of questions that need to be answered.  How do we reconcile the clerk’s statement – no law for this – with the Sawyer affidavit?  My contact at the NCDAH has this to say:

On the one hand the Clerk was obviously wrong in that John Venable, as far as we can track him, is free and not enslaved.  But lets look at the clerk – C M McKaughan in 1920 he is 42 – so born after slavery.  He may have no concept of what a free black man was.  It’s weak but nonetheless plausible, I think.  It might be his only defense – born in a post-slave world, of age at Jim Crow, does he know of such a thing as a free black.  Thus when confronted with a colored woman applying for a pension he thinks “slave” and dismisses the application.  I think it says nothing one way or the other about service – only about what the clerk knew or understood of days before his birth.

Sawyers statement is problematic as well in that we can not substantiate the claim.  The problem is that no records exist that list a John Venable, mullato, as a soldier.  Moore’s Roster includes no listing.  So, what can we reasonably conclude at this point?  For one thing, the clerk is obviously wrong.  The man John Venable (middle initial is H) who has a wife Sarah is a mulatto and is a free person of color in 1850 and 1860.  Sawyers’ statement stands alone and can not be substantiated, which means that we cannot conclude based on the available evidence that John Venable was a black Confederate soldier.

Let me be clear that I am not saying once and for all that John Venable was not a black Confederate soldier, just that the available evidence does not permit us to draw that conclusion.  Perhaps Mr. Ijames has additional documentation in this case.  If so, I urge him to bring it to our attention.  Unfortunately, this is how many of these cases end up.  Primary sources are collected and a conclusion is drawn without corroborating it with other evidence and without giving attention to the obvious, that documents must be interpreted carefully and that often there is more than one legitimate interpretation.  This should be a lesson to all of us.

————-

In one of his comments Earl Ijames referenced the name of Pvt. John Venable of the 21st Regiment NCST, Co. H as evidence of a legitimate black Confederate soldier.  There was no explanation attached except for the following: “Colored. Enlisted on June 5, 1861.”  Without any additional information it was impossible for me to respond or take part in the kind of discussion that serious historians ought to entertain – until now.  If Mr. Ijames is unable or unwilling to bring about that kind of discourse than I will with a little help from my friends in the North Carolina Department of Archives and History.  I now have four documents related to Venable’s status in the Confederate army and quite a number of questions.

The documents include John Venable’s widow’s pension application. Unfortunately, I could not upload the second page of the pension application, but it does say, “disallowed no law for this” at the bottom.  The 1927 pension law that included former slaves made no provisions for their widows. The second document refers to him as a “good soldier” and the last document refers to Sarah as the “widow of a slave.”  According to my contact, John W. Venable shows up on the 1880 census in Surry County NC.  The census indicates that he was living with his wife Sarah, a daughter, and his occupation is listed as blacksmith. Venable could not be found in NC in the 1870 census and there appears to be no death certificate.

The published troop roster for 21st Regiment NCST, Co. H., lists a John W. Venable (no rank) and says this about his service: “Colored. Enlisted on June 5, 1861. No further records.” In compiling the roster for that company, the editors did consult some muster rolls. My contact spoke to one of the current editors (he was not around when they did the 21st Reg. volume) who suggested that if Venable had been found on one of the muster rolls, his entry in the published book would have indicated him present on that date.  There is a John Sawyers listed in 21st Regiment NCST, Co. H in the published roster, likely the fellow who provided the affidavit.

Here is where it gets very interesting.  There is no Compiled Service Record for John W. Venable on the NARA microfilm.  In addition, there are two other Venables listed in the published roster for Co. H. (A common name in that part of NC and the adjoining area of VA). My contact found them on the 1860 census, both of their families seemed to be on small farms.  The next move will be to look at the slave census and see if either of them had slaves.

This is why we have an obligation to ask questions and those who make claims have an obligation to back them up – nothing more, nothing less.  I don’t know whether this man was a soldier since we now have too many unanswered questions given the frequency of the name in the unit and the fact that there is no service record for John W. Venable.  As soon as I hear something more I will pass it on.

24 comments

“Negro Pensioners are Not Classed as Confederate Soldiers”

clyburn2_edited-1That’s according to a document in the pension bureau correspondence files under Union County and in the year 1930 – when Wary Clyburn died.  A friend of mine in the North Carolina Department of Archives and History checked the yearly statement of pensioners produced by the Clerk of Court for the Auditor’s Office.  The following information was conveyed.  Clyburn appears in 1926 and is alphabetical in order with other pensioners – however under the remarks column (which is mostly empty) it clearly indicates he is “colored body servant, Capt. Frank Clyburn;” other remarks indicate a pensioner’s transfer between pension levels or between counties (and one hand written remark noting pensioner is deceased).  In 1927, after the addition of former slaves to the pension series, Clyburn is listed with one other man in a separate section titled “Negro Pensioners.”

There can be no denying that the pension bureau saw him as anything but an eligible body servant – it is how they consistently describe him.  In addition, the Attorney General’s ruling that they could not be soldiers suggests that a case for anything other than body servant cannot be made.  Wary Clyburn was a slave in the 1860s and as late as 1930 the state of North Carolina recognized him as a slave during the Civil War.

So, where does that leave the Sons of Confederate Veteran’s ceremony that honored Clyburn as a Confederate soldier this past summer?  More importantly, what does it say about Earl Ijames’s participation in that ceremony?  Why did he not correct the SCV and Kevin Adkins as they acknowledged Clyburn as a Confederate soldier.  Why did he not state specifically in the face of the camera that Clyburn was a slave whose presence in the army and on the battlefield had nothing to do with choice.  Finally, what is so disturbing is that Clyburn’s descendants were included in this charade.  You decide.  Here is a short clip from the Clyburn celebration.  Now you understand why I do not consider the SCV to be an organization that is serious about the history of the Civil War.

38 comments